Consensus on Global Warming?Follow

Apparently you missed the second bolded section, to wit: "In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements."

Again, the IPCC in of itself was never my "trump card". If the IPCC was signed entirely by monkeys, it wouldn't change the fact that the consensus among actual research bodies doing actual studies and actually getting published is that ACC is indeed real.

In fact, you wanted to cry about the signatories to the IPCC and how many were real scientists and whatnot. The section I quoted doesn't even address the IPCC signatories but merely mentions that the IPCC notes that that all the studies point to ACC.

I've invited you many, many times to simply start linking to some studies to the contrary. That's all. Honestly, that'd do leagues more to disprove the notion of consensus than this embarassment you're currently on.

It's a trade off. Even if man-made global warming were a fallacy, such a campaign would have undeniably positive long term effects on our water, air, and other natural resource supplies. When you consider that a single B2 bomber costs more than double that $300 million price tag, the "heavy cost" of such thinking becomes nothing more than propaganda for the industries that helped cause the problem in the first place.

Oh god, back to the "lowering our emissions will cost us hugely economically, and cost us hugely as a society" fallacy.


NO. it will Adversley affect SOME people's jobs, and SOME people's businesses, BUT NOT a majority of people's jobs or business, and the net economic and social gains will outweigh the costs.

It's going to be like all the horse and steam powered industries and jobs losing out when we switched over to petrol and electricity, but did society lose out in the long run? No, our wealth and technology flowered like never before.

Of COURSE the coal and petrochemical industries are crying. But it's not anyone's responsibility to set our society in stone for them. In Australia, we have universal unemployment benefits (at a set single rate) no matter WHY you lost your job, and government funded re-training, for people who lose their jobs. For the people with investments in an old technology, they should have followed the FIRST RULE OF INVESTING YOUR MONEY.

DIVERSIFY, DIVERSIFY, DIVERSIFY.


let's look at an example, culled from a science "magazine" type documentary I watched two nights ago. Sorry, It was heard, I don't know the correct spelling of the first city.

The city of Woking (or something) in GB, has just already implemented a new CHP, Combined Heat and Power, solution for it's city. It has dropped the the city's utilities' greenhouse gas output by 70%, and everyone's utilities bills have gone DOWN by 10%. It's so successful, that the City of London has headhunted the guy responsible for managing it, to do the exact same thing to London. And it's all done with off the shelf technology available right now.

The combined system produces electricity from a variety of sources, heating of buildings, heating of domestic and business's water supply, AND, in the "tri-step" phase, air-conditioned cool air.

Edited, May 24th 2008 2:47am by Aripyanfar