Doomsayer Environmentalists are Always Wrong

[Jason]

Jul 15, 2008 18:03:24 GMT -4 @dmundt said:

Oh, boo hoo. Educated people don't agree with conservative, non-scientific ideology. It must be a liberal plot.

In fact, universities are run much more like businesses today -- and this is not a good thing, as it causes the primary function to be the quest for the almighty buck, rather than education.

A somewhat ironic statement on your part, considering that the number two item on the Cornell faculty's list of biggest problems is "Corporations have too much influence in governing".

[dmundt]

Not all universities have been corrupted. Yet.

[dmundt]

Nice try, but no gumball here.

There's no actual proof in the article that human activity is causing the warming described. Instead we get vague hand waves like(....)

Uhm... Jason... this isn't a study about whether or not global warming is caused by humans. The whole world, minus conservatives, has already concluded that humans are causing global warming and therefore climate change. This study is about the effects caused by climate change.

[Ginnie]

Articles about lakes drying up and polar bears suffering are generally worthless without proof of what caused it and what can be done to stop it.

Jason, face it, your mind is made up about this issue and no evidence will change that.
If most of the scientists agreed that we must change the way we live, use resources more efficiently and be lest wasteful, would you disagree with that?
Are you going to wait till we are beyond the point of no return before admitting that global warming is a problem? And then argue using semantics that we didn't know all the facts?
I just don't know why you are so resistant on this issue. Have the rest of us been brainwashed?

And a big welcome back, Wdmundt.
It's been a lot quieter around here without you, and I'm sure Jason has been twiddling his thumbs so much lately that they are raw.

[dmundt]

Thanks for the welcome back.

[Jason]

Jul 15, 2008 19:29:08 GMT -4 Ginnie said:

Jason, face it, your mind is made up about this issue and no evidence will change that.

Not at all. If anyone could present any actual evidence that humans are causing global warming I would be willing to change my mind. Nobody seems to have any such evidence though, just appeals to authority and emotion. "Look at the poor polar bear! Aren't you a monster for not wanting to help the poor polar bear! Think of the children!"

If most of the scientists agreed that we must change the way we live, use resources more efficiently and be lest wasteful, would you disagree with that?

There is nothing wrong with living less wastefully, but there is something wrong with forcing people to live less wastefully, especially if the costs of living less wastefully are more than any benefit produced. There is something wrong with putting vast resources into fighting a problem that isn't there, when there are other much more obvious problems that could use them.

I would have no problem with Global Warmists if they didn't want to force government action to make me join their crusade.

And I have big problems with working up a public hysteria based on shoddy or non-existent science, like Al Gore's ridiculous slide-show that even more ridiculously won him an Oscar and a Nobel Peace prize.

Are you going to wait till we are beyond the point of no return before admitting that global warming is a problem?

I see no reason to believe there is a point of no return.

And then argue using semantics that we didn't know all the facts?
I just don't know why you are so resistant on this issue. Have the rest of us been brainwashed?

Possibly.
If you believe human beings are causing Global Warming then show me the evidence that proves this. Not stuff about how climate is changing - the world gets warmer and colder all the time - stuff that shows that human beings are actually doing it.

Take this article wdmundt linked to. It says basically that scientists ruled out that agricultural activity is having any impact on climate change. "Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts."

Does that sound right to you? Don't you think turning forests into cultivated fields would have some effect on the local climate? Am I the only one who is a little skeptical of such a finding? Don't forests absorb carbon dioxide? How can cutting down forests have no effect on the amount of carbon in the air?

And a big welcome back, Wdmundt.
It's been a lot quieter around here without you, and I'm sure Jason has been twiddling his thumbs so much lately that they are raw.

Yeah, welcome back. I would have said something earlier, but you never told us you were leaving and I wondered if someone else might have just picked up the name of an old account.

