Only if you ignore this evidence: 
Posted on 07/06/2006 8:04:55 AM PDT by cogitator
Freely excerpting:
"The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious." ... "Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA [International Energy Agency] simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent." ... "No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding." ... "The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Common ground; if there is a problem we need to solve it and if we need an engineering exercise, let's go through the motions anyway as long as we cause no harm.
Where in the world is Jack when you need a house built?
B.S.
We can't allow personalities to ruin what has been a reasoned debate to this point; the hi-jackers need be warned.
I'm inclined to agree with most of what you said but I'm concerned about your defiant bowel. :)
You are the most creative misspeller ever, now you dress the tops of trees with a tress, such a quaint picture.
H.S. diploma. Getting better.
Back to BS headed toward more of the same.
Try alternating between the dictionary and the spell check program so that the meanings aren't altered, please.
You've got a great argument.
I agree that many parts of the arid SW should have never been tilled. That speaks to our "alterations". Our concept of Manifest Destiny has drove those alterations far beyond a sustainable and safe use of the land until disaster struck and we made corrections.
Well "Old Professor" share your old wisdom with us. Someone as old and professorial as you should join this enlightened discussion. And would be much more appreciated if you didn't just bitch and insult, without having a better idea..........
Only if you ignore this evidence:
Man's involvement is debatable. CO2 seems to be feedback from warming as well as man's contributions. How much from each is debatable, but there's no question that there is a solar driven component (see my previous post).
There's basic climate science such as studies of proxies, forcing, feedback and weather. There's also modeling. Here's some uses of a popular open source model: http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/publications/PhD%20and%20Masters%20Theses.htm Some of these are scientific, some are just GIGO, i.e. using the model, varying parameters, looking at changes but performing absolutely no comparison to the real world in any way. And among the scientific studies it is pretty clear that the model does not match reality in general.
I expect that models will not only improve by better science and much better computing power (e.g. soil moisture, detailed topography, biomass), but they will also accurately predict which engineering solutions will have the desired effects. There is in climate, like in weather, a butterfly effect that the tipping point scare-mongers want to keep for their exclusive use. Once models are adequate we will see that small changes can have big positive results.
Nice graph. How do we temperature variation from ice core samples? (I hope it's not inferred from CO2 concentration).
And if global warming is true, Bruce Springsteen will be responsible for destroying the world
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Of course, he couldn't have done it without Hanoi Jane.
I am an electrical engineer and have used simulation tools to determine the performance of my circuits for many years.
It did not take long for me to find a few things out about modeling and simulation. Your simulation is only as good as your models. If you leave one iota of information out of your models, the simulation might look perfectly good. You build the circuit, it doesn't work, and THEN you find out your model was flawed.
What cooked me was the assertion that science has concluded global warming is human caused and that there is a human solution when I know that scientists are operating with extremely complex models, may be totally lacking some important models in their simulations, and those models have interactive elements that would dramatically change the behavior of the system with just a small error being introduced.
The "Global Warming" scare is being pushed universally by leftists and socialists. Why? Because their "solution" is to take energy/production from the wealthy countries and give it to the 2nd and 3rd world countries.
If they said "We are going to freeze GHG production on ALL countries to exactly what it is today", the USA would have an advantage. So they won't. They have to take away our advantage and that is more important than reducing GHG to them.
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.