Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Climate Science Is Not Settled

  1. #1

    Climate Science Is Not Settled

    For all of you who aren't sold on the current Climate Science there's an interesting article from a well known ex-Obama Administration Undersecretary. I've provided a link to save bandwidth. While I understand that many may view things as settled, I've not seen any bit of evidence that settles the matter absolutely. Yes, I'm aware that most of the world has jumped on the bandwagon. By no means am I disputing current dogma, but I'm not convinced either one way or the other.


    http://online.wsj.com/articles/clima...Climate+Change

  2. #2
    And you seriously have to ask the question what will be the impact of all these new laws proposed by administration? Most experts agree that they will do nothing but line the pockets of politicians.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by hungry101 View Post
    And you seriously have to ask the question what will be the impact of all these new laws proposed by administration? Most experts agree that they will do nothing but line the pockets of politicians.
    You're assuming that it's a complete hoax. I never said that. The main point of my position is reflected in the article as follows:

    "Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures."

    I'm sure many here will simply accept the dogma without keeping an open mind. Bottom line is we don't know enough. Accordingly pushing for cost-effective changes seems reasonable. I don't think carbon cap-n-trade is cost effective. I have no problem with all nations agreeing to an equitable reductions that are cost-effective. Let's start with India & China as they're pretty big offenders. Fully 80% plus of India's power is supplied via a very dirty coal operation in which the coal they use is transported across country and then burnt in very inefficient plants. Meanwhile that country beats everybody's brains out competitively with its products. If the worst offenders don't sign on and take the necessary actions to reduce carbon footprint why should North America further hamper itself economicly with strangling rules and statutes.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    48
    Just my two cents, but anyone who believes there is anything that is even remotely close to settled science, sadly mistaken. The scientific field is always open for more study and more debate

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    Just a little note:

    https://www.facebook.com/cfact/photo...type=1&theater

    I am all for cutting back on pollution but lets face the fact that we need to pollute to advance. Canada in terms of pollution is nothing compared to China, Russia, India even the US.
    Hate it when movie stars jump on the bandwagon, Dicaprio just joined... He owns 5 luxury houses, a jet and rents out mega yachts for holidays... Yup real energy conscious.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  6. #6
    Again, I'm not saying Global Climate Change or Global Warming is fact or not. Here's another few articles:

    http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...923-story.html

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-2...expand/5760642

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Vercingentorix View Post
    You're assuming that it's a complete hoax. I never said that.
    Where the hell did I say that I am assuming it is a complete hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vercingentorix View Post
    I'm sure many here will simply accept the dogma without keeping an open mind. Bottom line is we don't know enough. Accordingly pushing for cost-effective changes seems reasonable. I don't think carbon cap-n-trade is cost effective. I have no problem with all nations agreeing to an equitable reductions that are cost-effective. Let's start with India & China as they're pretty big offenders. Fully 80% plus of India's power is supplied via a very dirty coal operation in which the coal they use is transported across country and then burnt in very inefficient plants. Meanwhile that country beats everybody's brains out competitively with its products. If the worst offenders don't sign on and take the necessary actions to reduce carbon footprint why should North America further hamper itself economicly with strangling rules and statutes.
    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    Just a little note:

    https://www.facebook.com/cfact/photo...type=1&theater

    I am all for cutting back on pollution but lets face the fact that we need to pollute to advance. Canada in terms of pollution is nothing compared to China, Russia, India even the US.
    Hate it when movie stars jump on the bandwagon, Dicaprio just joined... He owns 5 luxury houses, a jet and rents out mega yachts for holidays... Yup real energy conscious.
    Ahh, but he probably buys carbon offset credits....a small child in India will plant a tree.

    1.) I hate the media and 2.) I wish singers would shut up and sing and actors would shut up and act.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by hungry101 View Post
    1.) I hate the media and 2.) I wish singers would shut up and sing and actors would shut up and act.
    Totally agree. Think about it, the media shapes virtually everything, POLITICS INCLUDED. Now here's the rub. Back in the 60s you had all these flower children that wanted to change the world and had very liberal views. Well they "grew up" and frankly many of them were not "rocket scientists". It was about then that many of the universities around the country piled on the bandwagon of having Journalism Schools. They needed someone to fill all those "educational slots" (read that needed the flower children's parent's money) and frankly they weren't real picky about qualifications. So the libs that couldn't make it in one of the real professions graduated with journalism degrees. Now there'll be one or two idiots who'll dispute this, but all you have to do is look at some of the crap that's published to understand that any training in grammar, comp, or efficient writing was tossed aside for bogus content. Thus we have idiots saying things like this: Here's Chris Mathews and Oberman on Obama https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no9fpKVXxCc Now understand that they're commenting on Obama's delivery of a speech that Obama is reading off a teleprompter. So essentially these two idiots are complimenting someone's ability as an orator and somehow relating that as political acumen. Duh?

  9. #9
    The climate is always changing. The question is, what is the proportion of the change that can be attributable to people? We may never find out because of all the complex nonlinear interactions.

    The climate is always changing whether people existed or not, e.g., decadal periods of drought in the past, etc.

    Fukushima is still leaking radiation. Yet, no one talks about it. We could potentially all die before "climate change" do us in.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    This is what is happening.


    https://vimeo.com/124392955
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •