Wow, that's a real ad hominem right there. Think I'll take the word of 9,000 PhD's over inky and ineedspellcheck. As for the costs in the trillions, how about the costs in the trillions for the way you want to deal with the situation? Don't forget all the human death and misery in your final solution.



I didn't say that, I'm saying that the anthropogenic contribution isn't consequential enough to justify the radical responses being proposed by the crowd that wants global government.

I'll agree on the .5 C to 1.8 C, but again, I refuse to separate the political discussion from the scientific.

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 9 2009 09:53pm

9,000 PhDs say that burning fossil fuels and mining uranium is more environmentally friendly than wind, geothermal, concentrating solar thermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and biomass are? Prove it.

I know I am only an MBA but I could get a phd in a couple years if I want

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 09:53pm

He called you a 'wingnut'. Ad hominem? :|

Grow up.

I'm fine with that. I am personally only concerned with the science right now. Politics are schmolitics and I dislike the Senate climate bill more than I dislike doing nothing.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 09:55pm

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

You missed my point. The mining for, refining, production, and burning of fossil fuels (and mining and waste disposal of nuclear) make significant, measurable decreases in the quality of the environment, not because of warming, but because of their threats to the water supply, natural habitats, air pollution, etc. Those are all not even related to CO2. But, CO2 also causes acid rain, algae blooms that create ocean dead zones (which in turn create massive colonies of anaerobic bacteria at the surface that release hydrogen sulfate gas), ocean acidification and calcification, and river and lake water quality depletion.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 10:06pm

No, but you missed mine. I know they're not AS environmentally sound, but taken together with the need for practicality and being economical, they are the most important means of pulling mankind forward without resorting to the untold misery that would come of the proposed remedies. They are also getting cleaner anyways. I'm sure you've heard about clean-coal plants, but how about pebble-bed nuclear plants that create very little waste, which is also much more safely and easily handled?

As long as sewage is treated in water, it will run down rivers to the deltas and contribute to the algae problems. Do you propose we stop people from using plumbing? I'm sure you don't, so what possible solutions can come of this?

I'm enjoying the discussion and look forward to more in my spare time tomorrow.

I just want to summarize.

We ran the math together using a skeptic site as well as the IPCC, and compared against each other we concluded that .5 to 1.8 degrees of warming can be attributed to man since 1750, depending on which source you begin with as a basis.

We also both agree that some warming might be beneficial to certain areas, but how much warming is unknown. Also unknown is the exact dollar figure of damage that will be caused if the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves melt and cause sea level rise (since most human population is concentrated along shorelines).

You take the side that conventional energy sources are getting cleaner, and that we should just continue to improve on fossil fuel and nuclear energy technology.

I take the side that investment in renewable energy and a slow move away from fossil fuels is an important step in the history of human energy usage, because of both environmental and human health issues.

And that's where we are.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 10:32pm

Do you know what a simple random sampling is?

Do you know how many times an experiment must be repeated under the same exact conditions to produce a viable result?

Regardless of global warming the bolded part is a total mockery of science. Shame on them.

Actually, I need further discourse on this. Where did the value come from that called for multiplying 14.5 degrees F by .25? The author already accounted for the CO2 addition of 11.88 ppmv increase from the industrial revolution baseline that were anthropogenic, but that the other 85% increase in CO2 was natural.

edit: Measured CO2 concentrations by chemical method go back to 1800 approximately, and show concentrations as high as 440 ppmv (higher than today) with an accuracy level of +/- 3% found here>>> http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 10 2009 10:46am