Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,557 Posts
A qoute from the article you posted. You may want to read them thoroughly before posting.


Nor should the new study "be taken out of context to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat -- it is," he added.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,888 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
A qoute from the article you posted. You may want to read them thoroughly before posting.

Nor should the new study "be taken out of context to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat -- it is," he added.
I never suggested it wasn't serious, nor have I ever said we should dismiss it. I've only contested that it's an ever changing science that can't always be taken as fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,819 Posts
The climate is always changing the big ??? is what causes it.About 10K years ago it was cold as hell and I bet those folks were blaming their actions for the cold weather.Can any of these climate gurus tell me what the temp will be at the CBBT on Feb.17th.My thoughts on this subject is to follow the $$$$$$$$.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
I never suggested it wasn't serious, nor have I ever said we should dismiss it. I've only contested that it's an ever changing science that can't always be taken as fact.
Ok, I will suggest it...no state it. Climate change, as caused by human beings, is not to be taken seriously. It is a ruse, duping those that are uninformed for years, while many people make millions. Climate change, as a natural cycle, is real and is no cause for concern because we can't do a damn thing about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
There is no more evidence to support your claim than the claim of the reverse side. It is merely opinion based not on science nor evidence but uneducated thought processes. I tend to agree with Jerry that it is money driven but stating that our opinions are facts misses the point of the debate and ends all debate. If we are not going to debate the science and merely personal opinions then there is not much need for the discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
There is no more evidence to support your claim than the claim of the reverse side. It is merely opinion based not on science nor evidence but uneducated thought processes. I tend to agree with Jerry that it is money driven but stating that our opinions are facts misses the point of the debate and ends all debate. If we are not going to debate the science and merely personal opinions then there is not much need for the discussion.
I don't remember if you were around when I asked this question before. Why were temperatures much warmer than you or I have ever seen, 7,000 years ago? There were no SUV's or coal burning factories then. Don't feel bad, no one could answer it before either.

Climatic Optimum
Warmest period during the Holocene epoch. This period is dated from about 5,000 to 3,000 BC. During this time average global temperatures were 1 to 2° Celsius warmer than they are today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,849 Posts
Are we still talking about this? You guys might have better luck photographing Sasquatch than pinpointing or debunking the causes of global warming with even 90% accuracy. How about we debate something meaningful like the Bush legacy. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,348 Posts
Yeah - Global cooling was all the rage 30 years ago, and it did not bear out either. I'm OK with it either way, because the hype is helping drive environmental awareness through policy and individual actions on a very broad scale.

I think both side of the aisle can agree that cleaner air and water is a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Yeah - Global cooling was all the rage 30 years ago, and it did not bear out either. I'm OK with it either way, because the hype is helping drive environmental awareness through policy and individual actions on a very broad scale.

I think both side of the aisle can agree that cleaner air and water is a good thing.
Agree 100%. But, I think people make a mistake by trying to equate the two issues. I wish we could take a % of the billions wasted on global warming bunk and put it toward really cleaning the water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,819 Posts
I`m lookin forward to the day I can fill my fuel tank up with H2O,but you can bet your sweet ass someone will find a way to charge the **** out of me to do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
I don't remember if you were around when I asked this question before. Why were temperatures much warmer than you or I have ever seen, 7,000 years ago? There were no SUV's or coal burning factories then. Don't feel bad, no one could answer it before either.

Climatic Optimum
Warmest period during the Holocene epoch. This period is dated from about 5,000 to 3,000 BC. During this time average global temperatures were 1 to 2° Celsius warmer than they are today.
I think my point was that I don't know and you don't either. 7,000 years ago or today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
I think my point was that I don't know and you don't either. 7,000 years ago or today.
My point is that we do know that temps. were much higher by today's standards 7k years ago. So how about we stop spending billions on a BS idea and put it where it may actually be of use. The politicians are spending our money as if they do know. If I or you or any politician want to believe in it, fine. But for those that know it is bunk, stop spending our money on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,581 Posts
Who "knows" it is bunk?

