| Author |
Message |
    
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 2:57 pm: | 
|
Guys-
I never said that today's observations are useless. I am just saying that something triggered the co2 spike 55 million years ago that wasn't caused by human beings that we have to consider in our assumptions today.
I think this "Paradise Found" truly illustrates how muddy the water is truly on this subject.
-SLK |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14563
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 3:00 pm: |
|
All independent scientists agree on a shockingly large number of assumptions and conclusions. Who the hell are we to say they don't know enough?
They're working on the best data they have, which is more than you and I have.
Look, science is not a body of knowledge, it's a process. This is how the process works. Theories, by definition, cannot be proven. They can be disproven. Until they are proven, they are accepted.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
SLK - there are quite a few theories about what caused the warming 55 MILLION years ago. The predominant one is that an asteroid struck the earth and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs as well.
I dont see why you can be so headstrong as to fully ignore the vast majority of scientists and data while you decide that the scientists that are in the minority (those supported by oil company grants, etc) are the ones who have it correct.
Light up a few cigarettes and puff away. There is nothing wrong with a little tar and nicotine, right? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3377
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
What level of "proof" do you require when, say, making investment decisions? I'd bet that the amount of certainty that exists on anthropogenic global warming and its likely effects is far greater than the certainty that most of us have for many of the life-changing decisions we make. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 547
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Alien spaceships with cheap exhaust systems.
jd |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 7:51 am: |
|
Pro GWers-
All I am asking is for a little flexibility in your viewpoint on the matter, it is extremely rigid.
-SLK |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5465
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 9:02 am: |
|
Just because I doubt the alien spaceship exhaust theory, that doesn't make me "extremely rigid."  |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3380
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 10:02 am: |
|
C'mon, SLK, you keep saying that, and it's not true. A survey of more than 900 peer-reviewed studies of global warming found that EVERY SINGLE ONE supported the theory that temperatures are rising and man-made emissions are the culprit. In essence, what you are saying is that we should be giving credence to non-scientists' ideas on the subject, when it is the scientists who, by definition, know the matter best. That's simply not reasonable. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 10:15 am: |
|
C'mon, we know the right-leaning ostriches go with their gut and not with their head. It's how they can justify taking the bible literally. Unfortunately, these nutjobs have some power, led by Ostrich in Chief Bush, so science loses out every time. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
the fact of the matter is the posters like SLK will change their opinions the second that the administration changes their opinion and not a second before.
Science? Forget about it.
How about a little creationism too SLK?
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 223
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 11:09 am: |
|
I can accept that a certain amount of global warming is caused by human activity. I can accept that reasonable steps should be taken to ameliorate it, i.e. conservation, building more nuclear plants, tapping into the NG reserves on the continental shelf. I also would be happy to learn that some brilliant entrepeneur has made a breakthrough in solar or wind power making it cheap, efficient and available to everyone. The market would certainly reward such a person.
I am a sometime skeptic of what comes out of the Pentagon, State Dept., White House, CIA, etc. Even when I don't have all the facts. I am also sometimes skeptical of press releases from the NAS, NIH, CDC, EPA, etc. Even though I don't have a BS degree or wear a white lab coat. Since when does being dependent on government grants make any one virtuous, honest and an independent thinker? Maybe enviros and journalists (do I repeat myself?) could
excercise a little more critical discernment on what they are told about the enviroment. Some of the above posts exhibit a level of credulity that is missing when there are other, more overtly political topics under discussion.
Why is this so? Maybe because for some people, enviromentalism is not a common sense approach to managing scarce resources and minimizing pollution, thereby
improving the quality of life for people. For some, however, it is a cause or ideology about making the world safe for rocks, trees and the Furbish Lousewort. People are relegated to the back of the bus, even if it is a bio-diesel powered bus. Let's say yes to conservation and innovation and no to primitivism and deep ecology.
Cheers |
Vincent the Dog
Citizen
Username: Howardt
Post Number: 2026
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
"deep ecology?" define, please...? |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 224
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Vincent,
I don't know how accurate this article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology, but deep ecology seems to be a departure from more pragmatic, anthropocentric, conservation-minded enviromentalism. It appears to put human life more or less on equal footing with non-human life. I can't say with certainty if this is a natural progression or a radical departure. If contemporary enviromentalism is rooted in Romanticism, it might be the former. I'm not entirely sure. But I think it is possible to be concerned with enviromental matters without demonizing the human race and technology. N.B., I'm not saying that anyone on MOL is advocating deep ecology.
Cheers |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
notehead-
I am not asking you to take the word of non-scientists over scientists. I am asking you to realize that because a "tropical paradise" evolved into an icepatch due to non-human related co2 emissions 55 million years ago that we may be missing something in our understanding of climate change.
I am also asking for keeping an open mind on the matter. I guess that is kind of difficult to do when you have to justify your monthly Prius payment, huh?
