| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7390
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensu...
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse
gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major
contributor to climate change." (February 2007)
American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical
and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
(November 2007)
American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere,
land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now
changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols
generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
(December 2006)
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to
human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years),
that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious
adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)
National Science Academies
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere." (2005)
International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong
evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)
International academies: The Science of Climate Change
"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to
mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)
Research
National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices
"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010
U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due
primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who
understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes
"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and
humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." ?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations.”
IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.
Sign-on Statements
The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
"We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation." (2011)
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a
dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the
increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and
deforestation." (2010)
U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
"We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength
of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures
continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts
will continue to accelerate." (2008)
Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists
"If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme
heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural
production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline." (2005)
|
|
|
willardguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6451
Registered: 9-19-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
WTF! I thought this was about me?
|
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
SLOW DOWN AND READ FOR CRI'SAKES!
"It's Too Simple"
What does CANADA have to do with CALIFORNIA?
Ever seen the McKenzie river? It is a Mississippi size torrent of fresh water that washes into the arctic. Are you suggesting that sockeye and pink
salmon that now swim upstream against a 5 knot current will perish if it is reduced to 4 knots?
Making sound environmental decisions is much like driving an automobile that can go 100+ mph. Does the mere mention of driving cause you to say "No
Way! That thing'll do way beyond the speed limit"?
I guess it must be, in the mind of some, that importing vast quantities of water to the USA "has to be bad, because it, well, it...oh hell, it isn't
natural!"
It's better to leave untold millions of acres barren desert, that render little if any CO2 to O2 reversion, intact. It would look weird to drive
across Nevada, and see "Aghh GASP! CROPS!" Oh, the O2 production would be, well, it wouldn't be 'natural' like the pristine O2 generated in rain
forests. "I demand to see SAGEBRUSH as I drive past Winemucca!"
California's salmon need fresh clear water and lots of it. The kind of fresh water that can be had naturally, by STOPPING diversion of tributaries of
the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and using water from a COUNTRY that floods with fresh water.
But no. idiots are going to argue, and pontificate, and sit on their butt. not plant a damned tree, and wait until NATURAL climate change causes a
long term drought in the states, then they'll run around and say "See! I told you so!"
The USA and Canada has the potential to become the food basket for the world. More power than a hundred million thermonuclear bombs, more compelling
than the most profound rhetoric, and bomb proof. Who the hell is going to lob a bomb at their own survival? You folks had better brush up on your
stats. One acre of productive US crop land produces 21 times as much food, meaning, grain, vegetables, sugar as the average acre in the world. It is
power. Whoa baby, it is real basic power. Stronger than any army.
But my words go wasted here. Time to tend my GREEN, GROWING, O2 producing plot.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
More
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/07/june-2012-u-s-temperatur...
http://theaveragejoenewsblogg.com/2012/07/07/alarmists-use-e...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/06/global_wa...
http://junkscience.com/2012/06/22/hank-campbell-ipcc-gives-u...
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/comment-on-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19918
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
if god had meant man to live in the desert, he would have put water in the desert!!!!!!
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7390
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed
declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover,
they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications
by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in
the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus
position:
•Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academie des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by SFandH]
|
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
100011100101001000011100010010010011111000111010101001010101010101
Tossing the above around does not do anything but CONSUME ELECTRICITY. i love it.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
At one time most of the world's scientist's also thought that the world was flat.
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7390
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
Again, we see that the threat of catastrophe caused by population and pollution decreases when people are allowed access to cheap energy .....
|
Thanks to cheap energy:
Air pollution could become China's biggest health threat, expert warns
Leading respiratory disease specialist warns of consequences if government fails to monitor and publicise the dangers of smog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/16/air-pollut...
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by SFandH]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by SFandH
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed
declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover,
they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications
by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in
the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus
position:
•Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academie des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by SFandH] |
The idea that there is consensus in science is on contrast to the heart of science, that is the role of the skeptic. One can not make an argument that
consensus is proof, one must use the scientific method which always considers a margin of error. It is the nature of science to continually update
theory and advance science.
