<p>Christcorp–check if your experts are still saying the same things. Your sources are old–much has been learned in the past few years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with that kind of reductive analysis, is that it blithely assumes that since .28% is, gosh, such a tiny-sounding percentage, it can’t make any difference. But of course, we all know already that there are greenhouse gases in our atmosphere–we’d be a cold hunk of stone if that weren’t so. But to increase the percentage, even by a “small” amount, changes the amount of trapped energy. That’s the point. Now, that alone doesn’t argue that it changes it enough to cause any specific result–climatologists can tell you more about that than me–but that’s the real starting point, not the “duh” comment that there’s already so much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, how can this teensy amount make any difference? That’s pandering to ignorance.</p>
<p>Post #155 by FF . If only the allied powers of the 1930’s had acted to thwart the growth of fascim, 50-60 million people would have been spared.</p>
<p>When the anti-fascists of the 1930s tried to warn the USA/west of the growth of fascim, the right wing called them communists, and sent goons to beat them up, and in some cases kill them. </p>
<p>I am never surprise by the hypocrisy of the right wing, but I am disappointed in the number of people who dont recognize it.</p>
<p>I think I have identified your problem. You personify “the right wing” as some sort of organism that exists in continuum. At the same time, you don’t truly understand what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is both “personal” versus “organizational” and only exists if the hypocritical acts/thoughts exist in the same relative timeframe. Your view fails on both counts. But, if you like to continue to play the game of CC-gotcha, how do you explain the conservative, Winston Churchill’s words of warning in the 30’s?</p>
<p>“check if your experts are still saying the same things. Your sources are old–much has been learned in the past few years.”</p>
<p>Yes there has, but do you bother even reading about evidence that would contradict your hardened views? I posted a whole list of scientists who know much more about this topic than you and me and who have changed their views on GW after learning more about it.</p>
<p>Also, even the GW believers are revising their doom and gloom estimates downward, leaving Al Gore on his own “ice flow” of alarmism:
<p>FF–I base my views on my understanding of the fact, but even more so on the consensus of the experts. Often, I do not agree with the prevailing wisdom when I don’t think it’s backed up with strong science (see my dissension on the vaccine thread.) It’s very clear to me that the great bulk of climatologists (which is not the same thing as meteorologists–a related but quite different area of expertise) are in agreement on anthropogenic climate change.</p>
<p>FF what about the stuff you wrote about polar bears? Are you still going to believe that one looney tune or other more credible sources?</p>
<p>Science is an evolving phenomenon. As more data are available, more accurate predictions tools are developed, the results may be revised upward or downward. For example, in my business we used factor of safety of 4 in designing stuff. Now we use 3.5. Does it mean that engineers 20 years ago were morans?</p>
<p>Garland, you obviously didn’t even read the list of references let along the links themselves. Goes to show how much you really want to learn the truth. You obviously don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t have brought up the dates of the references I posted. WHY? Because, while some of them are from the late 1990’s, e.g. 96,97,98,99; there were also references there from 2003,2004,2005,2006. </p>
<p>So, you do your research and bring back some LEGITIMATE references, and we can talk. Until then, all you have to offer is personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that, just that it isn’t worth me changing my opinion or perception over. I think I’ll stick with the EPA and other references I have right now. At least until you can find something that is fact based and not based on personal opinion or emotions.</p>
<p>Christcorp–I see no reason to rehash the huge amassment of evidence on climate change. It’s out there and readily available. i’m not trying to change your mind.</p>
<p>I will engage on the EPA, though, since it’s who you believe. I’m wondering why they have an initiative to address and affect climate change, if, as you say, it’s a natural global process…</p>
<p>Form Post 183 by ff … You personify “the right wing” as some sort of organism that exists in continuum </p>
<p>You are correct, although I would not use the word organism in this context. I am correct in recognizing that the right wing does exist in a continuum and you have given not a reason to for me to change my opinion. </p>
<p>Form Post 183 by ff … At the same time, you don’t truly understand what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is both “personal” versus “organizational” and only exists if the hypocritical acts/thoughts exist in the same relative timeframe.</p>
<p>I do understand what hypocrisy is, your claim otherwise not withstanding. An example of hypocrisy would be lamenting the fact that the USA/West didnt opposed the fascists in the 1930s while not crediting those who did oppose the fascists because you disagree with other elements of the political beliefs.</p>
<p>how do you explain the conservative, Winston Churchill’s words of warning in the 30’s?</p>
<p>First, I differentiate between right wing and conservative, and so should you. For example using the two words in todays political climate, the Bush Administration is right wing but not conservative. </p>
<p>When Churchill opposed the fascists in the 1930s he did so as a nationalist, and could have been a conservative or a liberal in doing so.</p>
<p>I have the highest regard for conservatives and a very low regard for the right wing. I also believe the United States would be much better off it the conservative disassociated themselves from the right wing. </p>
<p>Now on a personal note: I thought your comments on hypocrisy were an oversized example of sophomore rhetoric.</p>
<p>well, tommy, it [sarcasm] truly breaks my heart that you feel this way [/sarcasm]. But, it is still clear to me that you have no clue regarding the definition of hypcrisy and its applicability to this situation.</p>
<p>Garland; I;'m not disputing climate change. I’m disputing that mankind has had a major impact on it or that we can have a major impact on fixing it.</p>
<p>All information can be misleading. It all depends on what you WANT that information to say. We, as humans, have been arguing what the “Bible” and other religious documents say and what they mean, since the first day the first one was written. Why would anyone else objectively read environmental documents if it didn’t say what they wanted it to say?</p>
<p>That is why it’s good that we have a representitive form of government. In theory, politics aside, most rules, laws, policies, etc… are made with the good of ALL the citizens. Most of these decisions are made with the input of so called “Experts”. Most of the people tend to give unbiased information void of personal emotions.</p>
<p>Now, that’s the way it’s set up and is suppose to work. Unfortunately, there are the special interest groups with their own agenda and the politicians who are trying to get reelected. So in reality, it doesn’t always work the way it should.</p>
<p>EPA has stated that climate changes are due to :</p>
<pre><code>1. natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
2. natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
3. human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)
</code></pre>
<p>EPA has initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases. That addresses only a small portion of #3. EPA is not going to “fix” climate change. They are proposing to reduce greenhouse gases that may contribute to a change in the atmosphere’s composition. They haven’t said that will fix anything.</p>
</p>