Global Warming Scientifically Addressed
Tom Bowler at Libertarian Leanings posted this very enlightening argument by two German professors scientifically discrediting the whole global warming theory. It's worth a few minutes to read.
Just an observation.
posted by Ol' BC @ 10:29 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Thanks for the link. Am reading it.
However, I found the post he put up on the 10th about the money supply to be far more frightening and alarming. Ben Bernanke (and the Fed to some degree) worries me.
Well, I was not going to respond to any more posts until Vince told me that you had posted actual data and support for your claim.
Thank you. This is the sort of support I have been asking for. Now, having said that...
I can admit that evidence of global warming may or may not be caused by men. Can you admit the possibility that it is?
Please consider: If we collectively don't really know what is causing it, then it must rationally follow that their exists a possibility---yet--- for any number of competing theories to be right.
You have shown a credible argument here, and I acknowledge its possible validity. Can you do the same?
There is always a possibility. I just happen to think it is a very remote one. I actually think keeping the environment clean is a commendable practice, just not at the level being proposed by some of the zealots. We've made huge strides in this country at a reasonable effort. I would like to see other parts of our world get on board. Crippling the U.S. economy has little positive impact when one looks at a worldwide perspective. Also, Ben worries a lot of people.
Thank you, BC. All I really wanted to hear was that the possibility of global warming being manmade was--- well--- possible!
It seems to me that when we begin to rule out possibilities, we had better be pretty damned certain of the evidence at hand. And when I have accused others of talking about things with certainty that was not part of their jurisdiction, what I meant was that none of us are bloody climate experts, so to be certain about the climate and its changes is absolutely and utterly preposterous.
I am glad that you have chosen not to be preposterous.
There are many good theories. And, typically, the voice of reason is somewhere between. It is not the voice that vehemently denounces one side without really knowing what the hell he is talking about. And let's face it, for all of our reading, we are subject to this one inscrutable fact--- all of our information is second hand.
RWR does not measure weather any more than you or I do. Therefore, we are forming opinions based on the words of other fallible human beings. Whether they support global warming or not.
All I have really tried to do is show that the positions of certain people on this board are extreme in the sense that they take information and form it into a sort of gospel, when, clearly, it is not.
Possibilities abound. And while I continue to be a thinking and considerate human being, I will take all theories into consideration, being that I am ultimately an observer of other peoples' work.
Having said that, I find the convection argument very interesting. I would love to investigate it from a very scientific and experimental framework.
If we are to talk with one another from such deep divides, we must bridge the gap. What I have tried to do is show that the ultimate and truthful gap that lies between both sides is that of ignorance. Not just the ignorance on the right, but ignorance on the left too. Certainty is a rare luxury. Today's truth is tomorrow's joke. So let us start meaningful debate from the place that states that none of us know precisely what we are talking about. Let us all admit this and then say, what really makes the most sense, based on the meager evidence we have been presented from our meager second hand sources!
Only then can we have true dialogue.
All the best,
Mark
Wel, I'm not willing to concede any possibility that climate change can be man made, short of a full nuclear conflagration. The idea that mankind's few campfires can alter the climate of an entire planet is preposterous.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on the algorians. First, studies show that there has been no accurate measurement that could make a determination one way or another. Measurements seem to be deliberately skewed to show the algorian point of view. Second, where algorians measure melting of the icepacks in some places, others measure ice thickening in others. Third, there have been multiple instances of deliberate falsification by the algorians.
The heartstring-tugging video of the mommy and baby polar bears on an apparently shrinking ice chunk was shown to be false. Russian temperature measurements were taken from September of that year and inserted in the October form--making October look warmer than it was. The infamous "hockey stick" graph is so demonstrably stupid that it's been used in numerous comedians' sketches.
I don't feel the need to give you the locations of all these stories, since I'd have to look them all up. They're there. You can look them up yourselves.
I don't have to prove anything. All I have to do is go outside and enjoy these cool spring days, and go down to the beach and see the waves splash 'pon the shore, just as they have for far longer than my entire life.
It truly mystifies me that a person can look at all the ways in which man has already changed his environment and then say, "Man can't possibly change his environment."
Which is more absurd? The man who completely denies the possibility that we have changed our environment, or the one who looks around, sees pollution in his rivers, smog over his cities, massive interstate and road infrastructures, buildings, massive deforestation, rings of trash in the pacific ocean the size of texas, oil spills in our oceans, and man-caused extinctions and says to himself, "Well, maybe there is a possibility."
