Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,257
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jun 13, 2017 21:21:12 GMT -5
Again - nothing anyone has ever said or suggested. The oil companies are doing quite well financially, they aren't going to disappear overnight. Most people are currently unable to even consider moving to electric cars or solar energy, etc. What we should do is: 1) stay in the paris accord 2) continue to develop renewable energy 3) slowly make progress towards lower emissions We have time. Progress is underway. We don't have to have a global crisis, all we have to do is be smart and take a few steps in the right direction. And then a few more as technology improves prices/efficiency will become more attractive, and then even more people can make smarter choices. The world came together and said - this is important. we can work together and avoid the crisis. Why on earth would the us step back from that? In addition, the side affects are not bad either: cleaner air is needed for health especially for people with asthma, copd, and is associated with lower heart attack rates, bronchitis, ER and hospital admissions. In evaluating the clean air act of 1990, the epa says this: www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-healthhow much healthy we all would be with cleaner air Study links carbon dioxide emissions to increased deaths: news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.htmlBy pulling out will save us Americans $1,900,000,000,000,, As far carbon dioxide goes have we stopped drinking fizzy soda? but what will it cost us? In pure dollars - how about reputation and international business for US companies? Maybe some of the companies aligned themselves with the Paris accord for strictly moral and ethical beliefs, but it's likely many of them did so to protect their international sales from the fall out. How much business will potentially be lost? Will we be getting an Olympics bid? with this and the travel ban - not likely. I recently went to a professional conference in my field. While it is the "American Association...." of course as the US organization it draws from a large international membership as the premier group in the world. The travel ban hit and before it went to the courts, many international members stayed away. There was a lot of planning on how to coordinate things so the research was obtainable by the international members and visitors who decided it was best not to risk traveling to the US. Some special meetings were called to discuss the issues and how to maintain the international scholarship in the field. Then again - the US is focused on propping up declining industries like coal, and handing the innovation in renewable energies to China. What will be the cost of that in the decades to come? I fear our dodged contribution to the Paris accord will dwarf our loses.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jun 13, 2017 23:12:07 GMT -5
Again - nothing anyone has ever said or suggested. The oil companies are doing quite well financially, they aren't going to disappear overnight. Most people are currently unable to even consider moving to electric cars or solar energy, etc. What we should do is: 1) stay in the paris accord 2) continue to develop renewable energy 3) slowly make progress towards lower emissions We have time. Progress is underway. We don't have to have a global crisis, all we have to do is be smart and take a few steps in the right direction. And then a few more as technology improves prices/efficiency will become more attractive, and then even more people can make smarter choices. The world came together and said - this is important. we can work together and avoid the crisis. Why on earth would the us step back from that? In addition, the side affects are not bad either: cleaner air is needed for health especially for people with asthma, copd, and is associated with lower heart attack rates, bronchitis, ER and hospital admissions. In evaluating the clean air act of 1990, the epa says this: www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-healthhow much healthy we all would be with cleaner air Study links carbon dioxide emissions to increased deaths: news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.htmlBy pulling out will save us Americans $1,900,000,000,000,, As far carbon dioxide goes have we stopped drinking fizzy soda? $1,900,000,000,000..? Links please... So many articles in a quick search...most all along same theme as this one... www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/what-paris-climate-agreement-withdrawal-means-us-economy/102387578/Just a bit of topic covered this article alone... ----------------------------------------------------- "Job creation in renewable energy dwarfs coal, which was an obsession with Trump on the campaign trail, Phillips says, citing a Department of Energy report in January that noted the coal industry employs about 160,000 in the U.S., and is shrinking, while jobs are growing in the areas of energy-efficiency (2.2 million), natural gas (400,000), solar (374,000) and wind (102,000).
