Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Is it too soon to say...Mission Accomplished?
(7 votes) (report abuse)
|
Variety, Ed
|
 (3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
get some. and just because this is written and not in person I feel I should say I am kidding, sort of. |
|
|
RE: Variety, Ed
|
(7 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| I looked for some headlines regarding heatwaves, melting glaciers, droughts, increased surface temps...I just couldn't find any. | ||
|
Variety, Ed
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
It's winter man, what did you expect. Heatwaves come in July and August. Is that the point? |
||
|
RE: Variety, Ed
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Yes to soon. | ||
|
Green News
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| Good point Ed | |
|
Well
|
(4 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
I agree there is a lot of phony science out there, but we are not done with the battle. I think global warming is a small part of the agenda so you can bet if we are to challenge the local climate change agenda then be prepared for a fight. Did you know the latest prediction is that the glaciers in Glacier Park, that's the park in our back yard. Anywho the scientists say the glaciers will be gone in 10 years. Last year they said they would be gone in 30 years. So last year must have been the hottest year on record. |
|
|
an old zen saying....
|
(3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
"we'll see." it'd be great if the skeptics were right. i haven't laid my money down. i doubt though, that there will be ZERO repercussions from whatever it is we see going into the atmosphere from the smokestacks of coal-burning electric plants, paper mills, my own car, the trucks that bring groceries to bozeman for me to buy, etc. but i can't tell you how awesome it would be if we could just keep doing this stuff to the planet without any repercussions or costs. that'd be sweet, to be able to just keep doing exactly what we're doing without paying any extra. i'm all about it. i have my doubts though, same as i'm not counting on winning the lottery wednesday. i still play though. |
|
|
RE: an old zen saying....
|
(4 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
So it's a gamble, well let's consider this. Total green house gases emitted by humans amount to 5% of the total. So just to be clear 95% of greenhouse gases occur naturally. So for me it is a no brainer. What I find perplexing is that a 1 to 20 ratio is having the influence of raising our taxes about $700 dollars per taxpayer for each Montana Resident should cap and trade go through. Are we a retarded society? What gamble. |
||
|
RE: an old zen saying....
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Excellent points Xfile. Slight off tangent, but we invaded another country on less evidence. SIUNBAD wrote, "Total green house gases emitted by humans amount to 5% of the total. So just to be clear 95% of greenhouse gases occur naturally." A source to that assertion please. |
||
|
Trolling ...... again?
|
(4 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Ed: Climate change means wild swings in the "normal" weather patterns. Seems like you now are proving the basis of the theory of climate change. (edited to remove an insult towards Ed) SINBAD, for you it IS a No Brainer. 6Guns; if the Glaciers are gone does that prove to you that we might have a problem? Be it 10 years or 30 years they are still gone. |
|
|
RE: Trolling or just being willfully stupid................ again
|
(3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| RL please explain what kind of weather do you want. Calling people names and indulging in sarcasm is not an argument. | ||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Let me start by saying nowhere in my post do you find the term 'climate change'. That is for those who are so caught up in the 'global warming' scheme that you will buy into the claim that the two are the same. Here's a news flash: Climate changes, sometimes drastically. The 'globe' is warming, every summer...and every winter it cools. There are no wild swings. In Texas, it's getting ready to be colder than it has in over a decade...in Florida, strawberries and oranges are getting ready to freeze, like they do every 8-10 years. The summer of '89, I believe, the Bozeman area never saw a day in the 90s. It's called weather! It changes! Man does not cause it and man cannot stop it. There are many scientists who have so much of their credibility invested in GW that they are willing to falsify the data just to maintain their reps, and there are millions of the general public who want so much to believe them that they accept the explanations w/o the slightest concern for what the truth might be. What is the truth? No one knows! There is as much evidence pro as there is con. So, what do we do about it? We live our lives being as good a steward of the earth and its resources as we can be. We do not need pretentious wannabe politicians using it as an excuse for taking more of our $$$ and grabbing more power. |
||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
It's called weather! It changes! Man does not cause it and man cannot stop it. What is the truth? No one knows! Not meant to take your assertions out of context, but you contradict yourself in your very own post. Huh? Ed, sorry but here is the story as it is currently understood. Man made greenhouse gases have been linked to changes in climate. Part of those changes are linked to an overall warming of the planet due to the so called Greenhouse effects. The effect of the warming is the potential for unusual swings in temperature and precipitation. You don't believe that and think God will in the end have the final say over how our planet is or is not effected. Your entire first post was basically "How can we have Global Warming when all this cold and snow is occurring". It was a Troll. I had thought you were better than that. I haven't made a New Years Resolution yet but it is not too late. I will no longer waste my time arguing with dumb ass's. There you have it. Peace |
||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
For every argument I have, you have a counter, and vice versa. For every scientist who believes in GW, there is one who doesn't. Your arguments so far have been typical of the defenses of the flawed theories of the adherents...If you don't like the way the argument is going, redefine the terms. It's not GW, it's Climate Change. It's not just CC, it's "wild" or "unusual" swings in weather. When you take that road, it's easy to blame anything on GW...by definition...and you don't need proof. My point is simple: The book is still open and the conclusions are questionable, on both sides. It just seems that too many are too quick to jump on the GW bandwagon and write off any possibility to the contrary. What if I'm wrong and we are the cause and we can do something about it? What makes you or anyone else so sure that what we are being asked to do is what needs to be done? What if the warming is nature's way of compensating, or correcting what man is doing? What if we overcompensate? Where is the balance? What happens if we achieve that balance, that point of perfection sought by the GWs, and Mt. Pinatubo erupts? Have we got a "Mt. Pinatubo Plan" to fall back on? What if our balance has stripped nature of it's ability to adjust? I don't know, but neither do you. You choose to blindly believe what the GW crowd wants you to believe...or you research it yourself and come to your conclusion based on the "scientific results" they give you, or have altered for you. I simply choose to ask how do you, how can you, know? Bail out if you want to. You're probably right. None of us doubters (emphasis on the word DOUBT) can possibly be as smart or informed as one who knows it all and who is certain. |
||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
"None of us doubters (emphasis on the word DOUBT) can possibly be as smart or informed as one who knows it all and who is certain." "Man does not cause it and man cannot stop it." |
||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| OK, we agree. | ||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Are there 2 Eds posting here? Cause one of you seems to be schizophrenic. |
||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Only one? | ||
|
FOR ROL
|
(5 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Naturally occurring GHGs equal 94.47%, man made GHGs equal 5.53%, of these .12% are from Montana. This information can be found at the Montana Policy Institute website "Global Warming Resources". The majority of GHG'S come from China, India and Obama. I "hope" you have a sense of humor, I just couldn't help myself; but we know in reality we all have GHG's. Maybe next time we can join Cheech and Chong in Copenhagen. Would you feel better if I asked what kind of climate do you want? Also keep in mind most scientists who believe in GW are not scientists at all - they are environmentalists. They do not have good information and are not qualified to represent the issue, but they do have an agenda. |
||
|
Thanks SINBAD........ for nothing
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
The MPI????? An august body of scientific knowledge if there ever was one. (rolls eyes and giggles) O.K. sure whatever. "Also keep in mind most scientists who believe in GW are not scientists at all - they are environmentalists. They do not have good information and are not qualified to represent the issue, but they do have an agenda." Again you reveal that you know nothing about this issue and don't want to learn. I hereby invoke the New Years Resolution Rule. Thanks for playing. |
||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
I don't understand, RL. 1st you ask Sin to cite his sources, then when he does, you blow them off. I re-read your request...it didn't ask for sources of which you approved, or which agreed with you. You said: "...here is the story as it is currently understood...". Understood by whom? How do you deal w/ those who understand it differently? "The effect of the warming is the potential for unusual swings in temperature and precipitation." Is one of those unusual swings the lack of any warming since 1998? How long do the residual effects of this GW last? Then you close by saying: "Again you reveal that you know nothing about this issue and don't want to learn." How incredibly petty. Some folks simply are not aware that you are the reincarnation of Dr. Irwin Corey. Failing to agree w/ you does not relegate someone to the depths of the ignorance pool. Why not let the rest of us wallow in the bliss of the ignorance and stupidity of our opinions. That's all any of this is, opinions...except, of course, in your case. |
||
|
RE: Trolling ...... again?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
"I don't understand" Let us leave it at that and agree that we agree. However if you are interested. Please read this. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarm |
||
|
What kind of weather I want?
