Quote:
Originally posted by rgr22j
I would really appreciate it if you kept ad-homenim attacks out of the discussion. Directed at me or at anyone else, it's inappropriate in this forum.
Back to the current discussion, you misread my point. I realize now that there's a typo in the following quote :
The typo is that I meant to say: "This is not to say that global warming is NOT a real phenomenon" (correction in CAPS). In the context, however, this should have been obvious. Apologies, English is not my first language.
So, we agree, there is no doubt that global warming exists: this much is clear. However, as I directly quote from the IPCC:
Scientists believe it has something to do with global warming, but there is no conclusive proof. You interpreted that scientists "point" to global warming, you "point to" or it "can be related" but as I quoted directly from the report, there is no clear cut evidence that this is the case.
I would also caution you on using so-called climate models as proof; I work with weather modelers (and indeed used to be a modeler myself, just not of weather) and so far none of the existing models has ever come close to being able to predict the recorded temperatures of the 20th century. In modeling, if the models can't even predict the given test data, we don't rely on it for anything at all. It's useless.
Furthermore, "recorded" temperatures or "recorded" events always come with some error. Temperature readings today are much more accurate than they were in the 1800s, and we track more weather events than we did 200 years ago. When you are dealing with tenths of degrees, it's not a good idea to be relying on temperatures read off of sight-estimated mercury thermometers. Where was it taken? Who did it? Cities are hotter than the country-side, and New York City (for example) has grown much more dense than in 1800. This also means that, as a result of urbanization, the country-side would be cooler (all other things constant).
How many storms over how many continents are we talking about? In 1800 only 16 states had joined the Union. By 1899 we still didn't have five states, including Hawaii and Alaska, both of which are the recipients of rather harsh climate-related weather. You would not convince anyone that the weather tracking in 1899 was anywhere near as sophisticated as the ones in 1998. Weather satellites alone give us an incomparable breadth.
There are too many variables to count, and relying on unknown and unreliable data, or busted models, is not scientifically a good idea. You may be part of a youth board, but I was a scientist. Believe me when I say that it is still too early to make a conclusive statement. If you don't believe me, ask any of my 19,500 colleagues.
-- Alvin
|
That could be said about any other scientific theory. Of course there aren't any rock-solid proofs to swoop all doubt away. This is more about being safe rather than sorry. I am sorry for being harsh earlier, but I really believe more in those who say "we have reason to believe that unnatural and damaging climate changes could be preventet with reductions in human emissions" than the ones saying "this is not based on 100% solid proof which can never be countered, thus we continue the emissions and hope things work out."
I thought the US was all for pre-emptive actions? If Bush could go to war over dodgy evidence, he could surely spend a similar amount securing the world against climate change? Isn't the threat of 200 000 000 people being forced to flee their homes and eco-systems and crops all over the world being destroyed mutch bigger than the threat of some moustached dictator with some boring old gas?.
Any comments?