Do any of the candidates comprehend Global Warming?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Alive, have you bothered to read the list of some of the leading meterologist who think the GW scare is bunk?

[Alive]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Alive, have you bothered to read the list of some of the leading meterologist who think the GW scare is bunk?

I have seen polls of the experts that show very wide consensus on human-caused global warming. A couple of breakaways demonstrate nothing except exactly what I said last post; the rarer it is for scientists to oppose global warming, the more wealth and fame to be gained by opposing it, by the laws of supply and demand. There are even a couple of scientists who deny evolution.

But I admit I would be surprised if there were any leading climatologists who deny global warming. So no, I do not know what list you are referring to.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Polls schmolls, science isn't done with polls, if that were true we wouldn't have the THEORY of relativity, it would be the "Consensus of Special Relativity"

What other area of science have you ever heard of being decided by consensus? Are you people that scientifically illiterate that you buy into that crap?

Well gee Copernicus, I don't think we all agree, so you must be wrong....

[Alive]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Polls schmolls, science isn't done with polls, if that were true we wouldn't have the THEORY of relativity, it would be the "Consensus of Special Relativity"

I don't understand. Just last post you were telling me about all the meteorologists who reject global warming, and now you're telling me that science isn't done with polls?

If you are a climatologist, then I will respect your opinion in regards to climate change. Otherwise, I think we should go to the people who study this for a living. And if these people agree overwhelmingly on the reality of the situation, who are you exactly to contend that they are wrong? You haven't spent your entire career studying the stuff.

Like I said, peer review is a large part of the way science gets done. It is you who are scientifically illiterate if you don't understand the role peer review plays in science. Peer review is in some sense about consensus, though it lets through alternate opinions on issues where there are multiple scientific opinions with some degree of validity. It is not that global warming is real because virtually all people who study it scientifically agree it is real, it's that virtually all people who study global warming agree it is real because it is real.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Mr.V Polls schmolls, science isn't done with polls, if that were true we wouldn't have the THEORY of relativity, it would be the "Consensus of Special Relativity"

What he's saying, Mr.V, is that your "list of some of the leading meterologist who think the GW scare is bunk?" is absolutely miniscule in comparison to the overwhelming mass of the scientific community that's studied the issue... including many former sceptics. And in that sense, the "poll" of scientific consensus puts it beyond doubt.

Quote by: Mr.V It's not a conspiracy, it's about the money.

You're absolutely right. It's about the money the oil, coal, gas, power and automobile industries think they'll lose if we were to seriously address global warming. So they're spending millions from their massive profits to muddy the water, by sponsoring "Scientific Reports" by economists and "Meteorologists" to bamboozle willing boneheads like yourself... the same way the tobacco industry tried to issue "Scientific Reports" that cigarettes were perfectly safe.

.

[billybobama]

Quote by: Technosoul Do you feel any canadates are acturally well informed and knowledgable about global warming? If so which ones and why.

I would say Hillary Clinton. Because of her relationship and time spent with Al Gore.

[billybobama]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Polls schmolls, science isn't done with polls, if that were true we wouldn't have the THEORY of relativity, it would be the "Consensus of Special Relativity" What other area of science have you ever heard of being decided by consensus? Are you people that scientifically illiterate that you buy into that crap? Well gee Copernicus, I don't think we all agree, so you must be wrong....

Global warming is a fact. The only question is, what impact are humans having on the current global warming?

[Mr.Vicchio]

No, Global WARMING is not a FACT.

Climatic changes through the years, is a fact.

But global warming as a fact would require that the earth have two measurable quantities, one being an average optimal temperature, and the other being some way to measure that.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No, Global WARMING is not a FACT. Climatic changes through the years, is a fact. But global warming as a fact would require that the earth have two measurable quantities, one being an average optimal temperature, and the other being some way to measure that.

