Global Warming: Credible or Incredible?

Blatham,

It was better than a "nice try".

My company was the larger of two principal prime contractors for EPA in the Global warming studies, although we were also a sub on many others.

I believe there is a significant difference between the assertion that (1) global warming is occurring (Note the absence of any qualification or reservation in such a broad, far-reaching statement), and (2) that greenhouse gasses are accumulating and they may contribute to global warming, 'tho no such warming has yet been verified and other unrelated factors may well reverse or diminish that effect.

In the long history of scientific advances the "preponderance of voices" would have a very poor correlation with new discoveries.

george

By 'nice try' I meant something quite complimentary, not snide.

Points 1 and 2 are different. I didn't state one without qualification however. Point two, qualified to mean 'might' in all cases as opposed to 'probably' is not the present preponderance of view. Can you find that sentence in the council's/epa's findings from 2002?

Of course preponderance of view is not to be counted on as any kind of guarantee that the truth, or all of it, is in hand. We can all list many examples of such. But that is not to say consensus or majority view is without worth in research science. Agreed?

sorry LW...stopping now

I'm going to split this topic as it went on a tangent at about the 6th page (Hazlitt's post). The new thread will be called "Global Warming: Credible or Incredible?". Hang on.

This thread was split from here: http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2889

I can not compete with the preceding fact laden articulate responses. For polling purposes my response is: Credible-Yes
Incredible-No
Conclusive-No

I would say that is a well-considered response, Boss, with or without supporting citations . . . it rather describes my position, as well . . .

My guess is winters are warmer world wide on the average by 1 degree c = 1.8 degrees f than a century ago and most of the warming occured the last 40 years. Humans are directly responcible for at least 1% of this warming. If new ice age follows global warming, we will regret that we did not put more green house gases into the atmosphere.
So far the oceans have not risen on the average by a measureable amount, even though the area of the world's glaciers has decreased by more than 1%.
Warming Antarctica 2 degrees c (average) in summer could result in increasing thickness of the ice pack as it is typically too cold to snow even in summer in Antarctica at present. Neil

Let us suppose that we determine with high confidence that global warming will cost Earth's inhabitants a trillion dollars per year (Feb 2004 USA dollars) beginning in 2014 until 2034. What can we do in 2004 to reduce this cost? Fund pilot programs is a logical starter. Most of the things I know of are incredibly costly, not likely to succeed and/or incredibly unpopular with the public and/or some powerful special interest. Please evaluate the following and suggest alternatives: 1 a federal excise tax of $5000 on new SUVs and equivelent that get less than 10 miles per gallon of gasoline in average city driving; a $500 dollar excise tax on new SUVs that get less than 30 miles per gallon of gasoline in average city driving. A prorata scale in between. 2 Close all large shopping malls between 5 pm and 8 pm Monday though Friday, except for 5 holidays per year. This is the Electric grid peak demand period, so the mall electric power consumption needs to drop by 98% during these hours. Other users are expected to reduce consumption considerably or they will be considered for mandatory shut downs. 3 Put tents over natural sources of green house gas to prevent it from entering Earth's atmosphere. The gas would be pumped into old mines, wells, and underground caverns to be released when and if we get new ice age. 4 Fund research and pilot programs to build huge sun shades thousands of miles from Earth. In event of new ice age these can reflect extra solar energy onto Earth. Neil

God's plan to make demokkkrats look stupid:

http://tinyurl.com/6ow978

very well said and thought out.
I agree completely.
Nonetheless, it is important to realize that there are those islamists who really hate us and motivated by religion combined with idealogy will do their best to harm us.

So in a way, it is a war of civilizations. However, it takes clarity, creativity, intelligence and a strong moral compass to defend us against this latest foe.

Sadly, the present Bush administration is simply not up to the the task. Now will John McCain be the man for the job.

Why should we care? We're living in the last days. Jesus will be coming back soon anyway, right? He'll fix everything. Besides, the Lord made this earth for us to trash, didn't he? These people and their "evidence". Anybody can believe something that's supported by thousands of "facts". The greater virtue is to believe things that are completely unsupported by evidence. That's virtue. That's faith. If we allow our industry to be thwarted by these "global warming" alarmists, then the terrorists win.

Regardless of political motives, scientific data (which on large scales can be remarkably in-credible), I think the more poinient question is; does it matter?

I personally find it a bit comical that a person could look at the billions of barrels of oil and millions of acres of vegetation loss that happen daily, then look at the thick layers of smog in cities, and then turn around and say, "its not even a possibility that global warming is our fault." Of course its possible. To say its not possible is rather ignorant.

But... all of that aside, we could very easily be headed for an energy crisis; either because we'll run out of petroleum without a sufficient new source of energy, or because we discover that it IS the human habit that is causing global warming and stopping gluttonous petroleum use would become legislated.

I have strong opinions on it, obviously, and like many humans I am equally hypocritical. I eat meat, but I also know that livestock farming is heavily destructive to the landscape and atmosphere. If we ate the grain we feed the cows instead of eating the cows themselves, we would cause a major shift for the better in the economy and environment... once we paid off the now very ticked off cattle farmers But I eat meat. Hypocrite.

In summary, I don't care if we're causing global warming or not, but there is no reason for the gross environmental irresponsibility we are heaping on the earth right now. If we didn't "need" 46" plasma TVs, microwaves, Xboxes, security lighting, and air conditioning set at 70*, we could all get by with a bank of batteries and a photoelectric array on our roof. Have a week of clouds? Oh well, you don't get to watch Gilligan's Island on your 13" TV this friday. Would it be that bad?

We keep questioning if we're causing global warming. Here's an idea: STOP DOING THE THINGS WE THINK ARE CAUSING IT. Either global warming will start to reverse, or it won't, but either way we'll have our answer... AND we hopefully will have learned to get by with less in the meantime.