Sunday, February 04, 2007

The problem of global warming

Al Gore, and Jacques Chirac both want something.

I have no doubt that Mr. Gore fully believes in what he is spouting. Too bad he is not doing it about Islamists, but of course that's one of the problems that democrats at the national level seem never to be able to overcome. Given a choice of two courses, the democrats seem always to intuit which one will be more painful for the people of the USA, and come under the guise of selfless sacrifice here and helping those elsewhere.

This brings us to one problem of global warming.
gore_warmed.jpg

Those who believe in it, essentially believe that to help avoid it getting worse (let alone solve it) we should essentially freeze in the dark, while riding bicycles to work.

Any takers?

I thought not.

The other problem is Mr. Chirac. He demands that we kowtow to a committee decision based on (potentially) politically inspired conclusions, when our own industries seem to be able to exceed the standards to be imposed by this committee on their own, and don't matter anyway since the largest growing national heat sources, Communist China (just as the USSR and Warsaw Pact were the worst polluters) ignore the whole damn thing anyway in the name of deprived third world growth in what amounts to a zero sum game.

Both of these propositions and courses will fail 100% of the time in fixing a problem that may not exist. That's another argument however. I am always skeptical of any scientific thesis. All should be. That's why the PhD test is a DEFENSE of your thesis. I don't wan to go there today, because, it doesn't matter.

Whether or not humans are making global warming occur, or occur faster doesn't matter.

That's right.

Whether or not there is warming going on of a large, climate changing, permanent nature has no bearing on how we should behave and respond in adding CO2 and heat to the world environment.

scrw_oil.jpg

The problem centers on HOW we avoid adding heat. Avoiding adding heat is a worthy goal.
For many reasons

Continue reading "The problem of global warming" »

3 comments:

Demosthenes said...

I wonder how much anyone in a political alliance with Creationists should feel free to comment on science. Well, yes, what Al Gore says about global warming could be wrong. It is overreach to deny it, but placing our bets on the doubters would be like placing a bet on 00 on roulette wheel. It could come up, but it's not real likely.

I oppose Islam as much as anyone and I have no clue why your nonsense is posted to a board about resisting Islam. I oppose Islam as much as anyone and while I disagree with Gore on Islamic issues, I do think the man is saint and quite deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't aware Al Gore or the UN were involved in "science." You can call it that if you want, but since they aren't really subject to peer review, and since climate science peer review is a big giant circle jerk right now, it doesn't really pass the test for science in most circles. Which is kind of why you have a lot of scientists outside of the climate in-group kind of calling them out on being idiots. Since the planet kind of historically gets warmer and colder without people doing a damn thing one way or another, and since it has been a whole lot warmer within the last thousand years without humans even introducing much CO2, and since even the worst models still have us at ice age temperatures and CO2 levels, I'm going to just go ahead and say that maybe Al Gore and Co. jumped the gun on this a little bit. I mean wake me up when its as warm and CO2 rich as the mid-Cretaceous and I might be interested.

Global warming "science" and Creationism are kind of kindred spirits really. Both are fantasyland. So I really don't see where Al Gore is a saint for promoting some fairy tale. The fact that he's being nominated for the same prize they gave to Arafat is kind of a clue as to how much good the guy is doing the world.

In any event worrying about whether or not we're heating up the world by a whole degree is kind of pointless since Islam doesn't believe in any science, "science", Creationism, or pretty much anything else except nihilism. And they can fight on camel and on bike or whatever we choose to switch to after cars. So I gotta say, even if I'm wrong and we're going to have a runaway greenhouse on Earth (which wasn't a problem for hundreds of millions of years when life went on without a hitch), we're probably better off worrying about fighting the psychotic nihilists than worrying about whether or not we are creating a new Jurassic Park, you know? And anyhow, Ahmadinejad is going to announce a solution to global warming next week, along with his cure for AIDS and everything else (and I believe that cure involves nuking everyone and everything, so problem solved).

Demosthenes said...

Wow, and exactly anonymous what do you know about science. You are simply wrong to claim that "a lot of scientists outside of the climate in-group kind of calling them out on being idiots." I suspect that you are reading undiluted propaganda. I doubt that there are even as many "climate change" skeptics in the sense of thinking the climate change research simply wrong than there are creationists with Biology Ph.D. or the global population of honest-to-God flat-earthers. (Note that some scientist could be science change skeptics in doubting that the magnitude of C02 change is unlikely to affect climate, but still willing to concede the fears of the climate change people aren't irrational.) Every single professor of biology at the major university near me thinks greenhouse gases are a major issue and yet not a single one of them are involved in the research. Admittedly, most aren't real knowledgeable about climatology, but some are. I've asked a few people around if they know of a professor around who summarily rejects climate change issues, and I haven't been able to find one yet.

Anyway, I can't help but notice that steps to reduce global warming also reduce the amount of money in muslim hands. We should support reducing global warming as a sneaky way to stop funding Islam.

Also, as a point of fact Islam does reject biological evolution and the Imans would support Creationist arguments if they could spare the time from preaching hatred and war.

Another little detail, the unicellular pre-cursors of plants did effect a huge climate change. They changed the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to oxygen. (I speak loosely in the last sentence, the sentiment is essential correct, but the details are not straightforward.) Homo sapien is surely capable of affecting the atmosphere if uni-cellular plants were.