Global Warming? are humans to blame?

When I played football, I was a big kid for my age in those days. And aggressive. My position was defensive lineman. My specialty was getting double teamed. I drew TWO blockers. That made a hole in the offense line, so my team mates could sack the quarter back.
What's the secret of winning football games? Defense. Don't let the other team score.
I'm not a "denier". I'm defending freedom! For another 30 to 40 years I hope!

 

Your solution wouldn't have worked for beans if the guy with the insecticide had said, "this stuff is for bugs, not fish, and I don't believe all the lying politicians and scientists who claim it's bad for the environment. They're just trying to take away my rights."

 

So government funded research finds that a substance is toxic and establishes guidelines for use and mandates the labeling of the product with appropriate application.
The government further established laws which govern the use of the product, a legal basis for intervention if violations occur and a regulating body to do the ground work.

So some neighbors identify a problem based on what they understand about a product from the government research and guidelines. They threaten to use the laws established by the government and enforced by the government to censure another neighbors actions.
So the matter is settled "without government".

Kidding right??


Getting a neighbor to stop walking a dog on your lawn can be done this way.
Try getting a company like GE to stop dumping PCP's in a river.

It will take decades of government research and laws to stop such "neighbors"
In the absence of government action, GE dumped 1.4 million pound of these poisons into the Hudson river.

They would still be doing it today if the Government didn't stop them.

 

why am I reminded of love canal

 

So, if there isn't a large cooling effect because of a solar calm in the next 2 or 3 years, do you expect that you will reconsider your opposition to AGW?

 

I certainly don't expect him to; he'll just move on to another talking point. I'm reminded of a comment from Steve Zwick in a Forbes column, about observing a Roy Spencer audience:

 

I tried to keep the story short. I wasn't at that first meeting, nor at home when the fish kill occurred. We did join the association afterward.
Nobody ever confessed, was ever accused, nor the actual cause of the kill ever determined.
Perhaps, the unanimous emphatic rejection of a government investigation, was an implied threat, but to what purpose?
They publicly acknowledged blame/punishment was wasted time and divisive. They had some smart business managers, leaders, among them.
They understood an efficient problem solving algorithm includes ONLY, assessing the problem, choosing/implementing a solution, deciding if it succeeded.
What I HEARD, had occurred at that first meeting, was invite rather than indict.
Allying not alienating.
The emphasis was on a shared problem and how to prevent it re-occurring.
The ELECTED solution, was encouraging mutual respect and more responsible behavior, thru community fellowship.
Socializing. Not socialism.

 

IE
you aint going to learn
what you don't want to know.

Deal is of course they're looking for loopholes, isn't that what denials all about, looking for a way to deny the painful truth

The learning process is chalk full of admissions of error. We challenge ourselves to learn something new, make an effort to incorporate the new, and get tested on the ability to extrapolate from what we've learned. Being wrong is simply part of the process, admitting your wrong and moving forward from there is the process. Its called education. A gradual process. Chalk full of efforts to improve. Unless that is your a denier. Someone who stands fossilized in some happy place they call home. Regardless of its reality.

 

Boston
You looping for lookholes maybe?

 

Puppy dogs and lolly pops, butterflies and zebras, moonbeams and fairy-tales

thats all "she" ever think about

 

I apologise my explanations in this thread are so poorly written, that it's difficult to understand my objections to catastrophic manmade global warming. My bad.
I majored in math, not journalism.
My communication skills are appropriate for the career I pursued.
Running a ship only involves communicating what needs doing, how to do it, and when.
Explaining WHY we are doing it, or doing it a certain way, indicates a desire for, and invites approval/disapproval.
This is viewed by subordinates as indecisive and weak. It destroys confidence and trust in the leader. A dysfunctional command style.

I'm certainly not commanding here. So, I'll try explaining again.
I ask for patience, and maybe you can bridge the gap, my limited skill in explaining leaves.

People ALWAYS have motives. What is the 'motive' for the GW issue?
Was the science a result of observing catastrophic warming, and looking for it's cause?
There ISN'T any actual observable current catastrophic warming.
Eight tenths of a degree C rise in 150 years isn't catastrophic. There are no observed immediate consequences.
Despite some recent "claims", severe weather is NOT more frequent or violent according to recorded historical data.

