Posted on 05/28/2006 5:32:49 AM PDT by billorites
Well, we have a close family friend who was an Exxon exec his entire life, one of the finest men I've ever known. Algore, OTOH, is a second rate jerk, but a lifelong politician.
bump
1) That global warming was actually happening.
2) That it was the result of human activity (not just normal cyclical natural variations).
3) That the degree of human-caused global warming would cause significant harmful consequences.
4) That these consequences could be reversed by taking certain actions.
5) That any such proposed action (such as the Kyoto treaty) would actually be effective in preventing/reversing the harm.
6) That any such proposed action wouldn't cause worse harm than it prevented (i.e., that the "cure" wouldn't be worse than the "disease").
That's what all the meteorologists I've ever talked to at the NWS have said also.
#2 has also been answered in the affirmative, but the degree to which it is man made is open to some debate. But asside from a handful of cranks, no one doubts that human activity has had a significant impact.
The rest of your questions are all very much open to debate. IMHO, economists are probably better equipped to answer questions 5-6 than are scientists.
Over the past 100 years the earth appears to have been warming. Over the past 5, cooling. Over the past 20,000 warming. Over the past 2,000,000...
Define the time scale of analysis.
RE: #2 No, you're wrong. It is not "common knowledge" that anthropogenic sources are contributing (or not contributing) to climate change. It is precisely this that is the subject of intense scientific debate. It is not accepted fact that increases in CO2 levels in the troposhere have caused any changes in global climate. I expect that places me among "a handful of cranks."
None of these issues are settled.
Oh, on behalf of economists I would have to protest you're suggestion that they are something other than scientist.
I suspect most economists would prefer to be judged on the basis of their methodology.
Thanks for posting that. So, 15,000 SCIENTISTS is just "a handful," huh? It's a dagger right to the heart of the WaPo's headline.
One of your links had THIS link inside: More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth
He is not in the minority, his is being censored.
The global worming leftists are just using the goebles tactics to push their collecitivist commie crap.
|
does some research and finds LOTS of things wrong with environmental dogma HERE. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
 Get: "AN EVENING WITH BJORN LOMBORG" (DVD) |
|||
|
|||
|
|
"One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism." -- Michael Crichton
Be thankful that prehistoric people built so many fires that they caused the glaciers to recede from North America.
The vindication links have been changed to:
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/03/case_against_sc.shtml
and
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2003/12/skeptical_envir.shtml
"Global Warming is questionable. ... Are things warmer than they were a few years ago? Yes. But... WHY? That's the real question. There is also global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Titan. Did SUV's cause that as well? Are Martians using fossil fuels? Or are we looking at a solar event over which we have zero control? I personally think we're looking at a normal solar cycle. Things warm up and cool down when you look at the long term climate history. We STILL aren't anywhere near as warm as we were during the Medieval Warm Period!" -- "Reese," aka "Mamapajamas"
See: "This technique has enabled scientists to accurately measure temperatures in the Atlantic and northern Europe going back thousands of years and the results make nonsense of the global warming scare. ... The sea temperature calculations prove that between 600AD and 1100AD temperatures were about 2°F higher than they are now. During this period, northern Europe experienced a golden age for agriculture. Greenland, now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony and there were vineyards in the south of England." HERE. How did Greenland get its name anyway? Do you think it was just one more ironic joke by those humorous, sophisticated Vikings? Hmm?
"One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism." -- Michael Crichton
The past 100 is what's relevent, since that is the time period during which human C02 emmissions have been increasing. Even you seem to agree that it's been warming over that period. Thanks for proving my point.
As to the last 5 years, you can't infer a trend using a 5 year window of data of such noisy data.
RE: #2 No, you're wrong. It is not "common knowledge" that anthropogenic sources are contributing (or not contributing) to climate change. It is precisely this that is the subject of intense scientific debate.
No it's not. A couple dissenting voices do not make for an intense scientific debate.
It is not accepted fact that increases in CO2 levels in the troposhere have caused any changes in global climate.
It is an accepted fact that they have contributed to it. Excatly how much is a matter of debate, but no there's no question it is significant.
I expect that places me among "a handful of cranks."
Probably, but I don't know you well enough to judge.
Oh, on behalf of economists I would have to protest you're suggestion that they are something other than scientist.
I am an economist myself, thank you very much. I was using the term "scientist" according to popular usage, which typically refers to those working in the natural sciences. It wasn't intended as a slight.
We eonomists are social scientists, in that we apply the scientific method to social questions. Our discipline is no less rigorous than that of many natural scientists, but it requires the use of very different tools, and hence it is wholly appropriate to put it in a different category of knowledge.
Let's address the issues one at a time.
Regarding the first point, whether global warming is indeed occurring over the past 1000 years ears or so.
Where do you come down on the the Mann vs. M&M controversy?
Thanks! Terrific! :)
And...I just added "The Skeptical Environmentalist" to my library request list. I should have it rather quickly because the Looney Libs and Gorebots around here won't be reading it. *Rolleyes* I'm surprised that there are six copies in circulation, actually! :)
BUMP for later reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
