Global Warming Science: A Giant Farce

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Then the tricky question becomes:

In the absence of understanding how much global warming is anthropogenic and in the absence of understanding what, if anything, we can do to combat it, how much effort and money should we expend as a result?

Do we expend trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades, when that money could be used to cure cancer, feed the poor or overthrow the BCS?

That's the crux as I see it. Are the proposed cures really worth the expenditure in light of other needs?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I wouldn't too much weight into one debate.

If there were a series of debates on this subject, I wouldn't. Find me another one and I'll be glad to read it--I really am very open to convincing on this. But "Just trust us" isn't the way to convince me, particularly with an idea that violates so many aspects of common sense.

The burden of proof is on those who want to incur trillions of dollars of economic loss.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Then the tricky question becomes:

In the absence of understanding how much global warming is anthropogenic and in the absence of understanding what, if anything, we can do to combat it, how much effort and money should we expend as a result?

Do we expend trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades, when that money could be used to cure cancer, feed the poor or overthrow the BCS?

This is where I'm at. I find the science behind climate change to be inconclusive, for the simple fact that I don't believe a model has been made that accurately accounts for all variables involved. Common sense tells me that the data the models are built on are too poor in quality, and too limited in scope, to make the resulting model accurate enough for my tastes.

Because I'm not convinced of man-made climate change, I'm unwilling to support massively expensive endeavors to combat it.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's the crux as I see it. Are the proposed cures really worth the expenditure in light of other needs?

I think that Johnson's Great Society is the analog of these proposals. That is, they are well intentioned, very expensive, and in the end will accomplish little more than assuaging the guilt of liberal whites.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

[Indy Coug]

Arctic ice cap melt? What about undersea volcanoes?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...99718849952830

[Indy Coug]

bump

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...250d63c40d&p=2

Greenland isn't melting. And while Arctic sea ice may have thinned in the past three decades by about 3% per decade, according to the U. S. National Snow and Ice Date Center, Antarctic ice (which is about 20 times as voluminous as the Arctic kind) has grown by 1% per decade,

Also, after last summer's record melt in the Arctic, this summer's melt in Antarctica was the smallest on record. And NASA satellites have found that Arctic Sea ice coverage this year is more than one million square kilo-metres greater than last year's, greater than the average of the last three years and 10-20 centmetres thicker than in 2007. According to observations by the Danish Meteorological Institute, we "have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south."

Snow coverage in North America this winter was greater than at any time in recorded history. China had its worst winter in a century, and the southern hemisphere its worst in the past 50 years.

And while global temperatures increased slightly in June, through the end of May, the nine-month decline in temperatures beginning in September was greater (0.8C) than all the warming of the 20th century (0.6C).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

bump

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...250d63c40d&p=2

that sounds like an extremely biased selection of data.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

that sounds like an extremely biased selection of data.

You mean like the limited data that was used to produce wildly extrapolative predictions before?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You mean like the limited data that was used to produce wildly extrapolative predictions before?

You have no argument from me that pro-global warming folks, at least some of them, have used selective results.

But I think the consensus is that the world is getting warmer. You are saying that is not true, I take it?