'What can we do about global warming?'

[SILVERNAME]

When 400 bona fide climate and atmospheric scientists, with impeccable credentials, say they don’t buy into man-made catastrophic global warming, politician-for-life Al Gore, without any evidence to back up his scurrilous and defamatory accusation, suggests they are all being paid off by big business.

I think I’m very safe in making this statement without any investigation whatsoever: Al Gore has been paid off more by big business in his political career than all 400 of those scientists put together.

Yet, no one calls this Nobel Peace Prize winner on it. He can say anything and get away with it – even be rewarded for it. He can tell any lie – and take home awards for it. He can hurl slanderous accusations that describe no one better than himself.

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59606

 

[ribozyme]

And there are a few scientists who have signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.”

 

[melensdad]

And there are a few scientists who have signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.”

Once again you have totally taken someone’s post and changed the topic to divert the thread. Your statement has nothing to do with this thread. Please stop doing that and stay on topic. You do this in many of the threads you post in and you manipulate their posts to suit your goals.

SILVERNAME:

When 400 bona fide climate and atmospheric scientists, with impeccable credentials, say they don’t buy into man-made catastrophic global warming. . .

It is my understanding that these scientists do not dispute the fact that the world has gotten slightly warmer. It is also my understanding that they do not dispute that a warming world could lead to some ecological consequences. Where these scientists depart from the shriek mongers and press hounds like Mr Gore is that they back up their statements with science and show that the earth has warming and cooling cycles that naturally occur. Further they cite evidence that the earth is in a natural warming cycle right now. Further they cite evidence that the earth is a very complex environment and there are MANY natural causes that have huge natural impacts on the cycles of the planet.

So they do not dispute global warming, per se. They dispute, and they do so with scientific vigor, the scenarios of doom and gloom that Al Gore spews forth.

Further, most of the scientists who support Al Gore and his ilk are not scientists who study the climate. Most of the scientists who back up Mr Gore are scientists who argue from the *“what if his presumptions are correct” *standpoint.

 

[He_Man]

And there are a few scientists who have signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.”

Another irrelevant post, thanks.

 

[ribozyme]

Once again you have totally taken someone’s post and changed the topic to divert the thread. Your statement has nothing to do with this thread. Please stop doing that and stay on topic. You do this in many of the threads you post in and you manipulate their posts to suit your goals.

From the OP

When 400 bona fide climate and atmospheric scientists, with impeccable credentials, say they don’t buy into man-made catastrophic global warming, politician-for-life Al Gore, without any evidence to back up his scurrilous and defamatory accusation, suggests they are all being paid off by big business.

So it is relevant…

I pointed out that the 400 scientists who dispute global warming is analagous to the politically motivated document by the Discovery Institute “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” when most scientists accept biological evolution like most scientists accept anthropogenic global warming.

 

[melensdad]

From the OP

So it is relevant…

I pointed out that the 400 scientists who dispute global warming is analagous to the politically motivated document by the Discovery Institute “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” when most scientists accept biological evolution like most scientists accept anthropogenic global warming.

No you pointed out something that has NOTHING to do with THIS topic.

Further, you mistakenly lumped these two groups of scientists into your own stereotype of illegitimate scientists and you did this by making some huge assumptions. Clearly the comparison is NOT analogous* (by the way, you spelled ‘analogous’ wrong too).*

Further, you did not back up your assumption that these scientists are somehow not legitimate scientists who study the climate.

Please stop making irrelevant posts. It is tiring and you are not adding to the threads in any legitimate way when you divert the discussions . . . as you have successfully done again. But you proved that childish posts can derail legitimate discussions (again).

 

[b_justb]

‘What can we do about global warming?’

Make sure the new SUV you buy is made in the USA.

 

[ribozyme]

No you pointed out something that has NOTHING to do with THIS topic.

Further, you did not back up your assumption that these scientists are somehow not legitimate scientists who study the climate.

