The Grand New Party

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

Are you so sure about that?
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Are you so sure about that?
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

700? Is that the number of "international scientists" this report identifies as disputing a human connection to global warming? I'll bet you could find a greater number of "international scientists" who dispute a connection between smoking and cancer.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

700? Is that the number of "international scientists" this report identifies as disputing a human connection to global warming? I'll bet you could find a greater number of "international scientists" who dispute a connection between smoking and cancer.

I bet you couldn't.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

While we're looking at polls:

FOX News Poll: Americans Want Less Government, Less Spending - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

I'd say this bodes well for our Grand New Party (or if we can get the GOP focused on a reduce gov't/reduce spending platform).

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I bet you couldn't.

If there are 700 "international scientists" who think there is no human connection to global warming, then, yes, you could.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

If there are 700 "international scientists" who think there is no human connection to global warming, then, yes, you could.

Good to see another open minded person on the board.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

I didn't state my self well there. There exists a large contingent of uncrackpot scientists who would argue that Global Warming doesn't even exist. Forget who or what caused it. The main arguments that I have studied, and as far as I can tell don't have any real dog in the fight, go like this.

Warming data collected over the last 100 years is rather spotty. Think about it. A 100+ years ago there was widespread, accurate and scientifically relevant amounts of temperature data available that could be used in a definitive manner? Sounds dubious to me. Forget about using data from before that...it doesn't even really exist. Most of the global climate change data is built using human-derived models. Models are really a fancy way of saying...we drew a picture and this is what it looks like. They're human-made. Maybe they're accurate and maybe they're not. But from a scientific standpoint they aren't evidence of anything other than the model-builder's ability to use a computer and code. The large "consensus" who "believe" in global climate change are driven by contingents just as politically motivated as the ones driven by the oil companies. In fact there is probably more money in total at stake on the climate change side than the other. All of this isn't to say that global climate change is a crock. I have no idea...but I am not willing to go blindly down a path that will cost the human existence enormous time, effort and money just to fix a problem that may or may not exist.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I didn't state my self well there. There exists a large contingent of uncrackpot scientists who would argue that Global Warming doesn't even exist. Forget who or what caused it. The main arguments that I have studied, and as far as I can tell don't have any real dog in the fight, go like this.

Warming data collected over the last 100 years is rather spotty. Think about it. A 100+ years ago there was widespread, accurate and scientifically relevant amounts of temperature data available that could be used in a definitive manner? Sounds dubious to me. Forget about using data from before that...it doesn't even really exist. Most of the global climate change data is built using human-derived models. Models are really a fancy way of saying...we drew a picture and this is what it looks like. They're human-made. Maybe they're accurate and maybe they're not. But from a scientific standpoint they aren't evidence of anything other than the model-builder's ability to use a computer and code. The large "consensus" who "believe" in global climate change are driven by contingents just as politically motivated as the ones driven by the oil companies. In fact there is probably more money in total at stake on the climate change side than the other. All of this isn't to say that global climate change is a crock. I have no idea...but I am not willing to go blindly down a path that will cost the human existence enormous time, effort and money just to fix a problem that may or may not exist.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.

Me and you are pretty much on the same page. I find it funny that my weather man cannot get tomorrows weather right but can tell me wahts going to happen 10 to 25 years frm now.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.

Agree with your whole post. Very well stated.