Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
ZardozPlease elaborate on that.
It's called attacking the source.
http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
See ad hominem (circumstantial) under "attacking the person".
ZardozPlease elaborate on that.
danoffIt's called attacking the source.
http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
See ad hominem (circumstantial) under "attacking the person".
FamineDavid Bellamy? Meet the face of corporate evil:
ZardozDo you feel that a person's or organization's motives should never be questioned or even brought up? Environmentalists are under constant savage attack for their motives. Seems like its only fair to point out things like oil industry donations to the skeptic organizations.
Well, I would say something about this but the environmental groups said it for me in this very article. I could give multiple quotes where they think it is all just for show and not anyone actually rying to do anything abpout global warming, but I will give the one that summarizes it all.ZardozThe reality is getting harder and harder to deny:
Britain launches energy review in face of global warming
I also posted this in the oil crunch thread, because it applies to that little problem, as well.
The government launched an urgent public consultation on future energy policy on Monday but was accused by green groups of using it to mask a decision already taken in secret to build new nuclear power plants.
FoolKiller...In other words, they really aren't worried. They just want nuclear.
FamineIt is?
Touring MarsIt seems to me that the current available evidence is pointing in the direction of human activity rather than a natural cycle. That is the problem with evidence. No one single piece of evidence is of value in and of itself. Only with the slow and steady accumulation of mutually supporting evidence does one start to get a clearer picture of reality. The problem we are faced with is really a question of how to interpret the evidence we do have, and then we need to make a judgement call based on the strength of that evidence, whilst accumulating more evidence as we go along. But in the absence of conclusive evidence either for or against GW caused by human activity, it would be sheer folly to disregard the trends...
The cost of being wrong about this issue is potentially catastrophic. If those who believe that the current evidence points to global warming by human activity are wrong, but industrial emissions are cut anyway, then the consequences will not be any worse than they were going to be... no-one loses, apart from big businesses who are doing most of the polluting. But if it turns out that they are right, and the evidence (as it stands now) is ignored or (more likely) not judged to be substantial enough to justify action, then we are all in big trouble... (well, our grandkids will be anyway...) My point is, we can, in my view, only benefit by cutting emissions, so why not do it anyway?
If they make it work right it will be like having a composte heap for oil. 👍DeLoreanBrownime sorta w/ FK, we should put all our chicken parts in the pressure kiln to makea teh gravy !
The scientists in this article say it will take up to 1000 years. I guess we won't be running out of fossil fuels and won't have made any technological advancements by then? These predictions assume a lot and, in my opinion, underestimate our future technological abilities. If we aren't doing something different in 1000 years then we are screwed based on population growth versus power supply alone. Forget global warming, if the assumptions of these guys are right then we won't even be able to produce enough power to support civilization as we know it.ZardozSeems to be a pattern developing here. More and more stuff like this:
Curbing climate change 'unlikely'
"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
One collection of scientific papers sets out the impacts associated with various levels of temperature increase.
"Above a one degree Celsius increase, risks increase significantly, often rapidly for vulnerable ecosystems and species," concludes Bill Hare from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research in Germany, who produced an overview of more than 70 studies of impacts on water resources, agriculture and wildlife.
"In the one to two degree range, risks across the board increase significantly, and at a regional level are often substantial," he writes.
"Above two degrees the risks increase very substantially, involving potentially large numbers of extinctions or even ecosystem collapses, major increases in hunger and water shortage risks as well as socio-economic damages, particularly in developing countries."
FoolKillerThe scientists in this article say it will take up to 1000 years.
ZardozYeah, a thousand years for the seas to rise 21 feet:
This would have a major impact on sea levels globally, though it would take up to 1,000 years to see the full predicted rise of seven metres.
Above two degrees, says the report, the risks increase "very substantially", with "potentially large numbers of extinctions" and "major increases in hunger and water shortage risks... particularly in developing countries."
Global temps have already risen one degree C., and just about everybody seems to agree that adding only one more takes us into uncharted territory. Many think that is coming, no matter what we do now.
It's all about the "tipping points" and the "positive feedback" mechanisms. Once those are at work, we're reduced to spectating. The great fear is that there won't be anything we can do to stop it by then...
Maybe I am reading this wrong but it seems like they expect the tipping point to happen over a thousand years.from the article"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."
Blue=factual information."Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."
FoolKiller..."possibly." That was a jump.
It has nothing to do with the number. It has to do with the fact that by using the word "possibly" he admits to making an assumption without fact. Any scientist should know to never use words such as possibly in a conclusion. It is a big no-no that I learned in third grade when I learned about the scientific method.ZardozJust curious: What number would change your opinion? 400? 500?