[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism & Replicatability

[Ted Moffett]

All-

One of the main road blocks that must be addressed to solve the global
warming crisis, is the large number of people who, for one reason or
another, do not accept that there is an overwhelming scientific
consensus that significant action is necessary to prevent substantive
negative impacts.  The choices these people make as consumers, in
lifestyle, and as voters, are hampering efforts to mitigate this crisis.
They would rather not bother to study the science, or only choose to believe
the small minority of scientists who insist the consensus is in error.  Or
maybe they don't believe the scientific community or the scientific method
is to be trusted, or is reliable.  Or for many, even if they fully
acknowledge the problem, they are too dependent on their current lifestyle
to make the changes required to transition away from a fossil fuel/energy
dependent way of living.

For those who insist they do not believe the scientific consensus, the
hundreds of scientists who have spent years of their life studying this
issue, and have emphatically concluded that human emissions are dangerously
warming the planet, it appears that reasoning with a brick wall might be
more rewarding... At least the bricks will not respond in a manner that
insults a person's intelligence.

Studying the minority views of the scientists who reject the scientific
consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet is
necessary to continue to test the veracity of the consensus.  Indeed, as
this process of skepticism on this issue continues, the self corrective
mechanism of replicatability of findings by other scientists, perhaps the
most fundamental principle of the scientific method, to insure that the
science on this issue is not corrupt, fabricated, politically biased, etc.,
the consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet has
only increased.  And the claim that human induced global warming will not
have drastic consequences is more and more an incredible position.

At the bottom of the PDF document at the first link below are approximately
70 published papers on climate science that support the conclusions on the
science of climate change in the Stern Report.  No doubt Al Gore and other
environmental loonies have conspired with these scientists in
political subversion to spread socialism and other dastardly nefarious
plots, in a vast global cabal to undermine the free market system, using
global warming as a boogeyman to scare the bejezzus out of the naive
gullible hoi polloi.

And I've fallen for it!

*Chapter 1: The science of climate
change*<http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf>
:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf

Stern Review on the economics of climate change:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

--------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 10/19/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Ted
> I don't think that you should so easily dismiss George Willl's
> comments.  He is just a journalist and a lay person on global waming
> but  Lomberg whow he sites is a scientist and his statements should be taken
> seriously. Global warming has plusses an minuses as Will pointed out. Not
> everything is negative. Glogal warming by itself may be a benefit overall.
> What problems there are are better solved by the free market system(with
> some government guide lines) not draconian government regulation which would
> stifle the economy. This is not to say we should not be concerned about air
> pollution. It is a problem and measures should be taken to curtail it. There
> has already been some improvement in this area.  As an example, in the
> 1960"s you could smell PFI in Moscow. Now you can hardly ever smell it from
> just acrose the river.  Efforts to find cleaner fuel should be continued.
> Roger

-----------------
Ok, I'm going to bite on this one.

As much as I really hate the nay-sayers regarding the "global warming"
-so-called-issue, I'd like to ask this:

IF the ice caps are melting as quickly as is being stated, (a) doesn't this
put more water into the atmospher, i.e., through evaporation; (b) doesn't
this mean there will be more water to fall as rain; (c) the areas that are
experiencing drought right now - won't they in fact see an increase in water
through rain and/or the swelling of rivers, creeks, water-ways; (d) what are
the pro/cons of using ocean water, processing it and putting it into pipes
as un-salted water for communities in need?  I see adds where a company is
saying they "capture" billions of gallons of water a year for use - in what
way?

And no, I really don't care to get into it about the "global warming"
alarmists.  I'm just asking the above questions.

Thank you.

J  :]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071020/dc250d2b/attachment.html