BuffettNews.com

jonesbeach10 wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:At the risk of entering a political argument which I usually dont do here, this is a treatise that I sent to the local papers blog a few weeks ago.

Please note that all of your arguments about polar bears etc address the issue of global warming ... not the cause of global warming. Logic is an underused quality in this political climate, I fear.

Can we please assign scientific theory here to what is a problem clearly for science, not politicians and the press, to study. Science is the ascertaining of facts, and assembling them into first a hypothesis, then a theory.

It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend. While we may be producing "greenhouse gasses", which is a trendy term, there is no evidence whatsoever that our insignificant contribution those naturally occurring gasses is causative of global warming. It is purely supposition on the part of some politicians and scientists, and that hypothesis is at least questioned by a greater number of scientists than believe in it.

Scientists are not infallible and it is possible that the opinions of those that believe that global warming is caused by humans are politically motivated. It is also possible that those who deny the same are also motivated by politics. Most importantly, to the great many scientists who are not driven by politics there simply are no facts to support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, merely supposition.

So by the scientific method, we can determine that the Earth may be beginning a warming cycle. We can determine nothing more than that.

Let’s continue to study, and perhaps someday Al Gore will be proven right. Most likely he will be proven wrong, in my opinion, because usually when we base our hypotheses on an ego driven inflated outlook on our place in the history of the Earth, we turn out to be wrong. Witness the "Coming Ice Age" theory of a few decades ago, not to mention the "Flat Earth" and "Earth as the Center of the Universe" theories of centuries ago.

Should we clean up our act and reduce pollution including greenhouse gas production? Yes, of course we should. The clean water act of 1972 has left us with cleaner, safer water to drink. It has not "saved the planet" because the planet was not in danger from our trivial meddling, even while our own health certainly was. In the same manner, reducing emissions of all sorts will make our air cleaner and healthier for us to breath. Mother Earth, however will not notice either way.

While, I don't agree with it, it is well-thought out and not like some of the letters to the editor that I've seen myopically saying Global Warming is a GOOD thing because it saves money on heating.

Thanks.I am not sure what you dont agree with. My opinion that global warming is not human caused? If so, good for you. Its a worthwhile discussion. Their supposition that global warming is human caused is their educated opinion, and they would gladly tell you that and agree that the facts are not in yet. I believe that no legitimate scientist would argue that it has been proven by the scientific method.

alphabits wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

alphabits wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:The arrogance is that IF something is happening THEN we must have caused it. It just isnt so.

Clearly your scientific knowledge exceeds that of the scientists who are actually studying and researching the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

That was rude, but I will respond anyway since your rudeness is likely caused by your not reading my treatise thoroughly. Please note, that I have no facts to support that hypothesis, therefore it is merely supposition.

Rude? How so? You made the statement "It just isn't so". The article cited contradicts that. For your statement to be true, you must know more than those that have studied the issue. If you took that as rudeness, I apologize ..... to me, it was just pointing out a logical supposition. And for the record, I read your treatise thoroughly.

You are reading into my statement something that isnt there. I didnt mean global warming isnt caused by humans with that statement, it was a comment on the current trend to blame everything that happens on human activity, which discounts the massive power of the Earth, to which we are but a minor part.

I will say that your statement was sarcastic, not necessarily rude.

Well its been fun guys, but I have a hungry baby here ... c-ya

redwinemaker wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:At the risk of entering a political argument which I usually dont do here, this is a treatise that I sent to the local papers blog a few weeks ago.

Please note that all of your arguments about polar bears etc address the issue of global warming ... not the cause of global warming. Logic is an underused quality in this political climate, I fear.

Can we please assign scientific theory here to what is a problem clearly for science, not politicians and the press, to study. Science is the ascertaining of facts, and assembling them into first a hypothesis, then a theory.

It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend. While we may be producing "greenhouse gasses", which is a trendy term, there is no evidence whatsoever that our insignificant contribution those naturally occurring gasses is causative of global warming. It is purely supposition on the part of some politicians and scientists, and that hypothesis is at least questioned by a greater number of scientists than believe in it.

Scientists are not infallible and it is possible that the opinions of those that believe that global warming is caused by humans are politically motivated. It is also possible that those who deny the same are also motivated by politics. Most importantly, to the great many scientists who are not driven by politics there simply are no facts to support the proposition that we humans are driving global warming, merely supposition.

So by the scientific method, we can determine that the Earth may be beginning a warming cycle. We can determine nothing more than that.

