Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 191 (538460)
12-07-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-07-2009 2:11 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
Peg writes:
the science of the CFC disaster is well and trully established fact. A ban was made of producing CFCs' in the 80's and over the past 2 decades the hole has slowly been closing up.
the problem with the CFC's was that when the particles were reaching the upper atmosphere, they disintergrated the ozone gas... the effects over australia has been widespread skin cancer...the highest rates of skin cancer in the world i believe...and the sun is extremely harsh. 10 minutes in the summer sun and you'll burn. Those effects are real and we feel it every day.
So, if one polutant can cause the ozone to be depleated, then surely we need to look at other polutants that we are using and not simply deny that they are going to do any damage.
Hi Peg. Nobody's denying that they are doing no damage, but that there are other natural factors to consider. The USGS implicates volcanic sulfurs as one of the major factors in the early 1980s for destruction of Ozone (O3)
USGS writes:
The primary role of volcanic sulfur aerosols in causing short-term changes in the world's climate following some eruptions, instead of volcanic ash, was hypothesized by scientists in the early 1980's. They based their hypothesis on the effects of several explosive eruptions in Indonesia and the world's largest historical effusive eruption in Iceland.
Clearly, these examples suggested that the explosivity of an eruption and the amount of ash injected into the stratosphere are not the main factors in causing a change in Earth's climate. Instead, scientists concluded that it must be the amount of sulfur in the erupting magma.
The eruption of El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 conclusively demonstrated this idea was correct. The explosive eruption injected at least 8 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, and it was followed by a measureable cooling of parts of the Earth's surface and a warming of the upper atmosphere.
Ozone depletion promoted by volcanic sulfur aerosols.
The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3).

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 2:11 AM Peg has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 62 of 191 (538463)
12-07-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-04-2009 5:33 PM


Hi Hyroglyphx
A good topic to raise. I have a hold load of issues about the whole Global Warming/Climate Change bandwagon.
Firstly, I want to be clear I've no problem accepting the basic theory that industrialisation is increasing carbon dioxide levels and that this could lead to a greenhouse effect.
However, if we really are causing such a rapid increase in average global temperatures that it will cause a huge rise in sea levels during this century, it would be the biggest disaster in modern history. So why is it so hard for the public to get hold of firm data? Why is all the information we get about Global Warming only in soundbite form? Why have the politicians and scientists riding on the bandwagon not deigned to provide the public with a straightforward account of exactly what they have discovered and how they discovered it?
This whole leaking of secret email business perfectly sums up the problem. Why does anyone need to be secretive about the climate in the first place, unless there is an agenda to control or deceive the public?
There's no doubt that Global Warming has reached religious status. All we hear are the mantras: "Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Greenhouse Gases". Anybody who questions these things is considered a heretic. Ask for any detailed information, and suddenly the whole thing becomes a lot more fuzzy. Sounds unpleasantly familiar to me.
On TV last week I heard the leader of the Green Party in UK agree with the sceptics that during the past 10 years global temperatures had not risen above average. Yet she said the climate was still getting warmer!?! OK, so care to explain HOW? Where are the facts and figures backing up your claims? Why all the secrecy?
These people treat the public like complete idiots.
Unfortunately, most of the public are complete idiots. Which is my other big gripe on this issue. Most people prattle on about how eco-friendly they are when they haven't got a clue. I swear I heard someone say this on TV the other day when they were asked what they were doing to be eco-friendly. She said (very smugly):
"I help the environment by driving a small car."
The stupid bird-brain. You don't "help" the environment by driving ANY car! A small car damages the environment, only slightly less so than a larger car. There isn't some magic cut-off point where cars above a certain size are all damaging the environment while cars below that size actually help the environment. Yet it's clear most people seem to have been brain-washed into thinking that's the case.
On another TV show an equally smug couple proclaimed how they'd made sure their (massive) new house was eco-friendly by installing low-energy lightbulbs. Fortunately, the presenter had the sense to point out that they had installed 80 (eighty) of these light bulbs in the ceiling of their living room alone!
In the paper a few months ago, there was an article "proving" the effects of Global Warming. It showed 2 satellite photos of the Arctic ice cap. One was in September 2009, the other I think was September 1979. The 2009 photo showed a much smaller ice cap. This apparently proves Global Warming. Whoahya! Hold on a second - no dates on those photos. So one could have been taken on Sept 1, the other on Sept 30. I'd be willing to bet there's a big difference in the extent of the ice-cap between the start and the end of September. Also, no photos from other years. Maybe these were 2 exceptional years and there is no pattern of change.
To summarise, please could we have proper facts and evidence presented to the public on this issue. If the facts and methods were out in the open, there wouldn't be all this controversy would there?
Glad I got that off my chest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-04-2009 5:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 10:41 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 64 by jacortina, posted 12-07-2009 11:53 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2009 12:09 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 12-07-2009 3:55 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 63 of 191 (538464)
12-07-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-07-2009 10:26 AM


Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Why have the politicians and scientists riding on the bandwagon not deigned to provide the public with a straightforward account of exactly what they have discovered and how they discovered it?
And how many scientific things are discussed in that sort of detail in any media outlet?
Why does anyone need to be secretive about the climate in the first place, unless there is an agenda to control or deceive the public?
Now now, they are only the mails of 1 research facility. The other research facilities that are also confirming it are also part of the conspiracy?
These people treat the public like complete idiots.
The public are complete idiots, in my experience anyway.
Unfortunately, most of the public are complete idiots.
See
Which is my other big gripe on this issue.
Oh yes, very much so.
Most people prattle on about how eco-friendly they are when they haven't got a clue.
Yep. My favorite way of depicting this was in a South park epsiode, where the US was threatened by a large cloud of "smug" because of all the smuggness of the people driving hybrid cars and yapping about how good they were for the environment.
I swear I heard someone say this on TV the other day when they were asked what they were doing to be eco-friendly. She said (very smugly):
"I help the environment by driving a small car."
Oh South Park, always spot on.
The stupid bird-brain. You don't "help" the environment by driving ANY car! A small car damages the environment, only slightly less so than a larger car. There isn't some magic cut-off point where cars above a certain size are all damaging the environment while cars below that size actually help the environment. Yet it's clear most people seem to have been brain-washed into thinking that's the case.
YEs, like you said, people are complete idiots.
On another TV show an equally smug couple proclaimed how they'd made sure their (massive) new house was eco-friendly by installing low-energy lightbulbs. Fortunately, the presenter had the sense to point out that they had installed 80 (eighty) of these light bulbs in the ceiling of their living room alone!
Helping the environment one lightbulb at a time! That's a nother polar bear saved.
To summarise, please could we have proper facts and evidence presented to the public on this issue.
I agree. I think this should be done on much more scientific issues.
If the facts and methods were out in the open, there wouldn't be all this controversy would there?
Of course there would *points to creationism*. But at least they'd be seen as just as cuckoo by the "normal" people.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-07-2009 10:26 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-07-2009 12:09 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 12:30 PM Huntard has not replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 64 of 191 (538469)
12-07-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-07-2009 10:26 AM


So why is it so hard for the public to get hold of firm data? Why is all the information we get about Global Warming only in soundbite form?
You have GOT to be kidding me (I really and truly hope so).
There is freely available data for any and all who care to look. You get soundbites because most people DON'T care to look. And the majority who do care really couldn't understand the data if they did look. Why should they? One can toss out all sorts of data points on, say, engine performance but without the background knowledge to know what the data means, which conclusions they point to, what good is it?
But go on and follow the links just on this one page NASA provides: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/meteo.html.
Data from NASA itself, the NOAA, DOD, DOE, USDA, EPA and links to state/regional climate organizations.
And these are just U.S. based links. No private or partisan organizations included.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-07-2009 10:26 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-08-2009 6:18 AM jacortina has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 191 (538471)
12-07-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-07-2009 10:26 AM


This whole leaking of secret email business perfectly sums up the problem. Why does anyone need to be secretive about the climate in the first place, unless there is an agenda to control or deceive the public?
"Secret email"? I know of no organization anywhere in the world that publishes its internal emails. It follows, then, that every organization is being "secretive". Now why should that be --- "unless there is an agenda to control or deceive the public"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-07-2009 10:26 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-08-2009 6:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 66 of 191 (538472)
12-07-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Huntard
12-07-2009 10:41 AM


