Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You have the avatar that dissent is patriotic, and yet because I do not abide by the thought of mass bodies that the fault must be with me? I am not alone, there are very distinguished scientists who share my position, and that number is growing.
|
Ustwo...no one here has denied your right to dissent from the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.
What I find disingenuous is the double standards you apply to those who endorse the IPCC position and recommendations and those who dissent, particularly those many "scientists" you have cited in earlier posts (including some in your recent post 131) who, after a quick search, were found to have a potential conflict of interest with their work being funded by energy companies.
The fact remains that there is an overwhelming majority of climate (and other) scientist who believe that the millions of tons of anthropogenic GHG emissions each year are harmful to the environment and are highly likely to have a long term negative impact on the world's climate.
We can act now with reasonable policies and actions to lower GHG emissions from power plants, cars, heavy industry in an economically sustainable manner, as well as take other reasonable actions with regard to other potentially harmful emissions....(I dont support all of the IPCC recommendations and I have stated that on numerous occasions)....
Or we can do nothing , wait until the climate scientists reach a unanimous finding while we continue to spew millions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere and hope they dont significantly contribute to long term environmental and climatic degradation.
I believe the US government should act now since we are a major contributor and serve as a model for responsible actions (we have no control over other countries). If the hundreds (or thousands) of IPCC scientists, the 15 national academies of science, the 50 other scientific bodies around the world are proven wrong in 10-20 years...the worst we would suffer is the cost of implementing energy and environmental conservation programs.
If your guys are wrong, we potential suffer a much worse fate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Speaking of Steven Milloy, I think you guys really need to take "The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge!" Heck, you should be able to rack up a fast $500,000 with your consensus of scientists (be sure it's not the same consensus of scientists that predicted the next ice age in the 1970's).
|
Otto.....you can play the Steve Milloy or Marc Morano card as often as you like.
If that is your best shot, you have already blown that wad repeatedly.
Where are these growing number of credible dissenters...who are not funded by energy interests? I see a trickle not a groundswell.
Why cant you or Ustwo point to even one credible national or international scientific body that endorses or supports the work of Steve Milloy...or that does not endorse the IPCC position on anthropogenic GHG emissions? One national meteorological organization...one geophysics organization....ANY ORGANIZATION!
(since Ustwo has gone to the color mode to make his point - I chose RED for the increasing number of CODE RED days we face each passing summer).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ottopilot
So my friends, the question goes 'round and 'round ... "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"
|
Consensus = overwhelming majority, with a recognition that it is not unanimous.
So tell me why hundreds (or thousands) of climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC final report, the 15 top national academies of science in the world, more than 50 other national or international meteorological, climate or other related (or general) scentific bodies do not constitute a consensus?
But you are correct in one respect...we just go round and round. You will continue to support the dentist and the energy industry whore and I will continue to support the overwhelming number of scientific bodies.
In the meantime, I am looking forward to the Senate debate this summer on the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (even though its not a great bill, with cap and trade provisions at its core, but its a start)....particularly the highly anticipated circus performance of Sen. Inhofe (the Senate's chief denier) and if McCain will waffle.