In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Actually, not a scaremonger. More like the guy that says "I am not a lawyer, but play one on TV."

No, no, you could really only label him a scaremonger, given your previous comments. I mean you said about one article

At best, the article misrepresents with terms like "record" and "in history". At worst, it is more scare tactics.

and then I pointed out that Dr Jeff's writing concurred with that article but even set the date for reliable ice cap data a few years later than the article you said that about. Given that, he also cannot be said to misrepresent terms like "record" or "history" and, well, the only choice left for categorizing him in your stated view is that he uses scare tactics -- he's a scaremonger.

It's interesting to note that he just doesn't seem like the scaremonger type, when you think about his hurricane reporting. Quite the opposite, in fact -- calm and well reasoned...

I get it: it must be that that's where he's paid by Weather Underground, and he has to switch to scaremongering to keep his VLWC checks coming.

That aside, your climatologist / meteorologist tack would I think give you already 3 smokescreens on the day (the others being in that double about the score of the Redskins game). You're on a roll -- and it's still early!

Steve

[ryberg]

Now see what you did, Maggie?!?

Steve

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Now see what you did, Maggie?!?

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Y'all would have liked the new display at the BC Museum I saw last week on climate change.
Lots of fancy models and maps with projected changes for Canada, etc. and scary videos of tornadoes and hurricanes and forest fires, accompanied by a scrolling list of the things people can do to make a difference.

It was right around the corner from a huge wall showing the earth's geographical and climate changes in the last 100 million years or so, along with all the different species groups that arose and then fell..... I thought it was a bit.... funny? Ironic?

Keep it moving, folks, nothing to see here.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

No, no, you could really only label him a scaremonger, given your previous comments. I mean you said about one article

and then I pointed out that Dr Jeff's writing concurred with that article but even set the date for reliable ice cap data a few years later than the article you said that about. Given that, he also cannot be said to misrepresent terms like "record" or "history" and, well, the only choice left for categorizing him in your stated view is that he uses scare tactics -- he's a scaremonger.

It's interesting to note that he just doesn't seem like the scaremonger type, when you think about his hurricane reporting. Quite the opposite, in fact -- calm and well reasoned...

I get it: it must be that that's where he's paid by Weather Underground, and he has to switch to scaremongering to keep his VLWC checks coming.

That aside, your climatologist / meteorologist tack would I think give you already 3 smokescreens on the day (the others being in that double about the score of the Redskins game). You're on a roll -- and it's still early!

Steve

I read with interest Dr. Jeff's hurricane blog, because that is his field and he is very good. As meteorology and climatology are separate sciences, I put less stock in what he says about global warming. You try to present him as an expert in that field, because you think people will warm to the idea of manmade global warming if it comes from someone they trust. It still doesn't make him qualified as an expert.

Again, would you trust an optometrist if he diagnosed you with pancreatic cancer? Of course, you wouldn't. How silly that we are even having this discussion.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I read with interest Dr. Jeff's hurricane blog, because that is his field and he is very good. As meteorology and climatology are separate sciences, I put less stock in what he says about global warming. You try to present him as an expert in that field, because you think people will warm to the idea of manmade global warming if it comes from someone they trust. It still doesn't make him qualified as an expert.

Again, would you trust an optometrist if he diagnosed you with pancreatic cancer? Of course, you wouldn't. How silly that we are even having this discussion.

Considering who you are debating with on this, its not surprising at all.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Man is to blame for Global Warming, U.S. Admits...click here
This is GW's top science advisor? He sounds like he works for Al Gore!


George Bush's top scientific advisor has delivered the strongest statement yet from within the US administration that greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are to blame for climate change.

Professor John Marburger said it was more than 90 per cent likely that mankind was causing global warming and that the earth may become "unlivable" without reductions in CO2 output.

"You only have two choices; you either have advanced technologies and get them into the marketplace, or you shut down your economies and put people out of work."

- Professor John Marburger, White House science advisor on the options available for addressing global warming

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Keep it moving, folks, nothing to see here.

Right......

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Considering who you are debating with on this, its not surprising at all.

I majored in Business Administration before they kicked me out of school. Sure, I'll do you corporate taxes.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I read with interest Dr. Jeff's hurricane blog, because that is his field and he is very good. As meteorology and climatology are separate sciences, I put less stock in what he says about global warming. You try to present him as an expert in that field, because you think people will warm to the idea of manmade global warming if it comes from someone they trust. It still doesn't make him qualified as an expert.

Again, would you trust an optometrist if he diagnosed you with pancreatic cancer? Of course, you wouldn't. How silly that we are even having this discussion.

Well, then how about W's science adviser from Jacko's link a page back? He was forthright in his claims that not only is global warming manmade, but that a reduction in CO2 is the only way to prevent the earth from becoming "unlivable." Since you often have such a problem with the source/expert because he or she could potentially possess a political bias, I wonder what you think of this one as he is our president's top science adviser?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Well, then how about W's science adviser from Jacko's link a page back? He was forthright in his claims that not only is global warming manmade, but that a reduction in CO2 is the only way to prevent the earth from becoming "unlivable." Since you often have such a problem with the source/expert because he or she could potentially possess a political bias, I wonder what you think of this one as he is our president's top science adviser?

Well, I know you are expecting me to do a 180 and claim that I was wrong. I mean, seriously, how could I disagree with anything the Bush administration says?