Well, certainly some climate change skeptics fit within the right-wing pro-business stereotype (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, Fraser Institute, Cato Institute, etc.) I will indeed acknowledge there are a few sincere deniers of global warming out there who are NOT politically motivated (like Lomborg). Furthermore, there are people who disagree with anthropogenic global warming who have made major contributions such as Kary Mullis.

However, I usually become skeptical about these petitions signed by scientists who challenge consensus.

But do you want to know who is on the list? Ray Kurzweil? Is he a respected climate scientist?

Legendary inventor Ray Kurzweil, described as “an inventor whose work in artificial intelligence has dazzled technological sophisticates for four decades” according to May 2, 2007 CNN article, dismissed former Vice President Al Gore’s climate views. “These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don’t account for anything like the technological progress we’re going to experience,” Kurzweil said, according to the CNN article. … (LINK) In a June 19, 2006 interview with the Washington Post, Kurzweil elaborated more on technology. “None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can’t do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution,” he said. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes," he concluded.

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Yeah, he is a real climate scientist. However, he does believe in anthropogenic global warming, but he does not consider it it a problem. I do not know if Kurzweil’s nanobots would save the day, but he most certainly agrees that someone must be done about global warming. I do agree that the scenarios of ragnarok can be rectified by adopting appropriate policy changes.

But I wanted to point out that since someone like Kurzweil (and Freeman Dyson) made the list, it is possible that some (or most) of the 400 aren’t climate specialists.

 

[melensdad]

Well, certainly some climate change skeptics fit within the right-wing pro-business stereotype (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, Fraser Institute, Cato Institute, etc.)

I’m not even sure who all those people are, and don’t listen/read/watch any of them, but none of them were included in the OP so there is no reason to bring them up now.

But do you want to know who is on the list? Ray Kurzweil? Is he a respected climate scientist? . . .
Yeah, he is a real climate scientist. . . . he does believe in anthropogenic global warming,*** but he does not*** consider it it a problem.

And that last phrase says it all. Thank you.

Now for future posts please stay on topic and stop your childish deviations and attempts to misdirect and discredit others.

 

[ribozyme]

I’m not even sure who all those people are, and don’t listen/read/watch any of them, but none of them were included in the OP.

Kurzweil obviously does not support a complacent attitude to address global warming though. If this is the sentiment that the OP wanted to convey, it is contradicted by at least one signatory. I do think a ragnarok scenario would happen if we do not intervene (as stated by Kurzweil, he supports using nanotechnology to intervene.)

When 400 bona fide climate and atmospheric scientists, with impeccable credentials, say they don’t buy into man-made catastrophic global warming, politician-for-life Al Gore, without any evidence to back up his scurrilous and defamatory accusation, suggests they are all being paid off by big business.

Furthermore, the OP was trying to convey that the signatories were climate and atmospheric scientists, but I could find three examples (Kurzweil, Dyson, Motl) whose expertise isn’t in climatology and whose work I am somewhat familiar with.

 

[melensdad]

. . . and whose work I am somewhat familiar with.

blah blah blah . . . and now we are supposed to take your rambling as expert testimony too :bowdown:

You spent more time in this thread trying to justify your off topic comment than anything else. I think you’ve proved the point that I have been making and you’ve done a good job of it too!

PS — Thanks to the two PMs that I received about you, I now know how to use the IGNORE feature. :knight2:

 

[steveandersen]

…
Yet, no one calls this Nobel Peace Prize winner on it. …]

I’m not sure that you can say no one calls him on it when you are calling him on it and providing a link to a site that is calling him on it.
The irony is astounding.

I’m reminded of the time I was listening to a radio talk show and the host kept saying “You won’t hear this on the radio!” every time he made a point. :whacky:

There are lots of people who “call” him on it.
They just happen not to have a preponderance of the evidence on their side.
WorldNetDaily:

Practically everyone in the federal government is part of the scam – from George W. Bush to the Congress to the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Education and so on.

And that’s just the start of how big this conspiracy is.

