Maddus Mattus wrote:
Dr Herbie wrote:
Didn't mean to put you off contributing to this thread, just to point out that we've been through this more than once.
No sense in doing it over and over again, I get the idea
I'm not put off in any way.
You shouldn't be.
Ray-Ray is kind of like the guy that stands on a street corner with a placard that reads "The end is Near".
The difference is that his sign actually says "Don't worry about it, Keep polluting".
Plus, he seems fixated on Al Gore...apparently he believes that Al Gore is in charge of the global conspiracy to ruin polluting energy companies.
Of course no one wants to continue polluting.
it appears to me that most of the posts on this topic have been and continue to be full of political ideals, half-truths and assumptions.
Instead of having a practical discussion, where each niner respects the others opinion, all we end up with is discourse, name calling and antagonization.
That's a great way to effect understanding through discussion and mutual respect
The point is, that we don't understand enough about global warming, or it causes to react with knee jerk decisions; of which again we don't understand what it's effects could be.
Plans and agendas like seeding the ocean with iron and space mirrors are completely reactionary and counter-productive to the issue itself.
Now, you want to reduce Co2 output and other pollutants, that's great. But arbitrarily and fanatically discussing implementing supposed 'solutions' do nothing more than perpetuate the ignorance of the issue.
Once again, I'll point to the essay's by the renowned MIT Sloan climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, that disputes most of the current hysteria. (Also, note he was part of the panel that drafted the report)
Something I find very interesting, is that according to Dr. Lindzen ,the original IPCC document "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions," which , BTW, is the document used by just about everyone to connect humans and C02 to Global warming originally was written by scientists as stating:
National Academy of Scientists wrote:
From the body of evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate.
Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural.
This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years.
However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing.
But when the report was revised by policy makers, that paragraph mysteriously became:
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions wrote:
In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
And then when it was revised again for publication, it changed again.
If, you're truly interested in trying to discern the truth, then at least view some of these:
Dr. Lindzen wrote:
Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?