Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): I start to wonder just what it is that they have to hide? Why are they afraid to include those who disagree and their disagreements in the report? It makes their report all the more suspect. If it were truly a fair an honest document they would be happy to report that some members don't agree and here is their statement. If the evidence that made up the report was so overwhelming, then the dissent would look flimsy. Instead, now it looks more powerful than ever since it appears that the authors of the report want to keep those views hidden from general view. |
Agreed. Science that isn't conducted to the highest standards shouldn't be considered science. But it's not as though this is the only scientific report around on the issue. As I said, rather than trying to poke holes in the scientific evidence supporting my position, I'd like to see the scientific evidence supporting yours.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): The fact is that if our planet was just a few million miles closer or farther away from the sun, we wouldn't exist at all. |
Of course. But the differences in insolation received by Earth vs. Venus or Earth vs. Mars are substantially greater than the variations the Sun goes through, that you're providing as evidence of primarily outside causes for climate change.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): Since the Sun's output itself is the variable, if for some reason it burns hotter for a few thousand years, then we will most certainly feel those effects. The same would be true if it were to burn a little less fiercely. Can you say ice age? |
I think you're seriously underestimating the effects of the greenhouse effect. Mars and Venus, if bestowed with the same atmosphere we have, would be habitable for humans. Maybe some of Earth's less adapatable species wouldn't do well, and both are pushing the limits of the Sun's comfort zone, but dry, dead Mars and hellish Venus compared to comfortable Earth show the power of the greenhouse effect. Remember, Venus is hotter than Mercury and a hell of a lot further away.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): I'm quite sure that someone in Ferdinand and Isabella's court said basically the same thing referring to the fact that the earth was surely flat. Up until Yuri Gagarin made his space flight there were many who said, heck there are still a few nut jobs that say, space flight was impossible because the radiation would kill an ordinary human being. The science in both those cases was thought to be airtight. |
There wasn't legitimate, peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that either of those beliefs were true. Comparing the scientific standards of the late 1400s to today is risky business.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): I'm sure someone, somewhere along the Indian Ocean basin said exactly that same thing on December 25th 2004. Or perhaps near the bases of Mount Pinatubo, Mount St. Helens, or Krakatoa. Then again I'll bet that someone said something similar on the night of April 17th 1906 in San Francisco, or in Anchorage on March 26th 1964. And these were but small events compared to some of the known geological events in our recent past. They are far more unpredictable than the weather and it is kind of strange to see anyone who supposedly see the "science" in global warming treat them with such cavalier disregard. |
I suggest you look up the definition of Catastrophism. Catastrophism refers to massive, planet-wide changes like climate change, movement of the continents, polar shifts and such being primarily caused by singular, catastrophic events, like say, a sudden and rapid change in the power of the Sun. We now know that most major change on Earth is caused by gradual, measured change, like increases in CO2 levels or continental drift/plate tectonics, with a scattered catastrophe like an asteroid impact here and there. The total number of truly catastrophic events in Earth's history is probably well under 50. That works out to one every 92 million years. You're referring to localized natural disasters which, while horrible, didn't have a lasting effect on the planet as a whole.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): No but what I am saying is that to think that man has the power to change what the planet is going to do on its own is ridiculous. |
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): And yet you think that somehow we have the power to stop the inevitable. |
What exactly is Earth going to do on its own? What is the inevitable? Is it.....climate change?! The very climate change that will cause the very sea level changes that will cause the very disasters I described earlier? Ah, I love the smell of hypocracy in the morning.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): What makes the forest more important than what was there before it? |
It was what that big, powerful Earth that humans can't control and is going to do whatever it wants put there.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): Why is the forest there now and not what was there previous? |
It was the most effective use of the resources and conditions present in the area.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): Perhaps irrigating deserts? Just because the water level rises does not mean we cannot find some way to make use of it. |
Because deserts aren't legitimate habitats, used by thousands of different species of plants and animals that have evolved to meet their specific conditions? Oh wait, humans can't live there without air conditioning and sprinklers, it can't be worth anything.
You're dead on on that one.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): So by default his is the message that comes across and with it, all the preconceived notions that global warming alarmists are somehow just not quite right in the head. |
As someone who is clearly cognizent of that fact, I don't see why you continue to quote him as some sort of prophet for the entire movement.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): You ridiculed any suggestion that might deviate from the "man is the problem" scenario. |
Not at all. My most important point is that climate change is happening and if allowed to continue it will have catastrophic effects. Man is a part of the problem. Of course variations in insolation play a role, cow farts play a role, now all of the CO2 that's been locked up in ice caps for millions of years is escaping and playing a role. The fact is, human actions are the part of the problem we can do something about. My point is, it's worth doing something about.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): Yet your responses evoke an almost religious fervor in your belief that man is the sole culprit behind global warming |
Hah. Religious fervor would involve blind faith, rather than a reasoned position based on peer-reviewed, published scientific data.
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 86): that we have to radically alter our lifestyles |
You'll notice that in the paragraph you actually quote I state that I don't feel that way at all. Reading is a wonderful tool. I believe that people should be able to maintain their lifestyles as much as possible. I don't see how using a compact flourescent bulb instead of an incandescent one really affects your lifestyle unless you have a thing for Thomas Edison. I don't see how driving the hybrid Lexus
RX instead of the gas one affects your lifestyle when the hybrid has more horsepower. I don't see how the electricity flowing into your house being solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, or any other of a myriad of clean, renewable energy sources rather than coal, oil, or gas really affects your lifestyle.