[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &
Andreas Schou
ophite at gmail.com
Sat Oct 20 17:10:02 PDT 2007
On 10/20/07, pkraut at moscow.com <pkraut at moscow.com> wrote:
> And it isn't that they just don't accept opposing viewpoints now is it??
> You are just proving my point!
Shorter Pat:
The fact that everyone agrees that the sky is blue is indisputable
proof that the sky *just might* be green!
-- ACS
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
> > * http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
> >
> > On 10/20/07, pkraut at moscow.com <pkraut at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > 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/
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list