Global Warming Debate - Page 333

poopdeckpappy · #**3321** (**permalink**) 12-22-2011

hear hear

jzk · #**3322** (**permalink**) 12-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

I'm fairly undecided about the human activity component of GWCC but what happens if you're wrong?

What happens if you are wrong? What happens if we regulate CO2 production? Who is hurt? Will I be hurt? Maybe slightly, but I can afford it. The well-to-do western liberal environmentalists won't be hurt.

It will be the poor that will be hurt. Whenever you divert resources away from more productive/efficient uses to less productive/efficient uses, people will suffer, and those people will be overwhelmingly the poor.

Isn't science supposed to be the objective testing of alternative hypotheses? Does the IPPC do any scientific research? Do they consider alternative hypotheses? Do they entertain science that might indicate no need for policy change? Or are they in the policy changing business? Their conclusion on AGW is predetermined. They will only consider science that justifies their conclusion. The IPPC published their first assesment report in 1990 and stated that they are "certain" that emissions resulting from human activities are causing warming of the Earth's surface. What? They are "certain?" Does that strike you as an odd way to phrase their conclusion?

What is my interest in whether or not there is AGW? The only interest is that if there is no AGW, mankind is better off. And that mankind would be worse off if we implemented the policies that the AGW crowd are advocating.

What is Al Gore's interest? How many millions of dollars has he made promoting AGW and the remedy for such?

So before we go regulating CO2, a compound so natural, so "good" for the Earth that the existence of all living things depends upon it, let's get the science right.

SloopJonB · #**3323** (**permalink**) 12-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jzk

Does the IPPC do any scientific research?

Your opinions expressed here might carry a little more weight, maybe even draw less scorn, if they evinced the SLIGHTEST indication that you had actually done some investigation of what it is you are talking about.

As my Xmas gift to you I'll save you 8 seconds of searching the internet;

Quote:

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

From the IPCC website.

jzk · #**3324** (**permalink**) 12-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

Your opinions expressed here might carry a little more weight, maybe even draw less scorn, if they evinced the SLIGHTEST indication that you had actually done some investigation of what it is you are talking about.

As my Xmas gift to you I'll save you 8 seconds of searching the internet;

From the IPCC website.

Are you kidding me? Of course I already know that they don't do any research. Did you think that I was just asking you to find the answer for me? This is about the most ridiculous response to a post that I have ever read.

BentSailor · #**3325** (**permalink**) 12-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jzk

Are you kidding me? Of course I already know that they don't do any research. Did you think that I was just asking you to find the answer for me? This is about the most ridiculous response to a post that I have ever read.

You'll have to forgive the man. See most people complaining about the IPCC haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about.

Yamsailor · #**3326** (**permalink**) 12-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jzk

What happens if you are wrong? What happens if we regulate CO2 production? Who is hurt? Will I be hurt? Maybe slightly, but I can afford it. The well-to-do western liberal environmentalists won't be hurt.

It will be the poor that will be hurt. Whenever you divert resources away from more productive/efficient uses to less productive/efficient uses, people will suffer, and those people will be overwhelmingly the poor.

Isn't science supposed to be the objective testing of alternative hypotheses? Does the IPPC do any scientific research? Do they consider alternative hypotheses? Do they entertain science that might indicate no need for policy change? Or are they in the policy changing business? Their conclusion on AGW is predetermined. They will only consider science that justifies their conclusion. The IPPC published their first assesment report in 1990 and stated that they are "certain" that emissions resulting from human activities are causing warming of the Earth's surface. What? They are "certain?" Does that strike you as an odd way to phrase their conclusion?

What is my interest in whether or not there is AGW? The only interest is that if there is no AGW, mankind is better off. And that mankind would be worse off if we implemented the policies that the AGW crowd are advocating.

What is Al Gore's interest? How many millions of dollars has he made promoting AGW and the remedy for such?

So before we go regulating CO2, a compound so natural, so "good" for the Earth that the existence of all living things depends upon it, let's get the science right.

JZK--You still have not answered the question. What happens if you are wrong?

jackdale · #**3327** (**permalink**) 12-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yamsailor

JZK--You still have not answered the question. What happens if you are wrong?

I wonder if he wears a seat belt when he in a car. There is no evidence that he is actually going to have an accident. For sure he does not wear a pfd.