Mending Ozone Hole May Benefit Climate Change

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The difference is the rate of acceleration of that change. Drag it out over a few thousand years and humans as well as all animal and plant live can adjust hopefully. If those changes occur within in this next century then we're all f##ked. I'll take the worldwide consensus of climate scientist's word for it - that human produced greenhouse gases are rapidly accelerated climate change and on the positive side, there is a good chance that we can not only drastically slow down the rate, but can reverse some of the damage as demonstrated with the ozone. It wasn't until ozone depleting chemicals were banned that we are gradually seeing the ozone hole shrink - whereas before it was growing.

What you don't seem to understand that even if the entire world suddenly became carbon neutral the climate will still do what it is doing, finishing up from the last ice age. We are warming naturally because we are supposed to. CO2 levels are rising as a reaction to warmer weather not from the piddly little amount we contribute. Compared to the naturally occurring CO2 our contribution is minuscule. And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

That's not what the consensus is among climate scientists around the world. I'll take their analysis and predictions over yours, and the majority of people around the world are on board as well.

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

Then you have no idea what the word consensus means, not to mention scientific theory. Doesn't matter though....the whole world has embraced the notion that we must drastically reduce our production of greenhouse gases in hopes of slowing down the rate of acceleration. Thankfully, the scientists who do have a say on such matters and the leaders of the world are all on board.

FWIW:

con·sen·sus

1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

There is no consensus. The GW nuts want you to believe that but it still does not make it so. Every day more and more scientists from around the world are speaking out against the dangerous notion that we can somehow cause GW.

Which countries have rejected the notion that we need to reduce greenhouses gases globally? Which countries have officially said they don't accept that climate change is something they should be concerned about? [waits for Gary to find a coalition of the unwilling]

[mawilson 2,133]

Which countries have rejected the notion that we need to reduce greenhouses gases globally? Which countries have officially said they don't accept that climate change is something they should be concerned about? [waits for Gary to find a coalition of the unwilling]

India, China, India and China

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which countries have rejected the notion that we need to reduce greenhouses gases globally? Which countries have officially said they don't accept that climate change is something they should be concerned about? [waits for Gary to find a coalition of the unwilling]

India, China, India and China

Not really...

BALI, Indonesia (AP) — China insisted Friday the U.S. and other wealthy nations should bear the burden of curbing global warming, saying the problem was created by their lavish way of life. It rejected mandatory emission cuts for its own developing industries.

.....

Su Wei, a top climate expert for China's government attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference, said the job belongs to the wealthy. He said it was unfair to ask developing nations to accept binding emissions cuts and other restrictions being pushed for already industrialized states.

He said the United States and its fellow industrial nations have long spewed greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while newly emerging economies have done so for only a few decades.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/20...onference_N.htm

.......

What they are rejecting to is different from rejecting the science behind it. In spite of that, China has on its own taken measures to reduce its carbon emissions.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[mawilson 2,133]

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

You asked a question, I answered it. Now you're saying that I didn't answer a different question?

You're unbelievable, Steven.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

You asked a question, I answered it. Now you're saying that I didn't answer a different question?

You're unbelievable, Steven.

Gary did. The question was directed at Gary. We were discussing the consensus of the scientific community which he says is BS and that's when I asked him how many countries have rejected Global Warming as something we shouldn't be concerned about. Although China has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, that doesn't mean they reject the scientific theory of Global Warming.

My question still stands - how many countries have come out and basically said, Global Warming is a load of #######? [for Gary, but feel free to answer if you understand the argument here]

[GaryC 7]

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

You asked a question, I answered it. Now you're saying that I didn't answer a different question?

You're unbelievable, Steven.

Gary did. The question was directed at Gary. We were discussing the consensus of the scientific community which he says is BS and that's when I asked him how many countries have rejected Global Warming as something we shouldn't be concerned about. Although China has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, that doesn't mean they reject the scientific theory of Global Warming.

My question still stands - how many countries have come out and basically said, Global Warming is a load of #######? [for Gary, but feel free to answer if you understand the argument here]

What does countries that reject man made GW have to do with anything? Countries are not scientists. Just because a group of people believe something doesn't make it true. You do know that at one time the consensus was the earth was flat? Or maybe the earth was only 6000 years old. Or maybe that man couldn't go faster than the speed of sound? Just because a group of scientists believe something doesn't make it so. The so called "consensus" was based on old data that has since been disputed. But I do agree with Mawilson that your unbelievable, I guess that makes a consensus so that make is so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

You asked a question, I answered it. Now you're saying that I didn't answer a different question?

You're unbelievable, Steven.

