Those who advocate doing little or nothing to combat global warming are too eager to see the world as black or white. The world is full of grays. Even if you're not certain that human activity is significantly contributing to global warming (though the preponderance of scientific opinion has long been there), wouldn't a prudent approach be to recognize the risk that you are wrong? For those who don't believe in man-made global warming, what are the consequences of your being wrong? If left unchecked, serious impairment of the earth as a habitable planet. That's a pretty serious risk even if, in your mind, it's only a 10% possibility. Should we do nothing even to mitigate the risk of you being wrong? Most people buy life insurance even though the risk of dying are extremely low and most people expect not to need it. Why? Because the consequences of being wrong are so serious. Simple concepts in risk management 101, folks.

Tell me what in the world we are supposed to do about solar activity. How do we control the sun?

Remember, there are as many scientists, actually climatologists, that disagree with the man made theory of global warming and debunk it quite nicely. I can't see wasting money on it when it's really nothing more than a scare tactic by the Dems for political gain.

Tell me what in the world we are supposed to do about solar activity. How do we control the sun?

Remember, there are as many scientists, actually climatologists, that disagree with the man made theory of global warming and debunk it quite nicely. I can't see wasting money on it when it's really nothing more than a scare tactic by the Dems for political gain.

 

 

The whole point of my post was, what if you're wrong? Since this is the only planet we have, shouldn't we hedge our bets just in case CO2 buildup is the primary root cause of global warming (as the majority of scientific opinion has concluded)? What if increased solar radiation is partially responsible, but increased levels of greenhouse gases form a more effective radiative trap for that energy? Should we just throw up our hands and say, "oh well, can't control the sun"? And we've all read about the financial awards, funded by the petroleum industry, to entice "scientists" to generate papers debunking the dominant view of science on global warming. It appears the intent of the petroleum industry has been to generate the very numbers of dissenting scientists that impress you. So-called scientists payed off by a narrow segment of businesses with an obvious financial interest in generating preordained scientific conclusions are not credible.

More reading for the solar output is causing global warming crowd:

 

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000&ec=ypi

And we've all read about the financial awards, funded by the petroleum industry, to entice "scientists" to generate papers debunking the dominant view of science on global warming. It appears the intent of the petroleum industry has been to generate the very numbers of dissenting scientists that impress you. So-called scientists payed off by a narrow segment of businesses with an obvious financial interest in generating preordained scientific conclusions are not credible.

That's a great point! I've heard a lot lately about how there are all these scientists, and think tanks that are pushing the global warming concept just to keep themselves in business. But it has to be understood that there are just as many on the other side of the equation pushing their propaganda just as hard!

 

To be honest with you, a lot of this is just about ego -- and that is sad. As with any issue, there are some who use environmental issues for their own selfish gain. But what is really infuriating (and scary) is that those on the other side seem to be just doing so for political and idealogical reasons. In other words, "I have to deny the facts because, otherwise, I'd be giving in to the liberals or to the Democrats." This is really a narrow-minded way of looking at things.

 

Maybe we just need separate planets.

The whole point of my post was, what if you're wrong? Since this is the only planet we have, shouldn't we hedge our bets just in case CO2 buildup is the primary root cause of global warming (as the majority of scientific opinion has concluded)? What if increased solar radiation is partially responsible, but increased levels of greenhouse gases form a more effective radiative trap for that energy? Should we just throw up our hands and say, "oh well, can't control the sun"? And we've all read about the financial awards, funded by the petroleum industry, to entice "scientists" to generate papers debunking the dominant view of science on global warming. It appears the intent of the petroleum industry has been to generate the very numbers of dissenting scientists that impress you. So-called scientists payed off by a narrow segment of businesses with an obvious financial interest in generating preordained scientific conclusions are not credible.

"What if" isn't worth spending the money. PERIOD!

More reading for the solar output is causing global warming crowd:

 

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000&ec=ypi

Don't bother to bore me, I've read pretty much all this crap. I've also read the real side of the issue and I'll stick with what's viable, thank you. :thumb:

That's a great point! I've heard a lot lately about how there are all these scientists, and think tanks that are pushing the global warming concept just to keep themselves in business. But it has to be understood that there are just as many on the other side of the equation pushing their propaganda just as hard!

 

To be honest with you, a lot of this is just about ego -- and that is sad. As with any issue, there are some who use environmental issues for their own selfish gain. But what is really infuriating (and scary) is that those on the other side seem to be just doing so for political and idealogical reasons. In other words, "I have to deny the facts because, otherwise, I'd be giving in to the liberals or to the Democrats." This is really a narrow-minded way of looking at things.