If one wanted to make a point to discuss the topic one could make a point about the topic, however the argument that experts agree or argument by
authority is not a valid argument for anything.
Hopefully you can see the problem, in order to confirm science or discover error we must reference data and points, not just an appeal to have faith
because I am an expert.
The basic point of Global Warming is that human output of green house gasses are a significant force that drives the temperature which is a
significant risk to humanity.
What is known is that in the past green house gasses were in higher concentrations, temperature changes precede changes in green house gasses, and
there is a cyclical nature to the environment largely outside the control of humans who have an affect on the atmosphere though it is quite
insignificant.
Furthermore, the argument for Global Warming jumps to the conclusion that by punishing people with austerity and high energy taxes and costs, the
catastrophe will be lessened, which is a huge jump and no way supported by the data or by any logic.
In fact the opposite evidenced. People do not have significant affect on the atmosphere, temperature, ice cap, CO2 or green house gasses. Human affect
on GHG is about .0009 or almost 1/1000th of a percent of GHG is associated by human output.
Again, cheap energy and modern advances reduce the need for increasing populations due to reduced need for labor to support the family, and reduced
CO2 due to increasingly efficient energy production.
Global Warming proponents spend an estimated 600 billion a year to reduce human afffects on the atmosphere, yet the efforts are not designed to reduce
pollution whatsover, the spending is largely on promotion of the meme through lavish conventions and jet-setting representatives looking for handouts
for heavily subsided projects, which fail to reduce pollution.
While simply leaving people and economies to themselves to be more efficient has demonstrated a reduction of GHG by 7% for developed nations in the
USA and UK voluntarily.
Furthermore, proponents have come under criticism because or repeated cases of fraud, junk science, use of non-peer-reviewed literature such as press
releases and college papers as well as failure to release data sets for review.
The recent Climate Change Convention in Brazil Rio 20 failed to get any conclusive agreement on any points.
If you are a such a proponent with great faith in the meme of global warming why not invest in carbon credits? Is it because the carbon exchange
market just like Cap and Trade have nothing to do with reducing pollution, not one point of reduction is required and are 100% about taxing economies
for profit by private parties?
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Case in point---------most of the visible "smog" in China is mist due to the climate (very moist & hot sea-air in summer) and not the LA type of
SMOG. Still, it is nasty stuff, and gettin nastier, for humanoids.
Personally, when in the LA basin, my throat and eyes always hurt--------I did not experience that in Beijing or Hong Kong, etc.
My point------things are not necassarily as they appear.
Barry
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DavidE
SLOW DOWN AND READ FOR CRI'SAKES!
"It's Too Simple"
What does CANADA have to do with CALIFORNIA?
Ever seen the McKenzie river? It is a Mississippi size torrent of fresh water that washes into the arctic. Are you suggesting that sockeye and pink
salmon that now swim upstream against a 5 knot current will perish if it is reduced to 4 knots?
Making sound environmental decisions is much like driving an automobile that can go 100+ mph. Does the mere mention of driving cause you to say "No
Way! That thing'll do way beyond the speed limit"?
I guess it must be, in the mind of some, that importing vast quantities of water to the USA "has to be bad, because it, well, it...oh hell, it isn't
natural!"
It's better to leave untold millions of acres barren desert, that render little if any CO2 to O2 reversion, intact. It would look weird to drive
across Nevada, and see "Aghh GASP! CROPS!" Oh, the O2 production would be, well, it wouldn't be 'natural' like the pristine O2 generated in rain
forests. "I demand to see SAGEBRUSH as I drive past Winemucca!"
California's salmon need fresh clear water and lots of it. The kind of fresh water that can be had naturally, by STOPPING diversion of tributaries of
the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and using water from a COUNTRY that floods with fresh water.
