Scientist: CO2 not driving climate

No, it's a feedback. It does not DRIVE CLIMATE. It's that simple. Too bad you're both misinformed and stubborn. In a few short years your religion will be disbanded and we'll all be laughing about dolts like you.
 
I think that perhaps one of the greatest challenges in this whole issue is the temptation to lay the blame for climate change on a single factor, and isolate that one factor as the cause of it all. This is something that has tended to occur in my own field as well, so it was relatively easy to recognize.

If this suggestion about sulfur dioxide has merit, and it may have, then we should approach it with solutions instead of bickering about which single element is more important. Note that the role of CO2 was not dismissed, but acknowledged as having a "driving" influence, presumably a significant influence. The synergistic effect of these two factors, and undoubtedly more, should be examined, and addressed with comprehensive solutions (if possible at this late date) in mind.

Just as in my own field, where there is no single right, all-encompassing answer for many of the phenomena we study, but several contributing factors, I'm not possessive of a single line of thought here. I want to know what the truth is so that we can, hopefully, undertake the most effective steps to deal with it.
 
Thorn said:
I think that perhaps one of the greatest challenges in this whole issue is the temptation to lay the blame for climate change on a single factor, and isolate that one factor as the cause of it all. This is something that has tended to occur in my own field as well, so it was relatively easy to recognize.

If this suggestion about sulfur dioxide has merit, and it may have, then we should approach it with solutions instead of bickering about which single element is more important. Note that the role of CO2 was not dismissed, but acknowledged as having a "driving" influence, presumably a significant influence. The synergistic effect of these two factors, and undoubtedly more, should be examined, and addressed with comprehensive solutions (if possible at this late date) in mind.

Just as in my own field, where there is no single right, all-encompassing answer for many of the phenomena we study, but several contributing factors, I'm not possessive of a single line of thought here. I want to know what the truth is so that we can, hopefully, do the best things to deal with it.
Click to expand...


Do you rely on press releases in your field?
 
Thorn said:
I think that perhaps one of the greatest challenges in this whole issue is the temptation to lay the blame for climate change on a single factor, and isolate that one factor as the cause of it all. This is something that has tended to occur in my own field as well, so it was relatively easy to recognize.

If this suggestion about sulfur dioxide has merit, and it may have, then we should approach it with solutions instead of bickering about which single element is more important. Note that the role of CO2 was not dismissed, but acknowledged as having a "driving" influence, presumably a significant influence. The synergistic effect of these two factors, and undoubtedly more, should be examined, and addressed with comprehensive solutions (if possible at this late date) in mind.

Just as in my own field, where there is no single right, all-encompassing answer for many of the phenomena we study, but several contributing factors, I'm not possessive of a single line of thought here. I want to know what the truth is so that we can, hopefully, undertake the most effective steps to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I worry about the children of today. They're being fed propaganda that will someday be disproven and it will leave them distrustful of both science and government. People like lorax and IBdumb, who willfully ignore alternative evidence and rely the purveyors of half truths for their paradigm, are a lost cause. Screw them. They can believe whatever they want just like religious zealots.
 
Thorn said:
I think that perhaps one of the greatest challenges in this whole issue is the temptation to lay the blame for climate change on a single factor, and isolate that one factor as the cause of it all. This is something that has tended to occur in my own field as well, so it was relatively easy to recognize.

If this suggestion about sulfur dioxide has merit, and it may have, then we should approach it with solutions instead of bickering about which single element is more important. Note that the role of CO2 was not dismissed, but acknowledged as having a "driving" influence, presumably a significant influence. The synergistic effect of these two factors, and undoubtedly more, should be examined, and addressed with comprehensive solutions (if possible at this late date) in mind.

Just as in my own field, where there is no single right, all-encompassing answer for many of the phenomena we study, but several contributing factors, I'm not possessive of a single line of thought here. I want to know what the truth is so that we can, hopefully, undertake the most effective steps to deal with it.
Click to expand...
The goal should be zero emissions energy. It doesn't even matter about the climate (other than I like clean water.)

I work slowly but surely towards getting off the grid and ever more independent, not because I think I'll save the planet, but because I get sick of the power going out and having to turn on generators rather than my house running on the stored battery power. It's important to have electricity where I live, I like to be able to flush the toilet and without power the well pumps don't work.

Make it good, make it reliable, make it clean and people will buy it whether or not they think they'll save the planet. I'll even fork over a large front cost if it will work reliably for a long time.
 
tinfoil said:
I worry about the children of today. They're being fed propaganda that will someday be disproven and it will leave them distrustful of both science and government. People like lorax and IBdumb, who willfully ignore alternative evidence and rely the purveyors of half truths for their paradigm, are a lost cause. Screw them. They can believe whatever they want just like religious zealots.
Click to expand...

Why is this one guy more believable than thousands? You don't see any irony there?

Besides, as I told you, I am through arguing AGW. There are dozens of good reasons to go clean & domestic.
 
Dungheap said:
Do you rely on press releases in your field?
Click to expand...

Do you rely on Al Gore soundbites and propaganda flicks? I've never seen any of you warmers post even a single study. You simply cite the IPCC crap which is cherry picked and ignores many earth systems in the models which thusly overstate the effects of CO2 (based on assumptions of CO2 theory).

Imagine using an assumption in a test to prove the assumption.

Hello, it's not science! It's confirmation bias.
 
