The Two Sides to Global Warming

Reason Magazine Online ^ | 11/10/2004 | Ronald Bailey

[syberghost]

So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom—or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and the controversy.

[Holicheese]

They can not give me a correct forcast for 1 week in the future but they want me to believe they know what will happen 100 years in the future.
Hey Global Warming Nuts.....SCREW!

[bloasis]

nah .. global warming's bullshit .. our great president doesnt think its an important issue so it must not be ..

[GreenFreeper]

We are on a natural global warming trend evident throughout earth's history. The global warming scare is almost certainly an exaggeration but shouldn't we still strive to be good stewards of the land? The earth has incredible resilience to buffer any anthropogenic change we impose on it but does that mean we should completely disregard the effect we may have upon it.

While gloabl warming is surely a liberal scare tactic we should still try to reduce on net impact on the earth.
gf

[GeekDejure]

The Two Sides to Global Warming

---

Thw sides, eh? Guess that means the Eath is really flat after all !!! ;-))

[GeekDejure]

Oak Hay... the Earth

[kwhender]

And of course, the bureaucratic, grant-driven environment of soft sciences would NEVER exert political influence on its practioners.

Scientists as human, political beings--perish the thought!

Predictions of falling skies will always garner money and attention if the "predictions" yield political advantage.

[mlocher]

Never ending sine wave that the futures traders surf.

nature is cyclic, isn't it? (not for dems, because they aint natural.)

[bloasis]

yeah but on this I tend to to believe them .. cant believe human activity is not having an impact

[GreenFreeper]

true we are definetly having an impact but not on the scale once thought.

It is common sense that we should minimize any impact for it is better to err on the side of caution.

[Jaysun]

There's obviously a major problem. Just a few months ago it was so hot outside that I had to wear speedos and flip flops to work. Compare that with now - much cooler. This can't go on.

I need to look into this further. If someone would be so kind as to send me a check for several million dollars.

[bloasis]

then we agree..

[Jaysun]

yeah but on this I tend to to believe them .. cant believe human activity is not having an impact

95% of the "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. Of the remaining 5% only a small portion of it is caused by humans. So, I would agree that human activity has an impact - roughly the same impact that I had on the world economy this morning when I bought a cup of coffee and a chocolate bar.

[GreenFreeper]

of course I agree... there is never any need for unnecessary impact on the earth no matter how insignificant the consequences may appear. The truth of the matter is regardless of how much modeling we do there are so many factors that contribute to the result we have no way of really knowing what our actions will cause. Just as in predicting the weather. We have gotten pretty good but we will never be able to precisely predict the weather.
gf

[GreenFreeper]

Jaysun, I do not agree with your reasoning here.

Percentages of substances are arbitrary when you consider the impact of each substance.

Would you be worried if 5% of that insignificant coffee was composed of Anthrax???

[BwanaNdege]

Take a look at these links, read the articles and THINK for yourself. Sit down with a calculator or spreadsheet and compare the magnitudes of Anthropogenic (human created) Greenhouse Gases vs natural causes.

For example, in the USA, bovine flatulance is a larger factor than SUV exhaust. World wide, termites are a huge source of greenhouse gases. Look at the Global Warming data covering more that the last 4 decades or the last century.

Get all the data, not just that which the MSM wants you to see. Think and reason. You're and adult, right.

[standupfortruth]

&*^$#$#$#*&* I live in New England and am headed home soon to 4" of white global warming........

[kwhender]

Sure--how could you argue otherwise?

But the question is how much is real--and how much is grant money? There's so much BS "science" out there where no bottom line exists. Climatology isn't like physics, chemistry, or medicine. The bottom line for those guys is unambiguous.

But climatological predictions live in the area personal authority because its really hard to do good experiments: believe me because of my respected position and the esteem of my colleagues; believe us, because if you don't the sky will fall.

The only real area where experimental results confine climatologists exists in their computer models. But those models don't have much of a track record. And what's the response? Well, our models don't accurately predict or postdict, but those are just details--we'll work out the bugs later with further grants...besides if you ignore us, you could be responsible for catastrophic changes in the weather that will destroy us all!

It should inspire a little skepticism.

[rockrr]

Yep. And once again, he's RIGHT!