Let me try to explain this simple concept: our ability to quantify does not make something true or false. It is a fact that there is such a thing as a black swan, even though for years the only swans obseved by European scientists were white. Factual means true, not observable and quantifiable. That being said, you must also understand that we must make decisions based on the best available evidence. When scientific obsevations were dismissed in the past by people who felt they were saving souls by insisting on the literal truth of the Bible, they were not using the best available evidence, they were falling back on dogma. If the majority relies on dogma and surpresses the evidence that contradicts that dogma, that is not evidence for the rightness of your opinion. It is evidence for the importance of giving creadence to the best available information. So, dusting off Copernicus does not further your point, it diminishes it. Is our understanding of global warming perfect? No. But even the greatestest scientists in history were rarely, if ever, completely free of error. That does not mean that all of their theory is invalid. It just means we can always learn more.

[Mr.Vicchio]

If you had plans for a big out door event, say in thirty days, and you wanted to know the weather, no meteorologist, no computer model could tell you that, even ten days, hell a week out the forecast would almost certainly be wrong.


But you guys are buying into, accepting "Consensus" that we can predict the climate, a far more complex, and difficult system to understand.... 100 years from now.

You ignore the political maneuvering that is pushing the whole global warming because "What if they are right, we have to act!" Let's just take a look at one effect of the whole "We have to do what we can to stop global warming!" Ethonal. It's not doing jack to curb global warming, it hasn't lowered gas prices, the effect of more use is minimal at best. BUT it is raising the price of milk products, food products with corn in them... and who is most hurt by that? Not the oil companies (here's a secret, their investing in those companies to make up any loss of profit) it's not the rich, they can afford it, it's the poor and lower middle class whose all ready thin food budgets are being stretched further.

That's just one, easily looked up effect of "stopping global warming".

[lsbskins1]

Mr. V -

You might as well say you can't accurately predict that swarms of misquitos will live on salt marshes because you can not predict where any individual mosquito will fly a week from today. Different data set, different predictors, different type of statistical analysis.

And you might as well say that because so many of the first rockets built by NASA blew up on the launch pad that rocket science was a sham and we would never make it to the moon. You have trouble distinguishing between what is actual failure and what is process.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Now you're just being goofy Isbskins1. We knew we could get a rocket into space. And Mosquitos are living creatures, you cannot predict living creatures behavior accurately.

But we can predict climate? And our most accurate temperatures are a mere 150 years in length?

Come on now, wake up and quit being used, you're just a pawn to these people for political power, you aren't saving the earth.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Now you're just being goofy Isbskins1. We knew we could get a rocket into space. And Mosquitos are living creatures, you cannot predict living creatures behavior accurately. But we can predict climate? And our most accurate temperatures are a mere 150 years in length? Come on now, wake up and quit being used, you're just a pawn to these people for political power, you aren't saving the earth.

How does your answer change the truth of my response to you? The analogies are valid.

You are claiming because we can not predict the specific actions of a less complicated subset ( will it rain, will the mosquito fly E, W, N or S), then we can not predict the observable trends of the larger system ( will misquitos swarm in salt marshes, will current treds continue if the conditions do not fundementally change). These things ARE analogous and they are not predicted in the same way. But, this is really like talking to the pope in the 1400's about whether or not the earth revolves around the sun.

[Mr.Vicchio]

WEe can't predict where cold fronts are going to be more then 3 days out.

But we can predict temp 100 years from now?

please.

[lsbskins1]

We can't predict where the next eathquake will hit, but we can predict that there will be earthquakes, that there will be a relatively stable number of them world-wide in any given period and because of that, we know that areas along fault lines need to build to certain codes and have contingency plans to deal with what is statistically likely to happen every X number of years. Your stance is not rational.

[LadiesMan217]

I am one of the many Americans who is caught in the middle of thing and is really not sure global warming is happening or not or if it man made or if it is natural. I tend to lean towards it being natural, the earth goes through cycles and I think that is what is happening now. However, I wouldn't call myself an "environmentalist" but I do care strongly about how much we pollute our earth, whether it is causing global warming or not, so I would support any measures that we could take to get clean energy and cut back on carbon emissions.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Isbskins1. Two questions: What country leads the world in "green tech" and has actually reduced the amount of C02 produced since 1990 (I'll give you a hint it has 50 states) What if the theory of "Man made global warming" is wrong, and in our vain attempt to effect the climate actually exasperate the 12,000 year global climate cycle? Which by the way, we are at the end of the latest cycle, which has been going on for quite some time now. I'm just curious if you have considered that possibility.

