There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (page 8)

ballistic

Megadude, I like your cost of saving a year of a life chart even if we disagree on certain other things.

By the way, I used to be a truck driver in London not so long ago, and I could taste carbon monoxide by the end of the day.

FreeWilly

The gist of the scientific feedback against Lomborg is that he displays wilful ignorance, quotes selectively from the works of others, and, perhaps above all else, courts the attention of media that accept his work at face value,

Could you provide us with a sampling of this "Scientific feedback". Surely there is a discussion of the facts somewhere in all of this....

Adopting opposing views merely because they conform one's own predetermined outlook will keep a person ignorant for a long time.

It seems by you comments you've found allies. I can't help but notice that amist all the blabbery, data is not discussed. It's obvious you haven't read even a few pages of Lomborgs book. If you had you would probably have stumbled across the enormous appendix referencing the 2500 largely peer reviewed scientific studies used in his work.

You assert (as does the critical piece) that a statistician unqualified to analyze data unless they are also specialists in the area of study that underlies the data?? Maybe you can explain what data they are qualified to analyze?

I also found noticibly absent any discussion of the facts themselves. Diversion is a sure sign of a weak position.

SixofNine

If Kyoto is dutifly implemented, what outcome is anticipated regarding Global Temperatures?

To be honest, I know almost nothing of the particulars of Kyoto. I'm curious, w/o consulting any other sources, would you and Megadude give a synopsis of what you find so repellant about the treaty? I've seen you mention money, but I'm not aware of the implications.

SixofNine

Quoting adopting opposing views merely because they conform one's own predetermined outlook will keep a person ignorant for a long time.

I'll let the forum judge the two views for themselves. That's all I'm doing, that's all you're doing, right? None of us are climate scientist here, let's not pretend to be by throwing numbers around, eh?

My only "predetermined outlook" is a belief in win/win situations, and a notion that pollution and overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels are bad things. Hell, I'm not even someone who goes overboard in the "better safe than sorry" department, but indeed, when the stakes are this high, "better safe than sorry" seems like a good foundation for the debate.

SixofNine

You sure like Dr. Carl Sagan.

Yeah, I admire him greatly. He probably couldn't write best-selling, preachy, egocentric fiction to save his life though.

zagor

I think it is Sun. But last night at uni’s Easter party I meet husband and wife scientists’ climatoligists and asked them what they thought about global worming and surprise, surprise they do think it is our increased emission of CO2. But then added even if it is Sun that causing it there is no escaping that it is happening.

Didn’t know what to answer, what would you say to that?

AuldSoul

If they think it is CO2 and allow room for it to be the Sun, then they don't know what the cause is for sure. Therefore, any expense to address an uncertainly defined problem is a possibly a waste of time, energy, and money that could be better spent developing ways of counteracting any potential negative effects from Global Warming. If we spend countless billions addressing emissions and it turns out it is the sun and we can do nothing about it anyway, where will the billions come from to hurriedly prepare for the inevitable?

On this score, I have only disdain for the current administration. $20 billion over 10 years toward research on alternative fuels is a piss into the wind. Stop all Iraqi activities for a year and spend THAT on alternate fuel instead and you will have some appreciable results much more quickly. Plus, you will quit pissing off a suddenly much poorer Muslim populace.

Drug money buys weapons for terrorists? Moreso than the oil we use in our cars? I don't think so.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

AuldSoul

To be honest, I know almost nothing of the particulars of Kyoto.

Let me rephrase to make sure I understand you. You are in favor of a measure the particulars with which you are unfamiliar, and you criticize someone for not supporting it when you are unclear what it is you recommend support for. You do this because consensus among scientists has arrived at (1) the inescapable reality of Global Warming and (2) a suspected but admittedly unproven cause for Global Warming.

You are basing your conviction on the proper course to take not on your personal knowledge, nor on data that you (or anyone else) has available to prove that the course will be effective, nor even on your personal knowledge of the course being recommended.

You don't think that sounds a bit like a conviction based on faith rather than fact? Just curious, not trying to be argumentative.

By the by, Carl Sagan lost all credibility with me regarding his statistical predictions when he used a Drake's Equation style formula to predict the effects of thermonuclear war. He used similar equations and model (with absolutely no atmospheric data) for his hypothesis regarding the causes of Global Warming. His publications revealing the equations he arrived at late in his career could best be described as "best-selling, preachy, egocentric fiction." Seems I have heard that phrase somewhere before.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

upside/down

I could taste carbon monoxide

Isn't carbon monoxide, colorless, odorless and tasteless? Thus termed a "silent" killer?

u/d

AuldSoul

u/d,

Yes. That would be the one.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Share this