Domestic job growth issues aside, economist Zandi says that Trump's decision makes it less likely the U.S. will be at the forefront of clean energy innovation, possibly costing the country as many as hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next decade or two. “We’re not going to lead the way,” he says.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 10:41:43 GMT -5
Mitigating is just levels of control, making control the issue. "Pollution" is not a cause of global warming. Pollution can be any unwanted activity. "Pollution" is not a cause of global warming." Can you support this supposition? Easily. First you will have to let me know what type of "pollution" you are talking about. IE; Pouring a can of paint in a river is pollution. Due to extreme dilution, it doesn't seem capable of causing the planet to warm. One supposition is proven.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 10:51:54 GMT -5
I bolded the unproven premise of your question. Until you give me an answer of why it's the "doing the right thing", I have nothing for you. I take it you enjoy nit picking. I don't..here we are just two or more average folks expressing our views.. None of our thoughts or feelings are earth shaking..nor are we on the stand giving sworn testimony or for that reason having to prove our statements. Thus my statement in this case of "doing the right thing" is just that...regarding global warming...I grant u that there are many reason for global warming but in my feelings...when we have such a preponderance of professionals who's life work is dedicated to the professional study of these global warming's and the great majority of their beliefs are the same...Human involvement do contribute....I have to believe their ideas are correct. While I agree , to take part in trying to curb human actions in this area may cost some immediate jobs ...the only ones possible benefitting will be those of our decedents or even just theirs..."it is the right thing to do"...in other words do the right thing...From our Donald's actions in rejecting participating in the Paris accords not saying he actually believe there is no human factor that has been proven...more that he cares less about the future warming problems..about problems that his decedents or others in the future or if he does..might face . He is more concerned with the present and today...thus the "doing the right thing " is really not much concern of his or his rabid mob of supporters or a great number of them compared to keeping jobs today. As an example, I once convinced an entire auditorium of about 600 college students of something totally false to make a point of ignorance and predisposition. (well, not all. A couple knew what I was doing) You have an unproven premise in your question. Until you give me an answer of why it's "doing the right thing", I have nothing for you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 11:01:06 GMT -5
Mitigating is just levels of control, making control the issue. "Pollution" is not a cause of global warming. Pollution can be any unwanted activity. There are a lot of pollutants that enter our atmosphere. Some are man-produced and some are naturally occurring. Some may do damage and some may not. Some are even helpful. I don't think anyone is saying pollution causes global warming. There are many factors involved; some are known, some are suspected, some are natural and some are not. Right now Rukh is. Can't disagree with the rest of your post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 11:15:18 GMT -5
... Once again, I wish the best of luck to those who think man is going to control the climate. The past couple of summers, I have been stuck behind trucks hauling gravel up the hill to an area that they are building a housing development. I have teased the people doing the development that they are pissing Mother Earth off because she had worked for thousands of years to get those rocks down the hill and they were undoing all that work in a short period of time. Humankind is taking long stored energy out of the ground and releasing it at a rate that nature could never do without that human effort. Slowing that rate doesn't seem like it would be a bad idea.So slowing the rate is a good idea ?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,168
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 14, 2017 12:18:47 GMT -5
The past couple of summers, I have been stuck behind trucks hauling gravel up the hill to an area that they are building a housing development. I have teased the people doing the development that they are pissing Mother Earth off because she had worked for thousands of years to get those rocks down the hill and they were undoing all that work in a short period of time. Humankind is taking long stored energy out of the ground and releasing it at a rate that nature could never do without that human effort. Slowing that rate doesn't seem like it would be a bad idea.So slowing the rate is a good idea ? Modern life seems to be in quite a rush.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jun 15, 2017 0:12:51 GMT -5
I take it you enjoy nit picking. I don't..here we are just two or more average folks expressing our views.. None of our thoughts or feelings are earth shaking..nor are we on the stand giving sworn testimony or for that reason having to prove our statements. Thus my statement in this case of "doing the right thing" is just that...regarding global warming...I grant u that there are many reason for global warming but in my feelings...when we have such a preponderance of professionals who's life work is dedicated to the professional study of these global warming's and the great majority of their beliefs are the same...Human involvement do contribute....I have to believe their ideas are correct. While I agree , to take part in trying to curb human actions in this area may cost some immediate jobs ...the only ones possible benefitting will be those of our decedents or even just theirs..."it is the right thing to do"...in other words do the right thing...From our Donald's actions in rejecting participating in the Paris accords not saying he actually believe there is no human factor that has been proven...more that he cares less about the future warming problems..about problems that his decedents or others in the future or if he does..might face . He is more concerned with the present and today...thus the "doing the right thing " is really not much concern of his or his rabid mob of supporters or a great number of them compared to keeping jobs today. As an example, I once convinced an entire auditorium of about 600 college students of something totally false to make a point of ignorance and predisposition. (well, not all. A couple knew what I was doing) You have an unproven premise in your question. Until you give me an answer of why it's "doing the right thing", I have nothing for you.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Jun 15, 2017 2:43:34 GMT -5
Why change the issue rather than discussing? Control is not the issue, mitigating the effects of pollution is. Mitigating is just levels of control, making control the issue. "Pollution" is not a cause of global warming. Pollution can be any unwanted activity. Exactly, such as the insane amount of pollution created from rare earth mining for a bankrupt Industry... AKA... It's not really a dollar... Or as you're saying D23 " I once convinced an entire auditorium of about 600 college students of something totally false to make a point of ignorance and predisposition."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 6:06:00 GMT -5
A rule industry actually spearheaded if I understand correctly...