Let’s continue to study, and perhaps someday Al Gore will be proven right. Most likely he will be proven wrong, in my opinion, because usually when we base our hypotheses on an ego driven inflated outlook on our place in the history of the Earth, we turn out to be wrong. Witness the "Coming Ice Age" theory of a few decades ago, not to mention the "Flat Earth" and "Earth as the Center of the Universe" theories of centuries ago.

Should we clean up our act and reduce pollution including greenhouse gas production? Yes, of course we should. The clean water act of 1972 has left us with cleaner, safer water to drink. It has not "saved the planet" because the planet was not in danger from our trivial meddling, even while our own health certainly was. In the same manner, reducing emissions of all sorts will make our air cleaner and healthier for us to breath. Mother Earth, however will not notice either way.

While, I don't agree with it, it is well-thought out and not like some of the letters to the editor that I've seen myopically saying Global Warming is a GOOD thing because it saves money on heating.

Thanks.I am not sure what you dont agree with. My opinion that global warming is not human caused? If so, good for you. Its a worthwhile discussion. Their supposition that global warming is human caused is their educated opinion, and they would gladly tell you that and agree that the facts are not in yet. I believe that no legitimate scientist would argue that it has been proven by the scientific method.

IMO from what I've read and seen, this is from what we know, the first time in human history that resources have been used this quickly (it's not like the dinosaurs were mining for coal!), and that while the Earth would naturally go through global warming if humans weren't around, I believe all these fossil fuels and greenhouse gases being pumped into has only exacerbated the warming.

That being said, I think there is a political infatuation with global warming and I foresee it being the next big polarizing issue in America. I also think it has been almost reached the point of overkill in the media. Look at the science section in CNN.com or the news section in nationalgeographic.com. You will almost find some sort of article related to global warming, whether it be some scientist or group publishing a report saying Earth is doomed (regardless of their credentials!) or that some animals are dieing because of global warming (and I dont mean polar bears). Just in the past few days on nationalgeographic.com, there was an article saying that perhaps phytoplankton, which play a key role in oceanic food chains, could be threatened by increased ocean temperatures. It's easy to see after a while it gets to be overkill.

I think that there needs to be more research on the involvement of humans, but I also believe its not too early to start to make the changes to reduce fossil fuels and greenhouse gases if in fact we are part of the problem, as many scientists believe. And I think it's scary that REM's "It's the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" came on iTunes while I was typing this.

There should be a poll in this thread:

Do you like to hear yourself talk?

a) Yes.
b)Hell yes.
c) Oh hell yeah!

redwinemaker wrote:You are reading into my statement something that isnt there. I didnt mean global warming isnt caused by humans with that statement, it was a comment on the current trend to blame everything that happens on human activity, which discounts the massive power of the Earth, to which we are but a minor part.

I will say that your statement was sarcastic, not necessarily rude.

Nope, I read exactly what you wrote .......

redwinemaker wrote:It is my scientific observation that no facts exist to support human causes of global warming

And yes, my statement was sarcastic.
I don't presume to have any detailed scientific knowledge on this subject. I will rely on those who have done the research and studied the research. But my gut tells me that my car will coast down a hill on it's own ..... but it will get to the bottom a lot faster if I step on the gas pedal. Coasting ... natural phenomenon. Pedal to the metal ... human influence. Arrival at bottom of hill exacerbated by human influence.

spoonerhizolehound wrote:There should be a poll in this thread:

Do you like to hear yourself talk?

a) Yes.
b)Hell yes.
c) Oh hell yeah!

WHAT?!?

alphabits wrote:

spoonerhizolehound wrote:There should be a poll in this thread:

Do you like to hear yourself talk?

a) Yes.
b)Hell yes.
c) Oh hell yeah!

WHAT?!?

no. really

The poll/thread might best be titled...

Will same gasbags weigh in on greenhouse science of which they know not Clue #1??

redwinemaker wrote:It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend.

Okay...I'll bite and weigh back in on this one...

Redwinemaker, your treatise is interesting but honestly, I find it somewhat misleading. I'm only being picky here re. scientific method because I think it is relevant to the overall debate re. whether global warming exists. Hopefully the following will help clarify why this prospect of global warming is so incredibly complex yet potentially threatening.

First, scientific method begins with an observation or curiosity that is framed into a hypothesis, then data is collected and analyzed to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In this example, the hypothesis might be: humans are causing excessive global warming (although "excessive" would need more specific definition for a truly valid hypothesis).

Three critical factors to effectively prove (or disprove) a hypothesis include: controlling other variables, data quality and statistical probability.