And how many scientific things are discussed in that sort of detail in any media outlet?
Spot on!
Ben Goldacre talks about this in his book "Bad Science". He says the problem stems from the fact that journalists are mainly gradutes in humanities and have very little understanding of or respect for science. And they seem to think that the public are as ignorant as they are (which we agree is largely, but not totally, true), so they can get away with terrible reporting of science.
However, he goes on to point out that they don't think the public is that ignorant about economics, politics or sport. If you read the economics or politics section of even a tabloid newspaper, it is normally written on the assumption that the reader is very knowledgeable on the subject. Yet many people are very ignorant of those topics too, and wouldn't understand the articles.
Never seen South Park. Any good? Is it a bit like The Simpsons? Never seen that either (honest).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 10:41 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 1:08 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 191 (538474)
12-07-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Huntard
12-07-2009 10:41 AM


UN's Facility?
Huntard writes:
Now now, they are only the mails of 1 research facility. The other research facilities that are also confirming it are also part of the conspiracy?
My understanding is that this one facility at Anglia is the major climate facility that the UN uses for promoting it's global agendas that are being foisted upon the nations.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 10:41 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2009 12:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2009 1:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 71 by petrophysics1, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 68 of 191 (538478)
12-07-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
12-07-2009 12:30 PM


Re: UN's Facility?
How did you come to this understanding?
See this:
Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit: writes:
The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."
The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram - not a scientific paper - which was used in the World Meteorological Organisation's statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).
The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.
Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.
The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
found on the CRU website regarding the leaked (see hijacked) emails. (emboldened text by me)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 12:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 69 of 191 (538479)
12-07-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-07-2009 12:09 PM


I agree with your post, so I will keep my comments to this part:
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Never seen South Park. Any good? Is it a bit like The Simpsons? Never seen that either (honest).
It's better then the simpsons, The humour is much "harder". Sometimes even very politically incorrect (I remmeber an episode one or two weeks after Steve Irwin died, which featured a Steve Irwin with a stingray sticking out of his chest. There was outrage, so, what does South park do, in the very next episode, they throw in some more comments on Steve Irwin " in a stingray tank", if I recall correctly.). Anyway, I think it's great, especially when it touches on "current affairs".
All episodes can be viewed here for free (completely legal too)
Viewing tip: Trapped in the closet (episode 12 of season 9 (about scientology))

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-07-2009 12:09 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 70 of 191 (538480)
12-07-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
12-07-2009 12:30 PM


Re: UN's Facility?
Buzz, I want to confirm your position here.
Are you suggesting that the United Nations has (wittingly or unwittingly) conspired to use climate issues to justify forcing industrialized nations to pay reparations to the 3rd world for environmental damage? That human-caused global warming is not simply bad or hoax science, but is actually part of a plan to redistribute wealth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 12:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 191 (538496)
12-07-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
12-07-2009 12:30 PM


BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 0
Hi Buzsaw,
So in five pages I see that only one scientist, Coyote, has posted.
And he agrees with you that man make global warming is probably a crock.
I've been a petroleum exploration geologist for the last 35 years. I make a living looking for unknown and undiscovered oil and gas deposits.That job requires me to know the paleoenvironments and climates of various areas from the Cambrian to now.
For 90% of the time from the Cambrian to now the average earth's temperature was about 72 degrees F, it is presently 58 degrees F.
The only other time from the Cambrian to now that the temperature and CO2 content was as low as it is today was during the glacial and interglacial periods of the Pennsylvanian and Permian.
Coyote mentioned the warm period during the Middle Ages, but there have been many times where the temperatures have been much higher along with much much higher CO2 concentrations then we see today.
They were not caused by man as he wasn't there.
So now Buzsaw, you have two scientists on your side and none against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 12:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2009 3:13 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2009 3:31 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2009 4:23 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 78 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-07-2009 5:32 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 149 by DBlevins, posted 12-14-2009 5:23 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 72 of 191 (538499)
12-07-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by petrophysics1
12-07-2009 3:06 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 0
Let's see some published work

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by petrophysics1, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 73 of 191 (538505)
12-07-2009 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by petrophysics1
12-07-2009 3:06 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 0
For 90% of the time from the Cambrian to now the average earth's temperature was about 72 degrees F, it is presently 58 degrees F.
The only other time from the Cambrian to now that the temperature and CO2 content was as low as it is today was during the glacial and interglacial periods of the Pennsylvanian and Permian.
Coyote mentioned the warm period during the Middle Ages, but there have been many times where the temperatures have been much higher along with much much higher CO2 concentrations then we see today.
They were not caused by man as he wasn't there.
So now Buzsaw, you have two scientists on your side and none against.
Not all climate change needs to be man-made. Nobody has ever seriously suggested that, without man's interference, the Earth's average temperatures would remain static.
Neither is anyone so stupid as to propose that all life on Earth will end should the temperature rise a few degrees. Well, not outside of big-budget Hollywood blockbusters, but then those aren't exactly held to any sort of relationship with reality.
The problem with global warming is not that it will annihilate life, but rather that it will apply selective pressures that will change a status quo that currently favors us very strongly. Any change to that status quo will require us to adapt - something we, as a species, are perfectly capable of doing, but as individuals and nations are very reluctant to do. And people will die, and that's a rather unfortunate thing.
The question of human involvement with climate change has not been one of assessing blame or of claiming that the sky is falling. Rather, it has always been about what we can or cannot do to minimize damage to modern human societies. This means that, if humans are causing the globe to warm or are exacerbating a natural temperature shift, or even if we're not to blame at all but are capable to affecting a natural change, then we can take steps to slow or reverse warming and preserve our current way of life.
That's all. It is very well established from multiple sources that the Earth is warming up. The current rise in temperature may or may not be partially or primarily the result of human industrialization. Previous warming and cooling trends are irrelevant to whether this particular event is being caused in large part or small by humanity. The importance of determining the source is not about blame, but rather what our proper response should be to minimize damage.
Your work as a geologist is irrelevant to climate research issues simply because natural warming trends from the past do not in any way rule out the possibility of human industry causing an artificial (ie, man-made, not "fake") change in global mean temperatures.
Facts have been very sparse in this thread. There has been much referral to blogs, and commentary, and videos, but so far no actual quotes from the emails, no analysis from a qualified independent climatologist on the actual meaning of the emails (as opposed to what silly journalists and talk-show hosts think they mean), and no addressing the fact that climate research has been carried out at countless Universities around the globe as opposed to these results coming from only one corrupt group of frauds.
This thread (and the topic at large, in the real world) needs more facts and less fearmongering and distrustfulness. The "public" may not trust scientists due to this fiasco, but then, the "public" by and large is comprised of idiots who wouldn't be able to comprehend an actual scientific paper should they actually take the time to read one instead of listening to what Bill O'Reilly thinks it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by petrophysics1, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-07-2009 3:58 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 7:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 74 of 191 (538509)
12-07-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-07-2009 10:26 AM


Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
This whole leaking of secret email business perfectly sums up the problem. Why does anyone need to be secretive about the climate in the first place, unless there is an agenda to control or deceive the public?
Is this a joke or are you seriously this clueless? There is no organization in this world that publishes its emails. In fact, the organization known as my family doesn't publish our emails either. Do you publish your emails?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-07-2009 10:26 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-08-2009 6:37 AM Taz has replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 75 of 191 (538510)
12-07-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
12-07-2009 3:31 PM


Great point
Excellent as always, Rahvin. I thing your point is of critical importance and one that gets lost in public discussions of this issue. The real danger from rapid changes in climate are to us and our way of life. It might be inspiring to pretend that it is the actual planet we are hurting/saving but the reality is that we have built a immensely large and fragile population based really on our ability to exploit the base of the trophic pyramid.
The thing that frustrates with the GW deniers (man-made) is the idea that if it is indeed a 100% natural phenomena then we can just ignore it completely. There is an ancient Klingon proverb meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH (Only a fool fights in a burning house) that I think applies. Politics aside, scandals aside, causation aside, there is a very real set of changes occurring and those changes will affect where we can live, where we can grow food, etc. The discussion (in the media) has turned to who (or what) is to blame which I feel is only one part of the issue.
And if scientists are voting, I am also a scientist and vote "yea" on made made climate change. I think it is very complex and not a single cause issue, but I am convinced just based on the oceanographic data (some of which I contributed to if sorting and counting zooplankton is a contribution).

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2009 3:31 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024