Kerry blames Tornados on Global Warming

#4
#4
God! I was really hoping no one would do this today. It really is ridiculous. The problem is that it is completely hypothetical and baseless...this is only a claim that can be thrown out there....geez :no:
 
#5
#5
TennTradition said:
God! I was really hoping no one would do this today. It really is ridiculous. The problem is that it is completely hypothetical and baseless...this is only a claim that can be thrown out there....geez :no:
Click to expand...

It is moments like this that make me cynical when people call CO2 a pollutant and a contributor to global warming.

Now do you see where I'm coming from?
 
#7
#7
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is moments like this that make me cynical when people call CO2 a pollutant and a contributor to global warming.

Now do you see where I'm coming from?
Click to expand...

I understand that claims like these further politicize the physical science basis behind climate change - and that is why it makes me so mad.
 
#9
#9
maybe we can let mother nature be the bitch she is, and understand we pretend to know more than we do. this world controls us, not the other way around.
 
#10
#10
iceman9 said:
maybe we can let mother nature be the bitch she is, and understand we pretend to know more than we do. this world controls us, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I don't know..that seems like a kind of "turn the other way" approach. The world obviously doesn't control us. We have sent man to the edge of her effects (the moon and the two-body earth system)....and satellites beyond her gravitational effects. We have escaped the bonds of earth.

But, more to the point, we are certainly subject to the laws of the earth as long as we are on it. But, the point behind global climate change science is that we are artificially shifting the effects of mother nature. Now, if we are willing to live with those effects, then no problem. Let's do it. The issue is that some argue we won't want to accept those effects.
 
#12
#12
The problem is "some argue", who is right and who is wrong. And when someone tries impose their ideology into my misquided reasoning, I revolt. Am I for being good stewards of this planet, absolutely. When I see, and here a politician say this is the absolute truth, and their is zero discussion. I balk sir, your a very intelligent young man, and your life will be long and successful, I'm sure of that. But as data comes in disected, disputed, spun, global warming becomes more a cult than science. While I'm sure that somewhere in all that data there is a light to be seen, I will stand in the dark, saving energy...:birgits_giggle:
 
#13
#13
iceman9 said:
The problem is "some argue", who is right and who is wrong. And when someone tries impose their ideology into my misquided reasoning, I revolt. Am I for being good stewards of this planet, absolutely. When I see, and here a politician say this is the absolute truth, and their is zero discussion. I balk sir, your a very intelligent young man, and your life will be long and successful, I'm sure of that. But as data comes in disected, disputed, spun, global warming becomes more a cult than science. While I'm sure that somewhere in all that data there is a light to be seen, I will stand in the dark, saving energy...:birgits_giggle:
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about this is that there are almost no issues in science that do not have uncertainty, and very few that are not debated. The problem with this issue is that this debate has very important social and policy implications. When I say debate, I should also say it is a very one-sided debate (over 99% to 1%). Also, much of the debate is not over the physical science basis - it is often over what the effects might be (such as Dr. Robert Gray's problems with the global warming community trying to predict the more weather-related effects of increased temperature, such as hurricane activity).

I've studied the physical science basis, and I buy it. But, I also don't believe this means I have to stand in a dark room, or not heat/cool my home. We can tackle this problem and mitigate against the effects of human-induced climate change. But, I also believe that we need to start acting now. I really don't see this as a cult science. There is actually so little debate about this in the scientific community that it is startling to see how much debate there is in the press and in politics.

I do appreciate your view though. I think that you are certainly not alone, and that you are in a majority in this issue. It is actually quite an American response. However, America responded to sulfur emissions (acid rain) and CFCs (ozone) ... and I am cautiously optimistic that it will respond appropriately to this issue.
 
#14
#14
Look, your into the science, you want to research, dig, get your hands dirty, respected. But, your inside looking out, 99% of us are outside looking in. We care about the cost of it, what it represents to our lives, and we don't trust the people involved. To us, it is cult like, its like dealing with the PETA extremist who believe we should be serving the animals.(maybe over the top, but going for the big finish here, lol) When Gore comes out, has our children indoctrinated with a movie that is almost "Mein Kampf" like for propaganda. And I would also say this is seen any many sections of the country as class welfare, where the rich continue to live their decadent life styles, and if they go over their carbon caps, well they just buy off the poor, gives all involved that warm and fuzzy feeling. I don't mean to be so negative towards all of this, and especially you, I do respect your passion, I hope you know that, but as a insider,you simply see things in a different light, I hope you can see my opposing passion, and why?
 
#15
#15
I think that the scientific community has an obligation of making their views more transparent to the 99% you speak of. I certainly see exactly where you come from. I've been there. The IPCC will be a failure until it can remove the haze that exists over what they have done scientifically and where the true uncertainty lies.

One aspect of this that I find interesting is that I believe the US will actually not have to suffer all that much from consequences of climate change. I could be wrong for sure...but my bet is that we will be able to afford to offset almost all effects. It will actually be the nation's that can't afford to offset the effects that will be hurt ... which is interesting. It ultimately means that America might not be all that motivated to fix the problem...because it's probably not going to get hurt by it. This is in some ways the ultimate version of the class warfare you speak of.

