Paul, you have been trained in scientific inquiry.  What are your thoughts on this Al Gore Global Warming stuff.  What I am reading is that its just a theory unsubstantiated  by any meaningfull facts.  I plan to write my senators and congressmen to vote "NO" on this matter but would sure like your input.  Maybe some other folks here at THL would be interested also.

Care to comment?

Ol' John...

Follow the money trail. Who makes money on carbon credits and all this other "whoha"? Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my young age.

It's tough to comment casually, John, and equally tough to comment fully and make the reading 'easy'. That's why, for the most part, I have declined to join threads on the subject here at THL.
 
That said, here is my opinion on the matter based on about 27 years of dealing with the issue as part of fisheries management science.
 
1) There is credible scientific evidence that the earth has been 'warming' in the the last 150 years.
 
2) There is very little credible scientific evidence that the warming is "anthropogenic" - caused by human activity.
 
3) The scientific community in the past 60 years has completely lost all objectivity, and be it "evolution" or "global" warming, as long as you are "for" the "good" side of the conflict, it's perfectly "OK" to falsify the data. As a result, there is NO truth to be found on ANY politically-charged subject.
 
The scientists of today are no better than voodoo priests, and the masses are left on their own to find the Truth on ALL politically-charged matters. It has never been more true than it is today that one MUSt be extremely cautious when trusting/accepting "truth" from experts. Especially the self-proclaimed experts that all scientists are. (The self-proclamation coming in the form of their academic "credentials".)
 
4) The unambiguous goal of the "treaties" and "agreements" surrounding anthropogenic global warming is to weaken the economy of the US. (Of course any American that makes sucha claim is shouted down as a "nationalist" fascist.) The truth is however, that the biggest 'polluters' are given a "pass" because they are "developing" and don't need the added "burden" of adhering to the constraints that the "developed" countries must. When one objectively considers the impact that adherance to the "treaty " conditions means to Europe vs the US, the differences are staggering. The US 'takes it in the shorts", and is THE ONLY NATION ON THE PLANET THAT DOES. Because this is so blatantly obvious, the spin-doctors (in this case NOT politicians but sons of bachelor 'scientific experts'), use "relative" values.
 
Specifically: You will NEVER hear the absolute values for which are the that nations are putting the most "greeenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere. You will only hear that the US puts more "per capita" than any other INDUSTIALIZED nation. In other words, we are neither putting in the most nor are we putting in the most in the "industialized" world. We are just putting in more per person than MOST, but NOT ALL, of the other industrialized nations.
 
So, from a purely scientific perspective, ignoring politics, if you had to stop the "pollution", would you get more 'bang for your buck' in stopping the process if you reduce the production of 'bad' gasses from the the country that produces THE MOST or the one that produces the most PER CAPITA? It's a rhetorical question. Every trained scientist in the world knows the answer is: "Stop the greatest source, not the greatest relative source.
 
Let me abstract the concept. You have a person with two bleeding wounds. One is a small quarter-inch hole the other is a 4-inch cut. The 4-inch cut is just below the skin on the arm. The quarter-inch hole is in the aorta. From a relative perspective, the 4-inch cut is the "bigger" cut but it's only producing 25ml of bloodloss per minute. The quarter-inch hole, on the other hand, is 'squirting' blood at a rate of a liter a minute (400 times worse volumetrically). Using the "global warming treaty" as a guide, we would ignore the quarter-inch hole because it's "just a quarter inch in diameter" and concentrate on the 4-inch cut, because it's relatively "bigger". This isn't hyperbole. The "global warming" issue and treaty are as absurd as the above example.
 
a) Reducing emmisions OF ALL SORTS, is a very "good" idea for humanity.
 
b) Becoming less dependent on carbon for fuel is "good" for humanity.
 
Anthropogenic global warming has NOTHING to do with "a" and "b" above.
 
Paul

from what i have read about the treaty they are contemplating and what obama was to promise in europe was that the usa was to give billions of dollars to the "developing" nations to help them attain control of their emissions.  again the american tax payer is to finance everything for the world.  from police actions, wars, rebuilding distroyed nations and now emissions problems.  when do we get a break.

Quote from: buffalo bob;100098when do we get a break.

I reckon about the time we realise that rampant consumerism is an unsustainable way of life.
I reckon we stop rebuilding nations when we stop destroying said nation on the asumptions of a group of imbeciles
 
And i reckon we stop policing nations when we stop supplying the criminals of said nations with the means and excuse to be criminals.
 
But that's just my opinion!!:huh2:

I agree entirely with Paul's conclusion.
Science has moved from "testing and examining" theories to treating which ever pop theory currently gets press like the absolute truth.
I'm tired of hearing about this problem and that problem and want to see a halt to the squabbling about who has the biggest problem.
I'm also tired of people berating the ideas that people put forward to solve said problems.
What happens in the end is that they tell us that things aren't solutions and no one does anything.
It's like 3 idiots in the dark arguing why a candle isn't as good as a flashlight but a flashlight isn't as good as a primus lantern and then all agreeing they aren't good as the sun.
OK, they have a point but they're still in the dark.
In the end, global warming or no, we need to reduce polutants.
And Fieldmor is right too.
We should be halting consumerism and maintaining what we have.
Now, I'm just off to glance through the new Tikka catalog...... :D

QuoteNow, I'm just off to glance through the new Tikka catalog......

NO,  YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO THROUGH YOUR TIKKA CATALOGUE UNTIL YOU HAVE SOLVED ALL THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS,  YOUNG MAN!!!
 
And while you're at it,  maybe consider wearing your undies on the outside of your pants.

But then I'll get skid marks in my jeans too.......

Kombi and Jesusgecko, i think both of you have the potential to be very sick fellows indeed!!.

Quote from: Fieldmor77;100146Kombi and Jesusgecko, i think both of you have the potential to be very sick fellows indeed!!.

How dare you spread such a scurrilous and accurate rumour!! :grin:

If I know I'm going crazy,  I must not be insane.

Y'know, for some reason that reminds of the joke about the 3 cows who are discussing Mad Cow Disease.
The first cow says "I really hope we don't get sick."
The second cow says "It's certainly a worry. It would be curtains for us."
But the third cow says "Well, I'm not worried."
The other 2 ask "Why's that?"
And the third replies "Because I'm a chicken."