What country has a President that rolled back all the standards to reduce Co2 so that we will soon undue all that we have done so far?
I will give you a hint. Bush Country.

It is no longer a theory but a known fact. The scientists that speak about the fact concerning global warming do not want us to "effect the climate", rather to stop effecting it with our fosil fuels and poor land management. There is no such thing as a 12,000 year gasoline polution cycle, stay on topc.

There is nothing left to concider because the evidence is in and not scientifically debatable anymore.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Not debatable anymore? Didn't they used to say that back in teh dark ages?

You mean we don't debate it because it's not science, it's a political agenda.

Oh, and you're precious comment on the C02 usage... yeah Bush didn't sign any treaties.

And guess what? America has reduced the amount of C02 we've been outputting while countries that signed the treaties.. have increased.

Facts are amazing things, not nearly as fun as emotional "America didn't sign any treaties cause Bush is in the pocket of BIG OIL!" But it's far more useful to use said facts rather then emotional ploys...

Recent data show that the Kyoto Protocol hasn't done all that much to reduce emissions, and may even be counterproductive. And contrary to the caricature painted by proponents, the American approach may offer more, says the Wall Street Journal. Consider: * CO2 emissions growth in the United States far outpaced members of the European Union (EU) from 1990-95 and especially from 1995-2000; in addition, the United States has outperformed the EU-15 since 2000, reducing emissions by 8 percent. * By comparison, the EU-15 saw an increase of 2.3 points, and only two EU states, Britain and Sweden, are on track to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010. * Six more might meet their targets if they approve and implement new, as yet unspecified, policies to restrict carbon output, while seven of the 15 will miss their goals. Europe's dismal record is explained by its approach to reducing emissions, says the Journal. The centerpiece of the Continent's plan is a carbon-trading scheme in which companies in CO2-heavy industries receive tradable permits for a certain amount of emissions. If they emit more CO2, they must buy credits from firms that are under quota. The idea is to force companies to emit less CO2 by making it prohibitively expensive to keep the status quo. All this scheme has done so far is provide further proof that government cannot replicate the wisdom of markets, says the Journal: * A red-faced European Commission recently admitted that it allowed more permits than there were emissions in 2005-07, keeping permit prices low and undermining the entire system. * When Brussels tried to make amends by ordering several member states to cut carbon permits by 7 percent more than expected for 2008-2012, industry and national capitals squealed. Source: Editorial, "Europe v. America on CO2," Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2006. For text: Europe v. America on CO2 - WSJ.com For more on Global Warming/Treaties: Policy Issues | E-Team For more on Environment Issues: Environment Issues | Daily Policy Digest | NCPA

EUROPE V. AMERICA ON CO2 | Daily Policy Digest | NCPA

[Alive]

Mr. Vicchio, can you answer my question? What exactly qualifies you to even discuss this topic? Do you really think you're smarter and more knowledgeable than all the scientists who study this for a living? How much climate research have you actually done in your life, professionally?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Not debatable anymore? Didn't they used to say that back in teh dark ages? You mean we don't debate it because it's not science, it's a political agenda. Oh, and you're precious comment on the C02 usage... yeah Bush didn't sign any treaties. And guess what? America has reduced the amount of C02 we've been outputting while countries that signed the treaties.. have increased. Facts are amazing things, not nearly as fun as emotional "America didn't sign any treaties cause Bush is in the pocket of BIG OIL!" But it's far more useful to use said facts rather then emotional ploys... EUROPE V. AMERICA ON CO2 | Daily Policy Digest | NCPA

Here are some other links.

Air Pollution Worsens; Bush Administration Rolls Back Clean Air Act: Earthjustice: Environmental Law

Keeping things honest.

NRDC: The Bush Record - Making Energy Policy

Bush Greenwatch

Press Release — Bush Rollback

First100 Weeks...

MichaelMoore.com : Opponents of 'Clear Skies' Bill Examined