Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

by mavie 137 Replies latest social current

• 

  VoidEater

  coffee_black: Thank you for making my point. It seems that equating GW support to a religion is done in a rhetorical rather than a factual way.

  Your comparison chart of GW versus Cults would strike me as rather humorous, if it weren't presented with so straight a face. Engaging in rhetoric and lobbing "logic bombs" between the GW camps (and it's done on both sides, as this microcosm discussion on the board shows) is a far cry from the death grip that cults have on members. Both camps can easily finger-point at the other and claim cultic influence - with the same lack of foundation (or equally strong foundation). It cuts both ways. Unless someone can start arguing Aglobal Warming is a lack of a belief - hard to fathom from comments on this thread, though.

  It is my opinion that many have replaced the witness doom and gloom mentality with a secular doom and gloom mentality

  Completely possible. At the same time, as Ex-JW, we may also be prone to scoffing at any gloom and doom prophecies as bunk without being receptive to the merits of the argument.

  There are many poised to profit from a gullible public.

  There are always opportunists. I don't find that a reflection of the situation. I believe a GW detractor on this board recently commented that it could all be a conspiracy to destroy our economy. What we do know is that industries (such has oil) have a huge vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and have shown a remarkable sense of greed of late.

  Pick any "good war" - you'll find vulturistuc opportunists there.

  FreeWilly: Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen (as a jumping off point)

  There's a reason that Solar generated electricity is not more widely used. It must be heavily subsidized to approach affordability.

  Which is true of any new power technology, and won't be true forever. I don't want to subsidize the storage of nuclear waste from power plants, either.

  Even then, what exactly are you gaining?

  A better environment with a more sustainable power source.

  Burn and Free: Solar One is a 300 acre solar facility in Clark County, NV, providing 640 MW. 100x100 miles of this example would provide about 30 trillion watts of power, which is about the demand of the entire Clark County. Are there transportation problems? Of course - just like with any power generating source. Are there storage problems? Again, yes. But let's also be honest and note that there are health and safety issues with current sources - and that efficiency and storage issues with electricity are only recently receiving serious research time and money (and with consequent improvements).

  In the end, a transition to alternate power sources is good for public health and for sustenance.
• 

  mavie

  Do you honestly think that a planet this size will have a perfectly consistent temperature?

  No. The planet is in a period of warming. We are moving out of an ice age towards a greenhouse age. This cycle has occured many times in recent Earth history. Do you believe that humans have no effect on this cycle? Global temp closely tracks CO2 levels

  And still no comment from the global warming apologists.... Isn't that amazing?

  Another ad hominem attack. I was on vacation.

  the transition to religion takes place when a person who is ignorant of the actual science not only believes alarming claims that he or she does not understand, but when that individual wants to believe these claims.

  This is true. CB, how do you explain the correlation between CO2 levels and global temp?

  I'm well aware the Earth will probably enter another Ice Age in perhaps as little as 15,000 years. However in the short term the Earth in warming up. We are in a cycle moving from Ice Age to Greenhouse Age. Humans are helping it along.

  Here is a great CBC documentary on the subject.

  http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/media/denial.wmv
• 

  free2beme

  How I see Globel Warming ....

  1. A tool to get elected

  2. A way to make more money (Do you know how much money is made with this topic?"

  3. A reality, but caused as much by natural events as manmade. It is a reality though, and despite how it is used in this day and age, history will show it was the most important natural event to happen in the history of man. Like the dinosaurs though, we will fade, the earth will heal and another form of life will take on the challenge of this planets balance and then it will one day return to cosmic dust.
• 

  owenfieldreams

  Whether or not the globe warms at times is not really the issue here. Everyone with a brain acknowledges that as a possibility. It is whether or not human activity will make the earth uninhabitable and do irreparable damage to the earth that is the real argument.
• 

  5go

  There in Lies the anti global warming groups cookie jar defence holding to one argument would sound OK but it is opened to being falsified easily by data. So they try to hold several defences. Which is ludicrous!

  1. There is no global warming.

  2. If there is GW then it is natural.

  3. If GW is man made it's the developing world's fault not ours.

  4. Even if it was our fault doing something about GW would destroy our way of life, or us.

  5. Even if the solution would not hurt us, it is legally, and morally wrong; and a violation of my rights, to then force me to do something about it.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Every defense you note may be valid.

  Burn
• 

  5go

  Every defense you note may be valid.

  Burn

  Yes, but not at the same time.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Here is the latest:

  Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks global warming pales in comparison.

  http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/590177.html

  If you throw enough money at it, you can "prove" anything!

  And if, as a scientist, global warming puts food on the table, couldn't you end up being a teensy weensy bit biased?

  Burn