doublegunshop.com - home Forums Global warming

cpa, I just re-read the entire thread. Didn't read anything from anyone denying there MAY be global warming. Nor did I read someone suggest that we stop the scientific inquiry.

What I did read that many of us think that if it is happening, it is unlikely that it is cause by man. Also read that, given the scale of geological time, perhaps we really aren't noticing any real trend. Perhaps we just don't know.

I guess that is what is so galling to so many of us. The complete distortion of what we have said.

Are you sure there's much to ponder here. Do you and nca believe that if joe blow jumps off a building, he'll accelerate to the speed of light, or will he approach the speed of the neutrino.

Does selectively with holding some science help make your case, just as it does for the militant global warming elites. How do you reconcile thousands of emails circulated among the chosen few 'scientists' until they all agree and present the 'findings' at a summit.

Nca's description of a scientist is way off in fantasy land. A scientist probably shouldn't be indoctrinated to regurgitate. Good science should be reliably verified, indepedently. How could 'climate change' be predicted with precision, and why don't you folks have solar panel from solyndra and drive volts. You have been told you must, so market be damned.

Damn! I was on my way to Iowa City this morning and was just thinking of something to stir up the pot and thought of the warm weather we have been having lately. I don't think that this signals anything in itself but if it lasts for a decade or two...Honest,I don't have a "set in stone" opinion either way on the "climate change/global warming" controversy.Let's wait until next year to see if we've got a trend going. I know there were a lot of people with a different view when the weather gets cold and we have a lot of snow.

Gnomon you are right, I did mean to say "lowered the allow mercury emissions." Thanks.

I also meant to say that I believe Obama's purpose in lowering the standard is s to lower CO2 emissions and the mercury limits are just the means. But suppose we take that money that the people of the Texas Panhandle are going to spend on new gas-fired plants and spend it on fuel cell research or a wind farm or tax breaks for high mileage vehicles. Isn't that a better use of wealth than obsoleting all the coal fired plants in the USA?

Best,

Mike

Canvasback - "Climate scientists can't get the forecast right for a month from now in any local area. What makes you think they are getting this right."
Shotgun Jones - "...you may come to the conclusion as I did that man-caused climate change is a hoax."
I should have been more specific and written man-made global warming, but I thought everyone knew that's what was being discussed. Climatologists don't generally forecast a month in advance or for local areas - that's the province of meteorologists.

� "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." Carl Sagan

cpa, like nca225, you either miss my point or are purposely avoiding it.

My point being that most "deniers" I am aware of are prepared to consider climate is changing.....as it has constantly over the last 600 million years at least. What we consider not to be proven is that man's activities over the last 150 years have had any significant impact on that possible climate change.

And my point being that I don't like nca225 saying I have said something I haven't. Words, in fact, are important.

"Nca's description of a scientist is way off in fantasy land. A scientist probably shouldn't be indoctrinated to regurgitate."

A little full of piss and vinegar tonight aren't we?. Would you mind explaining how strict reliance to the scientific method requires regurgitation and does not produce a discipline that ensures reliableness, accuracy and precision?

"Good science should be reliably verified, indepedently".

Doesn't this speak to...reliableness?

I'm certainly not purposefully avoiding your point. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, as the whole debate to me is one of manmade climate change - not whether the climate is changing or
not. It is a scientific theory, and just that, subject to revision or rejection as more research and information becomes available, but the best evidence to date supports the theory. My experience with the deniers, as you refer to them, has been their consistent claim that only God could cause climate change and man is unable to have any impact. To me, that is based on a preconceived idea and is irrational as well as anti-science. I accept that you may not base your beliefs on that idea.

canvas, you wrote in part:

OK, fair enough. But science does not prove stuff - it proposes mechanisms that are the best fit to current data. Science only disproves

That is a very difficult concept to get across. It gets back to my argument about falsification. We can only propose things consistent with data derived from the natural world and therefore these proposals can be disproved.

However, and it's a big "however" - one needs to use data from the natural world to disprove. If one wishes to use religion or politics or "personal hunches" then one is operating in a non-scientific world, and one shouldn't mix metaphors (or in this case worlds).

But if someone wants to rely on religion, that's perfectly OK. But religion etc do not (or should not) try to impact on science.

If someone wants to deny climate change or human's role in it, then they should go back to cpa's URL and falsify the physicist's data.

I have been feeling poorly when I get up in the morning. I went to the doctor for diagnosis and help. He said "You may have a strange new disease that no one else has ever had and it may be fatal." I said "Oh my, is there a treatment." He said "Maybe. We think cutting your legs and arms off might save you if you really do have it and it is really fatal." I said "OK, I think I will wait a little while and see what happens."