[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &

[pkraut at moscow.com]

The problem is that there is not 'overwhelming consensus' in any part of 
the scientific community...did you watch 2020 last night?? Seems there are 
some scientist who do not agree and are putting their lives in jeopardy 
for their beliefs. That the world is changing constantly is not at issue 
here what I deeply resent is the idea that humans had anything to do with 
whether the earth is cold or warm. We should clean up our messes but we 
cannot in any form change what is happening. 




> 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/s
tern_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  :]
> 




---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/