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,257
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jun 15, 2017 12:41:54 GMT -5
There are a lot of pollutants that enter our atmosphere. Some are man-produced and some are naturally occurring. Some may do damage and some may not. Some are even helpful. I don't think anyone is saying pollution causes global warming. There are many factors involved; some are known, some are suspected, some are natural and some are not. Right now Rukh is. Can't disagree with the rest of your post. Rather, I asked you to prove it wasn't. But you just kicked a can of paint into the stream..👾
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 13:06:21 GMT -5
Right now Rukh is. Can't disagree with the rest of your post. Rather, I asked you to prove it wasn't. But you just kicked a can of paint into the stream..👾 You seem to have "it" backwards. AGW is the theory. Theories should be proven before affecting change in behavior/regulations. Asking me to prove that it wasn't, is asking me to accept the unproven premise in your question. The "it" being AGW. Burden of proof lies with the authors of a theory. Until I read a published proof, my argument remains the same.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 13:09:16 GMT -5
Not completely control of course...but how about contribute...as population of world increases. I remember USA population 1950 being at 150 million..today over 325 million...and rest of world increasing as much...enough that China had limits to their families with drastic penalties for those who broke these laws... Possible we of today will only see some problems but definitely our kids...grand kids their kids will be affected...so we today should just pass the buck of doing the right thing down the line...your thinking...? Just wondering.... Right... and almost all of our increase in population is due to immigration, and YOU'VE been one of the wildest arguers for keeping the ol' immigration tap wide open. maybe we could have a great quality of life here and make a minimal impact on the ecosystem if there were simply fewer of us?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 16, 2017 14:24:00 GMT -5
Rather, I asked you to prove it wasn't. But you just kicked a can of paint into the stream..👾 You seem to have "it" backwards. AGW is the theory. Theories should be proven before affecting change in behavior/regulations. Asking me to prove that it wasn't, is asking me to accept the unproven premise in your question. The "it" being AGW. Burden of proof lies with the authors of a theory. Until I read a published proof, my argument remains the same. Riiiight....like the Germ Theory of Disease. No proof of microorganisms causing disease, right? Pay it no mind, because according to you, a theory is not proven science.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,257
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jun 16, 2017 15:40:04 GMT -5
Rather, I asked you to prove it wasn't. But you just kicked a can of paint into the stream..👾 You seem to have "it" backwards. AGW is the theory. Theories should be proven before affecting change in behavior/regulations. Asking me to prove that it wasn't, is asking me to accept the unproven premise in your question. The "it" being AGW. Burden of proof lies with the authors of a theory. Until I read a published proof, my argument remains the same. You made a statement their was no causal relationship and I asked you to support that statement, given that it is contrary to what many scholars and scientific groups in the field have stated, including NASA. The current scientific consensus on this is there is a causality-if you want to refute that, bring something to support your refutation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 12:56:40 GMT -5
You seem to have "it" backwards. AGW is the theory. Theories should be proven before affecting change in behavior/regulations. Asking me to prove that it wasn't, is asking me to accept the unproven premise in your question. The "it" being AGW. Burden of proof lies with the authors of a theory. Until I read a published proof, my argument remains the same. You made a statement their was no causal relationship and I asked you to support that statement, given that it is contrary to what many scholars and scientific groups in the field have stated, including NASA. The current scientific consensus on this is there is a causality-if you want to refute that, bring something to support your refutation. You stated I was in a cult funded by the oil industry, I differed. Until I read published proof, AGW remains a theory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 12:58:51 GMT -5
You seem to have "it" backwards. AGW is the theory. Theories should be proven before affecting change in behavior/regulations. Asking me to prove that it wasn't, is asking me to accept the unproven premise in your question. The "it" being AGW. Burden of proof lies with the authors of a theory. Until I read a published proof, my argument remains the same. Riiiight....like the Germ Theory of Disease. No proof of microorganisms causing disease, right? Pay it no mind, because according to you, a theory is not proven science. Correct. A theory is not proven science. It's already been proven that infection causes disease. Not a theory any more.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 13:06:38 GMT -5
But behavior changed before the basis for the theory was proven. Observation demonstrated cleaner hands led yo fewer deaths.
