They still don't seem to get it...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 5 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]400544[/snapback]</div>

I am sure your father as you characterize him was a decent man. But he appears not to be a very learned or traveled man. I have personally visited Auschwitz in the 80's and to this day personally find it very difficult to even think about the horrors of the Holocaust. With the exception of few cultures or religions which shall remain unnamed, I find it difficult for anyone to question the Holocaust of WWII. I suppose he believes that satellites and rocket ships just go up and come down into the ocean. And he also believes man started out magically about 5,000 years or so ago in a beautiful garden... But I have learned it is usually is not a good idea to argue or question ones non scientific beliefs.

Not quite sure how believing AGW is a myth makes one a religious person (or does that imply if you believe in AGW you are an atheist?)), please show me the connection. I was not aware that various religions have stances regarding AGW. What does the Pope think about AGW? How about the Muslims? What about the Christians, Baptists, Jews??? Do they believe or have official stances on AGW?

It seems the only defense most AGW shills can come up with when cornered with the facts is to label one as a deeply disturbed/evil religious person.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 5 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]400583[/snapback]</div>

I think what was being pointed out is the similarities between religious thinking and anti-AGW beliefs. IE they both have a core frame they work from and if the facts do not fit their frame they simply toss them out without any further study. I know in my post I did not imply you were religious but since you did bring it up, there used to be a LARGE percentage of the christian community that thought AWG was not true simply because there was no way we could have data beyond 6,000ya like you stated. They simply will not entertain the idea they could be wrong about their young earth idea.

 

Y2K could easily have been a major financial issue. The reason it wasn't is that the problem was identified and dealt with. It's not unlike the ozone (CFC) problem.

Considering that none of the soot from the kuwait oil fires was blasted into the stratosphere it's not surprising, really. As nerfer pointed out, we also attacked the problem aggressively. A large number of nuclear ground blasts would send a large amount of dust into the upper atmosphere. That would have a much more profound effect on surface temps than a thousand oil fires at the earth's surface.

The whining about the effect on the economy is reminiscent of the Luddites at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 5 2007, 03:35 PM) [snapback]400593[/snapback]</div>

Similar yet more severe than the effects we have seen from aerosol forcings and global dimming through the 90's due to industrial particulates in the atmosphere. If these forcing effects were enough to create a 1.5degC cooling effect what could be expected from continued aerosol production, nuclear warfare or even volcanic activity. We must not pretend we live in a static system. Any number of natural effects could completely throw us into chaos if we maintain a position of bifurcation, or tipping point.

 

Climate change was discussed in detail at the 12-19 February 2007 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Francisco. Climate change and sustainability permeated the entire conference. www.aaas.org/

What talk radio and politicians fail to realize is that the 4th IPCC report only considered published papers. No hearsay or desktop opinion pieces. The IPCC rigorously reviewed over 30,000 published papers. I'm enclosing Part 1 of the IPCC report so others can read the information first-hand. Parts 2, 3 and 4 will be released during 2007. Science strives to be objective, is subject to peer review and always strives to prove itself false. Science does not and cannot operate subjectively on personal opinion.

We are approaching a tipping point. Our current methods offer a difficult process to respond in a timely and precautionary manner. www.takingprecaution.org/

The Kyoto Protocol is a "baby" step. As observed by Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute, if you double your efficiency, you double your profit (and cut your cost by one-half). The US is currently the largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG), with India and China coming up fast and expected to exceeed US emissions by many factors in short order.

Despite government inaction, we can each "model what we teach" by minimizing our carbon footprint in our daily lives, work and leisure. Science is not a "belief" system. Rather it is a nonbelief system that is based on reproducible evidence. No rational person "believes" in climate change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 5 2007, 06:05 PM) [snapback]400586[/snapback]</div>

Too funny you automaticly jump to religion as a basis of your argument... My religious beliefs do not come into play here.... I can post links to sites that say this is a natural occourence and that the human amounts are very low and you will just say they are false. so I guess its a moot issue...

Again refer to my above reply.

And yes the scientific community can not agree on this topic either.. Well said.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html

http://science.netscape.com/story/2006/08/...-global-cooling

Again I am positive you will find a way to discredit the few links above.....

Then we switch back to
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=30270&st=0

Then of course copy from another thread:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Mar 5 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]400604[/snapback]</div>

The many arguments raised here are archaic and no longer valid. What was understood in the 1970s (global cooling) is no longer valid and a wealth of published, peer-reviewed evidence has brought us to unequivocal understanding of global climate change. Read Part 1 of the IPCC report and make an objective decision based on first-hand information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Mar 5 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]400604[/snapback]</div>

Too funny. I did not use religion as a basis for my arguement. I pointed out a similarity when it was brought up is all.

As for your links. There is no need to go to much effort to discredit them. They are dated and from non-peer reviewed sources on cute little websites developed by non-scientists. If I was looking for information on how to flyfish for brook trout I would not go to a blacksmith for such info. Please come back with peer reviewed journals or something close to it to state your case.

 

I added more to my above reply.

again I guess its all just dated info though...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Mar 6 2007, 04:30 AM) [snapback]400789[/snapback]</div>

Your Clearlight religious based data is rebutted here: Calculating the Greenhouse Effect

The great part about realclimate.org is that real scientists post after the article and you can learn quite a bit by reading through them. The article itself is only part of the information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 6 2007, 10:16 AM) [snapback]400852[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, B)

 

LOL NP B)

Keep the links coming though. It's good for use to read what each side has to say.