Greenhouse effect ???

[California]

This inevitably comes down to your belief system then.

I don't doubt that when scientists worldwide all point to a similar conclusion, there is some substance to their concern.

Others look at the evidence on global warming and expect that personal economic self-interest has so influenced each of the scientists that the published results are bogus. In effect this view requires that science overall is not logical, rational, but simply gets published without regard for what we call 'scientific evidence'. I don't buy that.

The simplest man-made objects like say a bridge wouldn't work if the scientific principles that underly the engineering, were subject to being true only some of the time. As more complex principles are discovered they all fit together. It seems to me that the denial of global warming has to reject much of modern science.

Perhaps a related question is: whose economic interest is protected if nothing is done about global warming?

 

[cp1969]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
I don't doubt that when scientists worldwide all point to a similar conclusion, there is some substance to their concern.)</font>

You need to leave out the word 'all'. They have not ALL come to a similar conclusion.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Perhaps a related question is: whose economic interest is protected if nothing is done about global warming?)</font>

To answer that question, one would have to accept the premise that first, global warming is a problem, and second, that man can have enough influence on it to make a change larger than Mother Nature herself.

First, it's hard for me to get too worried over global warming when global cooling was the science community's big worry thirty years ago--make up your mind already. You can only cry 'wolf' so many times.

Second, when you can control natural contributors, then maybe man's contribution to the deterioration of the atmosphere might be worth worrying about.

As someone said, Wisconsin used to be covered in ice. Obviously, things warmed up a bit since then. Did Man cause it? Seems doubtful. If it happened once, it can happen again and it seems ludicrous for Man to think he can control it.

 

[JimR]

Not in our lifetime but, soon enough the world will be overpopulated, not enough food, not enough raw materials, minerals and such to go around. Everyone will have nukes and it will be the end. Global warming won't be on anyone's mind anymore.

 

[HGM]

Jim,

I agree with that... Its not usually well accepted to infer that the progress in medical,construction and military may be a bad thing.....

Guys,
I wish my loved ones to live as long as possible, just like anyone else. Fact of the matter, people are living longer than ever due to medical breakthroughs and squelching of any plagues.

Could you immagine if Katrina, or any of last years hurricanes, happened 100yrs ago? I bet it would have been much worse, allot more dammage, more dead.... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif..Even though it happened in an older town, the leves helped in New Orleans, initial storm surge would have wiped it all out(IMO)...Remember Andrew? compare it to the one that erased the Keys and Flagler railroad in the early 1900's.. It was bad, but less dead..Think about the Tsunami, poor construction, redesigned shoreline to make it "prettier" for the tourisim industry made that thing much worse(hey, man screwed that one up)..

And the most politicly incorrect part(no disrespect intended) the military... We lost more men in a month in VietNam than we have lost in this war over the years. Technology has advanced to protect our lives, we can even go into seatbelts, air bags, better tires, etc....

Because of this we're overpopulated(have you seen any of these new subdivisions remain empty?) and its not going to get any better... Homes are being built, land is being raped to support it.. Again, I'm not a tree hugger, Just think we need to control our destruction a bit..I dont have a problem with oil exploration or nuclear power either, as long as its properly conatained.. Some may count on "fate" to keep us here, but I still believe we have a say in things... It's cyclical(?) but we can effect how those cycles effect us by modifying Mother Nature as little as possible, if you dont believe that, maybe you should spend a little more time outdoors and see the smog in some of our large cities, see polouted lakes and streams.. Compare the remote outdoors to the urban landscapes, 1000yrs ago they were very similar.

Can we disregard Nox emissions too, because science only says its creating the smog and acid rain to generate money? I for one think its pretty arrogant to take the "screw it" I cant harm this place attitude. Do you believe in littering too?

 

[CRJCaptain]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Lastly, I just wanted to comment on what I see as a pattern of defensiveness and denial when it comes to the possibility (though likelihood is probably more appropriate) that the actions of 6.5 billion people can indeed have an impact on the earth's atmosphere, climate, oceans, groundwater and other geo-systems. We're not perfect, we're operating under certain economic constraints, and sometimes we do things that harm the planet. I don't see the need to deny apparent truths; maybe it's best that we just forgive ourselves and do our best to change our ways when doing so has been shown to be in the best interest of the planet and ourselves. )</font>

Well said.

Ignorance is bliss...the science has been out there for years, people just choose to not believe it, not understand it, or both.

 

[Jstpssng]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Ignorance is bliss...the science has been out there for years, people just choose to not believe it, not understand it, or both.
)</font>

Acceptance or denial is easy. The $10million question is, what are we going to do about it? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif I agree with others that our real problem is overpopulation; all other issues are merely symptoms.

 

[bebster]

I was just thinking about how warm it was, and looked up the data for past 110 years for cities on both the east and west coasts. That's attached as a 2 page report. As you can see, there is a definite trend line in the warming direction. This could be some 100 year cycle, but it's hard to tell since I doubt data was kept during the 1800's. But given the other evidence of ozone holes, population use of energy, etc. it seems to me more likely than not to represent a long term trend.

 

[AutoUnionTypeC]

Here is one write down and remember......I recently heard that if the polar ice caps keep melting at their current rate, that within a decade navigation between Eurasia and North America will be possible via the polar reign.

That's from Radio Canada International, I believe. They also noted that some were already planning to exploit the "channel" for commercial purposes.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Ignorance is bliss...the science has been out there for years, people just choose to not believe it, not understand it, or both. )</font>

I quite agree, and put my lot in with you and John on this issue.

Regards, Jamie

 

[PitbullMidwest]

Yet another interpretation of the "facts"

Mini Ice Age By mid -Century

 

[dmccarty]

Curt,

You beat me to the post! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The article is about Russian scientists who think that the Sun is causeing the Global Warming that has been happening since the mini ice age that ended in the early 18th century.

Frankly my money is on the Sun as the main cause than anything else.

The WSJ had an article last week describing the disagreements between Dr. Gray and other hurricane scientists. Some think that the storms have been getting stronger because of global warming. Gray does not see that in the data. Many of the scientists who disagree with Gray are old students of his and they have made personal attacks on him. Basically questioning his mental abilities due to his age. There was a conference where the issue was to be discussed but it was deemed too charged so the meeting to hear both sides was canceled.

Another article in the journal had a qoute from a "weather" scientist. An anthropologist was "studying" the scientists for some reason. The qoute was to the effect that scientists had to be careful since they had a tendancy to take their own theory(ies) as fact.

Later,
Dan