Warm Weather

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

jMen,

I have hundreds and hundreds of articles from well respected scientists, and reviews that raise questions on the issue.

My stance is one of open mindedness. I believe things should be greener. I believe in recycling and energy efficient vehicles. I believe we owe it to our children to hand them a cleaner planet than the one we inherited. I also believe we have made and are making great strides in that direction.

What I do not believe in is Global Warming as a scare tactic disguised as science. It is a political agenda end of story no argument. What is sad is people are led to this level of hysteria over global climate change by the agenda of these scientists who are sucking billions and billions of dollars out of the economy.

I read both sides, listen to both sides and make educated choices. Sadly, for Shed, I am not running out to get my Prius next weekend. However, once the hybrid or total electric vehicle becomes commonplace, efficient and affordable I'll be first in line. I lay out my recycling bin every week, I try to do my part. But NOT because I am scared of some cooked up global warming theory.

I was not referring to you, as the sounds similar analogy. I agree with your statement and my feeling are fairly similar.

[ITD]

Shed, I don't understand how you can be so steadfastly sure of your views as settled science when the foundation and core of AGW is crumbling around you. From the admission that the IPCC assertion, that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, is wrong. Turns out it was based on a fluff piece by an environmental advocacy group and is patently untrue. To the admission by Phil Jones that the climate may have been warmer in medieval times and that there has been no "statistically significant" warming in the past 15 years. There is no such thing as "settled science". Any one who uses that term is just trying to take your money.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by ITD

Shed, I don't understand how you can be so steadfastly sure of your views as settled science when the foundation and core of AGW is crumbling around you. From the admission that the IPCC assertion, that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, is wrong. Turns out it was based on a fluff piece by an environmental advocacy group and is patently untrue. To the admission by Phil Jones that the climate may have been warmer in medieval times and that there has been no "statistically significant" warming in the past 15 years. There is no such thing as "settled science". Any one who uses that term is just trying to take your money.

ITD, that's why I believe that the term"Global Climate Change" came about as no matter what happens around the world weather wise it can be contributed to "Global Climate Change" to support their arguement. Vague and loose terminology.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by ITD

No good can come of this.....

Who's the Bozo who started this thread..? He should be Water Boarded mercilessly until he fesses up.......... NB

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Who's the Bozo who started this thread..? He should be Water Boarded mercilessly until he fesses up.......... NB

I have often thought the same thing....

especially because he had the nerve to title it "Global Warming" before connections in high places got it changed.

Do you believe in Title Changing?

[Lakegeezer]

Back when most people believed that the sun revolved around the earth, the conversation from the deniers must have been similar. It doesn't really matter what you believe. The climate is changing. The north pole has less ice than we've seen before, our springs in the lakes region are earlier, our falls later and we are seeing the northern boundary of some insects and plants creep north.

Change cannot be legitimately denied. The extent, impact and our ability to stop the change is where the discussion should be. When we have US senators pointing at a record DC snowstorm and saying there is no change happening, it shows that we are not dealing with reasonable parties who can rationally discuss the topic. The conservative point of view should not be held by buffoons. They must go.

The elephant in the room is carbon taxing. Those against it want to deny there is a problem, when instead, they should be asking the tough questions. Will reducing carbon emissions have any effect? How accurate are the predictive models? How can we cleanse the data we have so new models can be built? The answers to those questions are squishy.

Carbon taxing probably won't work, but that is no reason to walk away from the science. It makes more sense to help Texas and Virginia buy some snowplows. Dealing with the impact of change as it comes, whatever it might be, is the most reasonable approach, especially when we don't really know what will happen in 10 or 50 years. Predicting disaster and investing for the worst case is not reasonable.