A victory for "Liberal" science.

[daveman]

So your positition then is that there is no damage whatsoever in pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Ozone depletion has not increased in the last 100 years?

I didn't say that. Pollution has a real, measurable, negative effect...but not on climate.

Yes, yes, I know that a long time ago a guy proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the atmosphere is infinitely more complex than a bell jar in a lab, so you all need to stop waving that experiment around. Current computer models, likewise, are simply inadequate...even when you manipulate them to remove the MWP and produce a hockey stick.

So if dumping shit into the air is harmful, you would agree that trying to reduce the amount of crap we dump in the air would be good?

Yes, and I've never said otherwise.

Does investing in alternative energy make sense?

Yes. What doesn't make sense is regulating out of existence fossil fuels when the alternatives aren't ready to take their place.

Half the nation's electricity is generated by burning coal. There is nothing that can step up and replace that energy right now. Over 40% of the oil we use is used for transportation. Chevy Volts aren't going to change that...especially since they relocate the energy source, not replace it.

 

[daveman]

I didn't say that. Pollution has a real, measurable, negative effect...but not on climate.

Yes, yes, I know that a long time ago a guy proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the atmosphere is infinitely more complex than a bell jar in a lab, so you all need to stop waving that experiment around. Current computer models, likewise, are simply inadequate...even when you manipulate them to remove the MWP and produce a hockey stick.

So if dumping shit into the air is harmful, you would agree that trying to reduce the amount of crap we dump in the air would be good?

Does investing in alternative energy make sense?

Pollution control is allways a good goal. No sane person thinks otherwise. The problem arises when the goal is not pollution mitigation but rather, redistribution of wealth (managed by those in control don't you know, "the savages aren't smart enough to take care of themselves so we have to do it for them") and consolidation of power.

Pollution control however is not a part of the Cap and Trade nor a part of any of the carbon trading schemes being dreamed up around the globe. The scammers running the show wish to charge extra for the priviledge of polluting but there is absolutley no mechanism for the reduction of pollution.

That simple fact should give any true environmentalist pause, yet I have never seen a single greenie on this board ever consider those fundamental problems with the schemes as they exist.

Why is that?

Because the goal is, and has been all along, greater government control over individual lives.

 

[antagon]

i think government control is a side-effect of people complaining to the government as if the government is the solution to everything. i dont see there as being a faction which hopes to rile up government control juxt to one which doesnt. if companies are flagrantly polluting or thugs run the streets, because we are a civilized country, there's less of a propensity to engage in vigilantism. the government is the taskforce which keeps gangstas and polluters, etc. in line for both conservative and liberal concerns. i think this is where the wagner's law effect is so non-partisan... counter-intuitive, even.

there is a mechanism which i've seen blossom in my lifetime where commercial interest has been added to the role of the government with respect to this sort of work. war for profit, private prisons built on bond measures, cap and trade, obamacare, policification at every election cycle... these are mostly one-way streets with respect to policy. called regulatory capture. the government has shrunken in proportion to the service rendered, but when the private sector involves itself in matters with the government throwing a lead block or two, there is a massive net expansion in effective authority.

i think it's easy to pretend that the economy shapes itself from one basis to the next, but there's always a policy history shadowing the big picture. it's not if but how.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't say that. Pollution has a real, measurable, negative effect...but not on climate.

Yes, yes, I know that a long time ago a guy proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the atmosphere is infinitely more complex than a bell jar in a lab, so you all need to stop waving that experiment around. Current computer models, likewise, are simply inadequate...even when you manipulate them to remove the MWP and produce a hockey stick.

So if dumping shit into the air is harmful, you would agree that trying to reduce the amount of crap we dump in the air would be good?

Does investing in alternative energy make sense?

Pollution control is allways a good goal. No sane person thinks otherwise. The problem arises when the goal is not pollution mitigation but rather, redistribution of wealth (managed by those in control don't you know, "the savages aren't smart enough to take care of themselves so we have to do it for them") and consolidation of power.

Pollution control however is not a part of the Cap and Trade nor a part of any of the carbon trading schemes being dreamed up around the globe. The scammers running the show wish to charge extra for the priviledge of polluting but there is absolutley no mechanism for the reduction of pollution.

That simple fact should give any true environmentalist pause, yet I have never seen a single greenie on this board ever consider those fundamental problems with the schemes as they exist.

Why is that?

