Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
I myself am trying to fully grasp all that is in this bill and trying to find out what is really in it and how the wording is to be interpeted.
I'd like that too, and that's why posting something from a conservative OR liberal source is a waste of time. As soon as someone says they're conservative or liberal they've admitted a bias and I take their comments with a grain of salt.
A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species." We need comments from someone who can point out the ridiculousness of his argument, even if you accept the somewhat-implausible argument.
Gore stated it pretty well right there. We're not talking about some doomsday scenario for mankind (well maybe thousands or years from now) we're talking about making the weather more extreme which has economic and quality of life ramifications. We don't need to live like we're in the stone age, but we should try to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible without hurting the economy. Which CAN be done. Or we'll probably pay the consequences later this century.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 4, 2011 - 01:16pm PT
|
"As soon as someone says they're conservative or liberal they've admitted a bias and I take their comments with a grain of salt."
I don't find this so much to be a left-right divide, but rather a divide in who is promoting which POV, and why. There's a lot of smoke on the surface of the science. Pay attention to who is fanning the flames that's causing the smoke.
We need comments from someone who can point out the ridiculousness of his argument, even if you accept the somewhat-implausible argument.
Yes, they'll pay you if you can sing a good tune, even if you don't believe the words of the song.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Corniss, are you really that stupid?
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
So you know the proper amount of moisture that should be in the air?
Did you learn it from the same source you learned the proper temperature
of the Earth?
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
Think you are close to admitting defeat on this global warming issue Dr F.
Al Gore is a laughing stock. The IPCC reports are toilet paper.
Warmists make silly claim that any and all weather is now evidence of AGW.
When the crazy guy with "THE END IS NEAR" sign becomes your poster boy
its time to move on.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
Dr F you've been rendered harmless. Republicans control the House.
Your side has the right to wave reports in the air and warn of disaster
in dire tones. But you're not getting any more money from us via cap and trade schemes.
Have fun. You'll get tired of it after you see its not
netting the millions hoped for and move on to some new scam.
Supporting the several on going projects to get efficient wood burning stoves to the billions who cook their daily meal using biomass would be an
excellent area to focus on. Implementing Forestry & Ag burning delays till after the snow pack has melted would be another.
Carbon Taxing people to death is not the answer.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
why should you let CC get your goat, Dr. F
an anonymous voice, "a nose picker from the back of the pack"
someone who decides that the the shield of anonymity allows them to make any sort of outrageous claim just to stir things up with out any responsibility or consequence
there is no basis for most of the statements made by CC, just enough to get a rise, and if that doesn't work just notch it up a few and see...
CC (actually far from anonymous for those who know how do dig) has no other reason here then to be provocative for its own sake, rarely makes a substantive contribution
You're starting to sound a little whacko/scary there. You might want to nip the implied threat to out the identity of anonymous posters in the bud--I've never seen anything good come from that direction.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
^ ^ ^
Not quite sure what you're getting at but I'm only talking about identity being "outed".
You've got some other "outing" issues? Sorry, can't help with you with those, but hope it works out for you :)
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
Bruce Kay - must be humbling to find out just now that you lost the debate on climate change years ago.
Warmists seem not to be on any learning curve other than how to gather
research grants and supporting the theory that C02 is a big problem.
Making the same old predictions of disaster that were made before
(and did not come true) and expecting us to believe them this time is a bit insulting.
cheers
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Did you ever notice that conservatives are the least into conservation?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 7, 2011 - 09:23pm PT
|
This from an article on how the Koch brothers rule the current GOP agenda:
Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the [House Energy and Commerce Committee] panel signed a pledge distributed by a Koch-founded advocacy group — Americans for Prosperity — to oppose the Obama administration's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases. Of the six GOP freshman lawmakers on the panel, five benefited from the group's separate advertising and grass-roots activity during the 2010 campaign.
Claiming an electoral mandate, Republicans on the committee have launched an agenda of the sort long backed by the Koch brothers. A top early goal: restricting the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Kochs' core energy businesses.
...
The legislation is in line with the Kochs' long-advocated stance that the federal government should have a minimal role in regulating business. The Kochs' oil refineries and chemical plants stand to pay millions to reduce air pollution under currently proposed EPA regulations.
(And there's Citizens v United at work for you.)
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Cornhole...The ice caps are melting so this means the planet is getting A. colder B. warmer . C. none of the above or D. all of the above
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Port:
Ill play devil's advocate
Climate issues aside, I read an intro like this and wonder what kind of person, looking 'round at the world today, believes the devil needs one more advocate.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
Ed, Chiloe, et alia,
Would you care to comment on Thomas S. Kuhn's ideas on "normal science", consensus thinking, anomalies and crises in "normal science", the invisibility and resolution of revolutions in science, and how these ideas might inform the climate change discussion?
After reading Kuhn's work some have been known to say "science destroys it's own history", which unfairly portrays scientists in a "fad of the day" light. Once I heard a very wise old professor of mine quip "science digests it's own history", which is perhaps more insightful.
It's been a long time since I read Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions but I often wonder if what has emerged as a widely embraced paradigm of global warming and climate change will ultimately be subsumed, digested if you will, by a more comprehensive understanding somewhere down the road.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Dropline, I don't think climate science is a "paradigm" according to most of Kuhn's meanings (someone counted about 30 meanings, I think). Some current thinking about climate is bound to change...
* Regional and seasonal effects
* Storms and extreme weather events
* Can the big ice sheets destabilize quickly, or not?
* Effects on circulation
* Ecosystem impacts
* and what about those clathrates?
Other things seem pretty well established...
* The physics of greenhouse gases
* Human contribution to atmospheric CO2
* Prediction from above of rising global temperatures
* Observations that global temperatures are rising, in the predicted patterns:
- warming nights more than days
- warmer winters more than summers
- Arctic amplification
* Failure of alternative explanations (sun, climate cylcles etc.) for this pattern of changes
* Albedo feedbacks in the North
(Neither list is complete.) Anyway, there's a great deal of scientific interest in this whole area right now because (1) the consequences are huge; and (2) there's so much we don't know (that's the whole point of doing science!).
It's sure as hell not because there's money to be made, politics to be advanced, or scientists just like all those death threats they're getting.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!