As the Beach Boys once said, wouldn't it be nice?
-Jester
To demonstrate strict causality in a system this complex is basically impossible. If you're waiting for that before you endorse a position on this issue, you'll wait forever.
However it is nigh impossible to construct a consistent model of past climate without using greenhouse gases as one of the major forcings. You need to rely on some other theory, such as the cycles of the sun, and those are much less supported by correlation.
We need to weight the evidence, and think in terms of probability. The forcing we are currently observing requires an explanation, and greenhouse gasses are the one that best fits. It's not a guarantee, but I don't think it has to be, given how high the stakes are on this issue.
-Jester
You're going to teach your kids about propaganda by showing them how to approach things with pre-existing conclusions, and not listen to anything that doesn't support them?
I agree with you that nuclear power is a necessary precondition to an environmentally sustainable civilization. But I don't think it's fair to say that anyone saying otherwise shouldn't be listened to. It is, after all, a far from ideal solution.
-Jester
Edit: What the heck? Somehow all my posts ended up condensed into one.
-Jester
Quote:Both political sides of the global warming issue are absolute lunatics as far as I am concerned. Watch this commercial that was created specifically as a rebuttal to the Al Gore movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo...arbon%20dioxide
What are you trying to suggest? That the government is going to ban exhaling? What a joke.
Not that I am 100% on the side of the global warming promoters by any stretch of the imagination... many studies have shown a correlation between CO2 levels but none have shown casuality. Isn't it like Econ 101 that correlation != causality?
To demonstrate strict causality in a system this complex is basically impossible. If you're waiting for that before you endorse a position on this issue, you'll wait forever.
However it is nigh impossible to construct a consistent model of past climate without using greenhouse gases as one of the major forcings. You need to rely on some other theory, such as the cycles of the sun, and those are much less supported by correlation.
We need to weight the evidence, and think in terms of probability. The forcing we are currently observing requires an explanation, and greenhouse gasses are the one that best fits. It's not a guarantee, but I don't think it has to be, given how high the stakes are on this issue.
-Jester
Quote:As to the film, I will be taking my children to see it because I am trying to teach them about propaganda. As soon as Al Gore jumps on the "build more nuke power plants" bandwagon, I will consider listening to him about energy, environment, and the best fit solution sets proposed for human beings to establish a sustainable system that doesn't devour itself.
You're going to teach your kids about propaganda by showing them how to approach things with pre-existing conclusions, and not listen to anything that doesn't support them?
I agree with you that nuclear power is a necessary precondition to an environmentally sustainable civilization. But I don't think it's fair to say that anyone saying otherwise shouldn't be listened to. It is, after all, a far from ideal solution.
-Jester
Edit: What the heck? Somehow all my posts ended up condensed into one.