We live in a society that believes you should pay your way. Right now, fossile fuels are cheap because you can burn them and not worry about the true cost of what you dump into the air. You pay for what goes into your tank....but what comes out? No charge

Cap and trade makes you pay for your long term damage up front. If you choose a fuel that costs more going into your tank....but has no environmental impact when it leaves, you get compensated

 

[westwall]

So if dumping shit into the air is harmful, you would agree that trying to reduce the amount of crap we dump in the air would be good?

Does investing in alternative energy make sense?

Pollution control is allways a good goal. No sane person thinks otherwise. The problem arises when the goal is not pollution mitigation but rather, redistribution of wealth (managed by those in control don't you know, "the savages aren't smart enough to take care of themselves so we have to do it for them") and consolidation of power.

Pollution control however is not a part of the Cap and Trade nor a part of any of the carbon trading schemes being dreamed up around the globe. The scammers running the show wish to charge extra for the priviledge of polluting but there is absolutley no mechanism for the reduction of pollution.

That simple fact should give any true environmentalist pause, yet I have never seen a single greenie on this board ever consider those fundamental problems with the schemes as they exist.

Why is that?

We live in a society that believes you should pay your way. Right now, fossile fuels are cheap because you can burn them and not worry about the true cost of what you dump into the air. You pay for what goes into your tank....but what comes out? No charge

Cap and trade makes you pay for your long term damage up front. If you choose a fuel that costs more going into your tank....but has no environmental impact when it leaves, you get compensated

And I would have no problem with that if there was even the remotest empirical data that said we were causing damage. There isn't. All evidence that exists points to the fact that CO2 has no effect on climate at all.

To your other point, so long as the emerging technologies don't have to compete on a level playing field they will advance at a very slow rate because there is no real incentive to improve them. People by their very nature are lazy. They only work if they truly like to (a very small percentage) they get paid to (the largest percentage) or if they are forced to (with the ever present problems associated with forced labor..read slavery of physical or economic nature).

Currently, with the government subsidies (paid for by the efficient modes of transport) in-efficient modes of transport are made available (at extraordinarily high cost) to those who can afford them. The problem is you only see the wealthy paying extra for their electric cars and think it ends there. It doesn't. All those poor people have to pay extra so that once agin the wealty get to have their toys and feel all good about themselves.

All of this mind you with vehicles that are more damaging to the environment then the vehicles they seek to replace. Do you see that fundamental problem? Do you understand what I am saying? We have no problem with transport that comes along and takes us from point A to point B in the cheapest most environmentally friendly way possible. Currently that is accomplished by internal combustion engines. There is no mode of transport that comes close to the levels of efficiency that have been obtained with them. None.

EV's in my opinion are a dead end so long as they are dependent on batteries. Given a significant leap akin to what Tesla was working on where the Earth itself becomes an electrical grid and they would do fine, perfect in point of fact. But we don't have that yet or maybe even ever. Hydrogen fuel cells are the best option IMO but the folks doing that research have a very hard time getting reseach monies. We know they work, we know they are extremely efficient, they are however grotesquely expensive.

The basic problem with your line of reasoning is you will do more harm to the environment than is currently occuring and the incentive to do better is nonexistant under your model. Legislation should never be a precursor to innovation. The world doesn't work like that. Innovation occurs because of a need. If environmentally friendly vehicles could be made that were inexpensive the world would rush to the manufacturers door.

They havn't been invented yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps we should put a giant cork in the volcanoe that shut down europe a few months back...Can you send me a reference to any "man made" event, outside of war, that has shut down travel in the world? Do we pollute? Yes. It is so fractional in the overall scheme of things that thinking we can actually change the climate is arrogant and ignorant. we see a hazy skyline in southern California, and think that the whole world is like that. Or we see a clear cut in the mountains and think every forest is clear cut. When a giant cloud of human pollution stops some part of the world from functioning, then I will be the first in line to cry that the sky is falling

Interesting point of view. I grew up in the 60s and used to hear the same thing about pollution.

The Ocean is so big, dumping waste in it can't cause any harm
There is so much air....a little car exhaust can't hur it

Read up on Chernoble and Bho Pal if you don't think man can hurt the environment

No one has ever said that. We know exactly how devestating man can be at the local level, your assertion that man is changing the climate is unsupported by empirical data however.

