An Inconvenient Scientist

[Harlowe]

After all, no one has YET connected the dots on the right to the kind of resource fights we'll be having in the future as the climate changes,

Which to me, is truly the scary part of all this. Let's deal with it and see what we can do - I certainly don't mean go into hysterics over it, but let's not stick our head's in the sand or cluck out tongues about it because we'd hate to admit a dirty liberal had a valid argument, regardless of how absolutely accurate his data was.

This issue is so much larger than some yokel-politician's documentary.

[Trollbait]

Let's deal with it and see what we can do

Exactly. Finding the true cause will be essential to seeing what we can do. That is why open and honest debate and research is essential.

I certainly don't mean go into hysterics over it

Precisely. You can tell by the responses from people on the threads here and elsewhere about global warming that hysterics are all too prevelant in this discussion. Let us step back and ensure that we do not swallow a spider to catch a fly.

let's not stick our head's in the sand

Absolutely not. There should be open and honest debate and thorough research to determine the best course of action. That debate should include economists, scientists, researchers, business leaders, and world leaders so that we take a moderate approach to the problem.

cluck out tongues about it because we'd hate to admit a dirty liberal had a valid argument

I will line up to be the first on the bandwagon if we can find a sane approach to this issue.

The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is the vitriol, venom, and fanatical response you get from global warming zealots if you dare to pose even the tiniest smidgen of a question. That is a huge turn off to their whole cause. I bet the would beat themselves silly if they could step out of themselves and view it from my angle. They are seriously like evangelical fundamentalist christian types.

On a side note I live as green as I can. I have always favored environmental stewardship so that my children inherit as clean a planet as possible.

[Partha]

[Harlowe]

The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is the vitriol, venom, and fanatical response you get from global warming zealots

Honestly Jecks, you’d have to be blind not to see that coming from both extreme sides of this issue. Don’t you think we’d be better off keeping focused on the science & data we are collecting rather than what some politician said in his environmental documentary?

By continuing to focus on just discrediting someone of the opposing political party or ideology rather than dealing with the issue, we perpetuate the politicization of this issue. Granted nothing will get done without politicians being on board, but focusing this as an Us vs. Them political theme is diluting the real issues at hand. It’s a diversion from the reality of what could very well be a crisis for the next generation. It’s absolutely an issue that is causing change right now.

I would have more respect for scientists that debate or discuss the actual issues rather than turn it into some sort of lame Gore-bash piece.

[Lurker]

Now when you look up the claim of CO2 levels 450 million years ago it is accepted that it was a time of extremely high CO2 levels and extremely low temperatures.
...
Why then does the reports you cite make the claim that anthropogenic activities resulting in increased CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for global warming when increased CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be demonstrably proven to be the sole cause of increased temperature?

Jeez, didn't I answer this question enough times in the other thread?

First, please post your data showing what CO2 levels were 450 million years ago. Then post the data showing all the other factors that affect global climate. Nobody is claiming that CO2 is the only factor that affects the warming and cooling of the planet. In fact, it certainly isn't the main driving force behind the natural 100k year cycle since CO2 increases lag warming by hundreds of years. But it can be said with great certainty that it is the main driver now because none of the other factors explain the rapid warming we are experiencing; not solar activity or planetary wobble or anything else.

The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is the vitriol, venom, and fanatical response you get from global warming zealots if you dare to pose even the tiniest smidgen of a question. That is a huge turn off to their whole cause.

Spreading disinformation is not the same as asking legitimate questions. If you encounter vitriol, venom, and fanatical responses in the real world you might want to take a closer look at what you are saying. As for the boards, I certainly haven't behaved as an irrational zealot on this or any other thread. You don't do a lot for your credibility by trying to label me (five times in 4 posts) as such.

[Garrdor]

Wahhhhhhhhhhhh democrat got a nobel prize wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Harlowe]

Wahhhhhhhhhhhh democrat got a nobel prize wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Unfortunately, you are probably the most accurate and succinct about this.

[Rsak]

I'd rather plan for the worst and hope for the best.

If those plans actually understand their impact on the world then I have no problem with it. Yet right now we claim there is a problem of an unknown magnitude (influence by humans) and we want to solve that problem, but there is no clear understanding over how to solve that problem and the effects it will have on the world and society.

If we accept the notion that CO2 is the leading cause of global warming then we can tomorrow stop using petroleum and other CO2 burning products. Society will crash and we will be unable to feed the population and have countless deaths. The possibility still exists that even if we go to these extreme measures it still won't stop the looming global climate catastrophe and we trigger the return to the dark ages a century before we had to and were less prepared to handle it.

You may think it is a silly example, but there are people in this world that advocate such actions. Without understanding the ramifications of certain actions we most certainly are committing hysterics over the issue.

I am simply waiting for someone to say the problem is X, we can fix it with solution Y, and the impact on the world is Z. I don't require quantification that our influence is A% of the system, but I need to know that the solution will actually solve something. Empty programs like Kyoto that don't actually solve anything yet serve the political purpose of claiming we are doing something is just more hysterics in my opinion.

[Lurker]

If we accept the notion that CO2 is the leading cause of global warming then we can tomorrow stop using petroleum and other CO2 burning products. Society will crash and we will be unable to feed the population and have countless deaths. The possibility still exists that even if we go to these extreme measures it still won't stop the looming global climate catastrophe and we trigger the return to the dark ages a century before we had to and were less prepared to handle it.

