What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

very funny
a quick search reveals no such organization
only thing that came up was
NSWCA
the Nebraska Scholastic Wrestling Association
Im betting they have no opinion on the subject

Boston, are you seriously saying you haven't heard about the NSSWCA?

[Boston]

can you spell it for me

maybe that will set off an alarm or two

and I dont quite trust you
your sense of humor is way to good
so If I cant find it in a data base
its not happening
if it were a real outfit and not the girl scouts of America
it should have come up in a Google search

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

But probably this is the real reason about Obama's love for the GW scheme (taken from the link bntii provided):
"It will ... help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating 5 million new green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced"
Nothing to opose to that, as it will create jobs to many people in the USA (and in the first world, generally speaking) and cut the exterior oil dependancy, which is good. But this sounds close to what Perry and I debated earlier in this thread: AGW may be (or become) a new tool of imperialism, now tinted as eco-imperialism.

Well, as a matter of fact I do think now that we urgently need to cut CO2 emissions, not because of global warming at all, but just because that only can be got by drastical cuts in fossil fuels and carbon burning, which is economically good for countries not having enough reserves of those and, more importantly, to change the whole world's vehicles industry to producing alternative energies consuming units. This will produce the third industrial revolution in the world, creating millions and millions of jobs, which is precisely what we need to be able to recover from the present financial crisis the greedy and the incompetent ones have brought all of us in.

A couple of weeks ago I was acting as moderator at a 'round table' on alternative energies from the sea, both for sea vessels and land uses. I asked the representative of the Spanish Shipowners' Association and other members of the table if they had ever thought in questioning IMO's reccomendations on the cutting of CO2 emmissions from ships, because it could become to prove to be nonsense from the enviromental point of view. This created a lot of risen eyebrows among them and the public, so I exposed my personal views on the AGW thingy and the NSSWCA. Everybody was very surprised and, after some interesting debate, the conclusion was that it is absolutely irrelevant if the world warms or colds to cut CO2 emmissions from ships, because what it is really important to shipowners is to reduce the conventional fuels consumption because of their cost. Very specially because heavy fuels will be banned in the mid term, so light crakcs (diesels) will become of universal use even for the huge powers.
http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/en...ngvessels.aspx

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

can you spell it for me

maybe that will set off an alarm or two

Boston,
"No Sun Spots Will Cool your Ass"
I'm beginning to credit Jim when he says you do not read the posts in this thread!

[Boston]

interesting
Im suprised that sail powered isnt making more of a come back

those clipper ships moved mountains in there day

[Boston]

****
Im still wondering what the hell he means when he says AGPLU alarmists or what ever that acronym is

and please
you really think I read every post
Ive been limmiting it to one question a day in this thread if that
although I just lost my job
so today Im just sorta goofing off
B

[Jimbo1490]

Anthropogenic
Global
Warming

Or AGW, you dumbass

Read it

Learn it

Live it

Love it



Jimbo

Tonge completely in cheek

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

****
...and please
you really think I read every post
Ive been limmiting it to one question a day in this thread if that
....

I naively thought you were carefully reading what others posted and also reading the cites and documents so hardly search for in the internet and brought here for the sake of this thread, to be able to properly rebate your oponents opinions. Now I regret to learn it is not like that. What you're now saying means to me you are only listening to your own pre-conceived ideas and posting them here once and again till boringness, bringing nothing new into discussion for the rest of us to learn. A pity.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Tonge completely in cheek

Like this?

[Guillermo]

Or like this?

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I What you're now saying means to me you are only listening to your own pre-conceived ideas and posting them here once and again till boringness, bringing nothing new into discussion for the rest of us to learn. A pity.

Cheers.

This explains a lot of the past couple of weeks of discussion, huh?


Boston,
Seriously, setting aside the Almighty Consensus, the case for AGW is surprisingly weak. And instead of getting stronger as time passes and with our more advanced data gathering capabilities via satellites and other means, it's getting weaker and weaker.

The proponents of the idea that we must do something about it "right now!" (translation: elect me!!, elect me!!) have stooped to some pretty low lows to try and trump up their case, as I've pointed out during this thread. These tactics are not those we'd expect be employed by those with the more scientifically meritorious argument, but usually reserved for those with ulterior motives.

Jimbo

[Pericles]

I reckon Boston hails from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumpkin_Island

It was this that prompted me. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_bumpkin

[masalai]

OK, You win??? . . . It is toooooo bloody hot to argue and the second day of Summer! What next?

[Boston]

Seriously, setting aside the Almighty Consensus, the case for AGW is surprisingly weak. And instead of getting stronger as time passes and with our more advanced data gathering capabilities via satellites and other means, it's getting weaker and weaker.

well that makes a strong case for you not reading or understanding the posts, doesnt it
the Gallup pole presented earlier clearly indicates the opposite of your claim

April 24, 2008

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.

The survey, which was conducted for STATS by Harris Interactive®, also found increased concern among climate scientists since the Gallup organization asked them many of the same questions in 1991.

Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request.

Major Findings

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

what was it someone said a while back about my not posting recent studies
cause that looks like a pole from just a few months ago to me

or is this tripe really asking us to set aside the agreeing ( consensus ) view and consider only the detracting view
in which case, yes
there would a surprisingly week argument for rapid global climate change
brilliant argument guys
and you wonder why I find this hole discussion fruitless

unbelievable
B

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Boston,
Seriously, setting aside the Almighty Consensus, the case for AGW is surprisingly weak. And instead of getting stronger as time passes and with our more advanced data gathering capabilities via satellites and other means, it's getting weaker and weaker.

As you have argued for the importance of consensus on your side of the issue, and argued that the pro-AGW consensus does not in fact exist, it seems a bit unfair to discard the importance of consensus at this juncture.

A summary statement that the AGW theory is weak is your viewpoint and not the substance of the science or a summation of the points as argued in this thread. The evidence continue to build- particularly as "more advanced data gathering capabilities" come into play. Once again- as documented in this thread.