[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &

[pkraut at moscow.com]

Your saying this is exactly what I would expect you do not want to hear 
anything other than that which agrees with you...from anyone. 



> Pat --
> 
> There is overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists. The
> opinions of physicists, geologists, chemists, and biologists are worth
> as much as lay opinions. Which is to say: not much. The remainder of
> the scientists who don't believe in global warming work for
> think-tanks funded by the oil industry.
> 
> Paying for studies that claim that global warming doesn't exist, then
> demanding we do nothing because "all the facts aren't in," is like
> murdering your parents and then begging for clemency because you're an
> orphan.
> 
> -- ACS
> 
> On 10/20/07, pkraut at moscow.com <pkraut at moscow.com> wrote:
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> 




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