> You're confusing two things, I believe. A GCM is a model; some are better than > others. I'm talking plain ol irradiance data; it's from NASA. You avoided the question. No source, no credibility. Tell me specifically where you obtained those numbers -- name of the NASA report, url, whatever. > Again, you're confusing two things here. Heat does not equal energy. A black car > gets hotter than a white car; doesn't mean that the sun is stronger there. It > means that the amount of absorption is different. Heat is a form of energy. I asked at what altitude the satellite data you were quoting was captured from. How much resistance and absorption energy encounters on its way to a destination DOES matter. > Will you freeze to death in either place? Nope. (Try it!) But in Pennsylvania, > that power came from burning coal. In France, it came from fissioning nuclei > (and hence no CO2 production.) Ahh.. nuclear waste. Greenpeace would be upset with you. They say nuclear power damages the environment. Or are they "not credible", like those moon conspiracy people? Are you planning to build nuclear reactors for unfriendly countries, or will the North Koreans be forced to use wind-farms? > Now, if you're adventurous, try the same thing in a passive solar house. You > will note that you stay warm without either one. With sunny weather, you will get heat from solar, but not anywhere near enough electricity. I suppose Vancouver and Seattle would need to rely on nuclear? > > >What's my point? That homo-sapiens ARE natural, and by default so > > are their actions. > > Oh, nonsense. By that logic, nuclear waste is organic food. Another straw-man fallacy via an unexplained correlation. If you are going to insult my statements, do me the courtesy of describing your reasoning. > >If global warming melts the icecaps and submerges Hong Kong and > >New York City, the "unnatural" changes are simply damaging or > >reversing other "unnatural" changes humans have made to the > > biosphere. It's a vicious cycle -- change begets change and > >I challenge you to justify how some human-caused > >changes are okay, and others aren't, because everything we do is > >part of a dynamic system. > > You are starting to get close to the answer here! (And I note you have now > accepted that we are driving climate change.) Yes, we have a big influence on > the environment. We should carefully plan that influence so it does not destroy > that part of the ecosphere we depend on. Your note is a false accusation. I referred to "human-caused changes". I said no such thing as "we are driving climate change". I do not appreciate you continuing to tell me what I believe and attributing words to me that I did not say. I did not do that to you, and I expect the same courtesy in return. > >>>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing > >>>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria. > > >I'm intrigued by the assumption that my statement refers to you . . . > > I am the 'loudest' person on this board who believes that humans cause climate > change. So I am 'the people' you are talking about. Do you base all your points off telling people what they mean? You are making false attributions *again*. I said nothing about you or "this board" -- I said people in ELECTORAL POLITICS. Between putting words in my mouth and projecting an incredibly self-important image, it's become quite difficult to take you seriously. > I know several of the people who are leaders in the renewable energy field. > Windy Dankoff, a leader in renewable energy. Amory Lovins, the leader of the > Rocky Mountain Institute, who warns incessantly about a human-created climactic > disaster. Neither of these people want power or money; they want to stop what > they see as a coming disaster. So do I. Never heard of them, and neither has the public. I have heard of Al Gore and John Kerry. > So unless you know some of these people who are crying about anthropogenic > warning, and who simply want to create hysteria to profit from it, I stand by my > statement that it's a pretty meaningless thing to say. > > >Since the scientific world is not unified on the primary cause of global > >warming . . . . > > Which is like the creationists saying that the scientific world is not unified > on whether evolution is a fraud, or like a conspiracy theorist saying that top > scientists disagree that the Apollo missions really happened. It's easy to find > someone who dissents if you look hard enough - especially since most energy > companies have a vested financial interest in there NOT being any connection > between humans and climate change. The question is - are they credible? Nope. My point holds true. Last I checked, the scientific world was unified on the theory of gravity, the atomic weight of a Hydrogen molecule, the process of evaporation, how fast light-speed is, how the earth orbits the sun, the effects of radiation on human tissue, and many other causes and effects of observable phenomena. So why not the primary cause of global warming? Wait, let me guess -- is it because those scientists who see things differently than you are "not credible"? Or is it because the ecosphere is an incredibly complex and dynamic system that humans aren't even close to understanding? > Start here. We produce the most CO2; reducing our emissions will have by far the > biggest effect. We already have the technology - efficient vehicles, natural gas > vehicles, solar hot water and power, geothermal, biofuels. > > Then create a treaty; agree with other nations to hold CO2 emissions to a > certain level. Provide financial incentives to countries that are not yet very > developed. Give them free CANDU or thorium-based nuclear reactors. Provide > incentives for wind and solar power. So much for my genuine interest. You avoided mentioning any economic ramifications of your grand plan. But then again, 65 words is far from "details". You repeat enviro-political "soundbites" that I've heard thousands of times from talking-heads in the media. Treaties? The Kyoto treaty is an enormous joke. Russia has gained hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon credits while they continue to pollute at near American levels. Time and time again throughout history treaties are shown to be ineffective; a temporary crutch for those who think words and signatures will make everyone behave properly. Whether or not I think you are "right" in what you believe is far less important to me than how you have arrived at your beliefs and how you defend them in the face of criticism. In my view you have utterly failed to justify your position with any sort of logical process. I still respect you as a person who has strong convictions, at least as far as I can when you throw 1-liners referring to my opinions as "meaningless" and "nonsense", bolster your position by attributing things to me that I did not say, and continue to insist on telling me what I am talking about. On the up-side, you write well -- a rare and valuable skill these days. With that, I believe you could be much more persuasive if you articulated your convictions in a less offensive manner. That's all I have to say to you on this matter. ________________________________________ "One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."