But no. idiots are going to argue, and pontificate, and sit on their butt. not plant a damned tree, and wait until NATURAL climate change causes a
long term drought in the states, then they'll run around and say "See! I told you so!"
The USA and Canada has the potential to become the food basket for the world. More power than a hundred million thermonuclear bombs, more compelling
than the most profound rhetoric, and bomb proof. Who the hell is going to lob a bomb at their own survival? You folks had better brush up on your
stats. One acre of productive US crop land produces 21 times as much food, meaning, grain, vegetables, sugar as the average acre in the world. It is
power. Whoa baby, it is real basic power. Stronger than any army.
But my words go wasted here. Time to tend my GREEN, GROWING, O2 producing plot. |
I did not imply that California was Canada. I stated that simply building an aqueduct without adequate study of it's impact is a bad idea. I gave an
example of why it's a bad idea in California. It may be a good idea from the arctic or it may not be. One thing for sure it will have some impact
(everything does).
Personally I have no problem with the earth's biomes being what they are. But I can see how growing vegetables in the desert of asuncion can lead to
thoughts about the potential of the desert being 'wasted'.
Regarding the NW Territory's MacKenzie River and the sockeyes and pink salmon. There are none. The northern boundary of those two species is about
half way up the Bering Straight. Perhaps you meant Arctic Char.
|
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
I Used 134 kWh Of Power Last Month. How much Did YOU use?
But I can see how "growing vegetables in the desert of asuncion can lead to thoughts about the potential of the desert being 'wasted'"
Let's save it. After all it's 400 feet down and declining on it's own accord. I for one am unsubscribing from the thought of burning five hundred
gallons of fuel to haul food to me all the way down the Baja peninsula. As long as we're correcting, let's change that to Bering Strait. I used the
salmo example for solely that. And here when I thought folks would IMPLY thoughts of "study" when I mentioned water flow, I guess I need a hammer to
pound single syllable words into place. Of course environmental impact studies need to be performed, but they need to be of pure science and
engineering, not political mongering. Go back. Go way way way way (is that far enough?) back and read the "cons" against the Alaska pipeline. Read
arctic Armageddon.
Everything has impact. Ask the asteroid that just about killed all life on earth. If present society existed then, it would have been arguing whether
or not to file an environmental impact report as it plowed into the Atlantic ocean.
The problem is one of total absolutely asinine polarization. "If you aren't totally for us then you are totally against us". Between, meaning middle
ground, between two absurd extremes, resides reality. Good luck finding it in the morass of utter stupidity that reins supreme in the public today.
People don't stop to THINK. People who criticize others for growing their own food condemn themselves to absurdity. They do it when they burn
hydrocarbons fetching food what, twice a week? They do it when the store obtains food from thousands of miles away. It isn't "miracled" from the field
to the store, it leaves a long long long long (long enough?) carbon footprint. But of course I shouldn't be growing things in the desert, so I am on
very shaky (sandy) ground when I state this. i should be spending thousands of dollars wasting hydrocarbons and resources attending rallies to find
myself among fellow travelers who demand that we use LESS.
The huge, overwhelming, daunting and loathsome reason that conservation (remember that word from the 60's?) is failing today is because it's utter
rock bottom foundation is based in hypocrisy. People who point fingers at each other are usually the worst offenders.
[Edited on 7-9-2012 by DavidE]
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
|
willardguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6451
Registered: 9-19-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
and you guys call me a nutbag!
|
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
Are they correct?
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
|
gnarlon
Newbie
Posts: 17
Registered: 11-3-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
I'm sorry but every time i watch the show Whale Wars i get upset. It seems ironic to put human lives at stake for the benefit of saving the whales.
