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

OK, give me some "truth" then. Bet you can't.

^Leatherneck,

 

Thoughtful post. You're a skilled orator. Have you considered the legal profession? :lol:

 

Unfortunately, I think the debate as to whether global warming first is occuring and second is being primarily driven by human activity has had the effect of derailing most serious dialog on what changes need to be made to curtail it or at least halt its progression. I believe there have been studies that model the climate's response to various changes in the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere (ranging from continuing increases in greenhouse gas emissions to reductions in emissions). I have seen estimates of economic impact based on global warming effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming). It is an immensely complex subject, as one must consider the costs and benefits of GW on such disparate elements as crop yields, transmission of infectious diseases, effects of droughts, dislocation of populations in coastal areas, the need to rebuild infrastructure to compensate, effects on drinking water availability, impacts to various ecosystems, influence on extreme weather events, effects of GW consequences on geopolitical stability around the world (for example, a crisis shortage of drinking water could very easily spark regional conflicts) and on and on. Compounding this complexity is the fact that the economic risks of GW are not necessarily borne by the same populations that must take actions to address greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Given all of these complexities, it is very easy to fall into "analysis paralysis". Is that really the way to deal with a potentially devastating change to the planet? Wouldn't the prudent approach be to begin to take steps to mitigate the contributors that the scientific community has (with near unanimity) identified? The captain of the Titanic chose to sail into an iceberg field at full speed in spite of the risks, relying on his lookouts to visually identify icebergs with certainty. By the time they had certainty, it was too late.

 

On your second point, I fully concede that human activity and its impact on the natural environment are necessarily in conflict with each other. I do not dispute this. But there is a difference between causing an extinction here and there and causing a macro-level alteration of the planet's climate that could potentially reach a tipping point from which a runaway degradation could occur. Two very different things.

 

With regard to the effects of rising sea levels, I have seen statistics (I don't have them readily in front of me and I don't have time to look them up just now) on the percentage of the earth's human population that would be displaced by the rise in sea levels that is predicted within a certain time horizon. If, for example, Greenlands coastal ice sheet melted, global sea level could rise 1 meter, swamping cities all along the U.S. eastern seaboard. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html). What would the economic costs to this country be if New York, Miami, Charleston, Boston, Washington DC, became at least partially inundated due to sea level rise?

 

Do the complex analysis in parallel with taking steps to mitigate. The collective view of science suggests that GW could very well reach a runaway point (due to positive feedback), beyond which no actions we could take would have an effect. Waiting until we have every question answered would be irresponsible.

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

 

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:

 

 

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

 

Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. The magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases.

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

 

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:

 

 

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

 

Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. The magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases.

 

 

Need to know your source. Are you quoting ExxonMobil, BP, or ConocoPhillips?

...it was based on bad intel. Even the vast majority of Dems agreed on that one.

Kind of like your environmental theories.

Kind of like your environmental theories.

No, more like yours. Thinking somethings there when it isn't.

No, more like yours. Thinking somethings there when it isn't.

Like your hair?

Global warming? Look at the numbers.

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

 

Sure it was based on "what ifs" as in "what if the Iraqis give terrorists a nuclear bomb"? We just got it wrong that they had a nuclear bomb (or were working on one). But the (original) reason we invaded was because of a "what if" scenario. That's why it was called preemptive.

Sure it was based on "what ifs" as in "what if the Iraqis give terrorists a nuclear bomb"? We just got it wrong that they had a nuclear bomb (or were working on one). But the (original) reason we invaded was because of a "what if" scenario. That's why it was called preemptive.

Sure it wasn't, we had intel claiming they had WMDs, remember.

Al Gore’s global warming is the biggest myth of the century, even transcending Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Those who believed the latter three myths would also be snowed by Gore’s myth.[/Quote]

 

http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_154213535.html

Sure it wasn't, we had intel claiming they had WMDs, remember.

 

The what if wasnt' whether or not they had WMD. We supposedly "knew" they did. The "what if' was what if they gave them to terrorists bent on attacking us. That was the worst case scenario Bush and company used to sell the Iraq war (well, that and spinning Saddam Hussein as an accomplice to 9/11).

The what if wasnt' whether or not they had WMD. We supposedly "knew" they did. The "what if' was what if they gave them to terrorists bent on attacking us. That was the worst case scenario Bush and company used to sell the Iraq war (well, that and spinning Saddam Hussein as an accomplice to 9/11).

Disagree, WMD were the big factor in the invasion.

Birdsfan my friend, I genuinely have no desire to ruffle your feathers. I love and respect you. I simply believe in God. I believe God created all we see and feel and think and know. I do not believe that God created a faulty earth or universe. I believe He said it was, "Good." I do not believe that God has been caught by surprize that there are now over 6 billion people on the earth that I believe He created to support us.

 

I agree 100% that we do not need to foul our nest. I have never advocated wanton industrial pollution. I never will. I deeply enjoy nature, wilderness, wildlife and a clean environment.

 

Because I believe with all my heart, mind and spirit that God is in control, I genuinely believe that He set in motion processes that are so infinite and yet so infinitely precise that we are able to measure a fluctuation of a fraction of a degree over several decades and discuss it as if it is a significant development. The real miracle is the relative stability our world and climate has experienced for centuries.

 

In some ways we have become too sophisticated (in our own minds) to thank God adequately for the stability He provides us daily.

 

Other than certain types of nuclear power, every ounce of energy in the form of fossil fuels, food, etc. has come in one way or another from the sun. Without the sun, life on earth would be impossible. If the sun is so large and powerful that a tiny fraction of 1% of its total energy output that actually reaches the earth can fuel mankind for millennia, it only makes sense that a brief cycle of marginally increased solar activity would have significant impact on our planet. I have read many scientific papers describing this process as the number one source of temperature fluctuations.

 

I'm not denying the evidence for global warming or cooling. It happens. I deny the validity of certain interpretations of the evidence... especially those designed to generate panic and fear for the purposes of gaining political influence and power. I sincerely deny the implications that the activities of man have more than a tiny role in these fluctuations.

 

I lived in Tennessee 15 years. I got to know Al Gore pretty good in that time. He has changed many of his core values. He is very different today from the man he was 25 years ago. I suppose we all are in some ways. The point is, he is a bitter political animal today. I do not trust his motives. Therefore, his message is not trustworthy to me.

:thumb: GREAT POST!

http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_154213535.html

 

Wow, that's convincing. This guy points out that there are five greenhouse gases, the most plentiful being water vapor. I'm sure the army of climatologists using ultra-sophisticated climate models to make their predictions missed that simple fact.

 

What he overlooks is the fact that the atmosphere's radiative emissivity/absorptivity characteristics only have to change ever so slightly to alter the balance of solar energy coming in and infrared being radiated back out into space. And if the atmosphere warms because CO2 traps more infrared, the concentration of water vapor (this guy's favorite greenhouse gas, apparently) will increase. Which will cause more warming, etc. Hence, the positive feedback effect I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

Mr. Becker appears to be a hack. Even the most die-hard denier doesn't dare claim that the earth isn't warming. Sheesh.