I actually do think man has an impact on the climate. Chaos theory tells us that small changes can have huge results, like the story of the butterfly's wings. My problem comes from the arrogance that thinks we understand the cause and effect well enough to control them, and then they top that with the desire to tell me that they know more about what is good for me than I do. The whole notion of reducing our carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels will have a disastrous impact on both economies and peoples lives. If the only available power supply for a hospital is a coal burning power station and we shut it down how is that going to impact the people who depend on that hospital? What about people whose only source of heat in the winter is coal, do we just let them freeze to death?

It is not AGW, or the science, that I have a problem with, it is the alarmists who want to use it to take control of the planet, and drive everyone but them back to the stone age. Anyone who supports that is either a fool or a hypocrite. Perhaps both.

 

[antagon]

i think a hypothesis based in chaos theory imagination is the problem in the debate. without the science, that is, what we know about the working of the planet, an off-hand attribution is being made with regard to the human source of the problem. that is not genuine. if the concern was proportunate to the problem and the problem attributable to a cause, then there is room for us to consider recourse. right noe these parameters are out of balance on this topic because of the political and economic interests at play.

the future holds approaches to energy and the environment which would make our way of life look like it's back in the stone age. i say let the technology come and let it be based in accurate rather than distorted information.

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting point of view. I grew up in the 60s and used to hear the same thing about pollution.

The Ocean is so big, dumping waste in it can't cause any harm
There is so much air....a little car exhaust can't hur it

Read up on Chernoble and Bho Pal if you don't think man can hurt the environment

No one has ever said that. We know exactly how devestating man can be at the local level, your assertion that man is changing the climate is unsupported by empirical data however.

I actually do think man has an impact on the climate. Chaos theory tells us that small changes can have huge results, like the story of the butterfly's wings. My problem comes from the arrogance that thinks we understand the cause and effect well enough to control them, and then they top that with the desire to tell me that they know more about what is good for me than I do. The whole notion of reducing our carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels will have a disastrous impact on both economies and peoples lives. If the only available power supply for a hospital is a coal burning power station and we shut it down how is that going to impact the people who depend on that hospital? What about people whose only source of heat in the winter is coal, do we just let them freeze to death?

It is not AGW, or the science, that I have a problem with, it is the alarmists who want to use it to take control of the planet, and drive everyone but them back to the stone age. Anyone who supports that is either a fool or a hypocrite. Perhaps both.

I heard about this chaos theory stuff. It was invented by this guy Malcolm from Jurassic Park. It didn't work too well there either

 

[westwall]

Interesting point of view. I grew up in the 60s and used to hear the same thing about pollution.

The Ocean is so big, dumping waste in it can't cause any harm
There is so much air....a little car exhaust can't hur it

Read up on Chernoble and Bho Pal if you don't think man can hurt the environment

No one has ever said that. We know exactly how devestating man can be at the local level, your assertion that man is changing the climate is unsupported by empirical data however.

I actually do think man has an impact on the climate. Chaos theory tells us that small changes can have huge results, like the story of the butterfly's wings. My problem comes from the arrogance that thinks we understand the cause and effect well enough to control them, and then they top that with the desire to tell me that they know more about what is good for me than I do. The whole notion of reducing our carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels will have a disastrous impact on both economies and peoples lives. If the only available power supply for a hospital is a coal burning power station and we shut it down how is that going to impact the people who depend on that hospital? What about people whose only source of heat in the winter is coal, do we just let them freeze to death?

It is not AGW, or the science, that I have a problem with, it is the alarmists who want to use it to take control of the planet, and drive everyone but them back to the stone age. Anyone who supports that is either a fool or a hypocrite. Perhaps both.

I would agree with you to a point if you realised that the butterfly beat its wings 800 to a 1000 years ago. Which is approximately how long it takes for long term processes to manifest themselves. That's why any sort of catastrophe is so dramatic, its effects are felt immediately. A volcanic eruption has an immediate and measurable effect on the atmosphere and concurrently the climate of the planet. There is no measurable impact from mans gaseous output even though we supposedly pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcano's combined. A alarmist viewpoint I have major issues with.

 

[westwall]

No one has ever said that. We know exactly how devestating man can be at the local level, your assertion that man is changing the climate is unsupported by empirical data however.

I actually do think man has an impact on the climate. Chaos theory tells us that small changes can have huge results, like the story of the butterfly's wings. My problem comes from the arrogance that thinks we understand the cause and effect well enough to control them, and then they top that with the desire to tell me that they know more about what is good for me than I do. The whole notion of reducing our carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels will have a disastrous impact on both economies and peoples lives. If the only available power supply for a hospital is a coal burning power station and we shut it down how is that going to impact the people who depend on that hospital? What about people whose only source of heat in the winter is coal, do we just let them freeze to death?

