AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Have you heard of the word laboratory?

Have you heard of the word laboratory?

Over on “Outnumbered,” Dash was asked her thoughts on Obama’s speech.

“I did not feel any better. I didn’t feel any passion from him,” she said. “I felt like he could give a **** — excuse me, like he could care less.”

That's nice of you, try to keep it up. Priapism is next,

I genuinely do not understand people not knowing how science works while reviling it.

I posted them long-ass excerpts from wiki to see if anyone was actually interested in discussing various "assaults on science" that have been made by academics and others.

There have been reasonable people thinking of it in terms of Pascal's Wager: we don't know if we might be presently handing a terrible situation to our descendants. Why not err on the side of caution?

You have to admit: altering the climate is big stuff.

I have other theories about where the emotion comes from.

Anyway, amazingly this IQ2US debate is still up on youtube.

How do you know that man-made "solutions" won't make it worse? Even IPCC lead writers say they don't really know. In my book, erring on the side of caution would be refraining from making drastic commitments to a "problem" that has not been shown to be serious.

Like what? I have trouble seeing it as much beyond a political issue where big money is at stake, fundamentally, and, for laymen, emotion stemming from ideological convictions.

Haven't watched the vid, but why do you say it's "amazing?" The topic seems to be: is it a CRISIS, not, "does man contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere."

Other than the idea of CO2 scrubbers, the only solution I've seen offered is to reduce our CO2 output. I don't see that happening. If we had a global government, it might be possible. We don't, though.

1. When you refer to "the only solution," you are of course assuming that there is a problem which requires a "solution."

2. If you're trying to reduce CO2, for better or worse (and many have argued that, within limits, more CO2 would be very beneficial), why not just chop down some more tropical rain forests? That would do the trick. Funny that many of the environmentalists who oppose this do so in large part because we need the CO2 these forests provide.

n the 22nd Century, there's going to be an energy crisis because the petroleum and natural gas will be gone (see the David Archer book I mentioned earlier). I see no signs that we're going to plan intelligently for that. Natural resource experts also claim that by the end of this century, one of the biggest problems facing our species will be drinkable water. Plan? None.

Those predictions of doom have a hell of a lot less impact for those who lifetimes had been long enough to had seen one predict of doom after another proven wrong.

Plants take in CO2. They put out O2.

The Carbon Cycle

All living things are made of carbon. Carbon is also a part of the ocean, air, and even rocks. Because the Earth is a dynamic place, carbon does not stay still. It is on the move!

In the atmosphere, carbon is attached to some oxygen in a gas called carbon dioxide.

Plants use carbon dioxide and sunlight to make their own food and grow. The carbon becomes part of the plant. Plants that die and are buried may turn into fossil fuels made of carbon like coal and oil over millions of years. When humans burn fossil fuels, most of the carbon quickly enters the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and traps heat in the atmosphere. Without it and other greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen world. But humans have burned so much fuel that there is about 30% more carbon dioxide in the air today than there was about 150 years ago, and Earth is becoming a warmer place. In fact, ice cores show us that there is now more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there has been in the last 420,000 years

Layman. Everything I've posted on this thread explaining the situation, and you ask me that? There is a potential problem.