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Are you serious? Weather and climate are different subjects (for the 3rd time AND HOPEFULLY LAST TIME!). What kind of weather I want.....Hmmmmmmmm. As a skier, how about snow at night, somewhere around 12" new every night, bluebird skies and around 22 degrees during the days with just a light breeze. As a fisherman, overcast skies and mild temperatures with a light breeze. As a gardener, ample rains, sunny days but not too hot until the month before harvest and then kick up the heat a bit for the final growth spurt. What kind of weather do I want? Another no brainer. |
|
|
global wrming supported
|
(5 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| The signs of global warming are visible. Look around. Glacier NP had over 100 glaciers when it was founded; the last count I heard was 27 and decreasing. The beetles that are decimating forests are thriving because the climate is not cold enough to kill them off. We still have cold snaps and severe storms, but sustained cold is not happening. Global averages temperatures are up and have been rising for some time now. It is either arrogant or ignorant to profess that humans are not having an impact. | |
|
RE: global wrming supported
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| that's what i was trying to say above. thanks for the add'l bits. beetles. glaciers. i couldn't dig up any quick'n'dirty facts/stats on the reefs, but they're in bad shape. just don't have the time to condense years of data into quick sound bites like "good god, it's going to be -4 in a day or two! that's not global warming!" | ||
|
RE: global wrming supported
|
(3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
What you are forgetting is that climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. Only the uninformed utopians think they can change climate. So what kind of counter climate change do you want. If those who support the premise that there is climate change, and we have to unchange the climate what kind of climate do you want? Do you want to reverse it and go back to the ice age? Do you want to put snow machines at all glacier locations? Or do you just want to send all our industrial jobs to China and India where they are exempt from regulations? Maybe there is a broader agenda? Like global economic equality. All people making the same life style, is this your utopia? Just wondering. |
||
|
RE: global wrming supported
|
(0 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Perhaps it is natural that the glaciers should disappear at some point in time. After all, the land we call "America" at one time was covered with water, later was a tropical jungle and had dinosaurs. "Change" is an inevitable and natural part of life. | ||
|
a
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| TROLL | |
|
Some food for thought.
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
I did not write this, but I do agree with the ideas. What people do not understand is by continuing to focus on fossil fuels we are putting our economy severely behind China, etc. who are now focused on renewable energies. The cost of energy determines how cheaply we can run businesses and produce products. Renewable energy is unlimited, but fossil fuels are limited and cost will continue to rise ($$$$) as supply decreases putting our economy at a severe disadvantage. The emissions from fossil fuels also creates additional cost because the increase ozone levels which eats away at rubber (such as your car tires), releases mercury which can cause neurological disorders which increase health cost, release acids that create acid rain which erodes buildings and roads. These cost and the cost of clean ups from oil spills, mercury pollution. etc. are never calculated into the real cost of fossil fuels. So in reality, whether you believe in global warming or not, it makes sense for our economy to focus on renewable energy resources. Renewable energies will be like the next Internet boom in terms of economy. Technology is still new like computers in 1985, but it will greatly advancing in the next ten years. |
|
|
The kind of weather wanted
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
It is not about making a desired kind of weather. The issue is acknowledging the fact that humans are exerting a negative impact on the climate and the environment to the point in which a sustainable habitat for species preservation may be lost. It is about reducing human impact to attempt to keep the climate within a tolerable range for existence. The economy is a completely different issue. Business as usual is not working for our nation, which has nothing to do with climate change or global warming. We are in a position of forced economic restructure, so we should take the opportunity to create jobs, businesses and regulations that will be environmentally and economically viable. As a nation we should look ahead as opposed to looking back. As far as China and India are concerned, do you know anyone that wants to work for -$1/hr. in this country? Do all of your purchasing locally if you don't like jobs and money going other places. There it is buy locally; it reduces impact on the environment (in many ways), stimulates the economy, keeps money and jobs local...a positive for any political persuasion. |
|
|
RE: The kind of weather wanted
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
