Global warming is a crockFollow

Ok, let it be known that scientists have no fricking clue as to what is happening to our global ecosystem. Have average temperatures risen in recent years? Sure, but that does not mean **** sapiens (or just plain ol' **** in bhodi's case) need to go all kneejerk and start legislating CO2 mandates in a confused effort to somehow control greenhouse gasses.

This is a far more complicated issue than requiring car manufacturers to limit exhaust emissions.

I'm prepared to discusss this rationally with the board, even knowing there are a bunch of dirt worshipping eco-pagans residing here. So throw your ill-informed leftist propoganda at me and let's debate.

Totem

You're basing this on what? I hope this alone isn't what passes as "rational dicussion" to you.

You didn't answer my question.

Ok, let's use weather, Joph. We've been hearing that incidence of "killer" hurricanes-- particularly Katrina -- are based on warming sea water, which is supposedly a product of global temperatures rising. And yet this past year, one which had higher water temperatures than any other recorded in our short meterological history, we have fewer hurricanes than in most yrears past. And those few hurricanes we had were of less strength than is typical of any given year.

This is a "scientific" prediction that is taken 6 months or less from the upcoming season and they can't get it right. With a track record of 50% accuracy at best, how can we even fathom legislating change on something which is millenia in perspective when weather scientists (who are supposed to be observing bellweather changes that point to larger global issues) cannot even get something correct in a half-year timeframe?

Totem

Actually, no, my mind is open to the possiblity that global warming may in fact be a product of man made byproducts, yet I do not stake my life on this, nor do I propose we enact legislation that mandates we do just that. My opion is tha we don't know enough to make even the remotest of educated guesses about what's going on out side of some possible sources of CO2-- of which human created CO2 is miniscule.

I was expecting the hippy masses of this board to pile on and attempt to drown me in "studies" and "facts" that only proved their political affliation-- not that global warming is a threat.

Totem

I'm just asking what you're basing this opinion on. Because we didn't have enough hurricanes, you're of the mind that scientists are clueless in all matters of climatology?

And, if they are, does that mean that studies refuting man-made global warming are fatally flawed as well?

snow? man, I miss snow... it's nice and balmy outside here in maryland, tshirt and shorts for me

When I was a kid, nearly every year was a white Christmas and we often had patches snow on the ground come Easter. For the last decade, the major snowfalls don't come until Jan/Feb and melt soon after.

Not that my childhood memories prove anything but a day of snow in December hasn't shaken my convictions.

The 10-Day forecast has temps above freezing by the end of next week and no further snow on the schedule.

Is this the case?You obviously looked something up since I don't believe you throw around the phrase "polycyclic hydrocarbons" over breakfast. Do you have cites?

And do we have to be doing MORE damage than a volcano before we take action? Is it worthless to take action so we do not exasperate and hasten the process?

So, Joph, your entire premise is that just in case we are doing damage to the Earth's atmosphere we should take preventative action, even though we don't know what is causing it. Moreover, the preventative action we take may or may not actually have any effect on the so-called problem.

I take it you aren't aware of what volcanos spew into the atmosphere? Be advised then, that large scale eruptions also throw lots of dust intothe air causing world class ice ages-- something which happens regardless of how many pollutants are expelled into the sky.

Totem

Absolutely. We should cap off all those volcanos to forstall any further natural greenhouse gasses being emitted into the atmosphere. However, automobiles and industry should be stopped first because even though those pesky volcanos are far more problematical, that shouldn't stop us from doing something that makes us feel good about being proactive about the enviroment.

Totem

Somewhere in my academic history, I learned of some public policy theories revolving around risk versus harm that I think should be applied to the global warming debate amongst other issues. The basic premise can be explained well in the fact that most municipalities legislate that when hoisting heavy furniture such as a piano or couch up to a window to get it into an apartment, the sidewalk underneath must be kept clear of pedestrian traffic, despite what we always see on TV clichés of falling pianos.

The risk that a piano will fall when it is being hoisted outside a building is probably 1 in a 1000 if not lower, but since a falling piano is extremely likely to cause a great deal of harm, public policy requires that the great harm out weighs the relatively low risk and pedestrians are usually kept out of harms way of falling pianos in real life.

When it comes to global warming the chance that it will really happen as predicted are significant but not more likely than not. However, the potential harm is so great that we need to take minimizing measures now to avoid just the possibility of it occuring as bad as predicted, even though it may never occur. A significant problem with these minimizing measures is that they are not universally applied to all countries in the international treaty and this creates a big economic disadvantage to Countries like the US, not to mention, opens the door for big emissions from third world countries.

When looking at it from this public policy point of view, it becomes more clear that something needs to done, even with doubts as to if it will occur.

"Are you saying that we should continue on our same course until we discover some absolute evidence that we're contributing to the problem in any significant way regardless of any additional damage we do in the meanwhile?" --FleaJo2

Yes. To effect change based on spurious scientific evidence does not necessarily help the situation. I can easily see that due to economic hinderances resulting from arbitrarily restricting commerce and the resulting scientific breakthroughs that real progress on both scientific and industrial fronts would be crippled.

To apply, for instance, an artficial cap on fossil fuel emissions could damage the economic growth needed for scientific research. While this is not a given, the economic costs of applying restrictions on a poorly understood problems could readily exacerbate the problem.

Totem