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

[J Ford]

Ok, first of all...you have NO idea how anyone who does not accept the doomer's view of the world as it stands today, live.  You don't know if we recycle, conserve or just plain and simply do our best to NOT affect the earth or others around us in a negative manner.

Just because I look at the WHOLE history of the world and then compare it to today's and refuse to run screaming down the street of how the sky is falling and we need to prop it up now, does not mean I am not watchful nor that I am not concerned.  Yes, certainly we could do more to clean things up and to conserve.  I think the situation in GA is a PRIME example of poor planning and how man's interference with nature is affecting a great many people.

BUT I also see how nature is just that - nature.  Things happen and we have no control over the outcome, no matter how much we would like to. 

You produce 6 scientists that say one thing, I GUARANTEE you I can produce 6 others that not only refute your scientists, but prove how wrong they are.  Problem with "experts" is that if they have an agenda, they tend to say what supporters of that agenda want to hear - doesn't make them wrong - necessarily.  But it certainly does not make them all-knowing right, either.

I'm just so tired of hearing how horrible things are and what man is doing to this earth.  Seems to me you are purposefully taking the one main factor out of play - that being that we are NOT in charge much less control.

Next time a volcano erupts, I'll be sure to send it a note telling it just what its doing to the ozone layer is wrong and to cut it out.

BTW - what about all those kangaroos?  You get your order in yet?


J  :]


Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:07:04 -0700
From: starbliss at gmail.com
To: lfalen at turbonet.com; privatejf32 at hotmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &	Replicatability

 
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
 
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  :]
 


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071020/2f31df6a/attachment.html