The fact of the matter is that we are pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. This changes the environment. Cutting down a tree changes the environment. Every single thing we do, however small, changes our environment. The problem is that, however small, there are now nearly 7 billion of us on the planet. The earth has not seen such a time as it has in the past 100 years. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped billions upon billions of tons of pollutants into the air. This is not going to just have no effect whatsoever.
So, deny all you want. If it makes you sleep better at night.
Mark,
Carbon isn't a pollutant. It's a natural substance which exists everywhere. I've said this before, but you don't recognize it, yet you can't deny it. Or, are you a carbon denier?
Dirtying up your property is another thing entirely. Apples and footballs. I keep my property pleasantly clean. I refuse to be responsible for anyone else's property.
Just because it is a natural substance does not automatically make it safe. Nor does it mean that pumping mass amounts of it is not going to disrupt the ecosystems. I know what you have said before. I don't care if you call CO2 a pollutant or not. The fact is that we can and do disrupt natural balances through the things we do, as evidenced by our daily environments and routines.
Lead, arsenic, radon, and plutonium are naturally occuring products too. However, I don't really want to see more of them in my atmosphere. Get it? It doesn't have to be toxic to disrupt an atmosphere or an environment. Levels simply have to change.
It is as simple as 1,2,3. Ecosystmes are fairly delicate affairs. Meddle with one aspect of it and you throw everything otu of wack. This occurs on small and large scales.
Farmers in the plains states hunted coyotes to near extinction. As a result, mice populations exploded. Mice were literally coming out of the woodwork. This is just one silly instance of how balances can be thrown out of kilter. If you think that CO2 has no effect, then fine. What can I say? However, you should at least consider the possibility that it is imbalancing the atmosphere and might cause problems, pollutant or not.
Denial of the possibility is pure and simple willful ignorance. Until you are a climate expert, denial of any evidence is absolutely ridiculous.
Talk about listening to alarmists.
I'm not even sure you have any idea what the net effect of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere is, Mark.
The Earth is NOT fragile, Mark. Once you accept that, you will be much happier.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
I am not really listening to anyone. I just use the grey matter between my ears, and it is evident to me that men change their environments.
And the earth may not be fragile, but life is.
I am not unhappy. I am quite happy.
And as for me not knowing the net effect of increased CO2, I have said this a thousand fucking times!! No, I don't. And neither do you! So stop acting so certain about it!!! This is my point, you twit! No one can be certain. Yet here you are denying with such certainty that you'd think you were the leading expert in the field!
And as for me not knowing the net effect of increased CO2, I have said this a thousand fucking times!! No, I don't. And neither do you!
Actually, I do, and it's been an established scientific fact for far longer than I've been alive. You don't even need to be an expert to know it!
Once you do know and can tell me the net effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, THEN you are qualified to debate me on the environment.
Problem is that even if someone told you, you would probably come up with some bullshit about it not being that simple, when it actually is.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Lead, arsenic, radon, and plutonium are naturally occuring products too. However, I don't really want to see more of them in my atmosphere.
I'm not sure about radon or plutonium, but I can emphatically tell you that you DEFINITELY don't have to worry about there being any lead or arsenic in your atmosphere.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
When you can disabuse yourself of the looney notion that the earth--or any other place in the universe--is safe, only then can you begin to get into harmony with reality. When an assertion is so utterly preposterous that its silliness fairly screams with derisive guffaws, you don't really have to work your ass off to find a detailed rebuttal.
If there weren't so many misundereducated victims of the government children's prison system willing to buy into the blatherings of the Hitlers, the Obamas and the Algores of the world, global warming would've never even made it into a comedian's routine.
Do you go after flashy fishing lures, too?
Leaving aside global warming (as I am not convinced it exists), what about other pollution-related concerns?
What about the smog which envelopes certain large cities? Does that not have an effect on health for the people in those cities? Going more local, what about the effect of Golden Foundry (when it was still around in my home town) on its neighbors?
What about fishing? It is my understanding (which is based on hearsay, admittedly) that one should be careful eating fish caught from a large number of natural rivers and lakes in the US because of contaminants. Shouldn't this be concern?
Vincent,
In my opinion, these are best handled as tort lawsuits by those who can prove they've been harmed, against those who can be proven to have caused the harm. Who owns the rivers and lakes, and who dumps pollutants into them?
Admittedly, the government's courts are incredibly lax in their desire to hear property rights and pollution damage arguments, and polluting entities have largely gone unchallenged.
The challenges offered by ham handed government entities punish the innocent and the guilty alike. Not helpful.
Thanks for the link, BC.
Post a Comment
<< Home