Initial Post, Thought I would come over and check this out...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Don't get me started on the concept of "proof" as it pertains to science. Still, one does not have to know the cause of something in order to determine what isn't the cause of something. The other planets that are supposedly heating up are either expected to do so for unrelated reasons, or they aren't actually warming. Keep in mind that if the sun were the cause, all of the planets would need to be warming, not just a couple. The sun's output has not increased recently, and the earth is actually slightly farther away from the sun, not closer. Mars is warming due to a fairly well understood and predicted phenomenon known as the Milankovitch cycle.

I'm actually very chill about the whole global warming thing, and think that the alarmists on the left and the denialists on the right are both hurting the cause. Those propagating any ridiculous theory they can find in order to help themselves believe that humans have nothing to do with it are obviously not helping either.

In my own field, the extreme amounts of co2 in the atmosphere, particularly the heavily carbon-depleted molecules produced by fossil fuels, are beginning to become a problem. Still, the effects are subtle, so it's not the end of the world if we take another few decades to get off of oil, but we really do need to get off of oil.

Whether all this co2 is the only cause of global warming or only a small factor doesn't particularly concern me. We're in an interglacial period of an ice age at the moment and I assume things will get worked out eventually, with or without us.

The politics of the global warming debate involves a bad discussion of science.

One of the most qualified and distinguished scientists involved in the public debate, MIT professor, Richard Lindzen usually shreds the leftist alarmists.

And the Euro alarmists are there for cultural and political reasons as well. There are climatic changes, but stochastic predictions are impossible, currently, given the massive amount of super computer power necessary to create proper modeling.

I am not qualified to comment, but I'm just as qualified to comment as Al Gore. I really like the debate centered between near Vanderbilt drop-out Al Gore, and eminent MIT professor Richard Lindzen. I'll take Lindzen every time.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The politics of the global warming debate involves a bad discussion of science.

One of the most qualified and distinguished scientists involved in the public debate, MIT professor, Richard Lindzen usually shreds the leftist alarmists.

And the Euro alarmists are there for cultural and political reasons as well. There are climatic changes, but stochastic predictions are impossible, currently, given the massive amount of super computer power necessary to create proper modeling.

I am not qualified to comment, but I'm just as qualified to comment as Al Gore. I really like the debate centered between near Vanderbilt drop-out Al Gore, and eminent MIT professor Richard Lindzen. I'll take Lindzen every time.

I hate that Al Gore is constantly brought up as the representative of the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd. He's a straw man, and a self-admitted exaggerator. Most climatologists continue to side with at least some degree of human causation. That doesn't mean they believe anything that Al Gore says.

I think the bigger issue is the co2 we're pouring into the atmosphere, which also has the benefit of being undeniably humanity's fault. Sure, it probably is causing some amount of global warming, but if we're not careful it's going to start changing the way plants grow, among other things. It would take a really long time for that to become a problem, but it could have more major effects than a few degrees in temperature, which in the grand scheme of things isn't a huge deal.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I think the bigger issue is the co2 we're pouring into the atmosphere, which also has the benefit of being undeniably humanity's fault. Sure, it probably is causing some amount of global warming, but if we're not careful it's going to start changing the way plants grow, among other things. It would take a really long time for that to become a problem, but it could have more major effects than a few degrees in temperature, which in the grand scheme of things isn't a huge deal.

Note this article about Lindzen from the Boston Globe, not the pantheon of conservative views.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...ent_scientist/

Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.
``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

[woot]

I'm not sure what your point is. This guy seems to have a pretty reasonable position, and happens to lean conservative regarding the evidence, while most people in the field lean the other direction. We certainly don't know for sure, which is why the alarmists are such a problem, but it's an absolute fact that we're pumping a ton of co2 into the atmosphere, and the evidence is beginning to mount as to its effects.

I just hate how much issues like global warming and evolution attract these wanna be scientists that either pretend to know enough to comment, or to quote a minority and act like their opinions are more important than those of the majority. They very well could be right, but let's let the scientific process deal with it rather than pretending that politicians and pundits are smart enough to know what's going on.

In the meantime, getting away from fossil fuels is long overdue, for many reasons having little to do with global warming.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by woot

I hate that Al Gore is constantly brought up as the representative of the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd. He's a straw man, and a self-admitted exaggerator. Most climatologists continue to side with at least some degree of human causation. That doesn't mean they believe anything that Al Gore says.

Because Al Gore get's shoved down our throats everywhere we turn. His silly movie was required viewing in my son's fifth grade class last year, and the subject wasn't propoganda. How vocal is the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd in countering Gore's alarmist message? If they have real problems with him, they better step up the pace because they are already one Nobel Peace Prize behind.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I just hate how much issues like global warming and evolution attract these wanna be scientists that either pretend to know enough to comment, or to quote a minority and act like their opinions are more important than those of the majority. They very well could be right, but let's let the scientific process deal with it rather than pretending that politicians and pundits are smart enough to know what's going on.

Get politics out of it.

Originally Posted by woot

In the meantime, getting away from fossil fuels is long overdue, for many reasons having little to do with global warming.

You act as if nobody ever thought of that. However, why hasn't it been done?

For a good reason, there is no other efficient fuel that does as much for as little as hydrocarbons.

Eliminate hydrocarbons and fossil fuels, and where would we be? Back to the 19th Century. It has a nice ring to it, but it's not feasible. When it becomes feasible, I'll support it.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Get politics out of it.



You act as if nobody ever thought of that. However, why hasn't it been done?

For a good reason, there is no other efficient fuel that does as much for as little as hydrocarbons.

Eliminate hydrocarbons and fossil fuels, and where would we be? Back to the 19th Century. It has a nice ring to it, but it's not feasible. When it becomes feasible, I'll support it.

The reason it's not feasible is because we're not trying very hard. The government loves to provide subsidies to the oil industry, so maybe if they gave that money to hydrogen research we'd get somewhere.

[woot]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Because Al Gore get's shoved down our throats everywhere we turn. His silly movie was required viewing in my son's fifth grade class last year, and the subject wasn't propoganda. How vocal is the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd in countering Gore's alarmist message? If they have real problems with him, they better step up the pace because they are already one Nobel Peace Prize behind.

That's not science's problem. I do think science should be more vocal about such things, but on the whole, it's not. Researchers don't often make for great PR people. Feel free to make fun of Al Gore at every opportunity if it makes you feel better, but don't pretend that doing so has any affect on the facts.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

The reason it's not feasible is because we're not trying very hard. The government loves to provide subsidies to the oil industry, so maybe if they gave that money to hydrogen research we'd get somewhere.

Bullshit.

Now you're buying into politics.

I know lots of entrepreneurs who are looking into it. Right now, you have problems of source, problems of conversion, problems of delivery and the science isn't there yet.

When the right substitute is found, we'll do it.

For the moment, the most viable option is coal. But that's just another carbon fuel.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Bullshit.

Now you're buying into politics.

I know lots of entrepreneurs who are looking into it. Right now, you have problems of source, problems of conversion, problems of delivery and the science isn't there yet.

When the right substitute is found, we'll do it.

For the moment, the most viable option is coal. But that's just another carbon fuel.

Yes, I'm aware of all that. It would be happening faster if we emphasized it.