also, if you don't like jobs and money going to other places - be sure to sell (or promptly dispose of) your computer, cell phone, car, refrigerator, tv, porch light, sink faucet, garage door opener, screwdrivers, nail clippers, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush, underwear, socks, shoelaces, books, etc. you can keep the stuff that was 100% made in bozeman, though. don't forget the food - rice, broccoli, ketchup, chicken, canned soup - unless (you guessed it) it was grown and packaged and sold right here in bozeman. you might want to consider that even then, the people who sold it to you might be using a pen not made in bozeman to keep their books. in which case, better not buy from them unless they keep books with bits of charcoal from firewood cut down by bozemanites, delivered in vehicles made in bozeman and fueled with fuel extracted/produced.... blah blah blah. it's a global economy. we depend on them. they on us. we can reduce our dependence, but never eliminate. it'd be dumb to do so anyway, i have no problem paying someone "up the road" (proverbially speaking) to do something that's more efficient and cheaper than if i were to do it/make it myself. it's called trade, and i feel pretty comfie in asserting that trade is not the problem. (that was a somewhat off-topic, not-quite-tirade. didn't really have anything else to say today so far. rock on y'all. and by "y'all", i really mean it. :) |
||
|
RE: The kind of weather wanted
|
(3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
I have no problem acknowledging that man may, on occasion (on many occasions), have a negative impact on the climate and the environment. I do have a problem with the "...to the point in which a sustainable habitat for species preservation may be lost..." aspect of it. I have to ask "What is a 'tolerable range for existence'"? You may think this is an unprofessional, made in the basement, shot with a cell phone video, but the charts are from NOAA and they clearly show that we are well below the extremes of 1k, 2k & 3k years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE Is it wrong to be concerned about man's impact on the environment? No, but it is absolutely wrong to be as alarmist about its impending cause of the destruction of life as we know it as some of the pseudo-scientists are today. |
||
|
RE: The kind of weather wanted
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
just wanted to chime in and agree with Ed. very well put. i think reality (and the future of our planet) falls well in the middle of the positions and futures predicted by those at the extreme ends of the spectrum on this issue. i think we need to keep watching, implement strong oversight over the collection of data, and continue to encourage innovators to come up with more effective ways to reduce the amount of pollution we generate. |
||
|
Thanks Ed
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
That was an interesting interpretation of climate data. Amateurish or not it was well explained. More here: Climate Change: New Antarctic Ice Core Data The information in this web page was researched on Earth Day, 2000. This page was last updated on May 30, 2000. In June of 1999 the latest ice core data from the Vostok site in Antarctica were published by Petit et al in the British journal Nature. These new data extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present (BP). The ice cores were drilled to over 3,600 meters. This is just over 2.2 miles deep. These new data double the length of the historical record. The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation. Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing. The graph below includes data from the Nature paper, plus data from other studies referenced below. Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_ The entire point is, we don't know. And as I posted above there are alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels that could help our economy and create jobs here in the US. Good and sustainable jobs. Oil prices are down at this time due to the "great recession" and the demand destruction that it has caused. As the global economy recovers so will demand and costs to our economy will rise. I don't adhere to the Church of Global Warming, I think we need to put this country first and plan for the future. One of the first steps is to admit that we can as a country do better and quit denying that we have a problem. That problem is basing out entire society on an energy source that is dirty and finite. We need to invest in the future. |
|
|
pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Pseudo-scientist? The VAST majority (over 90%) of scientist that have performed research or studied anything pertaining to the topics of climate change warn us of possible disaster. This must be the most amazing mass conspiracy. I suppose the mastermind, Al Gore, must be behind it all. Currently, global species loss is happening at an alarming rate (more than 27000 species per year). This rate has been increasing dramatically since humans started burning fossil fuel. Never has this rate been this high since the loss of dinosaurs. I would provide a link but there are hundreds maybe thousands to choose from, Google it. Not all scientist get the exact same results with their models, but almost all of them have similar conclusions and warnings. The most recent study that I found in a 30 second search was from a 2008 study reporting that populations of all wild animals are down 30% since 1960; one of the few species growing in population is humans. All of the graphs found on this topic show a flat graph that started to rise about a hundred years ago with a huge spike that is basically vertical now. The VAST minority of scientists (these must be the one's you credit to be real scientists) that do not support human affected climate change are nearly all either funded by he gas and oil extraction industries or are brainwashed by their religion so that they ignore science. You have to dig to find any of this data. There is a big difference between being alarmist an dragging your feet. With the sound science that is available to us, responsible action should be taken. Environmental sensitivity and economic growth can happen simultaneously. While our economy is in the crapper, we ought to consider rebuilding with sustainable practices, as opposed to going back to business as usual models that are failing. There is no better time than now to start taking action toward a healthy planet. Unless all of your money is invested in extraction industries, you have almost nothing to lose. |
