450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[Diuretic]

Thank you for that.

Now, I'm going to ask you to be unscientific. What would the prudent course of action be, given what we do know? If you were advising on policy what broad approach might you take? I know that's a really broad question to ask but after all this isn't a symposium so we won't lob anything at you.

 

[Si modo]

Thank you for that.

Now, I'm going to ask you to be unscientific. What would the prudent course of action be, given what we do know? If you were advising on policy what broad approach might you take? I know that's a really broad question to ask but after all this isn't a symposium so we won't lob anything at you.

If I were advising on policy, I would strongly recommend against any of the versions of Kyoto, first off. As far as domestic legislation is concerned, and based on the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere due to man (irrespective of the significance of its effects on temps), I would encourage awareness of CO2 levels, without any fear-mongering of effects (as that would not be prudent) - PSAs, etc.; I would allocate monies in reduced emissions energy basic and applied research; and I would develop incentives (tax) for corporations and businesses who employ reduced emission technology but would also recommend that a parallel economic impact analysis accompany that latter recommendation. That's just off the top of my head.

 

[Old Rocks]

The present science concerning global warming and CO2 is just as solid as the present science on evolution. I have been posting sites from the people that do the real science for a long time. The site that shows as "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" is from the American Institute of Physics. It is a history of the research into the greenhouse effects of not only CO2, but also the other GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

For those doubting the overwhelming scientific consensus on this subject here is a small excerpt from a site that lists the scientific bodies that state that global warming is real, and the primary cause is the burning of fossil fuels.


Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion


State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
American Astronomical Society
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. -American Astronomical Society, 2004
The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society
The greenhouse effect is a natural and well-understood phenomenon [snip]

Most of the observed warming is highly likely due to human activity
It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity. Concentrations of a range of other potent greenhouse gases, such as CFCs<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]-->, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased also as a result of human activity, and have contributed to the observed warming. Conversely, some other by-products of human activity, most notably industrial aerosols, have had a cooling effect on the atmosphere, and have offset some of the warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect. - The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Statement on Climate Change
American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.- American Institute of Physics, 2003

 

[Si modo]

Rocks, in science, consensus is as significant as two things - jack and shit.

You do not play at science well.

 

[tigerbob]

Opinion on evolution is one thing, opinion on climate change is another.

Evolutionary opinion is not driving billions of dollars of investment, requiring wholesales changes in the way the world works or being used as a rationale for swathes of invasive legislation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Opinion on evolution is one thing, opinion on climate change is another.

Evolutionary opinion is not driving billions of dollars of investment, requiring wholesales changes in the way the world works or being used as a rationale for swathes of invasive legislation.

You mean that we are not spending billions of dollars worldwide every year to try to keep ahead of viruses like the flu?

If we do absolutely nothing about the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere, we will not spend billions of dollars. We will spend 100s of trillions, and see a significant portion of the world's population die.

Yep, way out on a limb. So we shall see who is correct in the coming decades. The people that are ignoring geological history and present events, or those that are extrapolating from present knowledge.

Guess what? I really, really hope you people win this debate!

 

[tigerbob]

Opinion on evolution is one thing, opinion on climate change is another.

Evolutionary opinion is not driving billions of dollars of investment, requiring wholesales changes in the way the world works or being used as a rationale for swathes of invasive legislation.

You mean that we are not spending billions of dollars worldwide every year to try to keep ahead of viruses like the flu?

If we do absolutely nothing about the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere, we will not spend billions of dollars. We will spend 100s of trillions, and see a significant portion of the world's population die.

Yep, way out on a limb. So we shall see who is correct in the coming decades. The people that are ignoring geological history and present events, or those that are extrapolating from present knowledge.

Guess what? I really, really hope you people win this debate!

"You people" presumably meaning "people that are ignoring geological history and present events"? Ignoring is probably the wrong word, at least if you're including me as one of "you people".

Oh, and I've no idea what a GHG is.

 

[Toronado3800]

A sealed fish tank is not a dynamic ecosystem, with millions upon millions of variables....And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that.

Exactly! So who knows. I'm admitting its not a 100% thing. 99%, 50%, who knows.

Question is, how radical and willing to take a risk with your descendant's futures are you. I'm a stick in the mud. If there is a 5% (1 in 20) chance pushing my kid in a stroller across the street is going to result in death I'm going elsewhere to cross.

Then again if you don't care it sheds a light on how for looking your political policies are.

 

[Oddball]

Pascal's wager isn't scientific, either.

 

[Diuretic]

Pascal's wager isn't scientific, either.

But it is prudent policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

A sealed fish tank is not a dynamic ecosystem, with millions upon millions of variables....And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that.

Exactly! So who knows. I'm admitting its not a 100% thing. 99%, 50%, who knows.

Question is, how radical and willing to take a risk with your descendant's futures are you. I'm a stick in the mud. If there is a 5% (1 in 20) chance pushing my kid in a stroller across the street is going to result in death I'm going elsewhere to cross.

Then again if you don't care it sheds a light on how for looking your political policies are.

