Global Warming Debate

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by retclt

Hey Stu,

I don't argue most of the science of it. I argue the politics of it. My simple mind hears "Bob - you're evil and destroying the planet. I'm going to force you into submission", and then I think - what a load of crap!

On the last paragraph . . . there should be a bar fight thread to go to. Did you get beat up after school a lot when you were a kid?

I'm not saying you're evil. I'm not saying you're destroying the planet. All I'm advocating is a modest change (coal+NG -> nuclear) that we're going to have to do anyway (due to rising energy demand) in the near future. Doing so sooner (~20 years vs ~80 years) should spread out climate shifts over longer time, causing less money to be spent on (acutely) moving climate related infrastructure. It's all about opportunity cost.

As for the last para... I'm really just trying to avoid a hopeless argument. If a person is honestly undecided on the age of the Earth (young vs old) I have no hope of convincing them (of anything) by any scientific argument.

[PBzeer]

Stu - why is it you persist in using the term denier? No one is denying the earth is warming. I don't even have to be a scientist to know that. Simple observation over the past 50 years tells me it's warmer. What I AM, is skeptical of the claims of the gw alarmist crowd. As I don't impugn your thought processes, it would seem, common courtesy would be for you to extend the same to me. Otherwise, there's no point in trying to make any point with you.

[retclt]

Originally Posted by majorm

retclt- I am just curious. Since you agree with the science of global warming, what, if anything, do you think our government should do about it? Do you think there are things our government should do when there are problems in the world, i.e. Iraq?

I said I don’t argue “Most” of the science of it. I don’t agree with "the science". The GW side has said the argument is over and all agree that GW is real. I disagree. I can’t say GW doesn’t exist. I don’t necessarily agree that my Ram is going to send us all to hell. I like the fission idea . . . if Stu is talking nuclear. I love the nuclear idea if you are talking war. If the problem in the world involves Radical Islamists trying to get a nuke to drop on me then HELL YES!!! I think it’s the Governments job to do something about it. The difference is that the Radical Islamists are telling us their intentions to our face. Mother Earth has a translator (mostly liberal elitist, grant scientists, and politicians) telling us what she is planning and I don’t really think the translator knows the language better than another.

Stu, I agree with your last paragraph. It just comes across as a swipe.

I think the Earth is older than dirt . . . personally.

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Stu - why is it you persist in using the term denier? No one is denying the earth is warming. I don't even have to be a scientist to know that. Simple observation over the past 50 years tells me it's warmer. What I AM, is skeptical of the claims of the gw alarmist crowd. As I don't impugn your thought processes, it would seem, common courtesy would be for you to extend the same to me. Otherwise, there's no point in trying to make any point with you.

Which specific 'alarmist' claims are you referring to? Am I an 'alarmist'? Do you find any specific 'alarmist' claims in the IPCC report?

'Denier' aptly applies to anyone who does an ostrich impression when faced with facts they don't like (or worse... don't like the source). If that's not you, then good for you, but there are a few deniers on this forum, who are in fact arguing that the warming is NOT happening.

The rational argument to be having at this point, is how much AGW it is rational (i.e. cost-effective) to try and stop, not whether it is happening at all (that scientific argument is over, FAPP) or what is causing it (also over, FAPP).

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by retclt

I said I don’t argue “Most” of the science of it. I don’t agree with "the science". The GW side has said the argument is over and all agree that GW is real. I disagree. I can’t say GW doesn’t exist. I don’t necessarily agree that my Ram is going to send us all to hell. I like the fission idea . . . if Stu is talking nuclear. I love the nuclear idea if you are talking war. If the problem in the world involves Radical Islamists trying to get a nuke to drop on me then HELL YES!!! I think it’s the Governments job to do something about it. The difference is that the Radical Islamists are telling us their intentions to our face. Mother Earth has a translator (mostly liberal elitist, grant scientists, and politicians) telling us what she is planning and I don’t really think the translator knows the language better than another.

Stu, I agree with your last paragraph. It just comes across as a swipe.

I think the Earth is older than dirt . . . personally.

Your RAM is small potatoes. Besides, I like to solve engineering problems, not social issues. If the people of Los Vegas all want green lawns, it's far easier for me to simply get them more water than it is to try and convince them that green lawns are silly in the desert.

[retclt]

Ram it is! I'm gettin' the Cumins Diesel next week!

[StuMyers]

Oh, well NOW you're destroying the planet, you evil Texan bastard.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by StuMyers

.........or what is causing it (also over, FAPP).

See, I don't agree with this, the arguement over what is causing it is far from over, and until you put aside the politics, the real anwser will never be known

[retclt]

Originally Posted by StuMyers

Oh, well NOW you're destroying the planet, you evil Texan bastard.

That's right you pocket pen and pencil protector wearing on your neatly pressed white short sleeve shirt geek.

[StuMyers]

Actually, I should confess that I kinda half hope that AGW is not curbed. I'm pretty curious to see how fast we can raise the Earth's temperature. It's kinda like when you're playing SimCity. The fun part isn't building the city, it's unleashing the disasters.