|
|
RE: pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
"VAST minority"...you've got to be kidding! Maybe this is what you were referencing: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23387/30000_Scien "VAST majority (over 90%)". You want to validate this? "sound science". Is this the doctored reports and research of which they are so proud? "global species loss is happening at an alarming rate (more than 27000 species per year)". Totally dishonest statement. You're speaking in half-truths (half-lies) and unsubstantiated generalities. Your "openmind" is so locked into this tripe that you won't even consider the possibility it's inaccurate. |
||
|
RE: pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
Way to go Ed. You managed to dig up an article supporting your point of view. Like I said there are hundreds, thousands of reports from respected scientists both from our nation and around the world with the opposite perspective. Your article is like a grain of sand on a beach compared to the body of scientific information to the contrary. Doctored reports...like I said your conspiracy theory is amazing and colossal in depth. Truly an accomplishment or just unrealistic. Your unopened mind is locked into right wing propaganda so tightly that you can't see overwhelming evidence. Many scientific studies and fields present strong evidence for global warming or human influenced climate change...holes in the ozone layer, increased skin cancer, beetles decimating forests because it is not cold enough for long enough to reduce their numbers, global glacier loss, ice pack loss in the arctic and antarctic, rising see levels, warming seas, changing oceanic currents, increased numbers tropical storms and hurricanes, ice core samples, tree core samples, the list goes on and on... Half-truths? Most of this science is based on models and trends. Nothing dishonest. Google it there are many studies on the current rate of species loss and extinction. 27000 is conservative there are other studies reporting well over 30000...species are plants and animals. Like I said it took about 30 seconds to find my information. It was found among an enormous body of reports and scientists from an incredible variety of sources, backgrounds and nations. Personally, I am not locked into believing in any specific model. I do accept the fact that human industry is having a negative and potentially disastrous effect on the environment and habitat. I welcome sustainable practices and healthy environmental policies as we attempt to repair the broken economy. |
||
|
RE: pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
The article doesn't support my point of view. It simply states that 31k+ scientists think yours is wrong. Is it your argument that because I only cited one article that these 31k scientists, part of your "VAST minority", don't exist? How many articles do you require for it to be acceptable? I guess it's easier to dismiss the truth than to accept it. You have never heard me espouse any conspiracy theory, or is it your position that the University of East Anglia e-mails don't really exist? Again, rather than address the question, you settle for denigrating the truth. "Many scientific studies and fields present strong evidence for global warming or human influenced climate change...". What proof do you have that these studies are not founded on similar deceptions. One of your :30 google searches turned up "Habitat destruction is the leading cause of species extinctions, which are now estimated to be between 20-75 species per day or 7300 - 27,000 per year." Another suggests "Some estimates of species loss range as high as high as 27,000 per year." You make the unsubstantiated claim that "Currently, global species loss is happening at an alarming rate (more than 27000 species per year)". If you're going to cherry-pick your sources to justify your contentions, you need to be aware of all those that contradict them. "Personally, I am not locked into believing in any specific model. I do accept the fact that human industry is having a negative and potentially disastrous effect on the environment and habitat. I welcome sustainable practices and healthy environmental policies as we attempt to repair the broken economy." On this, I TOTALLY agree, although I might argue your definition of 'disastrous'. |
||
|
RE: pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(0 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