Of course, the flip side of this is the concern that all curbing emissions will do is cost the developed countries tons of money ... closing the gap between the developing countries and the developed countries (a class warfare counterattack, if you will). This is obviously a concern...I for one don't want to see the US suffer unnecessarily economically, or lose our current global advantages.

I totally agree that this issue isn't just about science. There will be real, meaningful impacts on we citizens...the costs will be real. That is actually the area of the last remaining problem I have with global climate change science. The uncertainty in predicting exactly what effects will be seen (weather - drought and floods - as well as to some extent the amount of sea level rise) is still pretty high...and this is obviously very important in determining how much of an investment we make in curbing the effects. I hope that the science can get better in these areas.
 
#16
#16
I'd rather take the steps necessary to prevent global warming and find out I was wrong rather than ignore it and find out I was wrong. I know it has been referred to as "junk science" on here, and maybe it is, but what if it isn't? Just as someone cannot tell you global warming is 100 percent true, someone can't tell me it isn't. We do know that oil won't last forever so I don't think it's a bad thing to see a few more Civics and Corollas and a few less Excursions and Hummers on the road if it is "junk science".
 
#17
#17
the dems always try some garbage like this. kind of like the little ice age when was that like 20 yrs ago??? dems are bout as smart as a sack of rocks
 
#18
#18
jkell24 said:
I'd rather take the steps necessary to prevent global warming and find out I was wrong rather than ignore it and find out I was wrong. I know it has been referred to as "junk science" on here, and maybe it is, but what if it isn't? Just as someone cannot tell you global warming is 100 percent true, someone can't tell me it isn't. We do know that oil won't last forever so I don't think it's a bad thing to see a few more Civics and Corollas and a few less Excursions and Hummers on the road if it is "junk science".
Click to expand...

Sounds like the "duct tape and plastic sheeting" hysteria from a few years ago. And I will switch cars when a Corolla comes with 4wd and can get me deep into the woods. Until then I'll keep my SUV.

Vol Mania 21 said:
the dems always try some garbage like this. kind of like the little ice age when was that like 20 yrs ago??? dems are bout as smart as a sack of rocks
Click to expand...

yep, it's completely limited to the dems. :ermm:
 
#19
#19
utvolpj said:
Sounds like the "duct tape and plastic sheeting" hysteria from a few years ago. And I will switch cars when a Corolla comes with 4wd and can get me deep into the woods. Until then I'll keep my SUV.



yep, it's completely limited to the dems. :ermm:
Click to expand...

it was a joke, relax
 
#20
#20
utvolpj said:
Sounds like the "duct tape and plastic sheeting" hysteria from a few years ago. And I will switch cars when a Corolla comes with 4wd and can get me deep into the woods. Until then I'll keep my SUV.



yep, it's completely limited to the dems. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Duct tape and plastic sheeting? This isn't Y2K and I just got done writing that I didn't know if it was true or not, I'm not here to say I'm right and you're wrong by any means. I just feel like it is not too hard to put trash in a trash can or take other little steps that mightmake a difference. If they don't make a difference than what harm is done? I don't have a problem with people driving 4wd's or SUV's, many people need them to get to places as you suggest, I just find it funny to see an old woman driving alone in a Hummer to go get a bag of groceries for example. It's not my place even in that situation to tell people what they can and can't drive but rather my thoughts and a suggestion as to ways to conserve oil that is limited.
 
#23
#23
Vol Mania 21 said:
i get jabs for bein a repub. it happens, u deal w/ it
Click to expand...

It's cool, it doesn't bother me either but you have to admit that some people on here get a little too serious. My wife is a Republican (she voted for Romney :banghead2:) so I have been well trained. :) I have heard the saying that a moderate is the uninformed but I strongly disagree because there is no way I will agree with one party on thousands of issues when we are divided by two major parties. I am not a Berkeley liberal or anything.
 
#24
#24
ya some people on both sides take things way to seriously. politics is a touchy subj. that's why for the most part i don't get into to many discussions on here.
 
#25
#25
Vol Mania 21 said:
the dems always try some garbage like this. kind of like the little ice age when was that like 20 yrs ago??? dems are bout as smart as a sack of rocks
Click to expand...

This really isn't true. While a little ice age was discussed a lot in the popular press, very little mention of it actually appears in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There were two theories that were discussed by a small group of scientists: 1)Milankovich forcing from changes in the earth's orbital patterns and 2)aerosol forcings. With regard to aerosols, the paper that mentioned it said that if the aerosol and particulate concentrations were to increase by a factor of 6 to 8 and held there for a long time, then this could trigger an ice age. There were certainly problems with the paper - but it generally wasn't attacked much in the literature because there was very little work in the scientific community on the matter.

The cooling effects of aeorosols and particulate are taken into consideration in current climate effects just like the warming effects of greenhouse gases. You have to consider both sides of the coin...what can cause cooling as well as what can cause warming.

Ultimately, I see this as nothing more than an attempt to undermine the science that is currently going on. You can't take articles from the 70s out of magazines like Newsweek and claim that there was a scientific consensus on global cooling.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top