Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

xyzer · Feb 3, 2007, 01:34 pm

I'm a skeptic...Just how do the words "very likely" suddenly come to be interpreted as over 90% certain? Seems like an intentional scare tactic designed to stir up support? Illogical generalization, unsupported by anything but conjecture!
That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical as Pooey well knows.

Another is that we don't know what impact anthroprogenic activity has on climate, we still only surmise!..why you ask? Because we have had several cooling cycles since human activity has had a so called warming effect..Because many climatologist believe that if Co2 has any affect it is minimal! As close as 25 years ago we were in a cooling cycle? Guess what, it changed? Because we haven't the technology to control local weather much less climate cycles?. Because we have only recently been able to measure GLOBAL temparatures with any preciseness? Because the report itself is filled with uncertain language,qualifiers such as could, might may,if..likely? Because even the wildest predictions of temperature rise by 2100 differ from as little as 3 degress to as much as 11? How come they are so imprecise?

Are we to penalize our economy for something that is still hypothetical and disputes the history of climate cycles over most of the earths past? Warming periods when there was little if any anthroprogenic activity? (900 to about 1200 AD is a good example)

I repeat we must use the tactic of adapting rather than trying to change climate! We can't change weather, or we would have prevented the Katrina destruction? We can't predict weather with much certainty for even a week at a time..Are we now suddenly able to chang global climate? I think not?

Feb 3, 2007, 01:34 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
xyzer Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,187	I'm a skeptic...Just how do the words "very likely" suddenly come to be interpreted as over 90% certain? Seems like an intentional scare tactic designed to stir up support? Illogical generalization, unsupported by anything but conjecture! That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical as Pooey well knows. Another is that we don't know what impact anthroprogenic activity has on climate, we still only surmise!..why you ask? Because we have had several cooling cycles since human activity has had a so called warming effect..Because many climatologist believe that if Co2 has any affect it is minimal! As close as 25 years ago we were in a cooling cycle? Guess what, it changed? Because we haven't the technology to control local weather much less climate cycles?. Because we have only recently been able to measure GLOBAL temparatures with any preciseness? Because the report itself is filled with uncertain language,qualifiers such as could, might may,if..likely? Because even the wildest predictions of temperature rise by 2100 differ from as little as 3 degress to as much as 11? How come they are so imprecise? Are we to penalize our economy for something that is still hypothetical and disputes the history of climate cycles over most of the earths past? Warming periods when there was little if any anthroprogenic activity? (900 to about 1200 AD is a good example) I repeat we must use the tactic of adapting rather than trying to change climate! We can't change weather, or we would have prevented the Katrina destruction? We can't predict weather with much certainty for even a week at a time..Are we now suddenly able to chang global climate? I think not? Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us.