If 31000 is the most that can be found it is a vast minority. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists that study related fields in the US alone. Doing the math that less than 10%. Articles for acceptance? How many articles and studies in related fields do you need in order to consider the reality of human influenced climate change? Did you miss the report that it was not the science and research that was flawed at UEA or did you stop at the fact that the e-mails were not shared with a small group of dissenting scientists? No scientists are getting the exact same results when they incorporate researched information into models that help predict future consequences. There is an undeniable perspective of "we don't know exactly what will happen." However, you can not possibly deny that the vast majority of scientists agree that humans are affecting the environment in a negative way and that action should be taken to reduce this impact. To deny this would insinuate an enormous global conspiracy. Cherry-pick? I found three articles on the first (and only) page of a search on rate of extinction. The quote that you found in your search is only used to argue numbers. Let's take the low number from your source, 7300 species per year, is that OK? Your source still list habitat destruction (human caused) as the reason. In my opinion, while acknowledging human cause, it is worth making an effort to reduce this number...7300 species that humans are directly responsible for the destruction...this is still an enormous loss of biodiversity annually. I would define this as disastrous. Once again contradictory articles to human impacted climate change (probably GW) are few and far between in comparison to the support. How is it that you can ignore an overwhelming body of evidence while "cherry-picking" information to support your view? |
||
|
RE: pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
"There are hundreds of thousands of scientists that study related fields in the US alone." You made this up. "How many articles and studies in related fields...". You're dodging the question. "...fact that the e-mails were not shared...". Ditto. "...you can not possibly deny that the vast majority of scientists agree...". Yes I can. This is really tiring. You keep speaking in sweeping generalities w/o one shred of validation and expect me to yield to the overwhelming weight of your assumptions. You have yet to understand the fact that "VAST minority" is an oxymoron. If your statement above were honest, you can hardly call 1 in 10 'vast'. "No scientists are getting the exact same results when they incorporate researched information into models that help predict future consequences. There is an undeniable perspective of "we don't know exactly what will happen."" The one honest conclusion to which you accede. Yet, you continue to insist that you do know what will happen. You don't have any problem when the GW community realizes that no warming has occurred since 1998, so in order to keep their movement alive they change the name to Climate Change. Their objective is the same even though the founding principle no longer exists. The "vastly" small sample of weather conditions on which they base their "hockey stick" argument is overwhelmed by the broader view. It appears to be intentionally myopic. "Is it wrong to be concerned about man's impact on the environment? No, but it is absolutely wrong to be...alarmist about its impending cause of the destruction of life as we know it...". It is just as wrong for you to insist on the alarmist mentality as it is for me to deny any human effect. In 3B years, if it turns out I am wrong, I hope you are in the same place I am so I can admit my error. |
||
|
RE: pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
|
You are right about so many things, Ed. I speculated on the number of US scientists. There are over 22 million scientists and engineers in our nation. That makes the 31000 scientists supporting your point of view a minuscule minority. Thank you so much for focusing on semantics and pointing out my oxymoron; you are absolutely right...The number of scientists that do not support human impacted Global Warming is anything but "vast". I got "minority" right though. I do not insist that I do know what will happen or how it will come about. I do assert that humans are having a disastrous impact on the environment on many, many fronts and that action should be taken to reduce this impact. Dodging the question...Ed there is just so much information available supporting GW, I do not feel compelled to distill it for you. You may deny it and you denial is precisely the reason why I accuse you of having your head in the sand. Global warming has not stopped since 1998. 2007 was tied with 1998 for the hottest year in history. The temperature over the past decade has not decreased, we are just not setting records every year. The implications for a warm climate are cause for real concern shown in many fields of study. I have listed many previously, so I won't again. Global warming and climate change is simply picking at semantics. Human impact is the real issue. Human impact is rarely the only effector to any of our environmental issues, however, it has been and continues to be proven that many current methods of human impact are unsustainable. If this is "alarmist", so be it...action should be taken to keep our habitat as healthy as possible. This is my opinion. I am open to more information as it is presented. We obviously disagree on many issues. "I welcome sustainable practices and healthy environmental policies as we attempt to repair the broken economy." On this, I TOTALLY agree"....how about we leave it at this for now, I am done arguing this point. |
||
|
RE: pull your head out of the sand, Ed
|
(3 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Scientists? Maybe, maybe not. Clearly there is no consensus in the scientific community. But within the environmental community, many of whom are not scientists there is stronger support for global warming. | ||
|
8th Warmest Year on Record for Bozeman....
|
(0 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
... according to our local meteorologist Mike Heard: http://twitter.com/MikeHeard/statuses/7681748603 |
|
