The Father of Scientific Climatology rips Al Gore's Movie.

"Free Market Solutions"

vs. what? Government Regulation and Taxation?

would some guy working in his garage on a muffler that traps CO emission qualify as a free-market solution? How about private companies developing solar-cells, electric cars, etc, etc ...

If so, sign me the hell up.


people can be such f'ing tools ...
 
Quote from neophyte321:

"Free Market Solutions"

vs. what? Government Regulation and Taxation?

would some guy working in his garage on a muffler that traps CO emission qualify as a free-market solution? How about private companies developing solar-cells, electric cars, etc, etc ...

If so, sign me the hell up.


people can be such f'ing tools ...
More...
I know, people are the worst, that is why I trade for a living.
 
Quote from trader1966:

I know, people are the worst, that is why I trade for a living.
More...
you sound like an old charles bronson movie. a little
rude, playing the tough guy. yet ... charles was ... what
is the word ... convincing? can't wait to read a further,
maybe even more eloquent reply of yours. i guess no
candidate would be proud of you voting for him ...
 
Quote from fhl:

Yeah, right after you show us one professional body that explicitly rejected global cooling in the 70's. lol.
More...

No scientific organizations ever endorsed global cooling. They didn't have to reject it because nobody within the scientific community ever claimed that it was a consensus view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The whole global cooling thing is blown vastly out of proportion by ideologically motivated non-scientists seeking to discredit something they do not understand.

Martin
 
Quote from trader1966:

dcraig, how about this website endorsed by 17,000 scientists who all believe Global Warming has nothing to do with man made CO2 emissions.
More...

The web site you posted has nothing to do with the petition. There's certainly no endorsement expressed or implied.

The petition is actually hosted by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an ad hoc research group of 6 scientists, none of whom are specialized in any sort of geoscience.

The OISM petition is loosely verified at best. They managed to dig up 17,000 people willing to claim that they have at least a bachelors degree in... well... anything. Other than that the only apparent qualification is being able to read, write, and afford a postage stamp.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

Compare that to the 450 lead authors and 2500+ scientific expert reviewers of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report on Climate Change, who are leaders in their fields and were willing to put their name and scientific reputations on the line with an unequivocal statement of scientific conclusions. So honestly, which do you think is a more credible representation of the scientific consensus on global warming?

Martin
 
Quote from Haroki:

Prudent?

Just like 20 yrs ago when doctors said it was 'prudent' to cut butter from your diet and use margarine instead. Oops, margarine is worse for your heart - trans fats I believe - than butter ever was.

The point being, it was an UNEXPECTED consequence of switching. The same premise applies here too. The evidence of warming is agreed upon. Whether or not humans are the main driver behind it are highly disputed. In other words, the OPINIONS of some scientists aren't actionable....
More...

Who is highly disputing it? What are their motivations? Do they have vested interests? Pretty much.

Your butter margarine example is something to take note of but one cannot simply ignore a perceived problem as it is worsening based on the excuse that not everybody is on board especially something with the catastrophic implications of global warming.

Does one not use canola or olive oil because we are relying on science to determine that it is better than butter or margarine? Who is to say we won't find out differently later?

There is seldom a case where one has complete information. One makes do with the best information at hand.

The opinions of a majority of scientists in the field are actionable. We are not talking about a handful of quacks. Moreover their actionable suggestions are far from onerous in relation to the potential problem.

There are small effective steps that can be taken now that have next to no obvious deleterious effects. Nothing drastic is being contemplated. If there is delay, however, that might change. Instead of talking in the equivalent of what oils to use we might be facing the choice between angioplasty and heart bypass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top