Climate Change Discussion

[LMTC]

Thus it begins....Oregon's legislature is contemplating legislation to remove the current state climatologist, not because he denies GW, but because he doesn't think humans are the primary cause. Oregon's Governor has stated his desire to replace this man for the same reasons. There is some weirdness in that OSU gave him this title, not a political entity, but the bottom line is the political powers that be will not tolerate a different view.

The Party Line

Once again this points out inherent philosphical differences. You don't see/hear those who say that GW is natural and/or a normal cyclical happening demanding the jobs/certifications/etc. of those who claim humans are responsible for it now, but we certainly DO hear that side doing this. One side seems much more willing to allow a divergent view to exist, while the other side seems determined to stamp out any view that doesn't agree with them.

 

[dmccarty]

...One side seems much more willing to allow a divergent view to exist, while the other side seems determined to stamp out any view that doesn't agree with them.

Yep and the side that is stamping out spoken diversity is the side that always talks the talk about the goodness of diversity.... Thinks that make you go hmmmm.

I have read that 1/30, yes 1/30, of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is caused by human activity. I can't find any mention on wikipedia of this. Its all about human caused CO2.

The gas causing the greatest global warming is water vapor. But Gore is not running around telling people to take less showers. Thankfully.

The hockey, or should we call it the hokey stick, graph that is used to show human causes global warming has caused lots of controversy. One of the interesting things about it is that it only goes back 1000 years. Since one side of this argument is that there is a natural temperature swing every 1500 years or so why does the graph only go back 1,000 years? Why not 1500 or 3000. Would that not be a better measurement to show a true trend over time?

The first hockey stick graph published by the UN was done by two non scientists who refused to show their data on how they created the graph. Lots of controversy every since.

Later,
Dan

 

[turbo36]

Once again this points out inherent philosphical differences. You don't see/hear those who say that GW is natural and/or a normal cyclical happening demanding the jobs/certifications/etc. of those who claim humans are responsible for it now, but we certainly DO hear that side doing this. One side seems much more willing to allow a divergent view to exist, while the other side seems determined to stamp out any view that doesn't agree with them.

Are you serious? What a laugh!!!! The current administration has been ruthless in their pursuit to punish anyone that dares disagree with the party line. Now this discussion has truly entered the twilight zone. Thanks so much for the post I haven't laughed this hard in a long time!

 

[MikePA]

Are you serious? What a laugh!!!! The current administration has been ruthless in their pursuit to punish anyone that dares disagree with the party line. Now this discussion has truly entered the twilight zone. Thanks so much for the post I haven't laughed this hard in a long time!

Please point out where the current administration punished someone who didn't toe their Global Warming line.

 

[EddieWalker]

The Oregon Governor and the Weather Channel are two examples of one side clearly doing everything in there power to eliminate debate and only allow one side of the story.

Turbo,

You say that the Bush administration is guilty of doing the same thing. Please give some examples.

It was the Clinton Administration that refused to sign Kyoto. Bush has agreed with Clinton on this, but for some reason that I can't comprehend, Bush is taking all the heat for it, while Clinton and Gore run around complaining that Bush isn't doing anything to save us from Global Warming. The hypocrysy is amazing.

Gore spent 8 years as vice president, but didn't do anything to stop Global Warming. As soon as he gets out of office, he runs around telling everyone else how to save the world while flying in private jets, driving in motorcades and heating two mansions. Does anybody believe for one second he believes anything he's trying to preach to the rest of us? He sure isn't doing anything to stop it, just make as much money at it as he can from it.

His actions tell the real story.

Eddie

 

[Chuck52]

There have been a number of stories lately about how the Bush administration muzzled government scientists who were reporting on global warming. Does that count as intolerance of opposing views?


Chuck

 

[MikePA]

Does that count as intolerance of opposing views?

This is the problem. If this was really science, there wouldn't be 'views', there'd be facts and a proven hypothesis.

 

[turbo36]

I'm sure someone will immediately dismiss this link because they don't like the person or the organization that put out the info but i Will post it any way.

Has Bush Interfered on Global Warming Reports? » Netscape.com

The common defense tactic seems to go like this on the board.

Step 1. Dispute the statement and ask for proof.

Step 2. When proof is offered use the excuse "Oh I know all about the (insert any person or organization here) and they can't be trusted so I don't read their stuff.

Step 3. In the rare case you can't defame the source, claim they are mistaken (but entitled to their opinion) .

This is getting funnier and funnier. Wahoo!!!

 

[MikePA]

This is getting funnier and funnier. Wahoo!!!

On this, we agree.

Please read my last post. If this were science, sources would not matter.

 

[SkyPup]

Does anyone really think that any government can change the weather climate so that it does not change?

It's changed every 24 hours for the last 4-5 billion years, we must put a stop to all that!