Why are we not surprised?
Excerpts:
"In others words, ECI endorsed all the central premises of the environmental left."
"Chilton and other ISA signers asserted that giving the world's poor access to electricity, including refrigeration for food and air conditioning, is a far more pressing concern than the more nebulous goal of affecting climate change. But some ECI signers, he fretted, actually oppose getting electricity to the world's poor because they fear the increased power use will only feed global warming. The end result of reducing carbon emissions would be to confine hundreds of millions to perpetual poverty and shortened life spans."
At least SOME people have the good, common sense to attempt to keep "political correctness" out of this debate among this group.
Once again, there is NO "scientific consensus" on this issue, regardless of what the True Believers want you to believe.
There is actually consensus and no amount of denials will change that fact Bubba. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consists of over 1000 climate scientists from 120 countries around the globe. Their most recent report issued in 2001 concluded:
ReplyDelete"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
The IPCC predicts that global warming will increase temperatures worldwide between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100 if no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gases. This amount of warming, according to the IPCC, could raise sea levels by as much as three feet. That’s extraordinarily dangerous. Every foot of sea level rise equates to 100 feet of beach front loss.
You can read the details of their "non-consensus" report here.
Blah blah, woof woof.
ReplyDelete"Union of Concerned Scientists" indeed!
As if.......
Excerpt:
"By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong."
I guess that what I'd like to know is what evidence would satisfy you, Bubba, that there was human-induced global warming? Just theoretically, what would it take to push you to the other side of the debate? I am curious about what sort of evidence would be conclusive.
ReplyDeleteThe second question would, of course, be would it be too late by the time we satisfied you? I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I just mean that if your bar for acceptance is beyond a reversible point, how would you justify that?
We can look at climatic history to see the ups, down, trends, and vagaries of climate on earth back through millenia. And even the so-called "experts" don't agree on what happened.
ReplyDeleteLooking back a few years, or even a couple of centuries does not tell the story. You can't look at one day on Wall Street and say, "The economy is falling" or "The economy is booming."
Look back on this era in history in 500 or 1000 years and you will be able to make an intelligent determination of what was going in climatically. You can't look at the world today and make that assessment.
To repeat: There is NO SUCH THING as "scientific consensus" about global warming.
ReplyDeleteThere is ABUNDANT evidence that anthropogenic contribution to global warming is infintesimal, less than 1/10 of one percent. That's a FACT.
Deal with it.
What Bubba said.
ReplyDeleteSorry. I think you might have missed my question. I understand what you are saying that you cannot look at a single day or year or even decade to determine if human-induced global warming is real. However, what would convince you? Some hypothetical examples follow:
ReplyDeleteXX% of environmental scientists agree.
XX% of palentologists agree that the earth has not been this warm in xx millenia.
Statistical modelling indicates that the earth will increase XX degrees in the next 100 years.
I am much more interested in what sorts of things WOULD convince you, rather than what your current state of mind is. This is how scientists do their job. They say, "Well if the Earth were warming, what would be the signs of that warming?"
Perhaps there is no evidence that will convince you, but I doubt that is the case. Rather the bar of evidence is higher than many (for whatever reason).
Obviously, you have given some thought to this, but your main point seems to be that there is not a consensus. The problem with that definition is that the word consensus is different for different people and for different situations.
I truly do look forward to your response.
Final word.....
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing ad "scientific consensus" regarding global warming.
There is abundant evidence that human contribution to the greenhouse gas effect is virtually zero.
The net effect of any changes the human race can put in place to reduce greenhouse gas is also virtually zero.
If "global warming" in reference to climate change is a fact, then "global cooling" is also a fact.
a major eruption in one of the Earth's major volcanos, or a massive earthquake under the right circumstances will prove that fact beyond any doubt in even the most True of True Believers' minds.
I have stated my opinion on this subject in various comments on this, and on other threads on this blog, in clear, understandable language.
There is little more to be said on this subject.
"Could you point us to some of the abundant evidence that human contribution to the greenhouse gas effect is virtually zero? Thanks!"
ReplyDeleteYes.
See my comments on Ed Cone's blog on the very subject. See Pat Michael's discussions and articles on the subject.
Read articles like this and this.
We have debated this subject at length. I will not debate it further here. It would not serve any purpose.
If you want to comment on this thread's actual topic, I will reply further. Otherwise, I will not.
Am I to assume from your evasive answers that there is simply no amount of evidence that could satisfy you, even if it developed over the next 20 years? Sad.
ReplyDeleteWhat is saddest of all Penguin is that Bubba, a seemingly intelligent and courageous man who served his country in the armed forces with bravery now refuses to even entertain the idea that his nation might be in environmental peril.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this?
The answer is simple. It is because he has let his partisanship blind him to the simple facts of the matter. He would rather publish post after post about how global warming isn't "real" than even submit to the idea that he might, just *might* be wrong. There is no bending. No compromise, no acknowledgement of science and the overwhelming majority. It makes me wonder what must have happened to him to make him so stubborn and close minded.
As I indicated before,further comments ON TOPIC for this thread will be welcome. All others will be ignored.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, this thread is closed.
The topic appears to read "The Politics of Global Warming and Religion" It seems to me that this is what we are talking about here. In your way of thinking, we are "True Believers" This sounds like you are assigning a religious term to those who believe that Gobal warming is real. Either way the politics of golbal warming is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Although the fact that Pat Robertson has joined the cause makes me want to recheck the evidence...
ReplyDelete"In your way of thinking, we are 'True Believers' This sounds like you are assigning a religious term to those who believe that Gobal warming is real."
ReplyDeleteComplain to algore, He's the one who coined the label in reference to people who believe like you.