It is not AGW, or the science, that I have a problem with, it is the alarmists who want to use it to take control of the planet, and drive everyone but them back to the stone age. Anyone who supports that is either a fool or a hypocrite. Perhaps both.

I heard about this chaos theory stuff. It was invented by this guy Malcolm from Jurassic Park. It didn't work too well there either

Nope! Chaos theory predates Jurassic Park by a couple of decades. A theoretical mathametician from Cal-Tech was one of the originators of it (though by accident, he was actually working on a paper for Game Theory at the time, he's a big poker player)
and then I think it was taken up by a Princeton prof, or it may have been somebody at MIT I think it is lost in the "chaos" of time

 

[Old Rocks]

What can be clearly seen down the road? The absolute inevitable climate change that will occur no matter what we do? Just how do you expect us to prevent that? Or the upcoming magnetic shift that is overdue? The next eruption of a super volcano?

You are running around like Chicken Little warning us that the sky is falling, and that we need to buy umbrellas, and ignoring the fact that umbrellas will do nothing to keep us safe.

Hmmm..., now who's saying "the science is settled"!

Science is never settled. History, however, is. History points out that the Earth has gone through a climate change every few thousand years. This includes the medieval warming period, that had higher temps than are projected as a result of AGW, and the little ice age that we are currently leaving. Climate changes.

A wonderful demostration of speaking on a subject when totally ignorant of that subject. Here, learn something.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

 

[Old Rocks]

Liberal strategy on climate change:

1. Give American tax dollars to third-world countries.

2. ?????

3. Unicorns roam the meadows!

So what is your scientific opinion Dave........does global warming exist? No big deal? All made up? What do you base it on?

It exists. It is not caused or aggravated by man's activities. There is no optimum temperature. AGW is designed not to "save the planet", but to increase government control over individual lives and take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

I base it on the AGW promoter's work. They simply do not have the science on their side.

OK, give us some scientific sources for your opinion? Since you state that science does not support AGW, this should be easy to find. As easy as a Scientific Society that states AGW doesn't exist. Or a National Academy of Science that states that AGW doesn't exist. Come on now, Daveboy, surely you can find one in Outer Slobovia? Or a major University in any nation that states that AGW doesn't exist.

Daveboy, back up your assertations with some referances.

 

[Old Rocks]

No one has ever said that. We know exactly how devestating man can be at the local level, your assertion that man is changing the climate is unsupported by empirical data however.

I actually do think man has an impact on the climate. Chaos theory tells us that small changes can have huge results, like the story of the butterfly's wings. My problem comes from the arrogance that thinks we understand the cause and effect well enough to control them, and then they top that with the desire to tell me that they know more about what is good for me than I do. The whole notion of reducing our carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels will have a disastrous impact on both economies and peoples lives. If the only available power supply for a hospital is a coal burning power station and we shut it down how is that going to impact the people who depend on that hospital? What about people whose only source of heat in the winter is coal, do we just let them freeze to death?

It is not AGW, or the science, that I have a problem with, it is the alarmists who want to use it to take control of the planet, and drive everyone but them back to the stone age. Anyone who supports that is either a fool or a hypocrite. Perhaps both.

I would agree with you to a point if you realised that the butterfly beat its wings 800 to a 1000 years ago. Which is approximately how long it takes for long term processes to manifest themselves. That's why any sort of catastrophe is so dramatic, its effects are felt immediately. A volcanic eruption has an immediate and measurable effect on the atmosphere and concurrently the climate of the planet. There is no measurable impact from mans gaseous output even though we supposedly pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcano's combined. A alarmist viewpoint I have major issues with.

Same old crock of shit from the same lying bastard.

Several of the lectures at the last AGU Conferance were discussions of the damage that is presently seen from the increased GHGs created by the burning of fossil fuels. I am quite sure that the upcoming AGU Conferance will have presentations that discuss this issue even further.

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

There is no Scientific Society that has as many people involved in the study of climate as the American Geophysical Union. And very few scientific societies have issued as strongly worded warning concerning the effect of AGW.

But the denialists here are not going to listen or read anything that is inconveniant to their 'political reality', no matter how much the reality we live it contradicts that warped view.

