Global Warming? are humans to blame?

I didn't bring up tobacco. Troy claimed Dr Lindzin had no credibility because besides debunking CO2 drives climate, he also argued there is NO proof tobacco causes cancer. He (Lindzin) is correct both times.
It's easy to "go with the flow" of popular science, even when the science is flawed. I suspect most scientists feel they have no choice in global warming.

I'm all for alternative energy. I'm for conservation of fish and wildlife. I'm for clean air and water.

I am AGAINST legislating it. Or worse, creating regulations, that have the force and penalty of law, but aren't laws!
And I'm against fake science!

About the doctors. Life is a risky business.
cheers

Yes I'm a healthy smoker.

 

The link between smoking and cancer is hardly 'popular science.' It's been established six ways from Sunday, beginning with the simple statistics. You're also blowing smoke when you say no one knows how smoking causes cancer. Tobacco smoke has at least sixty known carcinogens in it.....

If you want to play the odds, you have a pretty good chance of getting away without lung cancer. Twelve and a half to one statistically -- and maybe a lot better, if you were lucky in the genes you were born with. But going into complete denial is something else entirely.

It's just as silly to dismiss climate change as 'popular science,' since the consensus among serious scientists that it's real is very close to unanimous. You'll notice you have to keep coming back to the same little group of paid oil industry shills, to find your cut-and-paste denials.

Most scientists just shrug them off and go about their business, just as they do with the tiny little bunch who deny evolution. As a matter of fact, there are similarities and links between climate change denial, denial that smoking is unhealthy, and denial of evolution. In all three fields, you have a tired little handful of paid hacks making a bunch of noise, trying to conjure up the illusion of a controversy that doesn't exist in the real scientific world.

 

Not hardly. Pollyanna always saw the best in people, not the worst.

In fact, it's a little depressing to run into someone who holds his classmates and his peers in such contempt. You're dumping on a whole lot of good people.

 

Well, I do expect a lot from people. People are capable of impressive feats of love, generosity, intelligence, all good things.

Florida didn't have a drug culture in 1966 when I graduatd HS. At least not among the kids I hung with. I suppose California did. Anyway, I encountered it in Viet Nam. Some friends of mine tried to "turn me on". I was reluctant. They went outside to sit on the roof of the hooch, to watch the "fire works!" They died there. Drugs will make you stupid! But I'm gratefull, they inmurred me against ever being tempted.
I came home mid 1969, and Florida was changed. Bunch of long haired dopers had taken over, but were my former HS friends.
Remember the riots and distrust between police and our generation during the 70s?
I hated that, and the drug culture that permeated and destroyed my home and friends. Later, these hippies became yuppies, but their ethics and values remained forever changed.
I too wish I didn't feel this way. Maybe I like Mexico because it reminds me of 1950s Florida.

 

Climate is complicated. Climate models are simplified, OVER simplified. Seizing on one factor alone, CO2, is over simplified. That's bad science!

Claiming the science is "settled", Is bad science!

Rejecting anybody that disagrees, is bad science!

You say, the vast majority of scientists agree with the bad science. I think those who disagree are keeping a low profile. But if EVERYBODY agreed with the bad science, it's still BAD science.

And I think it has a political agenda!

There, I didn't quote anybody that takes oil money. Just me myself. And I don't get a dime from oil companies.

 

Hippies didn't turn into yuppies. Yuppies are a later breed -- the children or baby brothers and sisters of the hippies. They were (and are) much more self-centered. Unlike hippies, they have no interest in saving or improving the world. They're interested mostly in making more money and preserving property values on their block, and the rest of the world can go screw itself.

I remember doing some remodeling for a rather typical Orange County yuppie homeowner, who was active in two groups: one that lobbied to increase prison sentences, and increase the number of prisons to hold the overflow, and another that lobbied hard to make damn sure no prisons were built anywhere near his neighborhood.

I asked him one day, "let me get this straight: you want more people in prison, and more prisons built to hold them. But you also want those prisons built in other people's backyards, so it screws up the resale value of their homes instead of yours."

His answer was, "that's right. What's your point?"

