Global warming is a crockFollow

You're just upset because the warmer it gets, the more landscaping work there is to interfere with your posting.

That article from 2003? Huh.

Edited, Dec 7th 2006 1:39am by Jophiel

I don't think anyone is arguing that "solving" global warming is the end-all of fixing the environment. It just happens to be the topic for discussion.

Edited just to wrap up Gbaji's claims via USA Today...First off, it never said his data wasn't released, it said his data wasn't online.

Secondly, it was wrong to say that because his data was available online.

Edited, Dec 7th 2006 1:52am by Jophiel

Mmmmm....
Sure. But because I came in for some flak from my previous post on pg3, I was attempting to explain the reasons for my position on global warming, wich got confused by some, not for the first time, as believing that global warming shouldn't be something that we humans should concern ourselves with. Of course we should be concerned.

Im trying to think of a comparison for it.

Heres one.

Several years ago, I bought this old Enfield Bullet motorcycle. The plan was to start in the south of India, at sea level, and ride it to the top of the Himalayas (the Nubra valley in Himachel Pradesh The highest road in the world)and back again.

If I had had, on the first day, any idea of the difficulties and problems I was going to face in the process of dragging this underpowered/underbraked piece of Indian kak, accross the length of India, across deserts hot enuff to melt the tyres (seriosly!) thru cities that have more random traffic chaos than anywhere else i've ever been, across glaciers, thru freezing rivers and over mountain passes 5660 metres high, the punctures, the breakdowns, the cold, the heat, the hunger (yup)and all the rest, to get to within a gnats ******* of that little corner of the world where India China and Pakistan all meet, theres no farkin way i would have left the beach.

But because I set off, and took it all a day at a time, I not only made the journey there and back without falling under a truck, off a mountain pass or getting shot by a hyperthermic hypoxic border guard (oops!) I actually quite enjoyed (most) of it.

Same thing with global warming. Its just TOO DARN BIG for most people to even begin to know where to start. And all these govt. and official agencies havn't got a clue either. They're all standing on the beach in Karnataka still arguing if they should change out of their shorts and put a wooly hat on yet!

What we and they should be doing, is chucking a leg over, putting the spliff out and setting off on the trip. because if we don't start doing something, anything, soon, I fear it will be too late.


And the wheels are gonna fall off.


Metaphorically speaking that is.


Just in case anyone cares I got to that place on this map thats called no defined boundary.

Edited, Dec 7th 2006 2:23am by paulsol

Paulsol, as cool as your trip sounded, I'm thoroughly confused by your metaphor.

Previously, you doubted whether global warming was man-made, and whether it should be addressed at all.

Now, you seem to say that the problem is so big that governments don't know where to start and are arguing about something huge. And that the solution should be to just start acting now!

That's what I got from your post anyway.



So, do you agree then that GW is man-made and that we can do something about it? And what do you think of something like Kyoto? Is it the start of the trip? Is it arguing about the wooly hat/swimming trunks?

I agree that we should act as quickly possible. I'm not sure we should just rush head first into measures to fight it without debate, because it is such an international problem which requires a concerted international effort.

The EU can do wonderful things on global warming, it will have 0 effect if the US and China don't follow. And we all know how slowly international problems of this magnitude get solved. And that's without going into the whole developped Vs developping countries debate.

Everyone knows Kyoto is just a ploy to give third world countries a chance to catch up.

Duh.

Gaining access to an academic journal search engine makes these debates so much more enjoyable.I never said they were. Nice use of the loaded term 'parroted' though. Are you basing that off of evidence or just because you think it'll discredit the vast majority of scientists who do agree?

I said, to repeat, that every major scientific institution to take a stance on global warming has agreed with the conclusion that there is a significant anthropogenic influence in the warming trends. I also cited an a study in Science showing that, out of over 900 peer-reviewed articles and studies regarding global warming, every article which took a stance on its causes (75% of them) either explicitly or implicitly agreed in an anthropogenic influence. Not a single study attempted to refute it.

Are there scientists who feel otherwise? I'm sure there are. There's scientists who put forth any number of theories and hold any number of beliefs. Are they in the majority? Not even remotely. Are their studies passing the review of the scientific community? According to Science, no and I bet their search engine access to peer-reviewed scientific study kicks my search engine's ***.

There's a big difference between "Not everyone believes" and "The disbelievers have as much traction as the believers do." And, regarding comments made that scientists are in it for the grants or whatnot, it would be up to you to provide evidence that all of these scientists and institutions are biasing their research for grant money. I find it slightly unlikely.

Your mistake is in thinking that a. it will even register to him that his argument is faulty or b. that he would ever, ever, EVER admit it if it did.

Nexa

His mother told him to never question. His mother cured cancer, she must be right!

She is also probably in his freezer.

Of course you would think that, because you don't understand the term as I'm using it, i.e. "She blinded me with science."

Except that's not what Joph actually said originally:




Let's be fair here Joph. It's not "every major scientific body". It's every major scientific body that you agree with, which coincidentally happens to be only those that support the alarmist global warming theories. No matter how many scientists or organizations or papers I post, you'll dismiss them for one reason or another, pretty much all having to do with the fact that they don't agree with the standard consensus on global warming.

In any case, you didn't just say that the disbelievers had less traction then the believers. You said that they didn't exist.

"Traction" has nothing to do with scientific fact or validity. It just has to do with whether it's gained political popularity. By your logic, back in the day, Gallileo was wrong because his ideas didn't have enough "traction"... If it was a bad reason to support a theory back then, it's still a bad reason today.

+1 for Nexa I guess.