"Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.
First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.
Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?"
...
"So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing."
Again, please state your professional qualifications, educational degrees, and personal tests performed, to support your "cycles" theory.
science is as easy as maths, you start with an axiom and build from there, your tools: logic, laws which are proven to be true and working. so when you reach a conclusion it should be true. where sience went wrong like earth is flat or space is filled with Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia those mistakes were never build like the todays theories
of course there is always a slim chance that everything we build up is flawed at the very beginning because we oversee things or just didnt have accurate messuring tools, but in the end it doesnt matter, for now, our theories work like a charm, we even predicted particles with exact weight and the higgs is probably the next one we find
science is flawed, yes, but even i could calculate you our base temperature created by the sun =) the result was around 17°C so pretty close to what it actually is, and that was done with a pocket calculator. (and i could even calculate how much energy the sun has to produce more until the base temperature raises more than 1°C, and i think those scientists thought of that already so i doubt that's the reason why we're getting warmer.
LOL! I like how some think that including larger font in their posts is going to make what they are attempting to say any more true. It reminds me of a little kid who thinks that shouting is going to make people listen to them.
__________________
Unofficial TechIMO record holder for the number of times being added and removed from beemer's ignore list.
LOL! I like how some think that including larger font in their posts is going to make what they are attempting to say any more true. It reminds me of a little kid who thinks that shouting is going to make people listen to them.
These are some pretty biased and limiting poll choices, but that's not surprising after reading Scott's previous rant.
I agree that we have to be responsible as people in the way we treat the environment. I grew up in a mountain village, and people there started dumping every kind of waste (including sewage) into forests and local streams. In a course of 50 years, a river that was full of fresh water fish and crab when my parents were growing up, changed into a lifeless stream of sewage and waste. So, we do influence the environment on a micro scale.
Yes on a micro scale if that was the only stream that was destroyed. Now multiply that on a global scale and it is no longer micro.
For me, it's about history: the planet has been fine and will continue to be, despite the evidence.
well My answer was other but in actuallity it is more in keeping with the above statement with out the biased trailing comment after the comma. Thus far I continue to state that those who claim AGW are overlooking the obvious history that currently indicates weak link to co2 and HGW (historic Global warming)
So
Quote:
Originally Posted by slight modification
I believe that climate change is wholly or partially man made., despite the evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by slight modification
For me, much of it is political: I view this as championed by hyporcritical liberals who are not willing to make serious changes in their lives to actually even offset their own lifestyles
Quote:
Originally Posted by as quoted but I dont follow this one
For me, it's religious: God created this planet and we are too insignificant to mess it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slight modification
For me, it's financial: I Dont accept the science because it is not proven yet and I am unwilling to pay for a theory where evidence is so strongly against it
Quote:
Originally Posted by slight modification
For me, it's about history: the planet has been fine and will continue to be, there is no evidence of us leaving historical norms other than raw co2 levels. Now this may be bad for other reasons but the link to co2 generated GW is weak according to historical ice core data.
PS alternative fuels should be championed and government should be paying for an alternative fuel x prize or even an apollo class program to get us off the oil teet of the middle east.
Oil is limited resource and costs us too much to support our energy based economy.
Sollutions:
Drill here drill now (temporary reduction of trade deficit keeping a trillion american dollars in country.
Wind generation (this resource should be exploited) especially off marthas vinyard coast)
Tidal Generation
Flex fuel vehicles (Tax breaks for all reciprocating engines equipped to run on gasceous products such as methane, CNG, LP and conventional gasoline or Ethanol) the changes to vehicle to accomplish this would be inexpensive at the manufacturing level. Simple changes to computer timing and addition of a relay and valve would pretty much make this work
methane recapture initiatives on land fills and sewer plants. Tax breaks and incentives to businesses that utilize methane from sources listed above.
I am all for economic freedom from oil... I just don't buy AGW at this point. and contrary to Scotts tremendously biased poll, science is backing AGW has not taken AGW from theory to fact there still appears to be compelling evidence against it.
Last edited by Epidemic : September 8th, 2008 at 10:52 AM.
This place is getting like a college campus, where you get shouted down if your don't buy into the liberal clap trap!
So Scott, you basically propose to take command of the economy's energy system, and eliminate our "excess" CO2 as defined by your scientists. Do you see any problems with this? And we will have to go "negative useage" to balance off the excess our competitors use in China and India.
Just how are you going to get fossil fuels out of the energy chain, and when? And how am I going to get to work in the morning, if you eliminate the fuel my car runs on?
In short, I want to know how the liberals plan to accomplish this.
__________________
Obama has taken America from purported bully to notorious chump in less than a year.
hardware
prices 
