Shaun, you made my point, but with panache! :)

Whether we like it or not, that seems to be the consensus of those studying the issue. "Proof" in science is an elusive thing.

That same scientific consensus seems to think that solar and volcanic activity has actually had a cooling effect over the past few decades, so I'm not sure what you're asking?

The Earth is getting warmer. That is one thing that can be proven. The contribution to this warming by the different factors involved is a focus of great study (and debate) these days, but the fact of the warming remains. Should we run around with our heads cut off? No, but denying the existence of the phenomenon doesn't reflect well, either.

Thank you Jim, but I can't take credit, I owe it all to a very wise gentleman who gave me some great advice recently:


and


So what'd I do? I went out lernt me a few thangs. One was to check sources. Another was that OpEds should be taken as seriously as you would the Old Cat Lady on The Simpsons. And I lernt me one more thang, people who polish potatoes don't know jack about climate change. Its grate to have me a ejumacation, I think I lernt good.

Hey now don't be confusing us with the facts!

thought provoking!

You are pretty sharp for an Okie.

Most of the stuff you will see on global warming is Op Ed, heck, Algore made a feature length Op Ed movie. He is so smart, he won an Oscar and a Nobel in one year. Urban areas are heating up faster than rural ones, we best bulldoze all the cities, right away

so it is happening, but nobody can be certain how much various things contribute, I think we could all(or most) agree to that. So we should cripple the world economy, cause unimaginable suffering to countless people, without analyzing the problem adequately? That sounds like a great idea

Yep. The editor cut out the gratuitous sex and violence scenes. How he won an Oscar without all that still mystifies me. :confused:

"Consensus."

This implies that there is general agreement on the issue. There is not. There may be a majority of scientists that ascribe to the idea, but a majority is hardly consensus. A majority of people voted for George W. Bush in 2004, does that mean there was consensus that he should be president?

Let's say I grant you the idea there is consensus on man-made global warming. There is a long history of scientific consensus on a variety of issues. There was once consensus that the earth was at the center of the universe. There was once consensus that life spontaneosly burst forth--that flies were born of rotting meat and mosquitos of stagnant water. Consensus does not equate to correct. I believe man-made global warming is another idea that we need to rigorously test, reject, and move on from. The problem is that the "believers" refuse to do any rigorous verification of the theory. Instead, we are told to believe in the idea because there is "consensus" and because the "debate is settled". I see these moves to stifle debate by jumping straight to the conclusion as a clear sign there is not much real evidence--as surely evidence would normally be presented as proof instead of "consensus".

I took my car to my mechanic, it was overheating and white smoke was coming out the tailpipe with a sweet smell, sort of like anti-freeze. he told me it was a blown head gasket and would be expensive to fix.

I can't believe how wrong he was, told him so right there, and drove home (OK, so AAA towed me home after a few miles down the road) but man was he wrong.

Experts only want to make money off of you, that's how they justify being experts.

Just like your posts;)

His point, one many seemed to miss at the speed of climate change, is that the tenants of sound science are being compromised...he was using the often dire warning on global warming in the same context as were the coming ice age in the 70's.

You may want to stop trying to label anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your positions a dolt...it is an unfortunate habit.

Dolts post OpEd crap from sources that are completely unconnected with the specialty on which they are opining. I make no apology for treating them in a manner due by their own actions. I cannot save them from themselves.

To your text in bold, I am only a guy who makes cool clothes for boys. I should be taken seriously at your own risk. :cool:

Just like, secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon:cool:

I also don't think RB is a dolt nor the author of the OpEd page, either.

I have done a lot of research on climate change/global warming and I am struck by the partisan nature of the debate...it has reached the tone and temper of a religious debate between an atheist and true believer.

The point the author made, one which I agree with, is that the standards of scientific inquiry must not be beholden to politics.

And ruin more than two hundred years of tradition? Bah! :p

It's funny, but your bias is clearly showing. Why rigorously test something if you're only going to reject it in the end anyway? :rolleyes: Luckily, that's not the way science works. How do you know "believers" are not performing any rigorous verification of their theories? That shows that you are out of touch with what is really going on.

There are no moves to stifle debate - debate is alive and well. That's why we see a lot of information on this subject. Sure, there are people out there sensationalizing the problem and hoping to profit from it, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

You have described the opinions held mostly by uneducated common people of the times. Not the educated, rationally orientated "scientists" from those time periods. As always, science will triumph over superstition and myth.

But don't jump to the conclusion that this gem states: " I believe man-made global warming is another idea that we need to rigorously test, reject, and move on from"

But there is no science being presented in this OpEd piece. Only opinion. And we all know what that is worth from an unqualified source.

Let's assume that man made global warming is a fact and is happening and it is happening at the rate that will bring disaster to planet and destroy the ecosystem.

What should we do to stop it? I'm not talking about driving less, or riding a bike a few days, I mean really halt it in its tracks. Reverse it even.

What do you think it will take to do that?

For a thread that was moving along a pretty good clip, the lack of responses to my post speaks volumes.

I think your assumption isn't valid. I don't think "global warming" will ever bring disaster to the planet and destroy the ecosystem. Things will simply be different.

One scientist here where I work (who has been studying this) said that there is essentially nothing we can do. That's the sad truth. I say we take prudent steps towards reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced, but don't do it at huge financial cost.

If one looks back in history, some of the most productive times in civilization's development have come during times of climate change. Global warming (whether it is man-made or not is really irrelevant) might not be a "disaster". IMHO, the worst thing we can do at this point is implement some expensive program to attempt to reduce CO2 emissions or stop cows from farting. We'd probably be better off spending that same money adapting to the warmer climate and developing new agriculture methods, etc.

I'm sorry, but I think etiquette demands that we address bovine flatulence now.