Don't tell Spain about MIT's study. The loss of productivity due to their increasing utility rates and government subsidies of alternative energy have been well documented. Yet this nation with 20% unemployment was recently cited as a model by the Obama administration in the same sentence as job creation. Frightening.
I am glad too, but the funny thing is that if they had thought this way and if we all would be living the same way as we did back then, you probably wouldn't be any less content with your life.
Again, I am by no means against technological growth and development, just the idea that we need it at any cost and that we cannot possibly function without this absurdly large amount of it.
Interesting debate. What I find the most frightening is that if you dare disagree that GW is "a problem that needs to be wrestled with" (as Griffin tried to argue), you are immediatelly cast aside as some kind of right wing extremist. It's impossible to even discuss this topic without getting this type of response. The debate isn't scientific at all.
One unfortunate aspect of the GW debate is that much of it is driven by the Green lobby.
I always wonder what the motivation of people is who think that man-made global warming is a large conspiracy of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people while no-one can provide a shred of hard evidence for that conspiracy.
Quote from: madscientist197 on 07/09/2009 02:16 amOne unfortunate aspect of the GW debate is that much of it is driven by the Green lobby.Ah yes, those notorious geenie lobbyists like the AAAS, the worlds national academies, NASA, the British Royal Society and the thousands of scientists who do the actual work that ends up in the IPCC reports. Oh and now the G8 leaders.
I'm not at all denying the globe is warming. But look at something from a climatologist that doesn't have a hand in the money bucket either way: http://bit.ly/SBKrF
My jury is still out, but it's interesting that a lot of graybeard scientists whose careers have been established and who don't need to worry about putting food on the table are skeptics.
It doesn't take a large conspiracy if you have a few rich individuals, foundations and corporations with a stake as the ones providing the research money. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which researchers they will support and which ones they won't, nor to see what results said researchers will reach.
Forget the URL, this TEENAGER with no preconceptions was profiled on NPR.http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6One of her central theories in the purported global temperature rise is the placement of measurement sites in urban islands of heat.
Interesting debate. What I find the most frightening is that if you dare disagree that GW is "a problem that needs to be wrestled with" (as Griffin tried to argue), you are immediatelly cast aside as some kind of right wing extremist.
Quote from: hop on 07/09/2009 03:14 amQuote from: madscientist197 on 07/09/2009 02:16 amOne unfortunate aspect of the GW debate is that much of it is driven by the Green lobby.Ah yes, those notorious geenie lobbyists like the AAAS, the worlds national academies, NASA, the British Royal Society and the thousands of scientists who do the actual work that ends up in the IPCC reports. Oh and now the G8 leaders.Hey don't distort what I'm saying. I NEVER implied that. I have the utmost respect for those groups. The problem is the less scientifically literate groups. Thank you for proving my point about partisanship. :pAn example, then -- here in New Zealand the Green party is the biggest force for CO2 reduction etc. I support that. But I don't support their anti-nuclear stance or the idea that everyone wants to live in some sort of communal agrarian living. There is an intermediate position which some people don't seem to want to grasp, which doesn't have to involve the destruction of our modern technological society or the destruction of the environment due to climate change.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/08/2009 10:21 pmInteresting debate. What I find the most frightening is that if you dare disagree that GW is "a problem that needs to be wrestled with" (as Griffin tried to argue), you are immediatelly cast aside as some kind of right wing extremist. Likewise, if you believe that it is a problem that needs to be addressed, you are cast aside as some sort of extremist liberal. Frankly, I'm tired of the name calling from both sides.
We may need to take actions based on data. The problem with weather and climate is that it is so complex that you can only say what has happened, not what is happening.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that Jupiter and Mars are also experiencing global warming too. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
By the way, did anyone else notice in that chart with temperatures and CO2 levels that the CO2 levels were actually lagging the temperature changes?
Quote from: Antares on 07/09/2009 04:04 amMy jury is still out, but it's interesting that a lot of graybeard scientists whose careers have been established and who don't need to worry about putting food on the table are skeptics.There are far more similar "greybeards" on the other side. Those making up the organizations listed in my previous post, for example.
When did the number of scientists, for or against, become one of the tests of the validity of a theory?
Quote from: mikegi on 07/10/2009 05:00 amWhen did the number of scientists, for or against, become one of the tests of the validity of a theory? For people who are not experts in a particular scientific field, a strong consensus among experts is a useful (but not perfect) indicator of which theories are credible or represent the best interpretation of the available data. This is a direct result of the fact that the scientific method and peer review actually work a large percentage of the time. History strongly supports the value of this indicator. FWIW, those who aren't convinced that such a consensus exists regarding AGW might want to look at http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550