Global Warmists back off on prediction

[piercehawkeye45]

There is a difference between stopping climate change and stopping man-made climate change.

[duck_duck]

The fact you think we are changing the climate at this stage is arrogant.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

The fact you think we are changing the climate at this stage is arrogant.

I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you?

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you?

bluesdave - don't you think it's a bit discriminatory to expect one to have an understanding of the topic of debate before posting an opinion to that debate?

But seriously, do you know what the level of consensus is among climate scientists on the issue of human-caused global warming? I've been to several meetings in the past few weeks that were sponsored by and attended by people who are very concerned about this, and who are committed to taking action. At an ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) meeting last Friday, the President of ASHRAE, Terry Townsend, gave a very dramatic speech about working to reduce the energy footprint of buildings in the US and around the world.

He said that he was talking to the leaders of China about how the Chinese could reduce their energy consumption. They stopped him and said "Don't tell us what to do. Don't tell us. Show us." I assume by this they meant that they want to see the US take action before they will.

Three days ago I was at a ConocoPhillips meeting called "A Conversation About Energy" and they are also concerned about global warming. There were some skeptics in the audience, but when a vice-president of one of the largest oil companies says, "We want people to use less oil," it gives you some feeling, if you're not too much of a skeptic, of the seriousness of the situation.

There seems to be a group of scientists who are not convinced that human activities are contributing to climate change, but I don't know if the doubters represent 80% or 50% or 10% of their peers. And I don't know if they are sincere, or if they have a financial interest in convincing people, like duck_duck, that nothing we are doing, or can do, will have any influence on the Earth's climate.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by HLJ

bluesdave - don't you think it's a bit discriminatory to expect one to have an understanding of the topic of debate before posting an opinion to that debate?

Of course I do not expect everyone to have the training, but they should at least have the sense to do some reading before posting outlandish comments (not you, I mean duck). Bruce is a prime example of what people should be doing. He reads as much research as he can, and has reached an opinion. I disagree with some of his opinions, but I highly respect him for at least putting the effort in.

But seriously, do you know what the level of consensus is among climate scientists on the issue of human-caused global warming?

You will never obtain 100% agreement between large numbers of people, regardless of the topic, but by far the majority of scientists who actually work in the field of climate change research, believe that man has contributed to global warming. The whole planet is still coming to terms with climate change, and there is going to be debate for years to come. As you obviously know, we cannot design an experiment that will prove the extent of man's contribution - I have said this many times before. Cleaning up our act will at least make our natural environment a more pleasant place to live in.

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you?

So you believe the IPCC and drive around with hybrid cars and buy carbon offsets like other dumb suckers? You did this based on your own research project concerning climate change? Or just suck down what the IPCC said?

[bluesdave]

duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.

Is that a yes or a weak attempt at an insult? I'll take it as both.

[The Eschaton]

New Scientist had a recent issue devoted to answering the climate change objections. Nothing new but its well organized.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

[Cloud]

everytime I see this thread, the term "global warmists" gives me a smile.

More fun than the topic, surely, which is a serious one, no matter which side you're on.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

The fact you think we are changing the climate at this stage is arrogant.

The that fact that you think that we pose no threat and that we shouldn't try to stop in case we are doing something is ignorant.

The fact that you think it is impossible for humans to screw up the enviornment is ignorant.

The fact that you think we are arrogant is arrogant.

[TheMercenary]

We need to get the Chinese and Indian governments on board with the same standards for reducing CO2 emissions before we talk. It does not mean we can't do things here in the US, because there is certainly enough that we can do at home. Just don't tell me I have to be constrained when some of the worst polluters get a pass.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Just don't tell me I have to be constrained when some of the worst polluters get a pass.

Notice how constrained TheMercenary is because he cannot burn leaded gas. But when hyping fear, TheMercenary forgets previous examples of innovation and resulting jobs created by addressing environmental and energy problems. Instead he promotes fear of a 2 year old - "They won't let me do that ... wa-a-a-a-a-h."

Meanwhile countries who address global warming early will be getting rich selling those products to other nations who will eventually also have to use that technology. Those who are patriotic American - love to innovate - understand the resulting rewards. Those who are wacko conservative - fear any change - instead fear they might have to change; might have to use innovations.

What TheMercenary posts were exact same 1970 reasons for removing pollution control laws from all cars. I tired of those fools then and the silly TheMercenary today who never learned why those 1970 2year olds were also fools. It’s called being a good extremist conservative - fears innovation - fear being a patriotic American. Smart people instead will advance mankind by innovating - developing new products that all others will have to consume.

TheMercenary - you again ignore the repeatedly posted example - oxygen senors. Or why Germans earn profits from cars all over the world because the Germans innovated - addressed pollution and energy problems.

[Aliantha]

They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.

I could be wrong, but I believe there's less than 5% of cane crops being burned in Australia these days.

Aside from that point, you're right about everything else you've said about sugar cane dave. (and I bow to your superior knowledge)

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.

Yes, but not all burning has ceased:

Firing of sugar cane has also become less common with the rapid introduction of green cane mechanical harvesting. Sugar cane crops are now burnt once every three or four years at the end of the sowing/ratoon cycle.

That was taken from a CSIRO link, which I admit is now quite old, but the page has not been removed or updated, so I assume that it is still correct information. It is good to see that the sugar industry is trying to clean up its act. I found many links at the CSIRO, and the Sugar Institute, that show they are serious. That is good news.