Repeat a platitude often enough, and it becomes Republicant assfact.

wOOt!

A CT is a secret sub plot by a group and remains a secret Rex.If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are part of a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.


It has taken more than a century to reach the majority scientific consensus on climate change. It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Hey Rex-you found one scientist from Huntsville, Alabama ...did you hear his recent NPR interview..he has changed his stance a bit...

" It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot in the air we would not have impact on climate"


Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he does not believe in the speed at which the majority of scientist believe changes will occur.

So we have this Huntsville,Alabama scientist backtracking a bit and not sure if it will happen at the speed in which tens of thousands of other scientists believe is a real possibility....okay.

Oh and review physics 101 on transfer of heat to understand increased temperatures in a hot zone verses a cold zone and the difference.

Okay Bad you seem like a smart guy and you are a Buckeye so it is worth spending a few minutes in conversation..this is a good point and it all relates to pollution and even recent scientific news on ways to combat global warming if it escalates more quickly then expected.

In the 70's and 80's a scientist named Schneider recognized dense pollution could block sunrays and cause cooling.However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In other words he only studied the impact of a "blanket" of aerosol pollution without studying CO2- this study was not in vain and has even been used and considered by some oil companies as a way to combat global warming ( a horrible solution IMO) in other words shooting soot in the air to block sunrays to combat the greenhouse effect of carbon emissions. I would hope we do not get to this point!

Bad- Understanding global warming is difficult because it is an abstract problem and abstract thought is the most complex for humans to comprehend. This is not about fear tactics- no one knows how quickly or slowly climate change from carbon emissions will happen-It makes sense to reduce what we are spewing into the air with an intelligent balance that also takes into consideration our economy and the health of our planet which directly effects human health.

CC is similar to the issue of tobacco being responsible for cancer-my gosh just like Exxon-we had tobacco companies paying physicians to write reports refuting the majority consensus in the scientific community that tobacco was a catalyst for cell pathology leading to cancer.

You see, I believe Americans are talented and smart people, capable of abstract thought and dealing with complex problems. We know carbon emissions are impacting climate and the health of our earth directly- which impacts human health and eventually will impact our security. We can balance change with considerations to our economy. Like terrorism, nuclear proliferation or the pollution of Co2 from fossil fuels- we will be able to launch an intelligent approach with solutions and not be bound in fear or put our heads in the sand. Americans are capable of addressing more than one issue or problem and taking an intelligent approach that is balanced and without fear and make good decisions.

If you still think the conclusions of the IPCC and numerous other science organizations are invalid, the climate science is flawed, etc., then how about considering economic and national security reasons? Energy from fossil fuel burning (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) is getting more and more expensive since it is a non-renewable resource that is shrinking while the demands are increasing. If you want to ignore the tens of thousands of esteemed scientists and find that one guy who is a skeptic so be it-bottom line-carbon emissions are negatively impacting our planet and we have many other reasons as well to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

Found? What makes you think I 'found' him? Hell, I know the guy. He's a close family friend. We've had many discussions on this topic. He laughs when he points out the glaring fact that 'scientists' cannot account for an exact amount of the number one 'greenhouse gas'... H2O.

You can point to a 'consensus' as much as you like. A 'consensus' means nothing to a true scientist. Those 'consensus scientists' are government grants/funding whores. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

__________________
THAT explains it!!!



Word of warning... I don't play well with others.

You basically have nothing at all-if he is laughing about H20-well you are making him look the fool- a basics physical science lesson-So what about H20 water vapour vs CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 .

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up.

Go back to physics 101 to review turnover rates for H20 vapour as opposed to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yep, some dumb blond is calling an atmospheric scientist a 'fool'.

__________________
THAT explains it!!!



Word of warning... I don't play well with others.

Now , that is funny and quite telling you could not refute the science-you are the one claiming he did not understand water vapor time in the atmosphere (few days) vs CO2.(years)

Now, what do you think??? Do I take the word of a close friend and scientist... or some liberal blond on the web?


Hmmmm?

__________________
THAT explains it!!!



Word of warning... I don't play well with others.