Controlling variables is all about reducing ambient "noise" to get a good read on what you are trying to measure or prove. For example, it's easier to see your surroundings on a clear day than on a foggy night. Global warming is incredibly complex because there are an almost endless number of variables...from population changes, to industrialization, meteorites, species present on Earth, prevailing weather patterns, changing land surface (volcanoes), mineral extractions, sun spots, ice shelves, position of land continents, etc. Basically anything that could possibly impact the Earth's climate is a variable, therefore making this an incredibly difficult hypothesis to prove.

Data quality is about getting good info on all variables. This initially enables you to sort out which are important. Then, you need good data on these relevant variables to test the hypothesis. An example of a relevant variable might be ice ages. Looking over the last 10 million years, how long did each last? How severe were they? How many have there been during this time? How long between ice ages? Getting "good" data around all the variables is virtually impossible as the majority of human impact has taken place in an incredibly short timeframe relative to the age of Earth, and some potentially helpful data -- such as the average air temperature in 500 A.D. or 500 B.C. -- doesn't exist.

Finally, there's statistical probability. Proving or disproving a hypothesis isn't about "fact" or absolutes; it's about the predictability of a result. The accepted standard is 95%; this means that 95 out of 100 times I would expect to get the same result when testing anything from bears are bigger than mice or arsenic is poisonous to humans are causing excessive global warming. There is no perfect fact; there can always be bizarre outliers (e.g. someone who's immune to arsenic).

If you put all of this together (and this doesn't even touch on political or economic motivators and games) it's easy to see why so much controversy exists around global warming...there are just too many variables, we don't have all the data we need, and it's virtually impossible to gain conclusive scientific certainty.

In the absence of this certainty scientists create models to take what information we do have to try and predict what might be happening. This is clearly an inexact science as the quality of a prediction is only as good as the data going in and the model itself. But, this is currently the best we've got.

So the question becomes how much risk are we willing to take (or how much proof do you need and what could the consequences be)? Is a 20% chance of humans causing excessive global warming enough to prompt change? 50/50? 70%? If you wait until 95% (assuming we could ever get there) will it be too late? For example, anyone who uses tobacco is playing a 50/50 game that tobacco will kill them and on average it will take a dozen years of their life. If it weren't so addictive would so many people play those odds? Then with global warming, add all the societal, political, economic, cultural complexities and it's a near-impossible beast to get your arms around.

So, basically global warming isn't and can't be about "fact." It's about being open to new information and doing our best to understand what it might be telling us (from "smooth sailing" to "perfect storm")...and then doing something if necessary, before it's too late.

I'm not sure I know when or what that is, but I confess some things are starting to get my attention....

(Sheesh it's late ...someone please tell me if this made any sense at all...I tried....)

Quiet and Shy wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend.

Okay...I'll bite and weigh back in on this one...

Redwinemaker, your treatise is interesting but honestly, I find it somewhat misleading. I'm only being picky here re. scientific method because I think it is relevant to the overall debate re. whether global warming exists. Hopefully the following will help clarify why this prospect of global warming is so incredibly complex yet potentially threatening.

First, scientific method begins with an observation or curiosity that is framed into a hypothesis, then data is collected and analyzed to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In this example, the hypothesis might be: humans are causing excessive global warming (although "excessive" would need more specific definition for a truly valid hypothesis).

Three critical factors to effectively prove (or disprove) a hypothesis include: controlling other variables, data quality and statistical probability.

Controlling variables is all about reducing ambient "noise" to get a good read on what you are trying to measure or prove. For example, it's easier to see your surroundings on a clear day than on a foggy night. Global warming is incredibly complex because there are an almost endless number of variables...from population changes, to industrialization, meteorites, species present on Earth, prevailing weather patterns, changing land surface (volcanoes), mineral extractions, sun spots, ice shelves, position of land continents, etc. Basically anything that could possibly impact the Earth's climate is a variable, therefore making this an incredibly difficult hypothesis to prove.

Data quality is about getting good info on all variables. This initially enables you to sort out which are important. Then, you need good data on these relevant variables to test the hypothesis. An example of a relevant variable might be ice ages. Looking over the last 10 million years, how long did each last? How severe were they? How many have there been during this time? How long between ice ages? Getting "good" data around all the variables is virtually impossible as the majority of human impact has taken place in an incredibly short timeframe relative to the age of Earth, and some potentially helpful data -- such as the average air temperature in 500 A.D. or 500 B.C. -- doesn't exist.

Finally, there's statistical probability. Proving or disproving a hypothesis isn't about "fact" or absolutes; it's about the predictability of a result. The accepted standard is 95%; this means that 95 out of 100 times I would expect to get the same result when testing anything from bears are bigger than mice or arsenic is poisonous to humans are causing excessive global warming. There is no perfect fact; there can always be bizarre outliers (e.g. someone who's immune to arsenic).

