Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
Nor is it clear that investment in clean energy is not warranted.
|
The Ocean's aren't warming, Global Temperatures are dropping, temperatures today aren't as warm as they were in the prosperous Medevial Ages, and you think it isn't clear 2.9 trillion off of the GDP would be a bad idea? We have people starving to death on the streets and you think there is the slightest chance that we can afford such a waste of money that might help us in the long run? Would you spend 2.9 trillion dollars on lottery tickets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
The Stern Review said the exact opposite.
|
I'm not too optimistic about the situation if the EPA (ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, they should be on your side and be painting a picture of bliss) says starting to solve this "problem" will be so expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
There is a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
|
News to me. Lets see some evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
Atmospheric CO2 has recently increased very greatly, very quickly. To ignore that is foolish
|
Yet temperatures haven't. Its a mystery!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
1000 years ago - there were not 6 billion people on earth - many of them living in large cities reliant on dependable food and water supplies. It is not the "few extra degrees" that are the problem. It is what those "few extra degrees" will do to ocean surface temperatures, and subsequently rainfall patterns.
|
Well the IPCC predicts that water levels will rise around 7-24 inches over the next 100 years. (It might have been longer, I'll have to look this up, but I'm about to go to bed) And the IPCC are the folks whose centerpiece of one of their reports used to be Mann's fabricated hockystick. While this amount of an increase could have some ramifications, a wait and see attitude is clearly better for now, especially in face of the cost and decreasing temperatures. When considering Climate Change, you need to weigh the benefits (which if you deny exist, you are even crazier than I thought) against the potential problems. Right now, the scale isn't really screaming "Go Bankrupt and Solve Me!".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
Here in Australia, the problem is only too evident. As I have explained earlier, I live in on the east coast of Australia. We have just emerged from one of the most severe droughts in recorded history (albeit a short recorded history - we only have about 150 years of climate data).
|
A story that goes straight to my heart. Of course, little instances like this have nothing to do with a global issue. Here in the states we had Gore give an AGW speech on the coldest day in New York over the past century. We've had massive unprecedented snow storms in China, the list goes on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
However, climate model predictions do predict that droughts for south-eastern Australia will probably become increasingly severe.
|
Climate Models can be made to show whatever the climate makers want. The only verification of their results is that they 'predict' the past, which is rediculous because obviously modelers know what they have to fit too, and can easily accomplish a perfect match to the past all while creating dire conclusions for the future.
Nobody can tell me if tuesday will be a good day for fishing, but you expect me to trust predictions concerning times that are decades or centuries away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
Generally, it is predicted that the precipitation currently received in Australia will as climate change progresses, shift slightly southward a few degrees. This will result generally in greater precipitation in northern Australia and less in southern Australia. Only a subtle change - but one that will have enormous impact on Australia's large cities and farming regions.
|
Its a bit hypocritical you would complain about me not providing you with evidence when you get into rants like these?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
Please stop repeating that drivel about global cooling. It has already been demonstrated to you that is a myth in post #366 of this thread
|
A sour note? Predictions from respected scientists where made about Global Cooling. The Media jumped on it, and nobody paid any attention to any talk about Global Warming. Probably because there wasn't any evidence to support it. My point however, still stands, the same disasters you are predicting now were predicted for Global Cooling. Are we at a perfect climate right now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
I have posted none. I have not been trying to prove any point other than that the vast majority of scientific literature on the subject suggests that AGW is occurring
|
Ironically without any literature...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
and the handful of skeptics that still exist have virtually no work in the scientific literature to support their opinions. Opinions which appear frequently in the popular press - but almost never in peer-reviewed journals.
|
This is why nobody bothers to give you sources anymore. You just ignore them. Its laughable really. With no primary literature to back yourself up, you attack mine? Then you move on and proclaim that there isn't any?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs
This was all in response to posters such as PatriotNews, who said there are "scientists who disagree completely with the theory, and its unproven cause/effect relationships, and the faulty data/science behind it." - but he can't find any evidence of that, and C-D-P, who claimed there were "thousands" of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals debunking AGW theory.
|
Well I'm not C-D-P or PatriotNews. On the other hand, you haven't posted any literature, or made a compelling scientific argument to back up your case. There are scientists who disagree with the theory on varying levels, I recently posted a nice meaty list describing some instances of such. Some think that the theory is completely off. Some think that little details are off. Some think that some disaster forecasts are off. My point is that its far from settled science, and that there are too many things we just don't know to go spending money on bizzare attempts to solve the problem. There might not be thousands of pieces of primary literature against AGW, but its there. Posting it can be difficult, as I have said, because you need to subscribe to these journals. I however, have given you a good dosage of peer-reviewed literature, something you have failed to do.