 

That's typical. LOL. But the HS friends I had, became pot heads, then graduated college, cut their hair and blow dried it, and became career path yuppies. Same folks. The young upwardly mobile jr execs. I don't think they swapped intoxicants, just added martinis to their pot toking! Anyway, I went to sea.

 

No one claims the science is 'settled.' Like all legitimate science, climatology is in a constant state of flux as new research is done and more data gets collected and analyzed. But nothing coming in has yet refuted the basic premise that climate change is real, and related to anthropological activity.

Why would those who disagree keep a low profile? In case you hadn't noticed, the surest route to stardom in science is to prove your peers wrong on an important subject. And you'll notice that Lindzen hasn't lost any government funding for his research, in spite of being a very noisy climate change 'heretic.'

You're trying to put the cart before the horse. There may be lots of people who have adopted a political agenda, based on the data and conclusions. But that's bass-ackwards from basing the data and conclusions on a political agenda.....

 

I think you're a little younger than I am, and you were at the other end of the country. Maybe you were part of a demographic caught in the transition from hippies to yuppies...

Out here, most of the hippies I knew eventually blended back into society. But they didn't lose all their ideals, and to this day they hold yuppies in contempt.

 

I was born 1948. Have to walk to the store. Be back 20 minutes.

 

Then you're a year older than I am. But Florida was never California, even in the sixties. It would be interesting to get together and compare notes.....

I'm on my way to bed. Worked my normal 12 hours today, and I'm covering for someone else tomorrow night and the night after.

 

im back. goodnight.

 

Riveting conversation guys

 

Enjoy.

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/

Where's all the melting Arctic ice eh?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Anyone for a Producer Gas fueled, petrol engined boat:?: It could run on driftwood and boatyard offcuts:!:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/27/my-pet-project-producer-gas-and-my-suv/

I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

All the best,

Perry

 

;-) good plan GTO go tell all "dem smat people" in your orifice that your a climate denier, ahahahaahhhaahahahahahahahhahhahahahhaha

oh to be a fly on the wall for that conversation, unless of course you work for the energy industry, in which case let the denial fly. While 98% of climate scientists agree, only about 50% of petroleum geologists do, so who you going to believe, the guys who study the issue ? or the guys who profit from denying it ?

PS
speaking of puny minds, your analogy conveniently ignored WHY it warmed up. Ahahaahahahahahahhaahhahhahhahahahahahahah oh and the guys got a real bang out of your ice melting theory . Its also obvious your doing the Gish Gallop over there, first mistakenly thinking that we are beginning a warming cycle, when an analysis clearly indicates we are at the TOP of the cycle and should "most likely" have been headed downhill by now. Then failing to admit the error simply taking off on a tangent about ice melt. Good plan, but not working. In todays climate system the predominant forcing is CO2 and that CO2 can and has been directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. <------------ thats a period at the end of that sentence. Done deal. Its a simple chemical end product of combustion. The production of CO2. Have your colleagues explain it to you cause clearly its just not sinking in.

Also you might want to look into the High Permian extinction event and learn what happens to our climate when CO2 increases :idea: or maybe even look into ice permeability, since your stuck on ice these days. Assuming that is your actually interested in why 98% of climate scientists think the way they do :idea::idea:

BNTII
apparently your not listening to our friend Christy, founder of that one deniers group, he used to write for the tobacco industry and still argues that smoking is good for you. Oh and I gotta completely agree with Cat on this one, I'm not sure I've ever even met anyone who had lung cancer, who didn't also smoke. Its a very clear correlation.

Troy
actually, many in the climate science community are saying its a done deal. The basics of the theory are extremely well established, granted it will always be a theory and in that sense its always open to change, however I've listened to lecture after lecture up at CU by many prominent climate scientists, hell I regularly bump into these guys in the cafeteria and the local coffee shops and I hear some very strong terms when discussing the chances of climate science being wrong on this one. Rare in science sure, but this issue has been studied to death and the basics are very well understood.

I've got an option of starting classes again this fall and might just make climate science my focus this time around. Not sure, gotta brush up on my math skills first but would be interesting since the subject is so damn interesting. Particularly climate history, things like ice permeability and climate denial, policy procrastination and what if anything can halt the impending disaster.

Cheers
B