Contributors

Saturday, April 28, 2012


11 comments:

juris imprudent said...

That's a rather odd thing for a believer such as yourself to post.

Boom-Boom Mancini said...

I stopped listening to this jerk when he bit off Holyfield's ear.

Eric said...

Cool site. I'm a big fan of Neil and it's nice to see you recognize him here. For the life of me, I don't understand why people reject settled science like evolution and climate change.

Larry said...

Yes. Climate changes, sometimes quite suddenly and drastically. The paleo record is full of examples of this happening. It's been happening for at least that 200,000,000 years. That's settled. It's been both appreciably colder and warmer during just the last 1,000 years, and even warmer yet 2,000 years ago.

Eric said...

I just signed up for email replies. I hope this works. The evidence for climate change as a result of carbon emissions is settled science. The level of detrimental effects is still being debated but it isn't going to be good. Enacting the appropriate policy to deal with these facts is also a matter of debate and obviously has to be done correctly. But first, we have to agree that it is happening and it's not entirely natural.

juris imprudent said...

The evidence for climate change as a result of carbon emissions is settled science.

Except for the last decade. Seems a lot of scientists (you know, those folks who actually do the science) are discomforted by the data not following the theory. So the sly change is now to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming" - as if those were the same.

Hint: no one ever claimed that the climate wasn't constantly changing. The BIG theory was that AGW was driven by growth of carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon emissions are still going up, but temp isn't. So now you just re-name the theory that must - eventually produce the global catastrophe the eco-left has been demanding for 50 some years.

Eric said...

Frankly, I'd like to see some evidence to your claims. The term "climate change" is used to define all changes to the Earth's climate, man made or not. Global warming is a part of this along with all of the other issues that greenhouse gases cause.

It helps to look at all of this in terms of what is defined as a forcing mechanism. This could be something as simple as solar radiation or a deviation in the Earth's orbit. It could also be a change in the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Research Council has stated the following.

"There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

That's about as cut and dried as you can get.

juris imprudent said...

The term "climate change" is used to define all changes to the Earth's climate, man made or not.

Indeed. If you look at climate history (in geologic time) our species has occupied a rather unique chunk of fairly stable climate. It is hubris on a god-like scale to argue that we are having a severe impact on the planet. At worst we will do what every other species does that over-exploits its ecological niche - die off. Of course we were already supposed to have done that due to over-population. And there are still people that believe in the rantings of Ehrlich.

Prediction is a very risky business, and millenarian fantasy is a human staple.

Eric said...

Let's be clear that we are not going to destroy the planet. That's a misconception that has been bandied about in some circles. We are, however, contributing to changes in the climate through human activity that are going to make it difficult and very possibly disastrous to live in certain areas of the world.

We can lessen the impact of this to a certain extent but most researchers agree that what is happening is irreversible. The task at hand now is to examine how disaster preparedness schemes and how they can better function on a global scale.

juris imprudent said...

The task at hand now is to examine how disaster preparedness schemes and how they can better function on a global scale.

I've got no problem that; it sure as hell isn't any kind of carbon tax.

juris imprudent said...

Speaking of science and how it works!