 

[rightwinger]

I actually do think man has an impact on the climate. Chaos theory tells us that small changes can have huge results, like the story of the butterfly's wings. My problem comes from the arrogance that thinks we understand the cause and effect well enough to control them, and then they top that with the desire to tell me that they know more about what is good for me than I do. The whole notion of reducing our carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels will have a disastrous impact on both economies and peoples lives. If the only available power supply for a hospital is a coal burning power station and we shut it down how is that going to impact the people who depend on that hospital? What about people whose only source of heat in the winter is coal, do we just let them freeze to death?

It is not AGW, or the science, that I have a problem with, it is the alarmists who want to use it to take control of the planet, and drive everyone but them back to the stone age. Anyone who supports that is either a fool or a hypocrite. Perhaps both.

I would agree with you to a point if you realised that the butterfly beat its wings 800 to a 1000 years ago. Which is approximately how long it takes for long term processes to manifest themselves. That's why any sort of catastrophe is so dramatic, its effects are felt immediately. A volcanic eruption has an immediate and measurable effect on the atmosphere and concurrently the climate of the planet. There is no measurable impact from mans gaseous output even though we supposedly pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcano's combined. A alarmist viewpoint I have major issues with.

Same old crock of shit from the same lying bastard.

Several of the lectures at the last AGU Conferance were discussions of the damage that is presently seen from the increased GHGs created by the burning of fossil fuels. I am quite sure that the upcoming AGU Conferance will have presentations that discuss this issue even further.

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

There is no Scientific Society that has as many people involved in the study of climate as the American Geophysical Union. And very few scientific societies have issued as strongly worded warning concerning the effect of AGW.

But the denialists here are not going to listen or read anything that is inconveniant to their 'political reality', no matter how much the reality we live it contradicts that warped view.

The problem is that the "political reality" requires sacrifice. It requires giving up some of the immense profits from fossil fuels. It requires doing the right thing

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmm..., now who's saying "the science is settled"!

Science is never settled. History, however, is. History points out that the Earth has gone through a climate change every few thousand years. This includes the medieval warming period, that had higher temps than are projected as a result of AGW, and the little ice age that we are currently leaving. Climate changes.

A wonderful demostration of speaking on a subject when totally ignorant of that subject. Here, learn something.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

What should I read? This about the Little Ice Age?

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pollen/recons/liadata.txt

Or this about the Medieval Warming?

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would agree with you to a point if you realised that the butterfly beat its wings 800 to a 1000 years ago. Which is approximately how long it takes for long term processes to manifest themselves. That's why any sort of catastrophe is so dramatic, its effects are felt immediately. A volcanic eruption has an immediate and measurable effect on the atmosphere and concurrently the climate of the planet. There is no measurable impact from mans gaseous output even though we supposedly pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the volcano's combined. A alarmist viewpoint I have major issues with.

Same old crock of shit from the same lying bastard.

Several of the lectures at the last AGU Conferance were discussions of the damage that is presently seen from the increased GHGs created by the burning of fossil fuels. I am quite sure that the upcoming AGU Conferance will have presentations that discuss this issue even further.

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

There is no Scientific Society that has as many people involved in the study of climate as the American Geophysical Union. And very few scientific societies have issued as strongly worded warning concerning the effect of AGW.

But the denialists here are not going to listen or read anything that is inconveniant to their 'political reality', no matter how much the reality we live it contradicts that warped view.

The problem is that the "political reality" requires sacrifice. It requires giving up some of the immense profits from fossil fuels. It requires doing the right thing

It requires Al Gore to make immense profits and to fly around in a private jet while I sit in a small car with a dead battery.

 

[rdean]

Man made climate change is the single greatest danger facing the planet today, and the single greatest threat to national security we face. We have to believe that, or we are labeled as deniers, and told that we should be blown up so that we do more damage to the environment.

The reason I do not worry that much about this is I know that human beings are able to accomplish anything if they try hard enough, and that the only thing that can hold them back is other human beings. The Left is going to do its best to accomplish that.

Some people think conservatives are anti science.

Geoengineering faces ban : Nature News

It is obviously more important to make sure we do not kill off the snail darter than it is to make sure that everything on Earth survives.

Congratulations on your complete meltdown if you think that AGW exists, and you insist that we do nothing to fix it.

Not just anti science. But also anti education, anti intellectualism.

