Consensus? What Consensus .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
I don't mind the notion of using things that are environmentally friendly and minimize destruction because things like rain forest destruction & bad air quality certainly are not a myth. Overcrowded landfills are not a myth - though I do think they could use that very same trash to create energy instead of just burying it. Global warming? I've always held that the Earth has cycles that occur naturally and I'm going to stick to that (even though I have zero education on the science behind it )
You'd be surprised how expensive it is to go green ... Kind of like buying a house for the tax deduction. Sure, spend $1 to save 42c!
There has already been numerous reports that the Ice caps have been reforming at record rates this year. Take that for what it is though.
I have been one of the biggest skeptics of global warming .The earth has had an innumerable cycles of global cooling and global warming events . In the early 80s scientists were on the global cooling bandwaggon but it dissolved into nothing. Now we have the global warming scare and although I was a disbeliever at first I am coming around to the position that global warming is indeed occuring after reviewing several scientific journals . Certainly I believe that humankind needs to address this issue before it becomes too late .
I almost made my career in this field, and it sickens me to death to see what has been going on over the last 20 years. EDIT: That includes these squids. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. No thanks guys, go find another line of work.
Former astronaut speaks out on global warming http://news.bostonherald.com/news/n...t_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent Now, I have no idea about his pedigree or background etc., just wanted to put this up
But wait. Al Freakin Gore told us it is, and even won a Nobel Peace Prize because of it..... Anybody with credibility that has won a NPP should ship it directly back to the originator with a "Thanks but No Thanks" card attached.
He knows rocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt I doubt he is qualified to speak on global warming but he is no more, or no less as qualified as Al Gore, so that is not saying a lot. I try to listen to scientist who specialize in atmospheric chemistry and climatology and I believe that the majority of them lean towards believing that a increasing levels of a known greenhouse gas can contribute to global warming. Before someone jumps up to attack what I said, please address my point and nothing more. I am tired of making specific points and have poor debaters try to take things off my reply.
My main focus for my Ph.D. is geomicrobiology processes so I love geologists because, to some degree, they study microbial driven processes in rocks and geologic layers but they probably are not qualified to speak about climatology. Much of the same can be said about Al Gore and this astronaut.
Says the man with a wierd Duck on his hat and a lizard in his pocket.... Two things my dad taught me: Never trust a man with his pants tucked into his boots: Never trust ANYBODY from New Mexico
That pretty much excludes everyone in the military. OT: If all goes well, I will have at least one and most likely two publications ready for press, one of which my PI and my committee believes will mark a change in the way an important method of geotechnical engineering used to alter soil characteristics to protect against damage from earthquakes.
There are a lot of unqualified people giving their opinion on global warming. At least this guy can call himself a scientist, I think. Lets ignore his opinion on global warming, but address his statement about the political pressure, as that addresses directly the "consensus." You dont' need to be a qualified expert on global warming to make that statement.
With all due respect, I think you COMPLETELY missed my original Irony ....and for the record, I tried with all my might to "Warn" folks about Senator McCain
I have never met or read of any that DON'T believe that. The debate is how much, and can it even be measured. There is a standard calculation in the field that is as rudamentary as it gets. It says that if you double Co2, and leave all else fixed or neutral, you get one degree of warming. No one debates this. The problem is that nothing in the system stays fixed or neutral. There are too many feedbacks, many of which we don't understand, or are just beginning to undersatand. Predictions are based almost entirely on computer models now. They say that a doubling of Co2 should see up to 8 degrees of warming, depending on which model you want to believe. We are 3/4 of the way to a doubling already, and we have only seen .5 degrees of warming. Nothing even close to what models predicted, and no one can say how much of that .5 is due to us. Because their input is based on flawed assumptions, exaggerate positive feedbacks, and don't take many negative feedbacks into account, their output is immediately wrong and diverges farther from reality the farther out they try to predict. This is why, in 1990, they predicted how many of us should already be dead today.
Meanwhile the UN (IPCC) has finally dropped it's ridiculous belief of anthropogenic global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But of course how would anyone know that with todays media.
Brother Jason, I don't have time now to address the issues you raised here but I will do so this weekend when I have more time.
Well even if global warming is a fallacy, and im not convinced it is, maybe it would behoove us to do be environmentally conscious before global warming confirms its reality?
You know, it may very well be true, but when I hear about shady practices to try and prove it is true, it doesn't sit well with me. We should be environmentally conscious anyway, just don't scare us into it. There's so much double talk it's crazy. Plus, the scientific community doesn't exactly have the best track record (that global cooling stuff is a very big black eye don'tcha think?). OH yeah, and the biggest pushers of this stuff (politicians and celebs) should really get their house in order before pushing it. That's just me. Hypocrisy pushes me further. How about, lets just be more environmentally conscious because it's the right thing to do. That's a message I can get with.
I wouldn't say its a fallacy, but what many are trying to tell you is. We have to be doing something however miniscule it may be. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and even though nature eats up just over half of the co2 we pump up into the atmosphere, the other very small half still persists. And even though Co2 levels have been increasing naturally at 12 times the rate of man's contribution, we ARE still contributing. That being said though, if Co2 is as sensitive as many would like you to believe, then removing all of man's contribution should still leave us all in big trouble, as we would barely see a difference in natures continued rate of increasing c02. There has to be a human fingerprint as far as temps go, but its nearly, if not totally impossible to figure out. Is it an overall warming effect or cooling effect? We build cities and towns with concrete and asphalt, and so they are 5-10 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside or what that original land used to be. Then we cut down forests and plant light colored crops like wheat that reflect the suns energy and it has a local cooling effect. No one has even attempted, as far as I know, to even tackle this one. I'm all for going green by the way. But not in an irresponsible way known as the KYOTO Protocol. ESPECIALLY now in the current state of the world's economy.
