Scientific Consensus?

[Beemer]

This question is for Gomer.

What do you think of this statement:
"We're fighting against an environmental threat that is at best speculative.”

Please wait for Gomer's reply before jumping in.

[Gomer]

I think I have shown that the last part of that statement, "that is at best speculative" is clearly wrong. Speculation is who is going to win the superbowl; who is going to win an Emmy; etc.

[Beemer]

We are of like mind on the statement.

I bumped into the "We Get It" web site and "speculative" is the term they use to describe the evidence supporting AGW in their declaration. Tony Perkins in his statement also uses the word speculative. The reason I asked is that I wanted a second opinion on that line in Tony Perkins statement.

I guess the Religious Right Evangelical leaders are trying to misinform their followers.

Now that's something new....

[Harold7]

I knew I could count on Beemer to show up to prove my point... just ask a couple of simple questions and you can be guaranteed to never, ever get an answer, but you will get links to all his favorite AGW sites... what's so hard about giving a nice simple explanation for my questions, if there is a scientific foundation for the claims of the AGW alarmists you should be able to describe it in layman's terms.

1. The environmentalist movement has been claiming this stuff for at least 20 years, so is there really an "imminent Climate Catastrophe" or not and if so , what do you mean by "imminent"... what sort of catastrophe will it be... will it heat up dramatically or will humans cause a new ice age to start, in order to make the claim there must some supporting scientific evidence and doesn't that mean that the climate scientists understand completely how climate works and have computer models that can accurately predict exactly when and why the climate will change... otherwise why say it?

If you can't prove the claim or describe just what it really means, why shouldn't we believe the only purpose for the claim is to deceive the public, to terrorize them by using emotionally charged phrases to create a fear of impending doom?

The operative question should be, if they are unwilling or unable to honestly answer the question, maybe the real answer is that they don't dare to give an explanation because then people might start asking why are they lying, what purpose does the lie further... if there is no scientific basis for the claim, why should we radically remake our society and economy... could it be that there is a political and social agenda at work here. that has nothing to do with science.. .heaven forbid.

Apparently Beemer, Gomer , et al., accept without question whatever comes out of the IPCC as gospel... computer models and incomplete research become holy writ and no one can question anything... the "this is settled science so shut up " argument, but we're talking about ongoing research that will take decades or longer for any real answers and accurate computer modeling and somehow we're supposed to accept incomplete research as proven, incontrovertible facts... if that were true the language of climate science wouldn't be filled with qualifiers such as "the data suggests that", some scientists believe that", "it is probable that "... until they can provide unshakable proof why should we view the claims of AGW as anything more that conjecture or hypothesis... research isn't proven fact and the results are only valid until a new set of data is found that changes current theory... you know the scientific method, research continues until the theory is proven beyond any further question.

You'd think that if there were a period in the Earth's climate history when raising CO2 caused climate change, that would be an example that could be used to support the claim that human activity causing a CO2 rise will do the same thing, but I doubt such data exists or we'd have heard of it before now.

I guess it all comes down to a matter of trust, if the AGW activists are lying about the "imminent Climate Catastrophe" what else are they lying about, how far up the ladder does the deception go (into the IPCC?), why should I believe anything they have to say on the subject ... liars lie so what credibility do the activists have?

So provide us some answersto the simple questions I asked if you dare Beemer, Gomer, et al or prove by silence that my suspicions about the intentions of the AGW movement are true.

[loftezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomer

Increase conservation. Mandate increases in efficiency. Reduce waste. Increase efficiency. We need to adapt. That is not a bad thing.

That sounds a lot like the conservative mantra. I really don't know why the Republicans are complaining so much.

Whatever the primary cause of global warming (be it the sun or fossil fuels), we can all agree that reducing dependency on fossil fuels we help reduce the human contribution to global warming (even if it is only a tiny contributing factor). This is a great opportunity for the US. We can reduce our dependency on foreign oil and we can create a new industry inside our borders.

Where is the spirit of innovation that took us to the moon? How great would it feel to see the price of oil drop to $10 dollars per barrel and then still be able to tell Venezuala "No thanks, oil is so last century."

[Gomer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harold7

so is there really an "imminent Climate Catastrophe" or not and if so , what do you mean by "imminent"... what sort of catastrophe will it be... will it heat up dramatically or will humans cause a new ice age to start, in order to make the claim there must some supporting scientific evidence and doesn't that mean that the climate scientists understand completely how climate works and have computer models that can accurately predict exactly when and why the climate will change... otherwise why say it?

"imminent Climate Catastrophe"
Have you ever seen me use that term? Is it present in any of the 32 scientific opinions that I provided? If you want to have rational discourse about a specific portion of one of those statements I'll be glad to share my opinion with you. Otherwise leave your strawmen at home.

Quote:

could it be that there is a political and social agenda at work here. that has nothing to do with science

[surreal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

I guess the question is, how many of you are will to sacrifice how much to achieve the goals of "the scientists".



The connection between a healty economy and your job is real (unless you work in the public sector), and you are a fool if you don't recognize the risk of chasing uncertain results in the name of "environmentalism".

We need cheap oil and we need to create better electric cars.

Is it sacrificing to achieve the goal of scientists or to help the future for our children and grandchildren?

Why do so many people gag at the thought of an EVIL environmentalist?

Are we so selfish that we want, what we want, and screw what we leave for our grand children?

[Harold7]

But you still won't answer the question will you Gomer, I never claimed you ever used the "imminent Climate Catastrophe" phrase in my question, the you in it is a general referent to whoever answers it, please don't get paranoid.

If you wish I'll put the proposition directly to you: do you believe there is an "Imminent Climate Catastrophe", if the claim is true why will it happen, when will it happen and in what form will the catastrophe appear... do we have days, weeks, months?

This is a fairly straight forward question, either the claim is true or it isn't, is there any scientific evidence to prove the claim... it seems to me that to use the term "imminent" implies knowledge of a time frame for the event... if the claim isn't true, why are they making it?

One thing you should think about,none of these disciplines you cited requires

* Cell Theory
* Atomic Theory
* Relativity
* The Big Bang
* Plate Tectonics
* Evolution

the profound economic, political and societal changes the AGW promoters are demanding.

BTW I don't question the whole field of Climate Science, the Global Warming/Climate Change theory will stand or fall on it's own merits, time and research will always provide the answers... what I do question is the political and social engineering the activists are engaged in using the cover of science to alter the world to their own ends, so it does make a difference if they are lying about what the science means.

[Sarah L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by excuzzzeme

So your CO has a PHD? That does not make you an expert. It still leaves you as a clerk. Having a PHD or any other letters after a name does not automatically make you right. That is why there is a Scientific Review Board. I worked in Warfare Research and wrote many white papers. Can you say the same? My papers were often adopted as models on which to use as a baseline. In spite of this, it doesn't make me anymore qualified when OUTSIDE my area of expertise than it does your CO. Nuclear Physics is a fluid and dynamic field (maybe he didn't tell you that). Better get back to typing his papers.

BTW- I was a BN CO once upon a time So because I was a CO that makes me an expert according to your logic? I think not. Him either.

I will listen to my CO on this subject before I will you. He is paying attention to this subject, He is intensely interested in all subjects relating to the sun.
I am not a clerk mister so shove your insults up your ass.

Oh and my point that global warming has happened before, many times without man is very science valid. You are now telling people it has a different cause than ever before.

[surreal]

Perhaps so Sarah, but there's never been such a strain on the earths resources in history like there is today, why doesn't that figure into anything?