Thorn said:
I think that perhaps one of the greatest challenges in this whole issue is the temptation to lay the blame for climate change on a single factor, and isolate that one factor as the cause of it all. This is something that has tended to occur in my own field as well, so it was relatively easy to recognize.

If this suggestion about sulfur dioxide has merit, and it may have, then we should approach it with solutions instead of bickering about which single element is more important. Note that the role of CO2 was not dismissed, but acknowledged as having a "driving" influence, presumably a significant influence. The synergistic effect of these two factors, and undoubtedly more, should be examined, and addressed with comprehensive solutions (if possible at this late date) in mind.

Just as in my own field, where there is no single right, all-encompassing answer for many of the phenomena we study, but several contributing factors, I'm not possessive of a single line of thought here. I want to know what the truth is so that we can, hopefully, undertake the most effective steps to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I...could... not .... agree... more....

This obsession with assigning blame is idiotic. We should do everything we can to reduce pollution and clean the environment regardless of whether it is man, the sun, CO2, cow farts or simply a natural cycle that warmed the globe drastically in the mid 1990s.
 
Superfreak said:
I...could... not .... agree... more....

This obsession with assigning blame is idiotic. We should do everything we can to reduce pollution and clean the environment regardless of whether it is man, the sun, CO2, cow farts or simply a natural cycle that warmed the globe drastically in the mid 1990s.
Click to expand...

This is still consistent with the planned "green technology" bubble wallstreet is planning. You're such a transparent hack.
 
Onceler said:
Why is this one guy more believable than thousands? You don't see any irony there?

Besides, as I told you, I am through arguing AGW. There are dozens of good reasons to go clean & domestic.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that too, but his background, at least on paper, gave me pause. I hesitate to dismiss someone's findings out of hand unless the proposal has already been examined and dismissed for lack of scientific merit.

I agree with you about the clean and domestic aspects, too. We've cut down tremendously on the waste we produce, and are moving toward far less energy consumption in our appliances (including a tankless water heater when ours finally needs replacement) and lights, etc. Can't wait for the hybrid conversions to become reasonably affordable; I'll definitely go for that too.
 
Onceler said:
Why is this one guy more believable than thousands? You don't see any irony there?

Besides, as I told you, I am through arguing AGW. There are dozens of good reasons to go clean & domestic.
Click to expand...

I'm not resisting environmentalism, so enough with the strawman. I'm specifically opposed to brainwashing kids and ignorant people with misinformation designed to make them compliant and willful participants in their own defrauding. I like clean air too, but i'm not going to pay for supposed improvement through extra taxation without putting the claims up to scrutiny.

I guess I just don't trust humans in charge of anything. Why do you? I know you haven't done the science homework on the issue, so why do you trust stuff you have no idea about?
 
tinfoil said:
I'm not resisting environmentalism, so enough with the strawman. I'm specifically opposed to brainwashing kids and ignorant people with misinformation designed to make them compliant and willful participants in their own defrauding. I like clean air too, but i'm not going to pay for supposed improvement through extra taxation without putting the claims up to scrutiny.

I guess I just don't trust humans in charge of anything. Why do you? I know you haven't done the science homework on the issue, so why do you trust stuff you have no idea about?
Click to expand...

Stupid people feel smart when they parrot the words of "authority figures".
 
tinfoil said:
I'm not resisting environmentalism, so enough with the strawman. I'm specifically opposed to brainwashing kids and ignorant people with misinformation designed to make them compliant and willful participants in their own defrauding. I like clean air too, but i'm not going to pay for supposed improvement through extra taxation without putting the claims up to scrutiny.

I guess I just don't trust humans in charge of anything. Why do you? I know you haven't done the science homework on the issue, so why do you trust stuff you have no idea about?
Click to expand...

I believe in gov't's ability to be a driver of change. I have never argued for mandates or compulsory action. The thing I have advocated again & again is more investment in alternative energy, and more tax incentives for both green tech initiatives & conservation measures.

You can argue, like Dano, that this is "forcing" people to pay taxes, but I don't know how anyone who understands the economic implications of moving a significant portion of our energy needs to domestic sources could make that contention.
 
Onceler said:
I believe in gov't's ability to be a driver of change. I have never argued for mandates or compulsory action. The thing I have advocated again & again is more investment in alternative energy, and more tax incentives for both green tech initiatives & conservation measures.

You can argue, like Dano, that this is "forcing" people to pay taxes, but I don't know how anyone who understands the economic implications of moving a significant portion of our energy needs to domestic sources could make that contention.
Click to expand...

But there WILL BE mandates and compulsory action. You live in the fantasy land of a non compulsory green plan. This is to create the next wallstreet bubble.
 
Onceler said:
I believe in gov't's ability to be a driver of change. I have never argued for mandates or compulsory action. The thing I have advocated again & again is more investment in alternative energy, and more tax incentives for both green tech initiatives & conservation measures.

You can argue, like Dano, that this is "forcing" people to pay taxes, but I don't know how anyone who understands the economic implications of moving a significant portion of our energy needs to domestic sources could make that contention.
Click to expand...

alternatives have been shelved for decades until this current green craze allowed for the value of such hopelessly inefficient devices to increase and make them worth marketing. Now the politicians can invest and then pass laws favoring their investments and we can call it saving the planet.

how to profit off your bogeyman in a few easy steps.
Get the tape now and be on your way to making money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top