TW: Here’s the deal: If it’s getting warmer, it’s global warming; if it’s getting cooler, it’s global warming, but something is “masking” it.
The theory was there before the recent spat of cooling. Believe what you want.
Carrick - 11:05pm on 05/11/2008
The theory was there before the recent spat of cooling. Believe what you want.
In the Seventies, the scareologists were warning of “global cooling”; was that another “spate” of cooling? How do you determine that what happened a few years back wasn’t a “spate” of warming? Sounds like agendized opinion to me. Theories are just that: theories.
I see no reason to believe in something that obviously isn’t happening.
robert108 - 11:05pm on 05/11/2008
We know sulfates act as to reduce the amount of radiation that reaches the Earth. We know that CO2 increases the amount of heat that gets trapped. Before 1980, the two, according to any reasonable calculation, were approximately equal.
“Theories are that, just theories” isn’t much of a refutation of that statement. You seem to think that your rhetoric has the same weight as physical theory with empirical weight behind it.
Your counter example, “global cooling”, was more of a speculation than a theory; it wasn’t universally adopted by any means, it had no empirical basis except a noted trend (in part produced by the increase in sulfates from industrial stacks as it turns out) yet you use it as if it were some kind of refutation of physics as an objective branch of science in general.
You are being entirely opaque here to any idea that doesn’t match your preconceptions.
Carrick - 05:05am on 05/12/2008
Carrick: Anyway that’s my take on it. Interesting discussion. Also interested in your feedback on my thoughts here.
Obviously the facts are unassailable. I think the biggest factors for industry supporting Global Warming research is the tobacco effect.
The tobacco industry fought for years against the notion that “they” should “pay” for the health effects of their product. Finally they capitulated and guess what. They’re still profitable because they passed along these same costs to their consumers.
What was supposed to punish the manufacturer became in effect a tax on their consumers.
Frankly I see this as wrong as introducing a little socialism is much the same as being a little pregnant. The first stages of global warming legislation aren’t going to fix the problem because the premise is flawed. (CO2 isn’t changing the climate nearly as much as they claim.)
By the way IF there was one “fix” that would be less egregious I think it would be a revenue neutral carbon tax. I don’t expect them to ever come up with anything revenue neutral because it isn’t about the climate, it’s about government power.
The Whistler - 05:05am on 05/12/2008
Your counter example, “global cooling”, was more of a speculation than a theory; it wasn’t universally adopted by any means, it had no empirical basis except a noted trend (in part produced by the increase in sulfates from industrial stacks as it turns out) yet you use it as if it were some kind of refutation of physics as an objective branch of science in general.
Global cooling is simply another example of climate-based propaganda, just like global warming.
Neither one has been proven, and my “preconception” is that I want proof before any action gets taken.
Human-caused global warming is not yet proven, and so it is improper to “believe” in it.
Robert108:
The theory was there before the recent spat of cooling. Believe what you want.
In the Seventies, the scareologists were warning of “global cooling”; was that another “spate” of cooling? How do you determine that what happened a few years back wasn’t a “spate” of warming? Sounds like agendized opinion to me. Theories are just that: theories.
I see no reason to believe in something that obviously isn’t happening.
We know sulfates act as to reduce the amount of radiation that reaches the Earth. We know that CO2 increases the amount of heat that gets trapped. Before 1980, the two, according to any reasonable calculation, were approximately equal.
“Theories are that, just theories” isn’t much of a refutation of that statement. You seem to think that your rhetoric has the same weight as physical theory with empirical weight behind it.
Your counter example, “global cooling”, was more of a speculation than a theory; it wasn’t universally adopted by any means, it had no empirical basis except a noted trend (in part produced by the increase in sulfates from industrial stacks as it turns out) yet you use it as if it were some kind of refutation of physics as an objective branch of science in general.
You are being entirely opaque here to any idea that doesn’t match your preconceptions.
Obviously the facts are unassailable. I think the biggest factors for industry supporting Global Warming research is the tobacco effect.
The tobacco industry fought for years against the notion that “they” should “pay” for the health effects of their product. Finally they capitulated and guess what. They’re still profitable because they passed along these same costs to their consumers.
What was supposed to punish the manufacturer became in effect a tax on their consumers.
Frankly I see this as wrong as introducing a little socialism is much the same as being a little pregnant. The first stages of global warming legislation aren’t going to fix the problem because the premise is flawed. (CO2 isn’t changing the climate nearly as much as they claim.)
By the way IF there was one “fix” that would be less egregious I think it would be a revenue neutral carbon tax. I don’t expect them to ever come up with anything revenue neutral because it isn’t about the climate, it’s about government power.
Global cooling is simply another example of climate-based propaganda, just like global warming.
Neither one has been proven, and my “preconception” is that I want proof before any action gets taken.
Human-caused global warming is not yet proven, and so it is improper to “believe” in it.
Carrick: Here’s some information for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
cheap abercrombie, ed hardy on sale.