Gary did. The question was directed at Gary. We were discussing the consensus of the scientific community which he says is BS and that's when I asked him how many countries have rejected Global Warming as something we shouldn't be concerned about. Although China has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, that doesn't mean they reject the scientific theory of Global Warming.

My question still stands - how many countries have come out and basically said, Global Warming is a load of #######? [for Gary, but feel free to answer if you understand the argument here]

What does countries that reject man made GW have to do with anything? Countries are not scientists. Just because a group of people believe something doesn't make it true. You do know that at one time the consensus was the earth was flat? Or maybe the earth was only 6000 years old. Or maybe that man couldn't go faster than the speed of sound? Just because a group of scientists believe something doesn't make it so. The so called "consensus" was based on old data that has since been disputed. But I do agree with Mawilson that your unbelievable, I guess that makes a consensus so that make is so.

Because of the socio-economic ramifications of such a politically charged subject as Global Warming can have on countries, you can bet your britches it matters whether countries accept the consensus among world climate scientists or reject it.

I'm curious what you're idea is as to why so many countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Are you a Conspiracy Theorist because I can't imagine how else you can explain why so many countries have accepted Global Warming as real.

As for the U.S. - we will ratify the Protocol once we have the right leadership to do it.

[boohbah 0]

All I have to say is...

SAVE THE PENGUINS!

[Fandango 1,439]

When LuckyStrike posted the same article, there were those who called bull$hit. Strange they didn't do it in this thread, don'tcha think?

[mawilson 2,133]

When LuckyStrike posted the same article, there were those who called bull$hit. Strange they didn't do it in this thread, don'tcha think?

Funny how they also ignore scientific papers written by climate scientists

published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (a trendy set of buzzwords they

use consistently to undermine the credibility of anything written by a non-scientist)

that contradict their preconceived opinions.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When LuckyStrike posted the same article, there were those who called bull$hit. Strange they didn't do it in this thread, don'tcha think?

Funny how they also ignore scientific papers written by climate scientists

published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (a trendy set of buzzwords they

use consistently to undermine the credibility of anything written by a non-scientist)

that contradict their preconceived opinions.

Your post yesterdsay....

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1988136

What exactly are you talking about?

[mawilson 2,133]

When LuckyStrike posted the same article, there were those who called bull$hit. Strange they didn't do it in this thread, don'tcha think?

Funny how they also ignore scientific papers written by climate scientists

published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (a trendy set of buzzwords they

use consistently to undermine the credibility of anything written by a non-scientist)

that contradict their preconceived opinions.

Your post yesterdsay....

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1988136

What exactly are you talking about?

This

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When LuckyStrike posted the same article, there were those who called bull$hit. Strange they didn't do it in this thread, don'tcha think?

Funny how they also ignore scientific papers written by climate scientists

published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (a trendy set of buzzwords they

use consistently to undermine the credibility of anything written by a non-scientist)

that contradict their preconceived opinions.

Your post yesterdsay....

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1988136

What exactly are you talking about?

This

Which means what? You are now rejecting the science behind Global Warming? If so, you've just done a 180 from what you were saying yesterday.

[mawilson 2,133]

When LuckyStrike posted the same article, there were those who called bull$hit. Strange they didn't do it in this thread, don'tcha think?

Funny how they also ignore scientific papers written by climate scientists

published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (a trendy set of buzzwords they

use consistently to undermine the credibility of anything written by a non-scientist)

that contradict their preconceived opinions.

Your post yesterdsay....

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1988136

What exactly are you talking about?

This

Which means what? You are now rejecting the science behind Global Warming? If so, you've just done a 180 from what you were saying yesterday.

There are many models and theories, and I'm not rejecting anything right now.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When LuckyStrike posted the same article, there were those who called bull$hit. Strange they didn't do it in this thread, don'tcha think?

Funny how they also ignore scientific papers written by climate scientists

published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (a trendy set of buzzwords they

use consistently to undermine the credibility of anything written by a non-scientist)

that contradict their preconceived opinions.

Your post yesterdsay....

Who said anything about rejecting the science behind it???

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1988136

What exactly are you talking about?

This

Which means what? You are now rejecting the science behind Global Warming? If so, you've just done a 180 from what you were saying yesterday.

There are many models and theories, and I'm not rejecting anything right now.

I for one trust the scientific consensus among climate scientists worldwide. The Kyoto Protocol took place under Clinton's Administration but needed Congress to ratify. With Obama in the WH and a Democratic majority in Congress, we will ratify the Protocol. Even if McCain were to get elected, there will be enough support in Congress to get it ratified.