On Sep 14, 2:33*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: On Sep 14, 1:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

*Is there some reason to believe in
an anthropogenic contribution to warming? *Possibly. But
it's not as cut and dried as you like. *

What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors
that affect climate.

You want to take
a shot at making the case ... be my guest.

Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here
is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global
warmiing?" *That question is only of interest if you worship
the earth and think humans are pox upon it. *The questions
of interest a

I disagree.

I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes
in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.

I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other
aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests
lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed
with the fundamentals.


1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?

2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger
* *to mankind?

3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind
* *do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or
* *consequences?

At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove,
and may change) these answers:

1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. *There
* *does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but
* *how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. *If you
* *you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition
* *you like.

2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm
* *climates as a rule. * Water rising in the ocean could
* *contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population
* *of the planet. *However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen -
* *if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific
* *sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.

3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts
* *(whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that
* *mankind has the resources to do all that much about. *In this
* *worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do
* *best: adapt. *The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better
* *than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough,
* *deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful
* *(energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".

Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally
animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and
socialist/Marxist political ideology. *They are not credible witnesses
to the questions or their remediation.

The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but
they too have agendas. *Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but
the people who do science are not. *They are driven by their desire
for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the
GW boogeman. *Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question
the doomsayers:


Perhaps you didn't understand.

I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
civil manner.

E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using
language such as scaremongers, Peace Prize Boy, earth
worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology,
boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep
scientific sages, and drone followers because those
and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding
or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any
such discussion from taking place.

--

FF