 

Maybe we just need separate planets.

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

Don't bother to bore me, I've read pretty much all this crap. I've also read the real side of the issue and I'll stick with what's viable, thank you. :thumb:

Don't talk to me. I only want to hear what makes me feel good!

"What if" isn't worth spending the money. PERIOD!

What if...there was a meteor about to hit your house?

Don't talk to me. I only want to hear what makes me feel good!

No, just TRUTH and FACTS will do quite nicely.

What if...there was a meteor about to hit your house?

Thanks for making my point.

"What if" isn't worth spending the money. PERIOD!

 

But you supported our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, isn't that right? Makes sense to me.

No, just TRUTH...will do nicely.

And now...a message from my buddy Jack...

Those who advocate doing little or nothing to combat global warming are too eager to see the world as black or white. The world is full of grays. Even if you're not certain that human activity is significantly contributing to global warming (though the preponderance of scientific opinion has long been there), wouldn't a prudent approach be to recognize the risk that you are wrong? For those who don't believe in man-made global warming, what are the consequences of your being wrong? If left unchecked, serious impairment of the earth as a habitable planet. That's a pretty serious risk even if, in your mind, it's only a 10% possibility. Should we do nothing even to mitigate the risk of you being wrong? Most people buy life insurance even though the risk of dying are extremely low and most people expect not to need it. Why? Because the consequences of being wrong are so serious. Simple concepts in risk management 101, folks.

 

 

H, I understand and somewhat agree with your logic in the above post. Let's assume that global warming is a definite and lets assume that human activity is contributing to some degree to such. My biggest questions are: 1. exactly what are the steps that we'll have to take to eliminate that possible human activity influence; 2. is it realistic that all countries can agree to and actually implement those steps and if not, does it make sense for some countries to agree to implement those steps if others will not; 3. what is the economic impact in implementing those steps; 4. after taking all those steps and considering the economic costs, are we reasonably certain that taking those steps will have some appreciable effect on global warming; 5. has a thorough analysis been done comparing the impact of removing that human influence activity vs the impact of global warming effects been performed; and 6. has a thorough analysis been performed comparing the possible detrimental effects of global warming vs the possible beneficial impact of global warming been performed?

 

Perhaps I have not read enough on global warming, but I haven't seen those questions addressed much at all. I'll assume for argument purposes that global warming is actually occurring so lets move past the debate of whether it is or is not occurring. Just what are the terrible effects of global warming? I understand that the polar ice may be lessening; why is that a bad thing other than the polar bear population may be decreasing...which to some may be a bad thing....but human activity has always and will always have some impact (some bad and some good) on various species of wild life. In my mind its somewhat of an idealistic viewpoint that every human activity be impact neutral on wildlife. About the only way that could happen is that if all humans were removed from the planet. If we had used the neutral effect on wildlife as our governing rule, Ky would have never been settled and a lot of us would not be alive, and I'm one poster that very much enjoys being around. I'm prepared to accept that what benefits humans may not always benefit wildlife. I know we only have one planet, but I'm not of the belief that this one planet has to remain exactly the way it is or for that matter, was before human life evolved.

 

I understand that the water level may be rising in the oceans and inch or so every so many years? Why is that necesssarily a bad thing? Isn't it likely that such will create more coastal wetlands, which would be very good for certain species of wildlife? Are we certain that those species that such increase in the water level could not adapt to the increase? Before we eliminate that human activity that may be causing the polar ice to break up earlier each year, how do we know that polar bears cannot be able to adjust to that happening?

 

I understand that there may be more hurricanes resulting from global warming and I understand the effect they can have on countries in the hurricane zone, but are we sure that the adverse consequences of such outweigh the possible benefits?

 

If the point is that there is too much possibly at risk to summarily deny global warming, I'm on board with you. But there also may be too much at risk to simply go about eliminating all human activity that contributes to global warming. Much, much more needs to be studied before either side of this debate can say they have all the answers.

 

As for the life insurance analogy, on that I disagree with you. Everyone is going to die at some point. Because none of us no when its going to happen, life insurance is a great bet and a smart purchase for every one. And no, I'm not a life insurance salesman. LOL.

 

And I edited that post while not even putting my coffee cup down, which proves that I can consume a beverage and still take some action at the same time.

But you supported our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, isn't that right? Makes sense to me.

That wasn't based on "what ifs", it was based on bad intel. Even the vast majority of Dems agreed on that one.