If you put all of this together (and this doesn't even touch on political or economic motivators and games) it's easy to see why so much controversy exists around global warming...there are just too many variables, we don't have all the data we need, and it's virtually impossible to gain conclusive scientific certainty.

In the absence of this certainty scientists create models to take what information we do have to try and predict what might be happening. This is clearly an inexact science as the quality of a prediction is only as good as the data going in and the model itself. But, this is currently the best we've got.

So the question becomes how much risk are we willing to take (or how much proof do you need and what could the consequences be)? Is a 20% chance of humans causing excessive global warming enough to prompt change? 50/50? 70%? If you wait until 95% (assuming we could ever get there) will it be too late? For example, anyone who uses tobacco is playing a 50/50 game that tobacco will kill them and on average it will take a dozen years of their life. If it weren't so addictive would so many people play those odds? Then with global warming, add all the societal, political, economic, cultural complexities and it's a near-impossible beast to get your arms around.

So, basically global warming isn't and can't be about "fact." It's about being open to new information and doing our best to understand what it might be telling us (from "smooth sailing" to "perfect storm")...and then doing something if necessary, before it's too late.

I'm not sure I know when or what that is, but I confess some things are starting to get my attention....

(Sheesh it's late ...someone please tell me if this made any sense at all...I tried....)

Q&S, while you were posting Mensa called and said they need you!


Also,my head hurts trying to understand what you are saying!

I'm sure it made sense to Dr. Naomi Oreskes, or any Paleoclimatologist that happened to come through the boards, but I for one haven't the slightest idea what you are saying. But I am sure I am the only one!

Could you maybe restate that in an apples to apples example , or even apples to oranges for those out here who are intellectually challenged!

Quiet and Shy wrote: (Sheesh it's late ...someone please tell me if this made any sense at all...I tried....)

Made sense to me Alison ..... maybe I just think better after a good night's sleep.


BTW - smart chicks are hot (but not in a global warming kind of way).

Quiet and Shy wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend.

Okay...I'll bite and weigh back in on this one...

Redwinemaker, your treatise is interesting but honestly, I find it somewhat misleading. I'm only being picky here re. scientific method because I think it is relevant to the overall debate re. whether global warming exists. Hopefully the following will help clarify why this prospect of global warming is so incredibly complex yet potentially threatening.

First, scientific method begins with an observation or curiosity that is framed into a hypothesis, then data is collected and analyzed to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In this example, the hypothesis might be: humans are causing excessive global warming (although "excessive" would need more specific definition for a truly valid hypothesis).

Three critical factors to effectively prove (or disprove) a hypothesis include: controlling other variables, data quality and statistical probability.

Controlling variables is all about reducing ambient "noise" to get a good read on what you are trying to measure or prove. For example, it's easier to see your surroundings on a clear day than on a foggy night. Global warming is incredibly complex because there are an almost endless number of variables...from population changes, to industrialization, meteorites, species present on Earth, prevailing weather patterns, changing land surface (volcanoes), mineral extractions, sun spots, ice shelves, position of land continents, etc. Basically anything that could possibly impact the Earth's climate is a variable, therefore making this an incredibly difficult hypothesis to prove.

Data quality is about getting good info on all variables. This initially enables you to sort out which are important. Then, you need good data on these relevant variables to test the hypothesis. An example of a relevant variable might be ice ages. Looking over the last 10 million years, how long did each last? How severe were they? How many have there been during this time? How long between ice ages? Getting "good" data around all the variables is virtually impossible as the majority of human impact has taken place in an incredibly short timeframe relative to the age of Earth, and some potentially helpful data -- such as the average air temperature in 500 A.D. or 500 B.C. -- doesn't exist.

Finally, there's statistical probability. Proving or disproving a hypothesis isn't about "fact" or absolutes; it's about the predictability of a result. The accepted standard is 95%; this means that 95 out of 100 times I would expect to get the same result when testing anything from bears are bigger than mice or arsenic is poisonous to humans are causing excessive global warming. There is no perfect fact; there can always be bizarre outliers (e.g. someone who's immune to arsenic).

If you put all of this together (and this doesn't even touch on political or economic motivators and games) it's easy to see why so much controversy exists around global warming...there are just too many variables, we don't have all the data we need, and it's virtually impossible to gain conclusive scientific certainty.

In the absence of this certainty scientists create models to take what information we do have to try and predict what might be happening. This is clearly an inexact science as the quality of a prediction is only as good as the data going in and the model itself. But, this is currently the best we've got.

