Quote:Al Gore has become an optimist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/scienc...ef=science
"Experts predicted in 2000 that wind generated power worldwide would reach 30 gigawatts; by 2010, it was 200 gigawatts, and by last year it reached nearly 370, or more than 12 times higher. Installations of solar power would add one new gigawatt per year by 2010, predictions in 2002 stated. It turned out to be 17 times that by 2010 and 48 times that amount last year."
It's good to have the money and media on your side I guess.
Quote:It's good to have the money and media on your side I guess.
Said every republican science denier everywhere.
Quote:Fairly interesting article on the Republicans slowly losing their grip on their 'reality.'
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/18/the-right-warms-up-to-climate-change.html'>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/18/the-right-warms-up-to-climate-change.html</a>
One thing for sure, they are adept at following the money.
Quote:This is the classic response. You don't like the hypothetical solutions, so you deny the existence of the problem. You don't want to move out of the road, so you deny there is a car coming.
Well, your guess is wrong. The existence of the problem, and the desirability of any proposed solution, are two different things. I am not endorsing any particular solution. I'm not even saying we should do anything about it. Just pointing out an article that says the earth is getting hotter.
That said, let me ask you this. If scientists said an asteroid is headed for the earth, and will destroy all life if it hits, and that we need to come up with some way of heading it off, would the fact that we would need some type of effort to head it off cause you to deny the existence of the asteroid?
No, because the existence of an asteroid heading toward earth can be scientifically proven as
fact. On the other hand, global warming and the ideal that it is the result of mankind abusing the environment is just a
theory. This theory is based on data obtained by individuals who have a stake in promoting its existence... individuals who have, in fact, been found to 'skew' data for their own purposes.
That being said, what if we are in the midst of a global climate change? Considering that...
*given the relatively short duration of time that data about the climate has been 'scientifically' recorded, and
*the known fact that global climate change has happened in the past... before the industrial period,
how is this climate change proven to be caused by the 'carbon footprint' of mankind? There's no question that man produces more pollutant than desirable, particularly in countries like China; but the total amount of pollutant produced by man is almost non-consequential when compared to the amount of gasses and solid pollutants caused from natural sources... namely volcanoes. The most well documented example of a global climate change event was brought about by the eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia. This one eruption brought about a world wide drop in temperature! Consider that there are hundreds of volcanoes world wide and many are active... any one of which produces more pollutant than any industrialized country in the world all by itself! The problem is that it's hard for certain government entities like the EPA to justify it's existence if it's shown that the primary source of pollutant is from natural sources that we have no control over.
I think the veracity of the individuals who are collecting this 'data' can and should be questioned, but even if we are experiencing a global climate change, it isn't the first time. What's more, the assertion that this 'climate change' is the result of mankind is highly questionable given it has happened in the past prior to industrialization. It all sounds just a little too much like some organization which receives government funding is trying to justify its existence by the cry of 'the sky is falling'.
I head Al Gore is going to run as a Democrat for president to stop the global warming by not talking as much (hot air)
Quote:No, because the existence of an asteroid heading toward earth can be scientifically proven as fact. On the other hand, global warming and the ideal that it is the result of mankind abusing the environment is just a theory. This theory is based on data obtained by individuals who have a stake in promoting its existence... individuals who have, in fact, been found to 'skew' data for their own purposes.
That being said, what if we are in the midst of a global climate change? Considering that...
*given the relatively short duration of time that data about the climate has been 'scientifically' recorded, and
*the known fact that global climate change has happened in the past... before the industrial period,
how is this climate change proven to be caused by the 'carbon footprint' of mankind? There's no question that man produces more pollutant than desirable, particularly in countries like China; but the total amount of pollutant produced by man is almost non-consequential when compared to the amount of gasses and solid pollutants caused from natural sources... namely volcanoes. The most well documented example of a global climate change event was brought about by the eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia. This one eruption brought about a world wide drop in temperature! Consider that there are hundreds of volcanoes world wide and many are active... any one of which produces more pollutant than any industrialized country in the world all by itself! The problem is that it's hard for certain government entities like the EPA to justify it's existence if it's shown that the primary source of pollutant is from natural sources that we have no control over.
I think the veracity of the individuals who are collecting this 'data' can and should be questioned, but even if we are experiencing a global climate change, it isn't the first time. What's more, the assertion that this 'climate change' is the result of mankind is highly questionable given it has happened in the past prior to industrialization. It all sounds just a little too much like some organization which receives government funding is trying to justify its existence by the cry of 'the sky is falling'.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Quote:You couldn't be more wrong.
Sure he could, he could believe in AGCC.
Quote:Sure he could, he could believe in AGCC.
If you choose to believe a politician over a scientist, I simply can't help you. Your paltry level of common sense precludes me from it. You are below the threshold of ability for rational discussion. Enjoy your bubble until it pops.
Quote:Sure he could, he could believe in AGCC.
Where could you find such stupid people?
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/03/target-climate-change/'>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/03/target-climate-change/</a>
Between FEMA and the insurance companies there might enough leverage to force policy makers to make some dang policy.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/fema-to-require-state-grant-recipients-plan-for-climate-change/'>http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/fema-to-require-state-grant-recipients-plan-for-climate-change/</a>
Quote:Where could you find such stupid people?<a class="bbc_url" href='http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/03/target-climate-change/'>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/03/target-climate-change/</a>
It is impossible for a man to diminish a thing when his paycheck depends on his exacerbating it.
Quote:It is impossible for a man to diminish a thing when his paycheck depends on his exacerbating it.
If you think this is how science works, then explain how you are communicating this idiocy to me. Because if computer science is anything like climate science, this must be a dream.
Anyways, this is the kind of thing republicans are fighting against:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/cost-of-carbon-should-be-200-higher-today,-say-economists/'>http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/cost-of-carbon-should-be-200-higher-today,-say-economists/</a>
Quote:If you think this is how science works, then explain how you are communicating this idiocy to me. Because if computer science is anything like climate science, this must be a dream.
Anyways, this is the kind of thing republicans are fighting against:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/cost-of-carbon-should-be-200-higher-today,-say-economists/'>http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/cost-of-carbon-should-be-200-higher-today,-say-economists/</a>
If you think 99% of funding for climate science can go to supporters of AGCC and you get anything but more proof of AGCC then you dont understand human nature. Sorry if that doesnt match your personal beliefs about the purity of #science, but its still true.
Quote:If you think 99% of funding for climate science can go to supporters of AGCC and you get anything but more proof of AGCC then you dont understand human nature. Sorry if that doesnt match your personal beliefs about the purity of #science, but its still true.
One set of scientists all over the world gets funding and they are lying to push a conspiracy of epic proportions.
A much smaller set of scientists gets funding by energy companies to say it's a myth and they are telling the truth.
:thumbsup:
Quote:One set of scientists all over the world gets funding and they are lying to push a conspiracy of epic proportions.
A much smaller set of scientists gets funding by energy companies to say it's a myth and they are telling the truth.
:thumbsup:
Well now, we all know scientists who get their funding from energy companies just need that money to survive. While scientists who get their funding elsewhere are just greedy.