In other words, can act on correlation while attempting to further study causation.
My grad psych professor was like, bras and breast cancer... you'd think the correlation would be due to some factor, like urban environment, etc. but they control for factor after factor and still an observable relationship. Am I going to stand here and tell you bras cause breast cancer? No way. Am I going to take this bra off as soon as I get home? Yes.
And yet Again, scientific theory is not 'just a theory' it is based on observable, replicatable data. It is ALWAYS changing as out knowledge grows. You can't wait for some definitive end point...
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 17, 2017 13:14:29 GMT -5
Riiiight....like the Germ Theory of Disease. No proof of microorganisms causing disease, right? Pay it no mind, because according to you, a theory is not proven science. Correct. A theory is not proven science. It's already been proven that infection causes disease. Not a theory any more. And yet, it's still called a theory. It's not the Law of Germs and Disease. It's the Germ THEORY of Disease. According to you, a theory is not a proven science, so I encourage you to have your next surgery done by a doctor who doesn't wash his hands and doesn't wear sterile gloves. *and maybe drops the scalpel on the floor a few times.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,257
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jun 17, 2017 14:38:14 GMT -5
You made a statement their was no causal relationship and I asked you to support that statement, given that it is contrary to what many scholars and scientific groups in the field have stated, including NASA. The current scientific consensus on this is there is a causality-if you want to refute that, bring something to support your refutation. You stated I was in a cult funded by the oil industry, I differed. Until I read published proof, AGW remains a theory. you'd have to be actively avoiding any real scientific information in this area to not at least have some questions about the possibility of human input.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 18, 2017 1:19:29 GMT -5
You seem to have "it" backwards. AGW is the theory. Theories should be proven before affecting change in behavior/regulations. Asking me to prove that it wasn't, is asking me to accept the unproven premise in your question. The "it" being AGW. Burden of proof lies with the authors of a theory. Until I read a published proof, my argument remains the same. You made a statement their was no causal relationship and I asked you to support that statement, given that it is contrary to what many scholars and scientific groups in the field have stated, including NASA. The current scientific consensus on this is there is a causality-if you want to refute that, bring something to support your refutation. Wouldn't you consider lack of a successful predictive model sufficient reason to doubt the conclusions of "many scholars and scientific groups in the field"? More importantly: if we lack a valid predictive model of climate, on what basis do we establish what the best course of action is going forward? Many of the proposed solutions for climate change are world-altering in their implications, and extremely destructive to the middle class. It's not a case of "Let's take steps and if we're wrong, we're wrong."
