FLMountainMan: I think much of the backlash is not that the data is wrong, it's what the data is being used to justify. I have no doubt the earth is warming unnaturally. Absolutely none. But I'm staunchly opposed to mandating a ton of wilderness-space-eating, grossly-inefficient "renewable" energy generators to supposedly fight it. Because it's not going to do a damn thing. Even the most pie-in-the-sky estimates have it as a 0.2 degree effect.And I also think lumping in every effort to fight pollution or preserve wilderness space as somehow "fighting global warming" is stupid and short-sighted. Marketing the banning of PCBs, for example, as some sort of effort to fight global warming, instead of focusing on birth defects, cancer rates, etc.... means that most people will (erroneously) discredit your campaign every time a blizzard rolls through.
Damnhippyfreak: As far as I remember, brantgoose is in Canada, where the titular head of state or Sovereign remains the Queen of England. No pond-crossing required./the more you know
Mugato: GeneralJim: Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.You have the exact opposite position of what science is about.
HighZoolander: Even if you just factored in the typical waste disposal problem with nuclear, I suspect 200 acres would not be nearly enough. Plus it seems like it would be much easier to decommission a wind farm than a nuclear site, if we later decide we want to use the land for something else.
IlGreven: But again, if I were to trust anyone, I'd trust the direct source, rather than those who only cite them. IOW, You don't trust Al Gore or Christopher Monckton directly, you trust the scientist that Gore or Monckton cited. And you'll find that again and again, it's more likely that a scientist will call out Monckton (and Watts) more often than they'll call out Gore (mainly because Gore has already said his piece.)/Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled panels on climate change invited Monckton to give a dissertation on a certain paper...instead of the scientist who actually wrote the paper.//Those guys need to be divested of their power post-haste.
HighZoolander: But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy
TsukasaK: The consensus is that climate is changing. Okay; that much is clear.The big questions remaining then:* Is this a bad thing* Can we or should we do anything about it
brantgoose: As a Government employee I swore an oath of allegeance to the Queen and to her Government. I promised to keep Her Secrets and Her Government's Secrets. A report is only public domain when it is published, and the taxpayer, God bless her, does not have a right to read Government secrets until the government releases them. I have not got the right to divulge those secrets until they are declassified, and even though I know that most secret documents are only temporarily secret, I still have no right to publish them.
TsukasaK: So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?
Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.
GAT_00: Sun may well be warming the planetYeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing. Relatively insignificant.
GeneralJim: Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.
/P.T. Barnum also sounded convincing when he sold the egress to the untrained eye.
TsukasaK: What is a layman to do? The documents linked in that article are greek to me and would be to the great majority of the population.
TsukasaK: How energy policy affects jobs, the economy, and the environment, are a different matter altogether.
So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?
People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.
Uh huh. Well, I don't have a leaked copy, but I do know what was in the last one and I have second and third hand knowledge of this one, so... Sun may well be warming the planet Yeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing. Relatively insignificant.
Sun may well be warming the planet
NFA: While I'm not personally on the global warming boat, if that website told me the sun would rise in the east, I would look out the window to check, before I believed them.
FLMountainMan: Since we're lazily snarking away with false dichotomies (slacktivism at its finest) - Yeah, you're completely right. We should be building 22,000 acre wind farm power plants that at peak capacity offer as much power as a 200 acre nuclear plant. Sure. Sounds great.
maxheck: 200 square miles enough for you?I would be more willing to listen to the nuclear fans if only...
FLMountainMan: And, by the way, I meant what we can actually change (specifically, if Western countries fully implemented Kyoto what the actual net effect on temperature would be), not the actual increase in global temperature. (Never mind for a moment that carbon emissions have actually decreased more in the non-Kyoto West than the Kyoto West, that's an argument for another day). Why you interpreted it that way, when combined with my label as "pie-in-the-sky" is puzzling, but it's the Net, misinterpretation is the norm.
TsukasaK: IlGreven: ...that's why the untrained eye isn't and shouldn't be used to make decisions on climate change. And those who are in power who willfully remain untrained eyes should be removed from the decision-making process.That's just it though; it's not humanly possible for every politician (or heck, every voter) who is voting one way or another to be a subject matter expert in whatever it is they're voting for. There are too many subjects and not enough people or hours in the day.
TsukasaK: From an untrained eye, both "sides" here, those who say climate change is human caused and those who say it isn't, seem to both have convincing arguments.
St_Francis_P: log_jammin: St_Francis_P: Nice blog; but until I see an authoritative YouTube video on the subject, I'm remaining skeptical.here you go.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7AThe experts have spoken; let there be no further doubt!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 28 2017 17:35:14
Runtime: 0.382 sec (381 ms)