Listening, and reading, about GW, ONE powerfull motive constantly, insistently, emerges.
A deep seated, adamant BELIEF, that burning thousands or millions of tons of carbon fuel daily IS, MUST BE, UNDENIABLY OBVIOUS, damaging to the earth.
This IS NOT, a theory.
It's axiomatic!
It's premise.
It's a founding principle.
It's DOCTRINE.
DOGMA!
And NOT subject to refutation or rebuttal. At least, according to GW believers perspectives.

Enviromentalism is a highly ingrained/entrenched/indoctrinated popular culture in todays world.
To be contrary is politically incorrect. Heretical. Socially irresponsible! Anathema! Abominable!

Proving that man's technology is evil, is problematical.
The ONLY mechanism they concluded, that could possibly be an anthropogenic causal factor in fossil fuel consumption, is CO2.
Co2 is a minor 3% of greenhouse gasses.
IF CO2 could somehow be connected to a 'potential' catastrophe, it would serve as a causal theory.
It can ONLY be shown functional in computer models.
Ergo! Modeled Predicted Global Warming!

Starting from a obsessed agenda, and trying to invent science theories to support it, isn't scientific method. In science method, theory comes first, then evidence, then conclusion.
Insisting on the conclusion first, results in forced, convoluted, flawed theories, that can't withstand critical analysis, or honest debate.
Which is what has happened.
Non conformists are discredited as "deniers", not respected supporters of differing theories.

Agenda driven science isn't new. I used the tobacco/cancer agenda driven conclusion prior to the 'science', as another recent example of todays "cart before the horse" un-scientific methods.
To no avail.
People who DEPEND on agended science, are not open to understanding why it's error.
They probably will never agree it's bad science.

I'll be happy to look at any new theory you propose.
Anthropogenic CO2 drives climate theory however, is fatally flawed, uncredible and hopelessly corrupted.

 

Just like judicial activism is any court decision someone happens to disagree with, agenda-driven science seems to be any science that comes up with conclusions or data you don't want to hear.

Again: for your statement to stand, an overwhelming number of mainstream scientists world-wide would have to be incredibly stupid and know less science than you do -- or be part of the most widespread conspiracy in the history of mankind.

I don't believe either of those propositions... therefore, I don't believe you. Q.E.D.

 

You don't believe a large number of scientists would be inclined to be politically correct?
Would be inclined NOT to contradict sensitive enviromental issues?
Would be unwilling to accuse their profession and colleagues of having the conclusion first, unfounded, except by BELIEF!
Might very well be BELIEVERS themselves?
Would be unwilling to risk the ire of their lab directors, and the universitity (deliberately mis-spelled ) administrators that hired them?

Who is naive, Troy?

 

It would take more than just a 'large number,' Yob. It would take essentially the entire scientific community -- including 32 national science academies, and major scientific societies throughout the world. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, with 3100 members in 100 countries, has bought in.

The odds of all those scientific organizations, plus roughly 97% of rank-and-file scientists worldwide, endorsing the concept of man-made climate change because of ignorance, greed, fear or a conspiracy are somewhat lower than the odds of getting chocolate milk from a cow because she's brown.

I don't think I'm the one who's naive here.

 

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps I'm unfair to scientists and their organizations.
I'm completely at a loss to explain why, so many have tied their reputation to a theory that isn't working.
Unless some conspiracy, or moral cowardice. or error in reporting 'consensus' size.
But, facts are facts.
The CO2 has been increasing for decades. Higher now than EVER! Fact.
The predicted high temperatures haven't happened. Fact.
Where is the matching temperature increase?
The temperatures during the recent decade fluctuated rather wildly from year to year, but aren't/haven't been trending up in this past decade.
Increased CO2, in theory, would require higher temperatures, if it indeed drove temperatures.
I know the diversion about 10 years is too short a period in climate change.

So, how long AFTER increased CO2, does temperature rise? 800 years?
In ice core samples, CO2 lagged temperature by 800 years.
Did they get that backward?