You can’t have a conspiracy if “everyone” is in on it

 

[MHalsey]

There are lots of people who “call” him on it.
They just happen not to have a preponderance of the evidence on their side.

Just curious, but is the preponerance of evidence the nine or so proven fallacies in his big “documentary”?

 

[john1863]

Sticking to the original question I believe we need to :

1. Accept that global warming (climate change) is real, regardless of its causes.
2. Begin planning for the future. If land-bound ice continues to melt, we will see substantial rises in sea levels. Let’s just plan ahead.
3. Start research into the potential benefits of this change. Climate has changed before, it will change again. Maybe there is some good to be found.
4. All become better stewards of our environment. Even if we aren’t the cause of climate change, we can still be incredible pigs at times.

John

 

[Mr.Bee]

I personally think that both sides of this issue are in denial to a certain degree. Listening to the mainstream media, the solutions seem to be buying our way out of this predicament. But what it really comes down to is economics, and most everybody wants a solution that doesn’t disrupt our American quality of life and consumer lifestyle.

Symbolic as it might seem, the solutions are:

• stop driving so much
• stop talking on your cel phone so much
• stop flying everywhere so much
• stop using your credit card
• stop buying from overseas…

I could go on

But many don’t see this as the problem, or the abuses are comitted by others.

The environment is obviously being damaged regardless of who’s the blame. The economy is going to hell in a handbasket. So my point is; what have we got to lose by being more responsible overall?

 

[Ender]

The environment is obviously being damaged regardless of who’s the blame. The economy is going to hell in a handbasket. So my point is; what have we got to lose by being more responsible overall?

Be more precise: harm to the environment is not the same as global warming which is not the same issue as anthropogenic global warming.

I believe that:

• we should take all reasonable steps to protect the environment
• the earth is warming
• man is not the cause
• no significant problem has been caused by warming so far
• no significant problems will be caused by future warming
• man cannot meaningfully reduce whatever warming will occur.

I am familiar with the scenarios of what could happen; I just consider the likelihood of any of them actually occurring to be miniscule. More to the point of the OP, I am unaware of any proposal that could conceivably reduce warming. The answer to the question asked is: nothing.

Ender

 

[Brian_C]

Joe D’Aleo and his icecap.us blog provide some good global warming counterpoints. A’leo and other like-minded climatologists point out there are a variety of long-term weather trends affecting our climate at the moment that, in their opinion account for most, if not all the recent warming. Interesting stuff from well-respected folks. What’s more interesting is that when I try and search the blogs of some of the more rabid, yet impeccably-credentialed AGW folks like Realclimate.org, I can’t find much if any mention of these climate forcers.

 

[Larry1700]

I think we should do exactly what all of our ancestors did when the temperatures began increasing or decreasing. They either adapted, or moved to another locale more suitable to their lifestyle.

 

[Dale_M]

I think we should do exactly what all of our ancestors did when the temperatures began increasing or decreasing. They either adapted, or moved to another locale more suitable to their lifestyle.

Is that why President Bush advocated establishing a colony on the moon?

I have to agree with Ribozyme - there are always dissenters in science (which is a good thing). Albert Einstein had to contend with a document called 100 Scientists Against Einstein. His somewhat famous reply: If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

Our state climatologist says that global warming is real, but that it is uncertain if human activity is the cause of it. Frankly, there are so many other things which need attention (and being better stewards of the environment is included) that I don’t give much thought to the topic.

 

[Larry1700]

…there are always dissenters in science (which is a good thing).

And who decides who’s labelled as a “dissenter?” Couldn’t those who believe global warming is a man-made problem be considered “dissenters” for disagreeing with those who don’t? There are many reputable scientists on both sides of the issue. The difference is that the media likes to hype disaster-mentality in order to increase their market share, so the so-called “dissenters” don’t get equal press.

Our state climatologist says that global warming is real, but that it is uncertain if human activity is the cause of it. Frankly, there are so many other things which need attention (and being better stewards of the environment is included) that I don’t give much thought to the topic.

Exactly!