You may think it is a silly example, but there are people in this world that advocate such actions.

Name one.

[Trollbait]

I am simply waiting for someone to say the problem is X, we can fix it with solution Y, and the impact on the world is Z.

.......

What the fuck?

That will never happen, Rsak. If you are waiting for that then don't hold your breath.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhh democrat got a nobel prize wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Unfortunately, you are probably the most accurate and succinct about this.

I don't know about others on this board but I could care less who wins a Nobel prize or what they win it for. I have already said as much. They could give the Nobel Peace prize to Osama Bin Laden and I would not even bat an eye.

Thanks for playing though.

Spreading disinformation is not the same as asking legitimate questions.

It is if the information provided in the question is posted in good faith and the questioner does not know the information is disinformation.

For the sake of discussion you would be better off explainig why the information is bad in a calm manner rather than freaking out and calling the questioner a denier. That is why you tend to be viewed as a deranged zealot when you get into this discussion. You may not think you have behaved in this fashion but that is how you come off...at least to me.

Honestly Jecks, you’d have to be blind not to see that coming from both extreme sides of this issue.

I have not claimed otherwise since I am not on one side or the other on this issue yet.

Don’t you think we’d be better off keeping focused on the science & data we are collecting rather than what some politician said in his environmental documentary?

Absolutely. I apologize for my poor choice of thread title but I found Dr. Gray's scientific (not political) assertions to be interesting and I must admit I was interested to get some reaction from both sides during the discussion of it. I thought "An Inconvenient Scientist" would be a cute play on the movie title.

[Rsak]

Take your pick Lurker:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X ... cy&spell=1

There are countless people that do not understand the real impact and dependency of oil on our society. It doesn't mean they their motives are necessarily bad, but oil dependency is much more then just gasoline.

Jecks,

I have no intention of holding my breath, but I am naturally a skeptic and want to see some actual evidence they know what they are talking about and have actually analyzed the issue before they try selling a solution. I am very hesitant that we are going to potentially change the level of our civilization based on the popular theory not a proven theory. I do think that the scientists honestly believe the theory (and they may be right) and have good intentions, but I refuse to support such drastic measures based on popularity and require proof.

[Garrdor]

I don't know about others on this board but I could care less who wins a Nobel prize or what they win it for. I have already said as much. They could give the Nobel Peace prize to Osama Bin Laden and I would not even bat an eye.

QQ

I know you want one for best rantSTAR

[Lurker]

Rsak,
I asked you to name one person that advocated an immediate ban on petroleum and other CO2 producing products even in the face of societal collapse and countless deaths. Still waiting.

It is if the information provided in the question is posted in good faith and the questioner does not know the information is disinformation.

How is that possible? As a self proclaimed skeptic that listens to all sides of a scientific discussion before making up your mind, how could you still be asking such shallow and dishonest questions, questions that match exactly with standard denier talking points? How could you so flippantly disregard the IPCC report? It really boggles the mind.

[Trollbait]

how could you still be asking such shallow and dishonest questions

Still? What do you mean "still"?

This is the first time I have asked such a question if memory serves.

questions that match exactly with standard denier talking points

I don't know anything about "denier talking points". Do you have a list of them or something so I can be sure not to ask questions in the future that have been identified as such?

How could you so flippantly disregard the IPCC report?

My disregard for the report is not flippant. I am cynical of anything even remotely related to the UN after the Oil for Food debacle. Find me something not created in that den of criminals and I will gladly puruse it.

I know you want one for best rantSTAR

I have never put much stock in any Nobel prize seeing as how it was established by a man looking to rid himself of his personal demons. A man who's inventions arguably can be considered to be responsible for more death and destruction than any other human being in history.

[Harlowe]

I don't know anything about "denier talking points". Do you have a list of them or something so I can be sure not to ask questions in the future that have been identified as such?

Here are a couple articles I found doing a quick Google of the term. I had know I've read more about it, but don't have time to search right now.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:EW8 ... cd=4&gl=us

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02 ... alWarming/

[Garrdor]

I have never put much stock in any Nobel prize seeing as how it was established by a man looking to rid himself of his personal demons. A man who's inventions arguably can be considered to be responsible for more death and destruction than any other human being in history.

Jesus peace prize?

[Ddrak]

There's the problem - we don't know how much "fixing" is necessary. In short, how much do you damage your economy to work on minimizing impact?

Dd

[Partha]

You mean 'damage our economy' like, for instance, the last 40 years since Silent Spring was published?

That argument is a favorite talking point of the oil industry, but it really shouldn't be taken TOO seriously.

[Rsak]

Lurker,

Open your fucking eyes. There are numerous people in the communes of Pacific Northwest that advocate the very same thing. I am not going to try to find a name because it is an extreme yet accurate one. There are people advocating such stances. They should not be taken seriously because they don't know th ramifications of their actions. And I damn well am not going to support any kind of global climate plan that requires drastic changes in our society without first knowing the steps are required to fix the problem and what kind of world we will be living when it happens. None of that has happened and you refuse to admit that point.

[Partha]

I am not going to try to find a name because it is an extreme yet accurate one.

Translation: I'm fucking caught.