[Ginnie]

I would guess that you are against helmet and seatbelt , public smoking and decency laws too - "Who can tell me I have to wear a shirt in public!". ;D
I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, I thought wdmundt had already provided good evidence of global warming - at least that it is happening. You rejected all of it.

Anyways, you were right about one thing, Jason. They are sensitive there over at BAUT aren't they? I'm surprised you haven't gotten banned yet. How did you survive over 1,000 posts? It seems like you not allowed to mention politics and religion there I gather?
I don't know much about either so it won't be hard for me... ;D

[Jason]

There's good evidence backing up helmets, seatbelts, and the damage caused by smoking.
Decency laws are a little more problematic to prove the need for but I'm willing to back them on religious grounds.

Evidence that the climate is changing isn't evidence that humanity is causing it. Therefore forcing big expensive laws on us is not justified.

And I use BAUT mostly to prove my geek cred. There is too much noise over there to have a really serious discussion on anything.

[Data Cable]

Jul 15, 2008 22:44:10 GMT -4 Jason said:

Evidence that the climate is changing isn't evidence that humanity is causing it. Therefore forcing big expensive laws on us is not justified.

You still seem to be suggesting that mankind has no inherent interest in solving problems which it did not cause.

[bazbear]

All I can say is this; why take chances? But $4 a gallon fuel might be the self correcting thing we need. That said Jason, if you truly believe humankind isn't behind at least a signifigant part of this warming trend, you're writing off a lot of troubling evidence (much of it from people sitting on the fence as recently as a few years ago) as a huge batch of coincidence. And by the way, I've still not seen Gore's movie (nor do I care if I ever do)

[Jason]

Jul 16, 2008 1:11:17 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Jul 15, 2008 22:44:10 GMT -4 Jason said:

Evidence that the climate is changing isn't evidence that humanity is causing it. Therefore forcing big expensive laws on us is not justified.

You still seem to be suggesting that mankind has no inherent interest in solving problems which it did not cause.

Not at all.
We need a full understanding of the cause of the problem before we can correct it. If human release of carbon into the atmosphere is not causing climate change, then curtailing that release isn't going to solve the problem, is it?

[Jason]

Jul 16, 2008 2:17:23 GMT -4 bazbear said:

All I can say is this; why take chances?

Because it's expensive. We have to have reasonable expectations of recieiving the benefits we pay for, especially when we could be using those resources in areas that will pay off more benefits.

That said Jason, if you truly believe humankind isn't behind at least a signifigant part of this warming trend, you're writing off a lot of troubling evidence (much of it from people sitting on the fence as recently as a few years ago) as a huge batch of coincidence.

The troubling evidence all appears to be that warming is occurring, not that humans are causing it. It would only be a troubling coincidence if the trend followed human industrial activity, the purported cause, but it doesn't.

[dmundt]

I think you really have to have your head in the sand to believe that humans aren't causing global warming. I can't even imagine the how you get there. I guess that's why you have to cling to every report about low sun activity or late-season snow.

[Jason]

Jul 16, 2008 11:24:46 GMT -4 @dmundt said:

I think you really have to have your head in the sand to believe that humans aren't causing global warming.

Because so many other people believe it? Where's the evidence? Why do these other people believe it?

If it's so obvious why can't you or they demonstrate it?

[dmundt]

Science gives us a pretty good understanding of greenhouse gases and their effects on the atmosphere. Humans are pumping extraordinary amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Computer modeling shows us what is likely to happen. Observed effects largely match predictions. Do the match exactly? No. But it is obvious to everyone but you and those who think like you that continued forcing of greenhouse gases into the closed system that is the Earth's atmosphere is going to have catastrophic effects.

You want to talk about expensive? Expensive would be a relatively small shift in rainfall patterns. Arizona becomes wet. The midwest becomes dry. Guess what? We can't grow crops in Arizona. That would be expensive.

Now, if I had my head in the sand, I wouldn't know that -- I suppose.