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 18, 2017 1:28:45 GMT -5
it is based on observable, replicatable data This has never been the case for climate science. The data is privileged, as are most of the models. Members of the consensus are legendarily hostile to contrarian research, and are (almost without exception) funded by programs and grants that would cease to exist should climate change not turn out to be monetizable. This is not the Popperian scientific ideal we're talking about here. This requires immense faith in a largely inscrutable consensus--whose members have demonstrated zero ability to accurately predict macro climate trends, no less.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 18, 2017 8:50:25 GMT -5
it is based on observable, replicatable data This has never been the case for climate science. The data is privileged, as are most of the models. Members of the consensus are legendarily hostile to contrarian research, and are (almost without exception) funded by programs and grants that would cease to exist should climate change not turn out to be monetizable. This is not the Popperian scientific ideal we're talking about here. This requires immense faith in a largely inscrutable consensus--whose members have demonstrated zero ability to accurately predict macro climate trends, no less. Moreover, members of the consensus have been proven corrupt. The conspiracy to alter data that disagrees with their assumptions has been laid bare. There has been, as yet. no effort to start over studying the climate by people outside the corrupt scientific establishment with untainted data. The longer they wait, the more they deny their little hoax, the less credibility they will have. Their 'scientific' argument thus far has been to shout down those with whom they disagree, and attempt to silence them by filing lawsuits for fraud, and suggesting that the label "Climate Denier"-- a deliberate despicable attempt to linguistically connect skeptics to holocaust deniers, and even suggest that skeptics be silenced and imprisoned. If they had such a strong case, they'd present it. Instead, their actions are those you'd expect from people caught in a criminal conspiracy-- or in the case of most of them-- the actions of 4 year olds caught with their hand in the cookie jar and crumbs on their faces.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jun 18, 2017 8:53:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 9:01:02 GMT -5
Correct. A theory is not proven science. It's already been proven that infection causes disease. Not a theory any more. And yet, it's still called a theory. It's not the Law of Germs and Disease. It's the Germ THEORY of Disease. According to you, a theory is not a proven science, so I encourage you to have your next surgery done by a doctor who doesn't wash his hands and doesn't wear sterile gloves. *and maybe drops the scalpel on the floor a few times. You'll get it eventually. I'll stick with the science. You play with the semantics.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 18, 2017 9:07:44 GMT -5
I only recently found out about this competing solar theory. As the article mentions, the phenomenon of warming on Mars is attributed to Mars' precession by the consensus community. Dr. Abdussamatov's model predicts cooling in the coming decades, hence we won't have to wait long before finding out whether he's correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 9:12:12 GMT -5
You stated I was in a cult funded by the oil industry, I differed. Until I read published proof, AGW remains a theory. you'd have to be actively avoiding any real scientific information in this area to not at least have some questions about the possibility of human input. You are saying that an unforseen conclusion is possible. I can agree with that. Until then, I'll believe in A G W when I read a published proof. Don't make the mistake that I care one way or the other that A G W is proven. I don't. I feel that laws/regulations on an unproven theory are a mistake. If an energy saturated, trace gas, can warm our planet, and its been proven. I'm all for remedial activity. Man's contribution to this trace gas is almost immeasurable when considering the weight of our atmosphere. It doesn't create more heat. At saturation, energy transfer happens at speed of light radiating off the dark side. This includes all gases, not just co2 which only account for a narrow band of energy retention that overlaps with water vapor.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,168
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 18, 2017 9:28:10 GMT -5
I only recently found out about this competing solar theory. As the article mentions, the phenomenon of warming on Mars is attributed to Mars' precession by the consensus community. Dr. Abdussamatov's model predicts cooling in the coming decades, hence we won't have to wait long before finding out whether he's correct. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. AGW wobbles, but it doesn't fall down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 4:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 9:35:54 GMT -5
But behavior changed before the basis for the theory was proven. Observation demonstrated cleaner hands led yo fewer deaths. In other words, can act on correlation while attempting to further study causation. My grad psych professor was like, bras and breast cancer... you'd think the correlation would be due to some factor, like urban environment, etc. but they control for factor after factor and still an observable relationship. Am I going to stand here and tell you bras cause breast cancer? No way. Am I going to take this bra off as soon as I get home? Yes. And yet Again, scientific theory is not 'just a theory' it is based on observable, replicatable data. It is ALWAYS changing as out knowledge grows. You can't wait for some definitive end point... Replicable data will be harder to come by with the nearly unlimited variables possible with climate. You don't know just how correct you are when you said "always changing".
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,257
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jun 18, 2017 9:53:43 GMT -5
you'd have to be actively avoiding any real scientific information in this area to not at least have some questions about the possibility of human input. You are saying that an unforseen conclusion is possible. I can agree with that. Until then, I'll believe in A G W when I read a published proof. Don't make the mistake that I care one way or the other that A G W is proven. I don't. I feel that laws/regulations on an unproven theory are a mistake. If an energy saturated, trace gas, can warm our planet, and its been proven. I'm all for remedial activity. Man's contribution to this trace gas is almost immeasurable when considering the weight of our atmosphere. It doesn't create more heat. At saturation, energy transfer happens at speed of light radiating off the dark side. This includes all gases, not just co2 which only account for a narrow band of energy retention that overlaps with water vapor. The ramifications of making a Type I or a Type II error in this situation as so disparate as makes this stance unconscionable.
|
|