Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Stet,
Let’s attempt to have a civil discussion today. After re-reading the posts yesterday the comments seemed to deteriorate, turning into “gotcha”, mudslinging, ridicule and name calling.
“I really don’t know what the answer is.”
I wrote this in my most recent post and after re-reading it realized that I had asked the question to Xlp Thlplylp (in my mind) but not written it.
My question is: Is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would invalidate your belief that there is a CO2/warming correlation?
Let’s start there today………
Xlp Thlplylp had written somewhere along the line that “people such as Brute and Manaker would not take the Anthropomorphic Global Warming theory to heart unless the Sun engulfed the Earth.” …….or something like that.
I think that people like me could reference articles and studies supporting my assertion, just as you could reference the same, (Hence my statement that “I really don’t know what the answer is”). There are well respected scientists on both sides that present convincing arguments……I believe that it boils down to political ideology.
Someone had commented that “you’ll never convince us”. I’m not attempting to “convince” anyone of anything, I don’t think that any information that I post could “convince” you that the sky is blue.
The global warming Alarmists will generally embrace the Socialistic mindset of the “solutions” to their problem.
Global warming Realists will oppose the theory and the erosion of liberties and freedoms.
You seem to be saying "I don't like the consequences of this being true so I won't believe it."
That's not Realism.
Regardless of what we choose to do (that's a political question) the science remains. You seem to think there's some vast conspiracy of scientists fooling you about what their published studies show.
That's not Realism.
Arguing that the science is wrong because you don't like the political suggestions made by some of those who think it's right is just, well, silly.
Brute asked Stet:
My question is: Is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would invalidate your belief that there is a CO2/warming correlation?
Brute, how about my question to you:
Do you think there is a relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature?
Excellent; this really helps.
My question is: Is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would invalidate your belief that there is a CO2/warming correlation?
Absolutely and unequivocally. The National Academy and the AGU and their fellow organizations continually review their findings and position papers, taking into account the most recent observations and analysis. For example, the AGU this year updated its 2003 position paper on climate change (making it more emphatic, by the way.)
If the AGU, NAS or other qualified organization modified its position in this way, saying that new research had found that C02 level had no significant impact on climate, I would accept their view. I'm not an expert. They are, the best in the field.
I think that people like me could reference articles and studies supporting my assertion, just as you could reference the same, (Hence my statement that “I really don’t know what the answer is”).
You really don't get it. Such references are meaningless. This is, in the old expression, rocket science. You can find plausible sounding somethings on the Internet that say almost anything. That's not science or scientific discussion. If you think you have a breakthrough, write it up for peer review. Cutting and pasting it into a lay conversation like this is just noise.
There are well respected scientists on both sides that present convincing arguments
Again, the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the field accept the conclusion you don't want to. A few - Lindzen of M.I.T. don't. None of the scientific organizations do. None.
……I believe that it boils down to political ideology.
No, the scientific consensus is not about poltical ideology. It is about science. Or maybe you think it's political ideology that makes your car engine fire when you turn the key.
Someone had commented that “you’ll never convince us”. I’m not attempting to “convince” anyone of anything, I don’t think that any information that I post could “convince” you that the sky is blue.
See above. You're not posting that the sky is blue, you're pretending that you know more than the acknowledged experts in an extremely complex and technical field. You want to prove you do? Send your work to the editors at Science or Nature.
And, by all means, you're welcome to express your political thoughts about appropriate government or private response to climate change. But on the science?? Sorry. You don't have a seat at that table. But don't take it hard: neither do I.
What is obvious to progressive minds is that an appropriate response (immediate, global, "front burner") to global warming carries the need for vast new technologies and products--all with consequent opportunities for corporate profit. Industry need not oppose an effective, science-based response to the climate crisis! The smart minds in industry have always seen how money could be made as the times changed. The current administration has used fear of economic collapse to keep industry pointed in the direction of war-related production rather than a reasoned and collaborative effort to save the environment. Eight years wasted. The lot of them will go down in history as the worst administration ever to hold office.
from my stomach to my throat.
First of all, I think Charles Krauthammer is a blight on the nation. The man is dangerous.
Second, it is obvious that Senator Kyl never heard his fellow conservatives -- lying with egg dripping down their smarmy faces -- argue that the hallmark of American conservatism is personal responsibility. Well, it is, but conservatives dodge personal responsibility which is why the planet is in the shape it is.
Third, Senator Sessions fails to realize that capitalism in the United STates functions much as Nazism did in Hitler's Germany. The Nazis believed that the state needed to grow -- an irrational idea that brings to mind the state as cancer. People like Sessions believe that the economy must grow and grow and grow. Another irrational statement that also brings a comparison to cancer. The result is our stores -- those mindless chains where people work for minimum wage and are abused by their managers -- are crammed with useless and ugly merchandise no one needs.
Fourth, Senator Allard needs to retire to a home.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
