Why Some of Us Will Never Agree

[Total_Blender]

There are a lot of scientists that do not believe the current administration's position. Here is an article on it:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

Happer is not a climate scientist, his fields are optics, spectroscopy, and radiation. As I understand it, most of the scientists on that list are not climate scientists... they work in other disciplines.

If anything the fact that it would take 1,000 years for the Earth to revert to it earlier level of Co2 should give us pause and be an indicator that we should work to decrease our output of Co2. Whether it is manmade or not, if its not going anywhere we probably shouldn't push our luck by adding to what occurs naturally. From your article:

Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon.

So some sort of engineering feat to remove the carbon may be a recourse in the future, if it really gets that bad. I suppose once we have nanotechnology and such such a thing might be more plausible.

The Fox article I will disregard because they only present the conservative side of the story. They didn't speak to the scientists behind the IPCC study, or anyone at the IPCC. The fact that the numbers came from a study not related to climate change does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, or that they are somehow not relevant to the topics presented in the study.

"up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."

Fox didn't say this was wrong, they just said that it came from a study unrelated to global warming. However, the sharing of data between disciplines is one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Data complied on how forests react to drops in precipitation would be equally useful for studies on the impact of climate change and on the impact of forest fires.

[David88vert]

Happer is not a climate scientist, his fields are optics, spectroscopy, and radiation. As I understand it, most of the scientists on that list are not climate scientists... they work in other disciplines.

If anything the fact that it would take 1,000 years for the Earth to revert to it earlier level of Co2 should give us pause and be an indicator that we should work to decrease our output of Co2. Whether it is manmade or not, if its not going anywhere we probably shouldn't push our luck by adding to what occurs naturally. From your article:



So some sort of engineering feat to remove the carbon may be a recourse in the future, if it really gets that bad. I suppose once we have nanotechnology and such such a thing might be more plausible.

The Fox article I will disregard because they only present the conservative side of the story. They didn't speak to the scientists behind the IPCC study, or anyone at the IPCC. The fact that the numbers came from a study not related to climate change does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, or that they are somehow not relevant to the topics presented in the study.



Fox didn't say this was wrong, they just said that it came from a study unrelated to global warming. However, the sharing of data between disciplines is one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Data complied on how forests react to drops in precipitation would be equally useful for studies on the impact of climate change and on the impact of forest fires.

"Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change."
"Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research."


There is no current technology to change the current climate - according to NOAA. You are speculating only.


The only reason that you disregard Fox is because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. It's report is valid.
"In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.
But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist."
"If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it is the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months," Andrew Wheeler, former staff director for the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, told FoxNews.com. "For years, we have been told that the IPCC peer review process is the gold standard in scientific review. It now appears it is more of a fool's gold process."
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, was quoted in the European press as saying, "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution."

You are right, Fox did not say it was wrong - the IPCC itself did.

You are blinded to the truth, if you truly believe your typings. It's funny how you refuse to recognize data that is contrary to your beliefs, yet it is ok to use data not related to your topic to support your beliefs.