I understand what they stand for and what they are trying to do. Last week Paul Watson said he needed Australians to board the Japanese boat. One of
the men had two boys under the age of 10. He boarded knowing that he would most likely receive a 15 year sentence to a Japanese prison. Shouldn't he
be worried about raising his children? Paul Watson has an interesting way of letting others take the fall for his actions.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
| Quote: | Originally posted by SFandH
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed
declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover,
they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications
by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in
the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus
position:
•Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academie des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by SFandH] |
The idea that there is consensus in science is on contrast to the heart of science, that is the role of the skeptic. One can not make an argument that
consensus is proof, one must use the scientific method which always considers a margin of error. It is the nature of science to continually update
theory and advance science.
If one wanted to make a point to discuss the topic one could make a point about the topic, however the argument that experts agree or argument by
authority is not a valid argument for anything.
Hopefully you can see the problem, in order to confirm science or discover error we must reference data and points, not just an appeal to have faith
because I am an expert.
|
Using references as proof of the existence of man-made global warming is totally appropriate. If your doctor diagnozed you with cancer wouldn't you
get all of your facts from the American Cancer Society and not rely on searches through the internet? In fact your very doctor is continually going to
them for guidance.
Look. Most of our information, most of our truths are accepted as truths without anything we do to prove them correct. We go through 20 years of
schooling learning things that others have discovered and which we accept as truth.
What about water? How do you really know that it is composed of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms? How do you know that atoms really exist? Electrons?
Molecules? How do you know that your campfire consists of a chemical reaction? Have you ever seen oxygen?
Our culture is based on people who study parts of the world and share it with others. What we do is set up accredited organzations who validate the
discoveries, add them to school textbooks, and pass it on to the rest of us.
So when you cite 98% (whatever the number is) of the world's science orgs as supporting manmade global warming. That is very significant. In fact it's
pretty much the only way most of us are ever going to know of the truth.
Conversely for us to argue that some paper cites as proof that manmade global warming is a hoax is totally inappropriate. We're in no position to know
the truth. We're too uneducated to know the difference. An intelligent man knows his boundaries.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"
Let the experts do their thing and trust them. If you don't trust them then find people that you do trust. But if you find yourself never trusting
accepted public knowledge then it's time to look at yourself and ask why.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19918
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnarlon
I'm sorry but every time i watch the show Whale Wars i get upset. It seems ironic to put human lives at stake for the benefit of saving the whales.
|
many people undertake dangerous activities when they feel benefits outweigh the risks. for example: soldiers, cops, race car drivers, climbers,
acrobats, smokers, fat people, couch potatoes, alcoholics... all do things for work or sport or leisure even after being warned of the risks the
activities pose to themselves or their families.
it appears that some people feel more passionately about whales than you do!
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
If we subscribed to SkipJack and his empty argument against humanity, liberty and proliferation of cheap energy we would be destined to live in a
static and oppressed society restricted from travel and the modern advances that we benefit from, these eco-ethicists promote restricting the
distribution of innovation that has made our lives more enjoyable, boating, flying in planes, heat, hot water, water pressure, transportation.
|
Huh?
Where is my argument against humanity?
What the hell are you talking about?
|
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
You have to do MORE than just nod yes. One, just one, drought related kill off of vegetation in the Amazon, releases more CO2 that all the molecules
of CO2 ever produced by mankind since Lucy.
This is NOT a question of IF. It is a challenge of Do we have enough time to adapt for it?
Simply declaring "I Believe!" and ranting about Kyoto Accords DOES NOT MAKE IT! We have the power and the wisdom to avoid global disaster that will
come whether or not we all eat tofu and bicycle to work. It is a natural, predictable and unavoidable consequence of earth's climate changes.
Intelligent modifications to lifestyle have to be made whether we like it or not. Simply declaring the earth has a quintillion tons of coal and
septillions of cubic yards of natural gas doesn't make it either. We have to be smarter to do the best we can without returning to the stone age.
Like It Or Not Department:
I've listened for a half dozen decades to people who rant and rave with a primal motive of being an "America Hater". They have to be weeded out from
the group that has scientific objectivity and humanity at heart. These people hide behind every movement and societal group there is.
But I see I am wasting my time here. So this marks the end of my participation in this lunacy.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
