<p>Lets see…IPCC…a panel whose existence depends on global warming being real. They are really gonna put research out stating that its not. What school of logic did you graduate from garland?</p>
<p>garland, there is simply no broad scientific concensus. We just don’t know.</p>
<p>I find it absurd that you would use a George Bush speech as an example of scientific concensus! I think my 10 year old knows more about science than he and Al Gore combined.</p>
<p>Nucular.</p>
<p>That was an entertaining magazine article. The writer had fun with it. I’d give a lot more credence to what “Gieg” had to say if I was reading it in the form of scientific findings and conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal rather than his opinions quoted in a light-weight Sunday mag story. </p>
<p>Telling quote: “If CO-2 is the problem, we’ve already lost.”</p>
<p>That “if” says it all. So what “if” he’s wrong and the other scientists are right? Something tells me it’s a good thing this guy already has tenure.</p>
<p>Well if you don’t believe a) In global warming or b) That global warming is caused by man the totalitarian left literally wants to put you in jail. Thank God the good people of Al Gore’s home district in Tennessee saved us from this kook by voting for Bush.</p>
<p>SS - That’s a great headline.</p>
<p>So, to all the catastrophic global warming theory proponents out there - now what? Let’s say that the ‘global authority’ concludes that the theory is correct and that within a matter of a couple of years the ports will be drowned and the weather in the Northeast tolerable in the winter - now what? What’s to be done? Will you immediately cease driving your cars and disconnect from the power grid? Will you cease flying in airplanes and purchasing products produced in factories? Will you no longer heat your homes? Will you no longer have children which only add to the problem of population growth and thereby more fuel usage? Will you go to war with China and India where the rate of growth in automobile and factory is huge right now to stop them? Will you become proponents of nuclear energy? What now?</p>
<p>kvetch! kvetch! kvetch!</p>
<p>…it shows you care.</p>
<p>SS–yes, I realize quoting W on anything that has to do with intelligence is dicey; my point being that if an avowed doubter throughout his presidency suddenly sees the light (so to speak) it’s probably not because he’s part of some vast left-wing conspiracy.</p>
<p>Iloveagoodbrew–I can tell.
But more to the point, doubting the experts because they get paid for what they do is, um, an interesting way to evaluate information. What do you use, tea leaves? :)</p>
<p>Can anyone access [this</a> article](<a href=“http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445567a.html]this”>Light at the end of the tunnel | Nature)? (I can, but I use university-provided internet, and I can’t always tell when I’m viewing subscription-only content.)</p>
<p>It’s from Nature, which is one of the top (if not the top) journal in science.</p>
<p>An excerpt from the beginning of the article:
</p>
<p>ucdad–what we will need to do is not a factor of what you or I “believe.” And doing something or not doesn’t make the process exist or not.</p>
<p>Real, countrywide conservation would be a good start. As has already been established, I’m a cheapskate, so tht’s not a problem for me. I’m working my way off the grid in every way I can. Individual change is necessary, but not sufficient. So a consensus among nations that conservation is necessary will be a start. Hopefully our next leader will see that. Beyond that, renewable energy (wind farm are springing up everywhere, though Europe’s way ahead of us on that, my state subsidizes individual solar panels, geothermal, etc. I have a lot of faith in human ingenuity), cap and trade policies to encourage the cutting of emissions among presently operating industries, exploration in to CO2 capture, etc etc.</p>
<p>Elizabeth Kolbert’s book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, has a lot of information on this that can start you off. I recommend it to all thread members.</p>
<p>No I actually use rabbit entrails nowadays…Which is about as accurate as your computer models. </p>
<p>Maybe you want to look up the Leipzig Declaration, or The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming. Maybe read stuff by Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, James Spann, Christopher Landsea, Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, or a million other experts who know something about meteorology. Of course, why would you want to lift up the IPCC shroud from your eyes.</p>
<p>Good site, Mollie.</p>
<p>Yes, Sticker, there definitely is a consensus.</p>
<p>And Iloveabrew can give you the same tired list of the outliers any time you ask. </p>
<p>Brew, they’re finished. Your Leipzig Declaration is ten years old and discredited. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change[/url]”>Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change - SourceWatch;
<p>“Nucular” - I love it!! </p>
<p>I think the professor’s point is exactly what my d’s friend found in her project. If global warming really is happening it’s not us, and we need to be worrying more about how to adapt to it than how to stop it.</p>
<p>But see - he mentions this 30 year cooling period that ended around 1977. That coincides with the Canadians telling us that up until 30 or 40 years ago the glacier was growing. </p>
<p>for the record, I’m all for energy conservation, hybrid cars and alternative fuels, but more because the fossil fuels are going to run out, and we need to get off of imported oil and stop being dependent on the Arabs. We should have started getting off Arab oil in the 70’s. Energy security is what we need, and the sooner the better.</p>
<p>Hey, friends, even Fox News presents this report seriously:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html</a></p>
<p>You won’t accept any other sources (even W) so I thought that might sway some of you.</p>
<p>Your arguments, the “it isn’t getting warmer one”, or the “we aren’t causing it one,” were just barely plausible a few years ago, but the evidence has piled up way beyond those–y’all need to keep up.</p>
<p>I wrote my previous post (‘what now’) because regardless of who’s correct on the issue it seems to be used mostly for political posturing than anything else. I can understand why Gore would do this since he’s a politician and it was used as his hook but when I read many of the articles and posts on the subject it seems to boil down mostly to political posturing rather than any concerted effort to ‘effectively’ address the problem as one sees it. </p>
<p>Sure, we should all practice conservation and many people of all political persuasions do (there’s a financial incentive in this if nothing else) but short of a political platform in which to obtain votes, what does anyone think will actually be done to effectively address it (and I doubt trading the average vehicle for a Prius is adequate change). </p>
<p>Wind power, solar power - great, but be realistic, it will never come close to meeting our energy needs in the foreseeable future (although research should continue). Nuclear energy - yes, this would probably have the greatest positive impact on reducing CO2 from power stations yet most of the global warming enthusiasts decry it. Research should continue on automotive propulsion sources and I’m confident that at some point great practical alternatives to the internal combustion engine will be developed - we’re just not there yet and gasoline is still very available.</p>
<p>According to some, including many of the global warming crowd, fossil fuels are being depleted at an alarming rate and will soon run out. If true, assuming the globe hasn’t warmed to a catastrophic point by that time, the problem solves itself.</p>
<p>garland: Have you seen Anderson Cooper’s show “Planet in Peril”? Try to catch it. It should warm your heart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean the study that was orchestrated by politicians rather than scientists according to Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of atmospheric science:
The organization that was so political that a previous contributor (and global warming believer) resigned from rather than continue in a politics-driven organization:
</p>
<p>Every time I hear the journal Nature quoted in the media, it seems like it is being quoted in support of an idea behind which lies a social agenda. Not a criticism, just an observation that has tended to color my reaction to its use.</p>
<p>If the US evangelical Christians have started to buy into global warming, maybe that is why W is starting to accept it. Would it have anything to do with their desire to hasten the end times and bring about the second coming?</p>
<p>Perhaps if we could get Cheney, Wolfowitz, and crew to believe that proper preparation for global warming would bring democracy to the middle east they would push for a $300 billion concerted effort to pursue it.</p>
<p>Just random musings. No matter one’s opinion, with China and India coming on board for ratcheting up energy consumption, we need to pursue sustainable energy independence as a national security measure if for no other reason.</p>
<p>President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ - Questions Gore’s Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET</p>
<p>Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.</p>