[dbussone]

Originally Posted by outlaw

The TV crowds are probably due to climate change migration.

Very unlikely. Just smart folks.

[tedquick]

I am a believer in climate change. In fact I believe that it’s been changing, constantly, since the world was created nearly 4.5 billion years ago.

While I believe that man may have “some” effect on the climate the simple fact that in the 70’s it was climate cooling, then warming and once it seemed unlikely that it was realistically provable in either direction, it became “climate change”, concerns me. The fact that the urgency used to be about cooling, then warming and now simply change, makes me suspect of the screamers true intent. Since I believe it is “much ado about nothing”, I am emphatically untrusting of those pushing the agenda.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by tedquick

I am a believer in climate change. In fact I believe that it’s been changing, constantly, since the world was created nearly 4.5 billion years ago.

While I believe that man may have “some” effect on the climate the simple fact that in the 70’s it was climate cooling, then warming and once it seemed unlikely that it was realistically provable in either direction, it became “climate change”, concerns me. The simple fact that the urgency used to be about cooling, then warming and now simply change, continues to make me suspect of the screamers true intent. Since I believe it is “much ado about nothing”, I am emphatically untrusting of those pushing the agenda.

[tuccillo]

The term really should be "anthropogenic climate change" but the anthropogenic part is usually omitted. The impact of man's activities is somewhere between "some" and a "sh**load". That is the fundamental question that is trying to be answered. The good news is the system is inherently stable so a runaway condition is unlikely.

Originally Posted by tedquick

I am a believer in climate change. In fact I believe that it’s been changing, constantly, since the world was created nearly 4.5 billion years ago.

While I believe that man may have “some” effect on the climate the simple fact that in the 70’s it was climate cooling, then warming and once it seemed unlikely that it was realistically provable in either direction, it became “climate change”, concerns me. The fact that the urgency used to be about cooling, then warming and now simply change, makes me suspect of the screamers true intent. Since I believe it is “much ado about nothing”, I am emphatically untrusting of those pushing the agenda.

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

The term really should be "anthropogenic climate change" but the anthropogenic part is usually omitted. The impact of man's activities is somewhere between "some" and a "sh**load". That is the fundamental question that is trying to be answered. The good news is the system is inherently stable so a runaway condition is unlikely.

I respect your views, so what is it that you really believe is true?

tq

[tuccillo]

I don't have a clue as to whether we really have a problem. The increases in CO2 will have an impact but for me the real questions are how much of an impact and how will the earth system respond?. Is catastrophic warming inevitable or will compensating processes kick in? In my darker moments I wonder if it is all part of a conspiracy to put in place a one-world government and it is always worthwhile to "follow the money" ;-).

I try, as reasonably as I can, to minimize my carbon footprint but the reality of the situation is fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for the foreseeable future, in vast amounts, particularly in China and India. We best hope that we are worrying about nothing.

Originally Posted by tedquick

I respect your views, so what is it that you really believe is true?

tq

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I don't have a clue as to whether we really have a problem. The increases in CO2 will have an impact but for me the real questions are how much of an impact and how will the earth system respond?. Is catastrophic warming inevitable or will compensating processes kick in? In my darker moments I wonder if it is all part of a conspiracy to put in place a one-world government and it is always worthwhile to "follow the money" ;-).

I try, as reasonably as I can, to minimize my carbon footprint but the reality of the situation is fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for the foreseeable future, in vast amounts, particularly in China and India. We best hope that we are worrying about nothing.

I've read from very respectful publications and authors who have made claim that climate change is really an agenda for the purposes of forming a global government and for profits. But in this day and age all you get for opening up to its possibility is being attacked as a conspiracy theorists or worse yet a wingnut.

At minimum you have agencies such as the EPA that use such tactics to increase their power

[RickeyD]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I've read from very respectful publications and authors who have made claim that climate change is really an agenda for the purposes of forming a global government and for profits. But in this day and age all you get for opening up to its possibility is being attacked as a conspiracy theorists or worse yet a wingnut.



At minimum you have agencies such as the EPA that use such tactics to increase their power

It's thinking like this will have them turning you into soylent green.

[tuccillo]

I sort of wonder the same thing at times ;-) However, that really implies a vast conspiracy. I have met a bunch of folks doing climate modeling and they are totally committed to the science. It was the scientists who first raised the warning, not politicians. However, let no crisis go to waste! You are correct that you will be attacked for not towing the line. That just seems to be our society today and not unique to climate research. I believe it will be another 20 years, which is just a blink of the eye in terms of climate time scales, before we really know what is going on. Just in case, I don't live on the coast anymore ;-)

Originally Posted by rubicon

I've read from very respectful publications and authors who have made claim that climate change is really an agenda for the purposes of forming a global government and for profits. But in this day and age all you get for opening up to its possibility is being attacked as a conspiracy theorists or worse yet a wingnut.

At minimum you have agencies such as the EPA that use such tactics to increase their power

[buzzy]

The problem is that there is no hard data from past extinction events.

[tedquick]

Cut and paste the website below to see how one scientist, who had worked for the EPA, fared when he submitted his research results.

Interview: Alan Carlin Explains How Politics Infiltrated EPA | Heartlander Magazine

[tuccillo]

There have been well respected people who have been critical of the IPCC also. The IPCC is under the UN and I never feel very positive about anything with the UN ;-) As I previously indicated, climate modeling is probably best viewed as a critically important area of active research, IMHO. I am not convinced that it is ready as a definitive tool for setting public policy. The groups who are building computer models endeavor to model the earth system with as much fidelity as possible given the limitations of theory and computer resources.

Science, such as climate change, is done in a different manner than say drug research. Drug research can be conducted with clinical trials with double blind testing. Science is done via grants that are peer reviewed. In addition, journal papers to publish the results are also peered reviewed. The people reviewing grant requests and journal papers are people doing essentially the same research in many cases.

Originally Posted by tedquick

Cut and paste the website below to see how one scientist, who had worked for the EPA, fared when he submitted his research results.

Interview: Alan Carlin Explains How Politics Infiltrated EPA | Heartlander Magazine