Global warming or not?

[pshrynk]

And again, I think that the main thing that we overlook in this is that oil is a DEPLETING RESOURCE! I am waaaaay more alarmed that at some point in a future where most of us will still be alive, the last bit of the easily accessible reserves of it will be used up, leaving us with a mandatory and hideously painful retooling of the entire economy basically over night.

Changing according to some of the suggestions made by the Climate Change Proponents makes entirely too much sense, economically, to ignore. Saying that Climate Change does not exist and that we should continue on with what we are doing, makes one wrong. Maybe not from the ultimate "correct/incorrect" dialectic, but from the aspect of economic survival. I feel that we should start the retooling NOW, as in ten years ago, so that we can continue to enjoy our current lifestyles.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

And again, I think that the main thing that we overlook in this is that oil is a DEPLETING RESOURCE! I am waaaaay more alarmed that at some point in a future where most of us will still be alive, the last bit of the easily accessible reserves of it will be used up, leaving us with a mandatory and hideously painful retooling of the entire economy basically over night.

But the good news is the melting Arctic icesheet will make it easier to get at the oil up there.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/02/5945527.html

[kennyc]

And certainly there is some retooling taking place. There was an article in todays local paper about the possibility of a new nuclear facility being built in the state. There is on-going work by some of the oil companies even (or so they keep claiming -- saw a Shell Oil guy on BBC last week). Obama's Green Initiative will push forward some of those new technologies. The new car MPG standards will help. I think we are moving at least a bit in that direction.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No YOU miss the point. The scientists working in the field have provided the evidence that supports the point under discussion -- Global Warming is real and it is being caused by human activities. That is the truth.

You seem to be missing the fact that science is comprised of equal parts skepticism and proof. This skepticism and proof as well as independent verification have already been applied to the studies published that are used to form the current consensus.

There are thousands of articles I could point you to to help correct this basic misunderstanding you (and others) seem to have, but I'll point to just one,

Chapter 17 in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World: The Marriage of Skepticism and Wonder to help clear that up for you.

And in 1904 there was over 200 years of published data supporting classical mechanics. It took a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist, philosopher, skeptic supported by a modicum of empirical data to present an alternative theory. And another four years for mainstream physicists to accept it.

And if Hořava gravity can be believed, even that is questionable.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by wodin

And in 1904 there was over 200 years of published data supporting classical mechanics. It took a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist, philosopher, skeptic supported by a modicum of empirical data to present an alternative theory. And another four years for mainstream physicists to accept it.

And if http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ime-from-space can be believed, even that is questionable.

That is one hell of a fascinating article, and I thank you for posting it. The incompatibility of the standard models of quantum mechanics and general relativity have long demonstrated an insufficiency in our understanding of the true nature of the cosmos, and this may prove to be the long-sought solution to the dilemma.

Can't see what it has to do with the science of Climate Change, however.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Can't see what it has to do with the science of Climate Change, however.

Because it demonstrates the value of a healthy skepticism of a consensuses of “mainstream scientists”.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by Billjr13

I thought crop circles were done by a couple guys in a pub?

How would they make crop circles in a pub? I didn't know they grew crops there

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

And again, I think that the main thing that we overlook in this is that oil is a DEPLETING RESOURCE! I am waaaaay more alarmed that at some point in a future where most of us will still be alive, the last bit of the easily accessible reserves of it will be used up, leaving us with a mandatory and hideously painful retooling of the entire economy basically over night.
...
I feel that we should start the retooling NOW, as in ten years ago, so that we can continue to enjoy our current lifestyles.

I agree the sooner we start the better. One question though... how much oil is left? I remember in school (30 ago) them saying there was only 40 - 50 years of it left. Is that still true, meaning there is about 10 - 20 years left? Or have we found more or are we using it at a slower rate than expected?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wodin

And in 1904 there was over 200 years of published data supporting classical mechanics. It took a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist, philosopher, skeptic supported by a modicum of empirical data to present an alternative theory. And another four years for mainstream physicists to accept it.

And if Hořava gravity can be believed, even that is questionable.

And your point?

and yes thanks for the link. This is sounds a bit like one of the possible proposed theories for reconciling quantum gravity and GR that I was reading about recently.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wodin

Because it demonstrates the value of a healthy skepticism of a consensuses of “mainstream scientists”.

I already 'splained that to you.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

... Can't see what it has to do with the science of Climate Change ...

Originally Posted by wodin

Because it demonstrates the value of a healthy skepticism of a consensuses of “mainstream scientists”.

The late, great Stephen Gould had this to say about the issue of “creationism”:

…..“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”
……....— Stephen Jay Gould (1941 - 2002), “Evolution as Fact and Theory.” From Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History.

The same logic applies to the global warming debate, and explains why consensus was not achieved overnight.

[GeoffC]

Cold Winters relate to Sun activity

[astra]

Cold Winter?
Didn't the scientists rave about Global warming and CO2 emissions that cause it and rising tax for 4x4 vehicles etc.? Didn't they convince government that new taxes must be invented to fight global warming? Lots of people got jobs for doing nothing but supporting this idea? All these green parties and others?
Now it is Global Winter? Does it mean they should reduce tax for 4x4 vehicles to encourage people to buy them, so they can warm up us a little bit?

[GeoffC]

and now we have an ash cloud across the UK and western Europe - that'll get blamed for something in a few years time .... (remember Laki 1783 !) ...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Cold Winters relate to Sun activity

From the article: "But they added that the phenomenon only affected a limited region and would not alter the overall global warming trend. "



The Iceland Ash has already shut airports:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...-airports.html