Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 13:14:27 GMT -4
So when someone talks about throwing their leaders in jail for not believing in global warming, that's a sign to me that this person is not being rational.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 13:28:35 GMT -4
No, it's not irrational. In fact, one could make a case that failure to act could end up being one of the most monumentally stupid things that we've ever done. If failure to act to prevent a major calamity is the result of individuals deliberately forestalling action for the sake of money, then one might have a legal case against those responsible.
Unfortunately, by the time enough evidence accumulates to show the damage from climate change, it will be too late.
Do I think they should be imprisoned? No. Thrown out of office? Yes.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Feb 8, 2008 17:11:30 GMT -4
Global warming is such a long term issue I can almost understand why politicians are so hesitant toward action. Why should politician A. lobby hard to spend lots of money on an issue that will piss off the corporations and will not see any results until long after his term is over, when he could be thinking of reelection? Policies that actually combat global warming will not come from the majority. If you threw every politician who doesn't do enough about global warming out of office Washington would become a ghost town.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 14, 2008 15:34:01 GMT -4
Robert Rines, a long time hunter of the Loch Ness Monster, has decided to finally give up the hunt, at the age of 85. Apparently he believes that "Nessie may be dead, a victim of Global Warming."
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 14, 2008 19:44:23 GMT -4
;D That's good Jason...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 14, 2008 21:13:00 GMT -4
It's true. Global Warming gets blamed for every evil that people aren't already blaming on George Bush, and they make up for that by blaming him for Global Warming.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 15, 2008 12:04:56 GMT -4
Bush will continue being blamed for the world's ills for the next 50 years, there's no getting around that. As for global warming, when I see Mr Gore and the vocal entertainment spokespeople changing their lifestyles (beyond driving a Prius or buying "carbon credits", then I might perk up and listen. So long as it's all talk and no action (with all the greenhouse gasses they spew screaming about it), I don't see any "crisis".
There's money to be made in the global warming scare ...advertising themes (hybrid coal powered cars), government and academic research grants, etc. The IPCC has a special place in all the hoopla, the generate no scientific data, but it's members review scientific papers (which they may have even had input in), determining which are valid and which are not. This puts their "findings" into question, at least in my mind. We have scientists blaming hurricanes on global warming, and the lack of hurricanes on global warming...and their fellows are saying they are BOTH right! It makes me dizzy. I live a pretty austere lifestyle, primarily for economic reasons (paying off bills). Small car, pretty minimal energy use. And I'm a recycling fiend...because it makes sense.
Got brothers living about 10 feet above sea level on the east coast...when they have the ocean lapping at their fenceposts, then we'll know. What's the latest prediction...15-20 years? We are dabbling in climate engineering, based on questionable (and sometimes falsified) data. I find this troubling, particularly when the proponents fly in their jets to Bali to talk about the wasteful use and harmful effects of fossil fuels...the hypocrisy staggers me.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 13, 2008 14:48:33 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 13, 2008 15:19:33 GMT -4
And another interesting story: www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htmUnfortunately I don't have the math chops to have more than a vauge idea of how this works. But I find particularly troubling the bit about "Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said that greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory." Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what Einstein was saying about Newton's theories on gravitation. "It's 200 years old. There won't be any dramatic changes to the basic theory now."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 13, 2008 15:49:44 GMT -4
I have to say, one thing that irks me as much as the psuedo-scientists' inability to produce evidence to back up their case, is the ability for scientists to ignore evidence that doesn't. We continually demand proof, but when a new model is shown, even if it has the backing of evidence, if it doesn't match our expectations it gets treated like it garbage. Does anyone remember when it was medical opinion that there was no way that stomach ulcers could be caused by bacteria because no bacteria could possibly survive in the stomach, even after hundreds of patients had been successfully treated for uclers using antibiotics? If Miskolczi's work is truely showing what is claimed, and he's has got it published in a peer-reviewed journal, even if it is a Hungarian one, and is a closer prediction to both Earth and Mars than the current theory, certyain scientists would do better getting their heads out of their behinds and looking into his results to see if he has it right than simply dismissing it because they're using things developed 200 years ago. It'd be a little like dismissing Einstein's Relativity without bothering to invesitagte it.... oh, that's right, a rather large number of scientists did do just that.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 11:21:19 GMT -4
First, one should note that Miklós Zágoni's study is not questioning climate change, but rather he is questioning the idea that global warming will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. Second, I'd note that in referencing the work of Stephen E. Schwartz, Zágoni is referencing a study that author admits is a based on a simplistic model: Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model.www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdfWhether or not Zágoni's study is correct, it is not a study that is questioning the reality of climate change. Or at least it seems to not be such a study -- I haven't found a copy I can read, as of yet. It seems to be a study that questions one possible outcome of climate change. As usual, climate change doubters wave any study in the air that appears to contradict the preponderance of evidence about global warming and climate change.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 14, 2008 11:39:45 GMT -4
Isn't the fact that Zágoni had such trouble publishing a study that merely questions whether a runaway greenhouse effect can exist, not a study that questions whether human activity is causing the global warming that he seems to admit we are experiencing, a sign of just how idealogically-entrenched the believers of human-caused global warming are? They seem unwilling to tolerate even something that only questions their most extreme prophecies of doom.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 11:52:08 GMT -4
Assuming such reports are true of difficulties in publishing. Perhaps they just thought he was a crackpot. I can find no reviews of his study, except for wild-eyed report waving in global warming denier blogs and discussion groups.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 14, 2008 12:44:09 GMT -4
Isn't the fact that Zágoni had such trouble publishing a study... Are all studies necessarily worthy of publication by default?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 14, 2008 12:54:06 GMT -4
I'm seriously bugged by the title of this thread. It is the climate change deniers that are always short on science and rely on some form of unfounded belief, so the topic would make more sense if it instead read "Is Denial of Global Warming a New Religion?"
|
|