We are dealing with science, at work. Science is not "the truth." It is a process. It shapes our understanding of the present and comes up with predictions about the future. Sometimes, the results of this process are less clear due the complexity of the problem being studied and the limitations of the tools with which to study it, so scientists will often disagree about how to interpret certain results, or even about the results, themselves.

So, policymakers, when setting policy based on science, need to make the following determinations: Did the results arise from a scientific method? If so, then how often has science duplicated those results? Has a plurality of scientists (those who have strictly followed the scientific method) reached an agreement on the validity of the results? On what predictions has a plurality of scientists reached a consensus on how these results shape our likely future? What solutions have science offered to deal with that future and how feasible are those solutions to implement right now?

Of course, scientific results and predictions are not always correct. If one bases policies on science, on needs to be prepared to adjust those policies as the science leads us to new understandings. This is why, before enacting policies (and, especially, before devoting treasure), one must weigh the consequences of failing to act.

Throughout history, however, civilization has thrived when it followed the lead of science and suffered when it discounted it in favor of faith (be it religious faith, or faith in some other dogma….I personally feel that God and science are perfectly compatible, since I believe that God gave us the tools to conduct science for a reason, but that’s a different discussion).

So, going back to global warming, we seem to have a plurality of scientists who are convinced that the results derived through science demonstrate that human activity has had a substantial impact on the climate, and that these results predict an even greater impact going forward. They also predict a way to reduce the seriousness of man’s impact on global climate change. I have not heard of anyone predicting that the earth’s climate has not, is not or will not change (one way or another) absent man’s contribution -- only that many appears to be exacerbating the issue.

CZ and others, your chief concern seems to be that the earth’s climate is so complex and our tools to understand the present, let alone the past or especially the future, are so primitive that we cannot spend so much treasure on policies based on this science. In defense of this argument, you cite the fact that some scientists disagree on the nature and cause of global warming. Based on this reasoning, however, I assume that you would not have advocated pouring considerable treasure into military or medicinal research projects, for example, all of which were based on imperfect scientific information, many of which failed to amount to anything, but a number of which changed our lives immeasurably.

I certainly am not qualified to begin to discuss the ins and outs of global warming theory with any authority. I do find very odd, however, the base premise of some skeptics that man’s activities cannot contribute significantly to climate change. Very strong and not particularly controversial scientific results suggest that he earth’s present climate was created by organisms. The link between CO2 from volcanism and global warming is also fairly well documented. So at base, man-made global warming theory does not strike me as a crazy notion, given that we create lots of CO2 and are hardly the first organism capable of significantly impacting the climate. And we also have very strong documentation about the impact of a warming climate on sea levels, so we understand very well what that would mean to our economy and national security.

On the other hand, many ways to address global warming boil down (pun intended) to simply chewing through less of the earth’s resources, which anyone can see we are currently doing at a rate that is ridiculously unsustainable (fresh water, oil, food plants, food animals, industrial minerals). These are things that we must (quickly) address now, regardless of global warming. Actually, if global warming theory proves incorrect and we are, instead, heading into a period of significant, prolonged (on a human scale) global cooling, then addressing these shortages becomes even more urgent.

In the end, then, the global warming debate distills down to just one major issue currently on the policy table: carbon sequestration. That at least makes the debate more manageable, right? Can anyone think of any other issue that is unique to the global warming debate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Ok, I will suggest it...no state it. Climate change, as caused by human beings, is not to be taken seriously. It is a ruse, duping those that are uninformed for years, while many people make millions. Climate change, as a natural cycle, is real and is no cause for concern because we can't do a damn thing about it.
I'm sorry. I guess I was confused. Your statement seemed to be about climate change. There was no mention of the money being spent until much later in the discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,819 Posts
Yep it`s a wonder Bob Newhart didn`t do something with the bottled water like he did with tobacco in his Sir Walter Raleigh skit.P T Barnum don`t have anything on the person who came up with that scheme to convince people to pay a buck for a bottle of water,infact I have seen it go for double that.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top