According to him, the world will be unlivable. According to the IPCC, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere will be around for at least 100 years. Every keystroke takes us one step further into the End of Days. So, what do we do? Continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere but pay others for the right to do so? Continue to pollute at the same levels or a little less and kid ourselves into thinking we are doing something? Have a party and invite our friends to expend more energy as they make their way to it? Give up?

Even if we completely stopped producing manmade CO2 into the atmosphere, we are still f'ed according to the "consensus". There is no taking it back. The only way out is to find new technology. Lots of people working on that little situation. I won't be joining the panic party.

I save energy and keep my little part of the world, unpolluted. I hate when things are not clean.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Well, I know you are expecting me to do a 180 and claim that I was wrong. I mean, seriously, how could I disagree with anything the Bush administration says?

According to him, the world will be unlivable. According to the IPCC, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere will be around for at least 100 years. Every keystroke takes us one step further into the End of Days. So, what do we do? Continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere but pay others for the right to do so? Continue to pollute at the same levels or a little less and kid ourselves into thinking we are doing something? Have a party and invite our friends to expend more energy as they make their way to it? Give up?

Even if we completely stopped producing manmade CO2 into the atmosphere, we are still f'ed according to the "consensus". There is no taking it back. The only way out is to find new technology. Lots of people working on that little situation. I won't be joining the panic party.

I save energy and keep my little part of the world, unpolluted. I hate when things are not clean.

So, when the IPCC comes out with the report they are a left wing gaggle of science loonies who want to socialize the third world throught the Kyoto treaty. When Bush's own top science adviser says the same, we should just throw our hands up and admit there is nothing to be done anyway? Half the battle is trying to convince otherwise thinking people, Senators and Congressmen included, that manmade global warming even exists.

If a "panic party" lights a fire under the search for new technology and alternative energy, sign me to the guest list.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Well, I know you are expecting me to do a 180 and claim that I was wrong. I mean, seriously, how could I disagree with anything the Bush administration says?

According to him, the world will be unlivable. According to the IPCC, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere will be around for at least 100 years. Every keystroke takes us one step further into the End of Days. So, what do we do? Continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere but pay others for the right to do so? Continue to pollute at the same levels or a little less and kid ourselves into thinking we are doing something? Have a party and invite our friends to expend more energy as they make their way to it? Give up?

Even if we completely stopped producing manmade CO2 into the atmosphere, we are still f'ed according to the "consensus". There is no taking it back. The only way out is to find new technology. Lots of people working on that little situation. I won't be joining the panic party.
I save energy and keep my little part of the world, unpolluted. I hate when things are not clean.

Of course there are ways, "to take it back"...read more...

No need to join any panic party..the rest of us aren't joining that party either...we are joining the "find the new technology" party to be part of the solution..and in encouraging education and behavioural changes to slow the growth of fossil fuel burning.

Nice to see your ship turning ever so slowly PDS on this issue...before you know it, you will be joining the rest of us who are trying to work responsibily to do what we can...both doing what we can as individuals(which you seem to be doing) and also to encourage our bureaucracies that work for us to spend time and money seeking appropriate solutions instead of keeping their heads buried in the sand denying that the problem even exists.

[ryberg]

Another difficulty with the tack of discrediting Dr Jeff because he's not a climatologist is that he happens to concur with climatologists. So you're still left with the problem of what they say, and maybe worse, since you've just implied that they're more qualified to pronounce on the topic.

But I understand that the tack then shifts to how climatologists only have models, not real science, or are all uniformly biased (the IPCC being a policy document, as you've noted), and so on.

And round and round it goes...

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

So, when the IPCC comes out with the report they are a left wing gaggle of science loonies who want to socialize the third world throught the Kyoto treaty. When Bush's own top science adviser says the same, we should just throw our hands up and admit there is nothing to be done anyway? Half the battle is trying to convince otherwise thinking people, Senators and Congressmen included, that manmade global warming even exists.

If a "panic party" lights a fire under the search for new technology and alternative energy, sign me to the guest list.

I like you.

Panic partiers, unite!

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Of course there are ways, "to take it back"...read more...

No need to join any panic party..the rest of us aren't joining that party either...we are joining the "find the new technology" party to be part of the solution..and in encouraging education and behavioural changes to slow the growth of fossil fuel burning.

Nice to see your ship turning ever so slowly PDS on this issue...before you know it, you will be joining the rest of us who are trying to work responsibily to do what we can...both doing what we can as individuals(which you seem to be doing) and also to encourage our bureaucracies that work for us to spend time and money seeking appropriate solutions instead of keeping their heads buried in the sand denying that the problem even exists.

The ship hasn't changed one degree. I have said from day one that I am an energy conservationist, for two reasons. I don't like pollution and I like to save money. I have told you, on multiple occassions, that the way to appeal to people when it comes to energy savings is through economic and pollution avenues. Global warming is natural. It is hard to convince people that this time its really different, when the same thing has happened since the first day of this planet.

My earlier comment about moving on, there is nothing to see, were obviously directed at Riss' funny story about the museum. The idea that there was a manmade global warming exhibit next to an exhibit showing climate change over history, is funny. It is really funny.

Melliedee, I would venture to say that I, personally, have a more energy efficient life than many of those who spend so much time yelling and screaming about the End of Days. My point is, and always has been, that more action, less talk, would be a more productive way of addressing the problem of pollution. All that hot air does nothing but add to the problem.