07-02-2009, 07:27 PM
Some of your points confuse me a bit.
The point I made, which Pete responded to, was that we never know everything and we have to make do with what we have. The possiblity of error is part of being human. Btw, at Pete, see it was the opinion of people on this thread and not just the "republicats".
I was responding to Pete's comment where he said I had put words into Carlin's mouth. You don't seem to disagree with me that Carlin is suggesting (the possibility that) global warming may not be real so I'll move on. But just for the record you are saying you think global warming may not be a real phenomenon?
Not sure I get you here. It hardly seems like a critique of a environmental paper to say they had been assuming no recession and there was a major one. However, more to the point (and also a point I made in my last post) if this recession ends and production levels go back to where they were before then we're right back in the same problem. Fine the problem will be stalled by 10 years because of this recession but how does that affect the general problem and whether the U.S. (and the rest of the world) needs to curb their emissions etc.
I'm all for win-win situations.
Wow! I love how this part starts with the word 'so' as if it follows from something said before. There's a lot to pick at here. What do Ehrlich's mistakes prove exactly? Why is Al Gore's science junk? I know one of his slides was a bit off, but that hardly makes the whole package junk science. For the most part, as best I can tell, scientists think his points are good. You seem to contrast real vs. hypothetical nonsense. I assume by hypothetical you mean predicted? If so, then I'd rather we avoid *real* disasters in advance and not just wait till they come. Then there is the conclusion of putting all people who believe in the "hypothetical nonsense" you disagree with into the "survivalist bunker in Oregon" group - something I thought you yourself asked people not to do with looney toons and what not.
Quote:Do you think we know everything there is to know about the Earth's climate? You don't think it is possible that there may be some mechanism in this complex system that we do not understand or misunderstand?
The point I made, which Pete responded to, was that we never know everything and we have to make do with what we have. The possiblity of error is part of being human. Btw, at Pete, see it was the opinion of people on this thread and not just the "republicats".
Quote:He may have studied the topic more than you have... It may be there, and masked by some other climactic event (like cloud cover, or ice melts cooling ocean temperature) which will only reveal itself in some number of years or decades.
I was responding to Pete's comment where he said I had put words into Carlin's mouth. You don't seem to disagree with me that Carlin is suggesting (the possibility that) global warming may not be real so I'll move on. But just for the record you are saying you think global warming may not be a real phenomenon?
Quote:He is reacting to the idea that projections always assume a linear or (usually) exponential rise in production and therefore emissions. He is critiquing a particular EPA paper that was made before the current recession, so it assumed a world GDP (and carbon production) that is false, therefore makes false assumptions for this year, and every subsequent year into the future. It doesn't invalidate the long term trend, only the financial burdens and the criticality of making changes now. Recognizing that there is a problem and requesting Congress act is one thing, but having the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant with the force of the Clean Air Act is quite another.
Not sure I get you here. It hardly seems like a critique of a environmental paper to say they had been assuming no recession and there was a major one. However, more to the point (and also a point I made in my last post) if this recession ends and production levels go back to where they were before then we're right back in the same problem. Fine the problem will be stalled by 10 years because of this recession but how does that affect the general problem and whether the U.S. (and the rest of the world) needs to curb their emissions etc.
Quote:Personally, I prefer to choose win-win options and move quickly (like having the DOE build many nuclear power plants and implement a waste recycling program as is done in Europe.)
I'm all for win-win situations.
Quote:So, these projections based on bad reasoning are wrong, just the way that population projections from the 1960's were vastly wrong (see The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich). Ehrlich was a sensationalist of that era, just as Al Gore (and his junk science) is sensationalist now. I would like us all to make reasonable decisions based on *real* information, and not based on hypothetical nonsense (otherwise we'd all end up with a survivalist bunker in Oregon).
Wow! I love how this part starts with the word 'so' as if it follows from something said before. There's a lot to pick at here. What do Ehrlich's mistakes prove exactly? Why is Al Gore's science junk? I know one of his slides was a bit off, but that hardly makes the whole package junk science. For the most part, as best I can tell, scientists think his points are good. You seem to contrast real vs. hypothetical nonsense. I assume by hypothetical you mean predicted? If so, then I'd rather we avoid *real* disasters in advance and not just wait till they come. Then there is the conclusion of putting all people who believe in the "hypothetical nonsense" you disagree with into the "survivalist bunker in Oregon" group - something I thought you yourself asked people not to do with looney toons and what not.