Now go yell at someone in your office already.
-SLK |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14574
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Yup, they all might be wrong. Is that reason enough to assume they are wrong? The best information we have is imperfect, but an assumption that it is wrong is not the best information we have. The assumption that they are right is the best information we have, because it is based on study. The assumption that they are wrong is based not on study but on doubt.
Study beats doubt in my mind.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5049
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:56 pm: |
|
That some unknown cause raised temperatures 55 million years ago does not mean that was the only thing that could raise temperatures. Whatever that ancient event was there can be more than one cause for a given effect.
Just because you don't know why that event occurred doesn't mean that it can't happen again for a different reason.
Imagine you're standing in a forest surrounded by dead trees. You don't know why they fell -- termites, lightning, drought -- but that doesn't mean that while you're puzzling it out the guy over there with the chainsaw can't drop one right on your head.
|
Vincent the Dog
Citizen
Username: Howardt
Post Number: 2060
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 8:19 am: |
|
S.L.K., since you have access to the WSJ online, could you please post here the review of John Podhoretz's book "CAN SHE BE STOPPED?" that appears in today's weekend section?
Podhoretz is a "former Reagan speechwriter and now a conservative newspaper columnist." The book sounds stunningly naive and tendential to me. But fine grist for our collective discussion mill.
Thanks, Dude.
Mr T |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3413
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
By the way, An Inconvenient Truth is currently the most successful movie in America on a per-screen basis. It's per-screen average is about TEN TIMES better than Mission Impossible III. Obviously, the total number of screens is quite low, relatively, but the success of the movie is undeniable.
Meanwhile, the bloviation and hackery quickly puked up by various publications who are clearly threatened (as they should be) by Gore's non-partisan discussion of scientific matters is being crushed. The National Review's nonsense got thoroughly destroyed by ThinkProgress. The WSJ and the Houston Chronicle got their butts handed to them by various sources including Daily Grist, and it seems clear that most of the industry spokesflacks criticizing the film simply have not seen it. |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 4:52 pm: |
|
SOrry Vinc don't see it....I don't have access to the Weekend Section...I get the free WSJ which is limited.... |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Hoops- the Asteroid that hit, 65 million yrs ago... well its now known that there were maybe a dozen. The Big one, on the coast of the Yucatan, was one of at least 6. The Big one it seems, had many sisters, the craters have been located in a roughly south west line leading from the Big impact. Additionally a crater was found off the coast of the UK, and another one in Europe, Austria I think. The last I heard, scientists think there may have been a period of bombardment over 50k or 100k yrs. All these crater were found to be within a few 10s of thousands years of one another.
Notehead, isn't An Inconvenient Truth playing @ 77 theaters nationwide? I've seen An Inconvenient Truth twice, its been extended another week at the Clairidge in Monclair. I knew this before, but one of the points that really stands out, is that ice cores have given us a 650k yr base to work from. The current Co2 spike is about double of any previous spike during the past 650k yrs.
3ringale- I would suggest useing alternative energy that is cost effective. Nukes do not fit that bill, Solar is cheaper. & did I read your post right.... NG? Did you mean Natural Gas? I'm sure you didnt mean to include NG, since that would increase Co2. I would ask you to see An Inconvenient Truth in Monclair, just try it, the presentation is very good, claer and lucid.
In the movie An Inconvenient Truth, Gore list some very easy things to do to reduce Co2 emmissions to pre 1975 levels using current off the shelf tech.
SLK- would you like to see An Inconvenient Truth on me? One ticket, popcorn and a soda on me. |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 9:28 pm: |
|
FOJ-
It all matters what day. I have to kids and a wife to schedule around. Give me some dates.
Thank you for the offer! 
By the way, what is the point of seeing it 3 times? It is not like Star Wars or something....
-SLK |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3414
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 4:10 pm: |
|
There's a lot of info presented -- more than anyone could retain in one (or two, probably) viewings.
Darn nice offer to SLicK there, Foj. If the two of you end up going, let me know when and I'll try to join you. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 248
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 7:17 am: |
|
Foj,
I did indeed mean natural gas in my previous post. NG is the cleanest of foissil fuels, minimal NOX and SO2. But yes, there would still be CO2 emissions, but not as much as from oil and coal. I think NG would also be a really big help in terms of energy independence. There is something like a gazillion cubic feet of NG on the continental shelf, but it is off limits for a number of reasons. If we could tap it, we could start to run cars off of compressed natural gas. Cars would need to be retrofitted with tanks and regulators. I think diesels would work as is , but gas engines would need some tweaking. Compressors could be placed in garages. One company in this field is: http://www.myphill.com/
Maybe some tax credits and incentives could get the ball rolling. An added advantage would be telling the OPEC sheiks to go pack sand. It's just an idea, but we need some ideas, don't we?
I haven't seen the Al Gore film, but if I can find the time I will probably see it.
Cheers |
Michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 832
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page