Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, May 13, 2007.
Believe what you want. Just don't expect sane Americans to agree with you.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Sorry sweetheart---I just know where to find it and what to do with it, not how to spell itPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
DH---Lindzen is perhaps the most famous dissenter in the AGW debate. I wouldn't have given Sandy shit if she had said "many scientists" or something along those lines, but a poll of scientists involved in the field would find a majority of them supporting the AGW explanation.
The head of NASA doubts it.
So what? An aerospace engineer that knows next to nothing about climatology isn't qualified to make statements on the subject.
The headline is wrong. The headline says "NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming". What Griffin actually said (read the article, Sandy) was
"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."Griffin acknowleges that the global warming has and is occurring. He just doubts whether doing something about it is the right thing to do. This is very close to my own opinion on global warming.
Is it a coincidence that those who really don't give a shit about nature prefer to believe that policies and actions that do not take into account our effects on it?
It's kind of like the Holocaust deniers?
What the F are you ranting about, Granty?
This is a meaningless statement. What you have said is "The people who don't think it is an issue don't think it is an issue."
And he bases his doubts, he says, on the assertion that people who think we should do something are claiming to know what an "optimal" climate is.
That is not only BS, it is the current administration's political talking point.
He's sucking up to the money fountain in Washington, by the sound of his weasel rhetoric and talking point repetition. He's not supposed to be doing that. He's supposed to represent not domestic political concerns, but international (with an American bias) scientific and engineering matters, in Washington.
btw: That interview, which played on the radio this morning, was not about global warming. It was a reply to an interview aired yesterday with a severe critic of NASA in general, a guy (Easterbrook? something like that) who claims that the moon base and other recent NASA priorities make no sense, and are costing a fortune in lost opportunity - among those losses significant cutbacks in NASA's earth science operations. The GW stuff came up as a tangent. So what that government bureaucrat was doing was defending cutbacks in NASA's earth-monitoring and research efforts (such as cancellation of a satellite that would map and monitor soil moisture planet-wide) by accusing the people who want them of being elitists who want to mandate their idea of an optimal climates for everyone.
Climate Change is a fact. The only debate is, on what we are going to do about it.
Of course your car pollutes the air! Of course we are polluting the evironment! Your food is likely polluted with high fructose corn syrup and other chemicals.
I don't think we can afford to pretend Climate Change is not happening, it's a matter of, what are we going to do to solve it? Some people have some good ideas on how to solve it, these ideas come from various political factions and perspectives depending on your taste.
This is a moral issue, not a political issue.
I've been reading Murray Bookchin lately and I'm starting to believe the Climate Crisis is a social problem. The problem is in how we designed our business laws, we don't allow for social corporations, or eco-corporations to run tax free, and we don't tax the criminals more than the non-criminals, but we definately should.
We should not raise taxes on the wealthy, or the poor, but if you as an individual, are harming the environment, or if a corporation is harming the environment, taxes should be raised on it based on the amount of harm it's doing, and there should be a methodology involved in calculating that which the governments follow.
All corporations which are ecologically friendly, should be tax free. Problem solved. Tax the polluters.
By the way, a social corporation is a new type of corporation we should invent, with the primary goal being social, and growth and profit being the secondary goal. By law these corporations will combine the best features of non profits and for profits.
That is the only way in my opinion to solve this, we need new breeds of corporations.
And exactly what would that accomplish in the end? The corporations - good or bad - simply pass the taxes along to the consumers.
>> Griffin acknowleges that the global warming has and is occurring. He just doubts whether doing something about it is the right thing to do. >>
A reasonable statement but only if the cause of global climate change was an overpressure of CO2.
Certainly gas emission propaganda is fatally flawed, and that is obvious given the level of scientific decent.
And underneath it all is OIL.
Now to claim oil is the cause really demands a cessation of modern civilisation.
Ban OIL ?, the world would rather die
and so be it !!!
Thats exactly the point, we have to change consumer behavior too. Consumers are addicted to certain products, the price of addiction, infinite costs. If you smoke, and a pack of cigs is taxed, and your pack costs more, good. You act like smoking benefits the consumer or anyone else for that matter.
The people who don't care about health are killing themselves, shouldn't it be expensive? Or would you rather cigs be free?
Who's dumb idea was it to ban oil? No one said ban oil.
A cold snap in Argentina led to electricity and natural gas shortages this week, idling factories and taxis and causing sporadic blackouts in the capital.
Beset by the coldest May since 1962, millions of residents fired up space heaters, straining Buenos Aires' electrical grid for three nights and forcing authorities to slash power supply nationwide and briefly cut domestic natural gas provisions and exports to Chile.
Damned global warming. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Again, people that point out cold spell as a counter argument to global warming are only revealing the extent of their ignorance. These days, almost no one denies that the Earth's average temperature is warming. It's just the fact of this being caused by man seems to be more controversial.
Reported for trolling. You have been told repeatedly that this crap is just that. Single incidents of cold snaps do not disprove global warming because single incidents have nothing to do with global warming.
>> Reported for trolling. >> LOL
good one "" The Politics and Science of Fear"", LOL, idiot!
I like to hear all sides of a debate, certainly weather is different to climate, but only as a tree is different to a forest !
Sandy is not reporting everyday events, those reported are RECORDS... it is weather records that actually make up the changing climatic picture.
Ad hominen remarks and threats of retribution are a sign your argument, DH is totally null and void... exhausted !
Separate names with a comma.