Charlatan

This appears to be an interesting approach to the issue of climate change... Risk management.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cynthetiq

I've watched this so many times, that I actually replace the matrix GW and all the "negatives" with God/Heaven/Hell and it's the same compelling argument.

Next watch will be using Santa Claus.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The only theoretical risk to not believing in Santa Clause is not getting presents from him. Believe me, I've run the risk hundreds, if not thousands of times. It's why I believe in Santa.

He brings up a very good point in the fact that we're currently in the experiment. I think it's easy to think of global warming as just another political talking point. If global warming is as bad as some predict, then we could be in some very, very deep water (figuratively and literally). It would be a bad idea to proceed assuming that global warming isn't a danger.

I won't say that I know with certainty that global warming is a fraud or just exaggeration, but for those who believe the opposite of myself, that global warming isn't anything to be concerned about, where did you get your degree in climatology?

Martian

The problem with this is that he doesn't address the science.

Science is never 'finished.' That much he is correct about. But there are degrees of certainty within science. So far as I'm aware, the only evidence for or against global warming at the moment is the IPCC studies. If there have been any independent, peer reviewed studies on the subject, I have not encountered them.

The IPCC studies are surprisingly weak evidence. They are based entirely on meta-analysis and Meta-analysis is not good science. On top of that, we need to spend more time looking at the whys of global warming. Once we have conclusive evidence that it is happening and is a big deal, we need to have better evidence as to what's causing it. Spending so much time reducing carbon oxide emissions will look pretty foolish in retrospect if it turns out that carbon oxides are not a significant contributing factor. Where's the proof? It may exist, but I haven't seen it yet.

The Earth is incredibly complicated. Oversimplification never works.

EDIT -

This is an ad hominem attack. You should know better.

I have no degree in climatology or anything else for that matter. I expect nobody to take my word as granted, which is why I try to back up my assertions wherever possible.

I do have an inquisitive nature and an internet connection. Everyone I use to form my opinions is available to everyone else. The IPCC is a political body. Have any independent scientific organizations published studies? I don't know, but if they have, they certainly weren't well advertised.

I don't claim to know anything about global warming, and that's my point. Nobody seems to know anything with any real certainty. It's a great political issue, but as a scientific one it just doesn't seem like very many people have looked into it at all.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

We're both making the same point. People oversimplify the situation constantly, which communicates that the person is getting information from very limited sources. It's not an ad hom to suggest that a lack of education can lead to an incomplete knowledge of a subject. Asking for a better supported argument, made from a solid understanding of the subject, is a part of the burden of proof.

Martian

Asking for sources is one thing. Suggesting or implying that someone's opinion is invalid due to a lack of (or the incorrect type of) formal education is something else entirely.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Cynthetiq

one doesn't need a degree in theology to use the same risk management approach and matrix to not sin and "believe" in God.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I wasn't suggesting that. It's the certainty I take issue with. I stand by my concern with said certainty. If "There's no global warming, certainly not caused by humans" can't even be said by an expert in climatology, how can a layman have that level of certainty?

Martian

I don't know. Maybe you should ask for his sources and find out.

Speech-to-text translation note: the above should be read with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

Stone

While I do not have a degree in Climatology I did work with the State Climatologist of New Jersey for a summer while pursuing a degree in Meteorology at Rutgers, not that it means anything. :-)

So here's my expert contribution:

While global warming 'might' be occurring (I say might because in geologic time 50 or 100 years is merely a spit in the ole' bucket) I do not see it as a problem that humans can, in all reality, either control or significantly influence. Mother Earth certainly retains that province. And, within her sphere of influence, there are patterns that have been observed over long periods of time. (I'm going to cut a lot of meteorolocal details here in the interest of not globally warming this particular thread. :-) :-) ) The bottom line is... and *this* has been clearly observed in the past... that as the earth, or more specifically the Northern Hemisphere, warms to the point of losing substantial polar ice, a mechanism that has, again, in the past, been at the root of glacier formation and extreme winters in general kicks in. This rapidly(geologically speaking) cools the Northern Hemisphere. IOW, it precipitates an Ice Age. One extreme leads to another. We 'may' be influencing the earth's warming rate. But we are certainly *not* the master of it's climate.

__________________
Stone7