Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Walter Sobchak]

See answer above. If the cost of stopping CO2 rise is to irreparably cripple the world economy, we would probably be better off forging ahead with fossil fuels. At the same time, I am hopeful that a gradual transition to cleaner energies and nuclear energies will make some kind of dent.

You argue very passionately about this issue. However, until such a transition to cleaner energies occurs, every other small strategy should be considered. No? As such, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22508439>

"Most insects are are likely to produce fewer environmentally harmful greenhouse gases than other livestock."

Also see reason #5 in video below:

Please return and report.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You argue very passionately about this issue. However, until such a transition to cleaner energies occurs, every other small strategy should be considered. No? As such, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22508439>

"Most insects are are likely to produce fewer environmentally harmful greenhouse gases than other livestock."

Also see reason #5 in video below:

Please return and report.

Ha. Good catch.

There are lots of compelling environmental arguments for ditching beef and pork and moving to a more vegetarian diet. Alas, I don't think I could ever stop being a carnivore.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

How do we explain the cooling scare 40 years ago, and scientists assertion that we were headed for another ice age? Were C02 levels falling then, or were scientists just wrong? Also, what explains the warmer climate in in the first Millenium AD? Ultimately, my skepticism lies in the observation that scientists always seem to be forecasting a calamity that never comes to fruition. I'm not saying they're wrong regarding climate change, but I'm hesitant to endorse any major changes to our economy based on their predictions, based on their track record. Also, anyone on either side of the argument who bases their argument on the last 5, 10, or 20 years' temps needs to take a refresher course in statistics.

This makes sense.

I do too.
I agree. The problem I see is that nobody can agree on which clean energy to use. Wind kills birds, nuclear creates potential for truly catastrophic disaster, dams kill fish, etc. Ultimately, I think we may be better off trying to create incentives to do simple things that use CO2 - plant trees, create more green space, etc., but I've not done the math on that and don't know if it would make a dent.

The Hetchy Hetchy reservoir provides a significant amount of hydroelectric power to San Francisco, but the environmentalists there want to blow up the dam. Ask them how they want to replace the power and you won't receive an answer. Hydroelectric power produces 15% of the total electricity in California -- and the environmentalists hate every bit of it. I say build more and more dams. More places to wakeboard and more pollution-free power.

Aside from hydro, natural gas represents the best compromise. We have a ton of it and it's cleaner than oil and hugely cleaner than coal.

[Guest]

Ha. Good catch.

There are lots of compelling environmental arguments for ditching beef and pork and moving to a more vegetarian diet. Alas, I don't think I could ever stop being a carnivore.

Even though I've seen insects cooked in all kinds of ways, you'd be hard pressed to cook any insect and have it turn out better than good old barbeque pork or a thick juicy steak.

[Walter Sobchak]

Ha. Good catch.

There are lots of compelling environmental arguments for ditching beef and pork and moving to a more vegetarian diet. Alas, I don't think I could ever stop being a carnivore.

For someone that keeps droning on and on, I now know you aren't a true beeliever.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For someone that keeps droning on and on, I now know you aren't a true beeliever.

Don't bee such a drama queen.

[cowboy]

The cooling scare of the 70's has been grossly exaggerated by global warming skeptics. 90% of the scientific articles at the time predicted a warming trend, not cooling. There wasn't anything close to a cooling consensus in the 70's.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2008BAMS2370.1

Don't reject science just yet, amigo.

Interesting article. I don't reject science at all, but I am always hesitant to make drastic changes based on forecasts, whether they be in the climate, economy, or the migration of my hair from the crown of my head to my nose and back. I'm much more inclined to prepare for the effects of any possible change, as stopping the change is unlikely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything to try to curb C02 levels, but bringing the global economy to a screeching halt over it will likely kill more people than climate change itself.

[All-American]

Interesting article. I don't reject science at all, but I am always hesitant to make drastic changes based on forecasts, whether they be in the climate, economy, or the migration of my hair from the crown of my head to my nose and back. I'm much more inclined to prepare for the effects of any possible change, as stopping the change is unlikely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything to try to curb C02 levels, but bringing the global economy to a screeching halt over it will likely kill more people than climate change itself.

Interesting fact: the guy who wrote that article walked on the moon. It doesn't really add to anybody's point, but pretty cool, huh?

[Surfah]

Interesting fact: the guy who wrote that article walked on the moon. It doesn't really add to anybody's point, but pretty cool, huh?

Well since nobody has walked on the moon, there goes the credibility of that article.

[SoCalCoug]

I think I'll defer to my man, Neil deGrasse Tyson, on whether there's a scientific consensus about a human influence on global warming.

[Indy Coug]

I think I'll defer to my man, Neil deGrasse Tyson, on whether there's a scientific consensus about a human influence on global warming.

But what does he think about the existence of Bigfoot?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think I'll defer to my man, Neil deGrasse Tyson, on whether there's a scientific consensus about a human influence on global warming.

That's a great clip and he is right on the money in terms of how scientific consensus works and how the general public often gets a very skewed portrayal of that consensus. And most scientists I know who are working in this area prefer to avoid the political issues. They just want to do the science and follow the data.

[Jeff Lebowski]

But what does he think about the existence of Bigfoot?

There is a consensus.

[SoCalCoug]

But what does he think about the existence of Bigfoot?

I don't know, but it's probably similar to his opinion of the existence of aliens:

[Pelado]

Despite resistance from many researchers, the German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years' lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies. "Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-923937.html