On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:36:57 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:09:10 -0500, W1TEF
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:31:09 -0500, Gene
wrote:


Now.... as I see it, we have the same problem.... if the contribution
of heat by man is sufficient, if there *IS* a tipping point, it could
mean the end of life as we know it.....

I agree with that completely.

However, scientists are supposed to be skeptical. A good scientist
will never, EVER, say definetly, positively, absoutely, "pinky swear"
and something is incontrovertible fact. Only mathematicians can make
those kinds of statements and usually those are covered by caveats.

There has been no, I repeat no, real science on climate change. Things
like average global temperature just don't exist. Can't exist unless
you can cover every square meter of land and sea with temperature
reporting devices and that ain't gonna happen. You can't even use
statistical techniques, including fractal math I might add, to obtain
an average temperature - the biosphere is too large.

The science has been all one sided with no room for other ideas and
concepts. Well known effects of solar science are dismissed as
"secondary" or "irrelevant". It's all about carbon.

Answer me this - Mt. Pinatubo blew up in 1991, it released some
ungodly amount of CO2 into the atmosphere along with some other
noxious gases like hydrogen sulfide and a couple of other "ides". Net
result - a decrease in reported temperatures of about 1 degree
Celisus. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere was equal to
the entire CO2 output of the world for ten years - TEN years.

Hello? Bueller?

You're right - we don't know. Erroring on the side of change though is
economically treacherous. What is needed is good science - real
science that accounts for everything, solar, atmophere, pollution -
the whole panoply of sciences that directly affect our living space.

The solution isn't "clean energy". Under the guise of "carbon
reduction" movement of wealth from the developed world and giving it
away to the un-developed world - it's as simple as that. It is an
international social solution to third world poverty - it's not about
climate science.

That does not mean that we shouldn't work towards a fossil fuel free
future - I agree that is important and necessary if only because of
the pollution problems. But we need more and better science - not
some faked, fudged "temperture" charts, hocus pocus emotionally
charged statements about settled science.

Basically, I get all that, but we have to realize that the worse
case scenario might be correct..... and the penalty for that is
infinite.....

Can we set all of the politics and hyperbole aside and look at the
science.... as accurate data evolves?

Why is it that we love Rush, Jesus, the Republican Party, etc., etc.,
and therefore can ignore science and any data..... because our daddies
tell us what to think.....?

Most of the counter arguments are fielded by those who know nothing
about science and yet it's considered an equal fight between those who
promote the idea of climate change and man's very potential hand and
those who rely on hyperbole.

It reminds me of the fight between evolution and intelligent design.

Or, Nancy Reagan's just say no. Trickle down science.