Reply With Quote
The WSJ Op-Ed page has been right-wing for quite a while now. A few years, at least.
Let me get this right. There is factual evidence that the science is not clear, that they cannot explain certain things. Now you expect us to know the science 100%?
Science is about hypothesis, then theorizing. Then you go to do everything you can to find holes in the theory. There is no absolute end fact. However, the facts that have come to life shows the current concept about AGW if false.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-14-2010 at 03:49 PM.
The WSJ Op-Ed page has been right-wing for quite a while now. A few years, at least.
True, but just the Op-Ed.
Agreed; that's why I made sure to qualify it.
Case in point
In one sentence you quite clearly proclaim "the science is not clear", then in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, you say "the current concept about AGW is false".
You don't say "is likely false", or "is probably false" or question the IPCC assessment of probability, you just say "it IS false", leaving no room for the distinct possibility you are wrong.
It is factually false, the idea that CO2 accounts for 1.66 +/- (?). We know that because we can subtract factors that are known. With the known warming, there just isn't enough left over to assign nearly that much to CO2.
We don't know enough about all the factors, but have solid science on others.
When you eliminate all possibilities you can, what remains is what you should look at. CO2 is eliminated.
RG,
What's your beef with the graph?
For one, scale. sti
But really, the entire premise of the graph is flawed as - especially in the manner you use it. You see, this is exactly what I talk about when I say that you pull things completely out of context, Darrin.
If I'm to understand things correctly, you're trying to point out that in the past the earth was hotter than it is now and that levels of CO2 where much higher then as well.
Both of those statements can be true and there can still be AGW. You seek to somehow supersede AGW theory and make it irrelevant with your incredible tidbit of information contained in that graph. It's so simple that one wonders why everyone doesn't see things in this manner and then is led to the obvious conclusion that any scientist who supports AGW theory has motives and agendas of his/her own.
You may as well have posted a god damn youtube.
In any event, as I said above, the information in your graph can be completely correct and there can be AGW. So maybe you can elaborate (lol and maybe pigs can fly) on your point?
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 07-15-2010 at 11:58 AM.
How do you like this graph?
How do you like this graph?
RG,
The last graph was the corrected "hockey stick" graph.
The original hockey stick graph was complete and utter bull .
RG's last two responses to me:
RG's last two responses to me:
So... what you are saying is... that when I shut down all attempts to actually address what you posted, and simply wave my hand dimissively by calling your point "utter bull ", that is, in essence, surrender?RG's last two responses to me:
I would agree with your assessment.
Keep the faith, brother.
The thing I can never understand in this argument is how/why such a large segment of the population seems to need scientific proof -- from THEIR specific, accepted scientists -- of something that I consider to be such common sense: essentially that living beings have an effect on the environment in which they live. If you bought and filled a fish tank but had no fish, would the water get dirty on its own? Well of course it would. Eventually. But it would happen a lot faster when you start adding fish.
It's unfortunate that it's become so heavily politicized. It's unfortunate that it's become so heavily moralized. I think that, on some level whether conscious or unconscious, some people hear the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are negatively impacting the planet and mistake it for the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are inherently evil and doing evil things and MUST abandon all of our comforts and the nifty things to which we've become accustomed. It's silly. And stands in the way of ever reaching consensus and working together toward finding a way to both enjoy our creature comforts and be mindful of our impact on the environment.
"MUST abandon all of our comforts and the nifty things to which we've become accustomed"
apart from you, who says that?
No one, to my knowledge.
Not even me:
I also find it fascinating that the argument is framed as a simplistic tree-hugger, hippie-ish, almost-Pagan notion, as though the Earth is the thing that needs saving. The Earth doesn't give a about how we treat it -- it's not going anywhere. The lifestyle changes in question are only posited to help us -- and the ecosystem we subsist on -- survive.
To use your example, the fishbowl will have life in it one way or another. Advocates of green living are only trying to assure that we have more control over the fishbowl and our lives therein, be it with respect to climate change or just health issues and energy (and thus economic) independence from others in our species.
the only thing that must be abandoned is our selfishness.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
