Evolution: OT: Global Warming (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 04:00 (5595 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 04:22

You cannot find a single U.S. science organization that refutes climate change. Not NASA, not USGS, not any lesser organization that I&apos;m not recalling. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I did not think you were a herd follower, but much more skeptical. - Your passion on this issue clouds your appraisal of my words-we agree on more than you think. Some of the confusion is my fault. - Since we started agriculture, we&apos;ve started a mass extinction. Whether or not climate change is caused by us, the conversion of forest to farmland has radically impacted every ecosystem we operate in. I accept that. I also accept that it is inevitable. People need work, need resources, need food, need all of that. But knowing what we know now, I fully support conservation efforts. My grandfather sold 4800 acres of prime North Dakotan farmland to the government for wildlife preservation. That drive to protect what we can is strong in me. For the political record he was also a gun collector and an avid hunter, and had businesses in at least 2 states that I&apos;m aware of. That&apos;s where I&apos;m coming from. - But apparently all of those American organizations must consist of liberal left-wing environmentalists! You really think that? Since 2006 no American organization has gone against the consensus view. Why is that? Especially in the Bush years which you would have to agree would have been the best ground to build a scientific argument undermining the issue? Especially with paladins such as Inhoffe you&apos;d totally expect something stronger coming from the scientific community against anthropogenic climate change. - Like the god thing, I&apos;m noncommittal on the issue. Whatever happens, I&apos;ll deal with. My opinion tends to be, that we were wrong in regards to the old &quot;infinite dispersion theory&quot; that acid rain proved wrong. It wouldn&apos;t *shock* me <EDIT> if it turned out to be the case that we impacted climate on a larger scale. - > &#13;&#10;> > A handful of scientists does not make a consensus. The work done in Greenland on the ice cores is pretty damn conclusive to me. There is a correlation between environmental C02 and warming. A climate change is occuring, I find it hard to believe you deny it.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I don&apos;t deny the melting glaciers. I&apos;ve seen them over the years in Glacier Nat. Park and Canada. The temps have gone up since the 1970&apos;s and are now starting back down for the past 10 years. There have been times on Earth when the Co2 is 2,000 ppm with low temps, and high temps with Co2 at 200 ppm or below. &#13;&#10;> - Those numbers I hadn&apos;t heard before. Care to share the source? - > > Still, I see nothing wrong with creating a market and an economy based around technologies that will help us moderate our environmental impact. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> As a dictator you will not be a capitalist. I can see that. - What? What&apos;s a dictatorship w/o wealth? Though the model would have to be more Constantinople than Rome. I&apos;d even mandate a block real estate that would be corporate-tax free for 30 years. - Joking aside, there ARE problems that free markets can&apos;t solve. You missed my point though, all initial basic research traditionally has *always* come by government spending. NASA would never have happened left to market forces. Neither would Columbus&apos;s expedition nor Alexander&apos;s conquering of asia. Any terraforming technology or biofuel will be a huge benefit to farmers, as well as the economy at large, as competition with oil companies would drive new innovations. I would also deregulate to get more refineries up and running and fully and completely support nuclear power. - Do I still sound &quot;herd-like&quot; now? - &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> > New Orleans should have been relocated 20-50 miles inland after Katrina. &#13;&#10;> > Actually, I&apos;m more interested in what we&apos;ll find if the Antarctic cap melts. Think of the ancient plants and microbes buried under there...&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I agree absolutely about New Orleans, and your Antarctic idea is great.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> About Global Warming Skepticism you should follow Lindzen; also Pat Michaels, Satanic Gases; Ian Plimer, Heaven & Earth, Global warming and the missing Science: this geology professor&apos;s book convinced the aussie gov&apos;t to stop the foolishness; Fred Singer, Unstoppable Global warming every 1,500 years. Singer is one of the profs who got our governmentt climate folks to take notice of UHI&apos;s. 2/3rds of all our weather stations have been overrun by city growth and heat. And follow the blog: Watts Up With That. All of these are eye openers. - Satanic gases? hehehehehe... oh that stirs the grade-schooler in me... - I&apos;ll add those to my google reader. I should be paying more attention to the issue, it just... hasn&apos;t been that interesting to me overall. - POST EDITED

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"