RE: Nothing shady going on here...
IM2001SAD's list is the typical means used by unintelligent or lying people to try and argue against intelligent and honest ones.
First, you start by defining what the other side says
Then you frame your answer in such a way as to imply something you aren't saying.
Simple examples, not meant to be inclusive or even represent the most significant ones...
Very few people, and almost nobody of any credibility, claims that man isn't PART of the environment... or that things like losing forests and pouring concrete and making styrofoam doesn't factor into 'climate'
'warmest decade on record' means the past 150 years or so. Of course, they take the exact opposite approach when comparing temperatures from thousands of years ago. That single calculation (those estimates are calculated, not observed) doesn't represent a decade
Generally speaking, the people against this shady science point out the following facts
1) Unless you plan on killing people or making everyone vegan, people and livestock are part of the equation. Every study I've read shows that the simple process of 'living' (a growing, meat eating population) contributes FAR more to greenhouse gasses than burning oil
2) The specificity of calculations required to PROVE these theories put forth by the left doesn't exist. We're talking fractions of degrees over hundreds and even thousands and tens of thousands of years. That based on calculations for 5 spots on the earth... we can 'prove' that it was 72.5 and not 74 degrees globally 10,000 years ago. What makes this TRULY laughable is that any time theo other side points out 5 spots where the earth is OBSERVED to be cooler, we are told that is weather, not climate.... but when you make calculations (not observations) about 5 spots from thousands of years ago, THAT is climate. Foolish. Just one of many instances where the science is not applied in a legitimate, balanced manner.... which is pretty much the definition of science, which proves the manipulation.
3)The numbers in and relative 'dirtiness' of places like CHina and India, which are still industrializing, not to mention most of Africa make efforts by industrialized nations to be cleaner a questionable endeavor. Wha I mean by that is that if we are 98% clean and they are 60% clean... it is FAR cheaper and more effective for them to get to 90% clean based on existing processes and technology that it is for us to get to 99% based on undiscovered breakthroughs. Of course, there is money for academia where most of these scientists 'work' in breakthroughs, but not in existing technology.
4) as unclear as the problem is, even if we accept the problem as a quantifiable fact... I've yet to see one single serious attempt to quantify the impact of any 'solutions'. It seems pretty clear to me that if we can predict (based on 'settled' science) that the earth's temperature will rise by 2 degrees and that will cause a 2 foot rise in water levels which will flood Manhattan and Amsterdam costing us tens of trillions of dollars.... we should be able to similarly predict that increasing GLOBAL fuel efficiency/reducing bad emissions from combustion engines by say 50% will completely counteract this effect. Now, with a target in mind (assuming such a number even exists)... we can set out to accomplish this goal through a variety of means....
but we don't. Instead, all of the energy is put into establishing the calamity.
Look... most of us, even the 'deniers' want to be good stewards of the earth. If spending a trillion dollars and getting rid of SUVs in exchange for smart cars can be shown to improve our lives, we are going to support it. Of course, you STILL have 'what the rest of the world' does, not to mention global population growth, deforestation and cattle farts to deal with.
The obvious evidence is that the third world is far more interested in 'reparations' from the first world than they are in cleaning up their own environment. The money they want will be used to attract new business/industry and not to clean up existing ones..... or to care for an increasing population rather than to stop population growth and deforestation
When I start seeing global warming proposals that talk about things like reducing cattle populations, people populations and ending urban sprawl, I'll know that is someone not in it just for the money. By that I mean, proposals to limit through taxes or legislation the consumption of meat... the size of a family or the footprint of a home (and the infrastructure to support it).
|
leave it to umgrad to find the dumbest writers on the web, and start calling it science.