Your choices are 1) Vote for cap and tax and reduce temperatures by .5 degree C 40 years down the road. In the process you cost over $1T and guarantee high unemployment and low growth. Or 2) You kill the bill and figure economics will devise solutions to whatever problem might or might not come.
To me the choice is obvious.

 

[Oddball]

Pascal's wager isn't scientific, either.

But it is prudent policy.

Not even.

Writing policy to deal with every possible externality or exigency, no matter how silly, is the recipe for totalitarianism.

 

[Toronado3800]

Your choices are 1) Vote for cap and tax and reduce temperatures by .5 degree C 40 years down the road. In the process you cost over $1T and guarantee high unemployment and low growth. Or 2) You kill the bill and figure economics will devise solutions to whatever problem might or might not come.
To me the choice is obvious.

Put more bluntly, you feel capping our emissions would cost us too much in the short term and allow the likes of China to surge ahead?

That is a viable argument.

Personally I disagree. Cars we are all familiar with so we'll use for one example.

1989 my now deceased Toronado made 160HP, a new Fox Body GT Mustang 220ish. Them cars have been replaced by a front drive Chevy V8 Impala making twice the horse of my Toronado and getting almost the same fuel economy and how many horse do the Mustangs make now while getting the same economy?

I say my Trofeo Toronado got on the highway well enough with 160HP and while I enjoy having a faster car too a 300 HP Impala is a sign of gluttony. So we're polluting thanks to gluttony not necessity.

 

[Oddball]

All that proves is that technology doesn't stand still and that free economies get better and better efficiency per unit of energy used.

And if someone can get 300 HP out of any engine, what's that to you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Opinion on evolution is one thing, opinion on climate change is another.

Evolutionary opinion is not driving billions of dollars of investment, requiring wholesales changes in the way the world works or being used as a rationale for swathes of invasive legislation.

You mean that we are not spending billions of dollars worldwide every year to try to keep ahead of viruses like the flu?

If we do absolutely nothing about the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere, we will not spend billions of dollars. We will spend 100s of trillions, and see a significant portion of the world's population die.

Yep, way out on a limb. So we shall see who is correct in the coming decades. The people that are ignoring geological history and present events, or those that are extrapolating from present knowledge.

Guess what? I really, really hope you people win this debate!

"You people" presumably meaning "people that are ignoring geological history and present events"? Ignoring is probably the wrong word, at least if you're including me as one of "you people".

Oh, and I've no idea what a GHG is.

GHG, Greenhouse gas.

 

[Old Rocks]

A sealed fish tank is not a dynamic ecosystem, with millions upon millions of variables....And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that.

Exactly! So who knows. I'm admitting its not a 100% thing. 99%, 50%, who knows.

Question is, how radical and willing to take a risk with your descendant's futures are you. I'm a stick in the mud. If there is a 5% (1 in 20) chance pushing my kid in a stroller across the street is going to result in death I'm going elsewhere to cross.

Then again if you don't care it sheds a light on how for looking your political policies are.

Your choices are 1) Vote for cap and tax and reduce temperatures by .5 degree C 40 years down the road. In the process you cost over $1T and guarantee high unemployment and low growth. Or 2) You kill the bill and figure economics will devise solutions to whatever problem might or might not come.
To me the choice is obvious.

Right you are. The choice is obvious. We just saw what an unregulated market can do to the world economy, so no regulations on greenhouse gases means that we will find out for sure what 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can really do.

Because of the intertia in the system, were we able to stop all fossil fuel use right now, we would still see an increasing warmth for the next fifty years. We have already cast the die for ourselves and our children. We are now dealing with our grandchildrens future.

 

[Toronado3800]

And if someone can get 300 HP out of any engine, what's that to you?

Really I'm torn by this and put A LOT of thought into it when working on my 68 Coupe.

The point is w/o government intervention in the form of CAFE standards or emissions we would still be driving land yachts w/o catalytic converters that get 8mpg whenever gas was below $5 a gallon.

I feel instead of doubling the horsepower of a luxury coupe over the last 20 years investment should have been made into doubling the efficiency of the vehicle.

(Then again maybe that's because I'm sick of rebuilding the Mustang just to beat daily drivers lol)

 

[Oddball]

Nonsense.

All CAFE standards did was replace the gargantuan Buicks and Chryslers with SUVs, which, like all myopic gubmint mandates, failed to take into account that consumers will always get the kinds of products they want.

High performance is about power-to-weight as much as, if not more so than, mere straight line speed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny. I get 25 mpg from central Oregon to Portland. In a vehicle that is more comfortable, has more room, and more power than most that I owned that got only 12 mpg.

Without the emmision laws and standards, we would still be making the Planned Obselesence crap foisted off on us in the '70s.

 

[Toronado3800]

Nonsense.

All CAFE standards did was replace the gargantuan Buicks and Chryslers with SUVs, which, like all myopic gubmint mandates, failed to take into account that consumers will always get the kinds of products they want.

I agree the CAFE standards did not foresee the growing popularity of SUVs and personal trucks. If anyone in the late 80s in government noticed this the regulations should have been updated to include the trucks more functionally.

I think we agree about the power to weight thing. Many parts of my 89 Oldsmobile could have been made lighter with 2009 tech and thus the car with the same power would have been quicker and more efficient.