Of course, there is a whole range of anti:

Anti gay

Anti feminist

Anti Muslim

Anti Atheism

Anti Middle Class

Anti Poor

Anti Hispanic

In fact, considering what they did in the last 10 years, many simply assume they are "Anti American". You know, actions speak louder and all that......

Hey, is it true Republicans cut unemployment benefits for millions of Americans right before Thanksgiving, but fight to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires when business is posting the biggest profits in the history of earth.

Merry Christmas!

Why is the snail darter more important than human life?

That doesn't even make sense on so many levels.

First, no one ever said "snail darters were more important than human life" until you.

Second, "liberal" scientists believe, through study and data, that all organisms on earth are interconnected. What happens in an animal population can tell you if there are toxic wastes in the environment that might get into our food chain or damage our children. And that is just two examples.

Simply killing off entire species is the fastest way of killing off ourselves.

Why does everything have to be explained? Can't some of you reason these things out on your own?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not just anti science. But also anti education, anti intellectualism.

Of course, there is a whole range of anti:

Anti gay

Anti feminist

Anti Muslim

Anti Atheism

Anti Middle Class

Anti Poor

Anti Hispanic

In fact, considering what they did in the last 10 years, many simply assume they are "Anti American". You know, actions speak louder and all that......

Hey, is it true Republicans cut unemployment benefits for millions of Americans right before Thanksgiving, but fight to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires when business is posting the biggest profits in the history of earth.

Merry Christmas!

Why is the snail darter more important than human life?

That doesn't even make sense on so many levels.

First, no one ever said "snail darters were more important than human life" until you.

Second, "liberal" scientists believe, through study and data, that all organisms on earth are interconnected. What happens in an animal population can tell you if there are toxic wastes in the environment that might get into our food chain or damage our children. And that is just two examples.

Simply killing off entire species is the fastest way of killing off ourselves.

Why does everything have to be explained? Can't some of you reason these things out on your own?

Liberal scientists believe.

That is the essence of the problem here, they believe, they do not know. They believe that 1000s of species are going extinct every day. They base this belief on wishful thinking and wild guesses. The real truth is no one knows, they just believe. And worrying about what might happen is far more important that dealing with what is happening.

 

[rdean]

Why is the snail darter more important than human life?

That doesn't even make sense on so many levels.

First, no one ever said "snail darters were more important than human life" until you.

Second, "liberal" scientists believe, through study and data, that all organisms on earth are interconnected. What happens in an animal population can tell you if there are toxic wastes in the environment that might get into our food chain or damage our children. And that is just two examples.

Simply killing off entire species is the fastest way of killing off ourselves.

Why does everything have to be explained? Can't some of you reason these things out on your own?

Liberal scientists believe.

That is the essence of the problem here, they believe, they do not know. They believe that 1000s of species are going extinct every day. They base this belief on wishful thinking and wild guesses. The real truth is no one knows, they just believe. And worrying about what might happen is far more important that dealing with what is happening.

I would rather believe them because they WANT to understand and that's why they "study" and "learn". You give the impression that "stupid and ignorant are GOOD".

Just the fact that you call science and study "wild guesses" proves it.

Worrying about what "might be happening" is the best motivator for finding out and preparing for "what might happen". It's why we study weather and learn about volcanoes and earthquakes. Apparently, only the right wants to be another "Pompeii".

 

[westwall]

Hmmm..., now who's saying "the science is settled"!

Science is never settled. History, however, is. History points out that the Earth has gone through a climate change every few thousand years. This includes the medieval warming period, that had higher temps than are projected as a result of AGW, and the little ice age that we are currently leaving. Climate changes.

A wonderful demostration of speaking on a subject when totally ignorant of that subject. Here, learn something.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

As usual you missed the point entirely, however once again you post a link to a site that confirms what the other guy said, do you actually bother to read these things or do you just hope no one else will?

Here is just one of many statements that is made that reinforces what QW said..


"Following the end of the last glacial period about 11,500 years ago, the Earth's climate system began to look and behave more like it does today. The large continental ice sheets shrank, sea level rose, temperatures ameliorated, monsoons grew in strength. Around 8,200 years ago, however, a surprising event occurred. The 8.2 ka event, as it is now known, was first discovered in the Greenland ice core GISP2, where high-resolution analyses indicate that over two decades temperature cooled about 3.3°C in Greenland (Alley et al., 1997; Kobashi et al., 2007). The entire event lasted about 150 years (Thomas et al., 2007; Kobashi et al., 2007) and then temperatures warmed, returning to their previous levels."