If you agree that we should conserve our carbon fuels -- because we know they will run out fairly soon anyway -- then we are on the same page. Anthropomorphic climate change comes from burning a lot of nonrenewable carbon fuels; pure and simple.
No, we don't know that peak oil will come with any certainty. It was supposed to come last decade, then a few years ago. Now they're saying it's going to be a few years from now. Nobody knows for certain.
What I do know is that making things more efficient is the right thing to do, because waste is something that should be minimized whenever possible. And throughout recorded history, having centrally planned ideas executed by a powerful few has never resulted in more efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
So, we need to do the conservative thing and err on the side of caution -- and that will accomplish both necessary goals of saving important resources, and reduce our output of greenhouse gasses at the same time.
Well said - but AGW is still a crock. There is a difference between letting the market determine what can be made to be more efficient, and having a few dictate to the masses what and how will be made more efficient.
I think you misunderstand me: our climate has changed many times in the past; long before humans were here. This time however, it is being caused by us humans; or at least we are having a large effect -- and this time is the only time we need to worry about, because we are being affected by it. There is no contradiction.
The Piltdown Man is case and point about how the scientific process works -- fakes are exposed, and good science is accepted. There were skeptics then, and they did the science to prove the fake. None of the skeptics of anthropomorphic climate change can show scientifically that it is anything but real.
Anthropomorphic global climate change is good science, and the threats are very real. The risk is very high. It is difficult, and it is a big challenge.
Whether or not you feel that global climate change is real, or if it is anthropomorphic, or that it is a threat at all, I hope you can watch this video; that lays out the four basic logic and risks of if GCC is real or not, and if we do anything about it or not:
Smiley faces on a white board, now that's sciencetific proof.
The point with Piltdown man was that a group of scientists delared it to be "proven scientific fact" just like AGW. TIme proved otherwise.
Science, I mean repeatable, proveable science, has shown that a single major volcano produces more "greenhouse gasses" than 40-50 years of industry and cars put together. Again, it's part of the earths cycle.
__________________
I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
That video is not a scientific argument. It is an argument of logic. He admits the smiley faces are completely inadequate shorthand; only to for the purposes of the graphic.
Please watch it, and then comment.
Yes, Piltdown Man took about 40 years to debunk -- but the bones were never allowed to be thoroughly examined by those who knew them to be fake. So, they suppressed the scientific process. By contrast, the people who faked human cloning (in 2005?) were outed in about 10 months.
Anthropogenic global climate change is too big to fake, and the data is there for all to see. Can you point to scientific evidence that explains the data better?
Oh, and here's a full length movie that covers the entire sweep of life here on Earth, and talks about what is at stake:
If you agree that we should conserve our carbon fuels -- because we know they will run out fairly soon anyway -- then we are on the same page. Anthropomorphic climate change comes from burning a lot of nonrenewable carbon fuels; pure and simple.
I remember the gas shortages of the 1970's. At that time the Leftist screed (again crying that the sky was falling) was that we would run out of oil in a matter of several decades. Obviously that was another nonsensical hoax, endorsed by certain scientists to make the nonsense sound like irrefutable "science". Today some in the younger generation might not be aware of it and the Left doesn't want it brought up. They don't want us to remember past hoaxes because they might lead us to question or ridicule the latest reincarnation of them.
Quote:
So, we need to do the conservative thing and err on the side of caution -- and that will accomplish both necessary goals of saving important resources, and reduce our output of greenhouse gasses at the same time.
Neil, who are you kidding? There is absolutely nothing remotely "conservative" about your activist ideology or your politics. Another attempt at Orwellian 'newspeak'? Funny how these scare theories are always endorsed and promoted by the Democrat-Liberal-Socialist spectrum. Just as the Left is hell bent on redistribution of wealth, so it is also obsessed with reallocation of natural resources. We will be forced to adhere to a starvation diet in our energy needs, while the third world will be exempted from similar draconian austerity. That is the hidden agenda, and it is politically motivated.
Touting fear mongering books like AlGore's, and now similarly "Eaarth" are the Left's way of getting extra bucks from gullible people who would not be as strongly inclined to simply write a check made out to the Democratic Party. If you want to be a Liberal or a Socialist, fine. But pretending you are a conservative or are only concerned with "saaving the plaanet" is as disingenuous as it is absurd.
Quit confusing the issue, Neil. These other examples (the law of gravity, the theory of evolution, DNA, and such) are examples of rigorously proven theories and physical laws and plainly observable facts. AGW is not a rigorously proven theory, many observable facts throw doubt on AGW, and AGW is certainly not a law. If AGW were truly scientifically valid, it ought to be able to stand on its own merits, and not rely on a consensus of 2000 scientists and windbags who happened to win a pretty gold bauble. Appeals to authority do not work in the scientific process, and you should know that.
Why can't you answer my questions, Neil?
"Appeals to authority" are in the realm of the political process.
This activist movement is all about politics, but disguised as "science".
How is making sure we are not destroying the planet as we know it not conservative?
You know, it takes a certain kind of arrogance to assume that mankind is singlehandedly "destroying" the planet by burning fossil fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Please realize how myopic you are! This is waaaaay more than anything you have conceived of...
Then again, it would probably take the same kind of arrogance to push this idea down our throats by claiming we're myopic/ignorant/greedy/etc...
Whatever happened to global cooling, Neil? You know, the idea that mankind was somehow hastening the onset of the glaaaaaaaaaaaaaaciers by burning fossil fuels?
The Following User Says Thank You to t vago For This Useful Post:
There is no causation between the two lines, Neil. Anybody except you can see that. Temperature stayed the same for most of this time, even as carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated up and down. Are you really this obtuse?
There are other things that have affected temperature; mainly that the sun was less hot back then, as I understand it. Lots of volcanic ash and other things can cause cooling, as well. The Earth is on a 41,000 year oscillation cycle of the angle of rotation, which affects the polar ice caps, which in turn ripples a myriad of other affects...
Do you really think that it was that simple that somehow *you* figured it out, and all those dumb scientists somehow missed it?
Carbon dioxide is an heat insulator -- this is shown several times in the video I posted earlier. There would be no life here on Earth without the atmosphere, and without the greenhouse affect. And our atmosphere would not have survived the solar wind without the magnetic fields of Earth's core. It is pretty amazing to have life at all; let alone such a lush and hospitable one.
In fact life itself has created the atmosphere we have. Cyanobacteria first split water and made oxygen a part of the atmosphere. The atmosphere we have had for the 200,000 years or so of human existence is a finely balanced equilibrium that worked to all life's benefit. For billions of years, plants have been packing carbon away in the Earth's crust, and now we have released a huge proportion of it back into the atmosphere in the blink of an eye.
We are probably past peak oil -- why else would we be contemplating the oil sands in Canada?
We've got the same exact water that we had when Earth was formed. The air is the result of life balancing out. How could adding back all that carbon *not* throw things into a tizzy?
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
