Well I suppose that you’ve missed your chance and will just have to live with someone else’s’ then.I could use their methods and propose a mechanism, myself – but it would cause me to break out in hives.
I get better results by avoiding sophistry and resisting the temptation to make money off the gullible.
I’d take exception if you were directing those comments at me personally.I get better results by avoiding sophistry and resisting the temptation to make money off the gullible.
I was not aware you were making money off Global Warming. What’s your scam?
And at least one of them has won an Oscar.
If you’re me - and I make no claims to being a climatologist - you evaluate the evidence being presented to you given the science that you do know, and mix it with common sense to evaluate if you believe the evidence is good or not.
I’ve no way of working that out myself. When you get to want precise answers like that, you need to go to the actual research
It is actual measured data, but that data is that the sun has been burning hotter for 100-150 years and that for the last 60 years it has been hotter than at any time since we have been able to gauge it’s temperature. See:
Science has conclusively proven that during many periods in the past the earth has been hotter, and often FAR hotter, than it is now. You can not look at just the more recent history and ignore the larger body of history preceding it.
Actually, the historical record shows that vegetation and animal life thrives as temperatures increase, not the reverse. The problems we have with feeding and treating the world’s poor has a lot more to do with the corruption in their governments than it will ever have to do with the climate.
No, I do not believe it. Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you or I do not believe it either:
Mike, you say all this and yet you completely dismiss the undeniable evidence that the sun is burning hotter now than at any time in recorded history and choose to believe that we almighty humans have far more power to alter global temperature than the sun does. How does your common sense justify ignoring the people who know more about these matters than you who are pointing that out as the cause of the current warming?
Which part, out of the three questions I asked, do you not answer ‘yes’ to? Because to me the answers to these three questions are quite straightforward.
I think I got a taste for that site by seeing the Al Gore t-shirts they were selling.
The IPCC say they have taken the increased level of solar activity into account. I haven’t seen anything to show they are wrong.
I’m neither conceited or happy about the power mankind has over his environment, but in a world where a nuclear war would wipe out most life in minutes, I’m not going to underestimate it either.
I’m not ignoring them. However I’m not convinced by them; I’m more convinced by the vast majority of those who know more than me who say that it is happening and we are to blame. How do you justify ignoring all those people, and just listening to the few who narrate a message you happen to want to agree with?
Swindle and control by the politically correct left. No matter how much proof (the do not like real facts) is provided, they will never give their agenda of control. Their scare tactics recently has been ramped up since more and more are doubting their findings.
Unfortunately Mike I don’t think the crowd here will listen to you. You’ve been through this on many a thread. Their minds are made up and no matter what you post they will say there is no evidence (even though the IPCC has reams and reams of data) and then post a link to an opinion piece as their own “evidence”
For once you and I agree. You look at data and see global warming caused by man, I look at the same data and see no correlation between man and global warming. You are not going to change and neither am I. I think we can all agree to do our best to take care of the world God has given us, we may differ on how to best do that and that is our big argument. Putting efficient factories in the US/Europe out of business and replacing them with less efficient factories in a 3rd world country that has been granted some sort of exemption from Kyoto or more government regulations is not the answer. Now that my charity meters are running at full speed, I will abandon this thread and return to something less argumentive.Unfortunately Mike I don’t think the crowd here will listen to you. You’ve been through this on many a thread. Their minds are made up and no matter what you post they will say there is no evidence (even though the IPCC has reams and reams of data) and then post a link to an opinion piece as their own “evidence”
I’ve even seen them post a link where the text completely contradicted the point they were trying to make.
Once, when I suggested in a thread that the IPCC data was too voluminous to post here I was accused of somehow being disingenuous.
Kind of reminds me of the anti-evolution crowd; viewing consensus as conspiracy.
Look at the first post in this thread, it laments
“Why don’t we hear this side of the story here in the U.S.?”
As if there is some sort of conspiracy of silence when the writer is clearly in the US and has obviously heard it.
I know that my irony meters were ticking.
What do you mean “unprecedented?” We put in less in our whole history than one good volcanoic erruption.
Up and down.
I still say it’s caused by Rock and Roll.
Minimally – I keep remembering all those poor sheep in Argentina who went blind because of the hole in the ozone layer.
Now all you have to do is prove it empirically.
San Diego State University disagree, and also point out that volcano eruptions also have a natural countering effect:
Recently it’s been up, up. up, up.
We came together and solved the problem. We did a few things differently, globally. The economic system didn’t collapse, either.Minimally – I keep remembering all those poor sheep in Argentina who went blind because of the hole in the ozone layer.
The IPCC have, as close as you can expect from a system like the climate given current understanding of science.
Yes to all three. You won’t find anyone who disagrees, whether they say climate change is happening or not.
I believe some scientists have. I wasn’t around to notice if there was the broad consensus that there is now; I suspect there wasn’t. Either way, even if they’ve cried wolf before, are we happy to go back to bed without checking if there really is a wolf this time? I’m not.
Fortunately, I don’t expect to convince, though I hope I bring some balance to the conversations and people don’t think all Catholics are on the ‘it’s not happening, or it is but we’re not causing it, or we are but we can’t do anything about it’ side of the argument.
You know Steve, I’m someone who doesn’t take a strong position on either side of this argument, but I have found the viewpoints of the “deniers” as more logical.
I like the reasoned approach of people like Dr. Ball, who say we should do postitive things for the environment regardless, but we shouldn’t do stupid things like Kyoto.