Man Based Global Warming....

Sorry Fibb. I was baiting you a bit.

I really do like Lovins. He has some great ideas. In any case, I agree - Lovins is not ruling out AGW. However, he brings up issues of deforestation and land use that are equally important contributers to AGW. He doesn't, to my knowledge, take a position on natural causes of climate change.

 

Wasn't saying that Lovins' POV was warped... was saying that Tim's isn't necessarily warped... just different priorities, I suppose.

 

North America at greater risk from Antarctic ice sheet melt: study

 

No. To insinuate that Lovins is an AGW denier or that he in anyway downgrades the importance of AGW is intellectually dishonest. As Darrel has pointed out many times just the argument for conservation and efficiency should be enough to change our ways.

AGW is another reality that in addition may have grave consequences.

 

You did no such thing. A clearly biased and outdated source doesn't really support your argument (though that never stops you.) I pointed out where the problems with their "analysis" were, yet you seem to have completely missed that. That's your problem, not mine.

Actually the chemistry is rather complex, not only that but the effect is also tied into climate change and assumptions therein from what I've read. The underlying basis of ozone depletion via CFC's is intact, despite your lies to the contrary. (Now that you've admitted the lie, it makes things easier.)

I've worked on much simpler chemistry that had been "well known" for a longer time and yet we routinely found out things that were unexpected and rate controlling in the process environment. Improving certain reaction rates while inhibiting others is how we improved yields and production.

 

Probably because I can't stand liars. When you and Tim spout outright lies expect hostility in return.

Except that is not what it says. It is one thing to present things truthfully. Unfortunately, that is not something your or Tim have shown yourselves capable of doing. Intellectual integrity is a deficiency for both of you.

 

Yes, it should be, but for some here it that is not the cause. It is not enough for me to support a switch to renewable energy to conserve resources and establish energy independence. For these people if one doesn't believe CO2 is the primary driver for increasing temperatures AND should be the number one priority for the global community then they are a fool and a liar.

 

Please point out one of my "outright lies" in this thread.

 

I already have.

 

What gets me is the inherent dishonesty employed by folks like Tim and JSH (and much of the official denialist camp.) It leads me to questions about their character, since their arguments are almost always distortions.

There were several other phrases within Tim's quote as well that contradict his own thesis, one of my favorite's was: Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.

Doesn't mean the bridge has collapsed or is non-existent, yet that is the spin they apply.

 

Agreed. Shawn, please point out the "outright" lie here. I said the ozone hole has grown, which it has. I said there is research that questions established theory, which there is.

The only responses you have are to throw verbal tantrums and call me a "liar", "despicable", a "fool", etc.

Frankly Shawn, I'm getting a quite bored with you (again). At least Alric, though I disagree with him quite often, occasionally advances a few reasonably cogent arguments to support his case.

 

Well Alric, I never made the claim that Lovins was an "AGW denier". But clearly he thinks CO2 only contributes to about 1/2 of GW. So yes, I was kind of ribbing Fibb, but I don't see how it was intellectually dishonest. I linked every source so the context can be read. Sorry I didn't get a chance to interview him personally on the subject.

 

No - not really different priorities. Just different opinion regarding the risk of catastrophe from CO2 and the reliability of GCMs. I'm still fine with alternative energy - the sooner the move from fossil fuels to clean/renewable energy the better, although I would also advocate nuclear.

 

And, as always happens when one side grows weary of the facts, the discussion dissolves into rhetorical nitpicking and insults. Thanks for playing! See you next time!

 

Same priority, but a different call to action?

 

Sure, I guess you could say that!

 

Wait. Is Tim agreeing we have to change our ways? All along we've had this discussion and we agree on the same fundamental changes? That's what Darrel said 50 pages ago!!

 

Yes, and it is what I have said throughout this thread as well. We seem to be getting bogged down:

• Why changes are needed
• The importance of these changes as they relate to other global problems
• The timescale that these changes need to be implemented.

We seem to be in agreement that change is needed.

 

Yay!!!

 

I knew that would make Fibb happy. So maybe now we should all just end this thread, on a happy note.