So the question becomes how much risk are we willing to take (or how much proof do you need and what could the consequences be)? Is a 20% chance of humans causing excessive global warming enough to prompt change? 50/50? 70%? If you wait until 95% (assuming we could ever get there) will it be too late? For example, anyone who uses tobacco is playing a 50/50 game that tobacco will kill them and on average it will take a dozen years of their life. If it weren't so addictive would so many people play those odds? Then with global warming, add all the societal, political, economic, cultural complexities and it's a near-impossible beast to get your arms around.

So, basically global warming isn't and can't be about "fact." It's about being open to new information and doing our best to understand what it might be telling us (from "smooth sailing" to "perfect storm")...and then doing something if necessary, before it's too late.

I'm not sure I know when or what that is, but I confess some things are starting to get my attention....

(Sheesh it's late ...someone please tell me if this made any sense at all...I tried....)

From now on, I think I'm just going to agree with what Q&S says.

Cliffnotes version (from what I could gather):
Global Warming is an immense potential problem with an incredible amount of variables, and relative to Earth's history, we have very little data to go off of to gage human impact.

It's impossible to tell at an exact time how much impact humans have had on global warming. The question that we must ask is do make changes if humans are 20% responsible or do we only make changes if we are more than 50% responsible?

When it comes to global warming, there are few hard facts that humans are exacerbating global warming, only many observations and hypotheses that point to humans at fault for global warming.

Like what Steven Colbert always says... Opinions are better than facts

jonesbeach10 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:It is clear from factual evidence that global warming is happening, albeit slowly and to a much lesser scale to this point then has happened in past millennia. Global warming and cooling is a phenomenon that has been documented to have happened countless times over the lifespan of the planet.

It is also clear that there is NO factual evidence to point to human activity as the source of our current warming trend.

Okay...I'll bite and weigh back in on this one...

Redwinemaker, your treatise is interesting but honestly, I find it somewhat misleading. I'm only being picky here re. scientific method because I think it is relevant to the overall debate re. whether global warming exists. Hopefully the following will help clarify why this prospect of global warming is so incredibly complex yet potentially threatening.

First, scientific method begins with an observation or curiosity that is framed into a hypothesis, then data is collected and analyzed to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In this example, the hypothesis might be: humans are causing excessive global warming (although "excessive" would need more specific definition for a truly valid hypothesis).

Three critical factors to effectively prove (or disprove) a hypothesis include: controlling other variables, data quality and statistical probability.

Controlling variables is all about reducing ambient "noise" to get a good read on what you are trying to measure or prove. For example, it's easier to see your surroundings on a clear day than on a foggy night. Global warming is incredibly complex because there are an almost endless number of variables...from population changes, to industrialization, meteorites, species present on Earth, prevailing weather patterns, changing land surface (volcanoes), mineral extractions, sun spots, ice shelves, position of land continents, etc. Basically anything that could possibly impact the Earth's climate is a variable, therefore making this an incredibly difficult hypothesis to prove.

Data quality is about getting good info on all variables. This initially enables you to sort out which are important. Then, you need good data on these relevant variables to test the hypothesis. An example of a relevant variable might be ice ages. Looking over the last 10 million years, how long did each last? How severe were they? How many have there been during this time? How long between ice ages? Getting "good" data around all the variables is virtually impossible as the majority of human impact has taken place in an incredibly short timeframe relative to the age of Earth, and some potentially helpful data -- such as the average air temperature in 500 A.D. or 500 B.C. -- doesn't exist.

Finally, there's statistical probability. Proving or disproving a hypothesis isn't about "fact" or absolutes; it's about the predictability of a result. The accepted standard is 95%; this means that 95 out of 100 times I would expect to get the same result when testing anything from bears are bigger than mice or arsenic is poisonous to humans are causing excessive global warming. There is no perfect fact; there can always be bizarre outliers (e.g. someone who's immune to arsenic).

If you put all of this together (and this doesn't even touch on political or economic motivators and games) it's easy to see why so much controversy exists around global warming...there are just too many variables, we don't have all the data we need, and it's virtually impossible to gain conclusive scientific certainty.

In the absence of this certainty scientists create models to take what information we do have to try and predict what might be happening. This is clearly an inexact science as the quality of a prediction is only as good as the data going in and the model itself. But, this is currently the best we've got.

So the question becomes how much risk are we willing to take (or how much proof do you need and what could the consequences be)? Is a 20% chance of humans causing excessive global warming enough to prompt change? 50/50? 70%? If you wait until 95% (assuming we could ever get there) will it be too late? For example, anyone who uses tobacco is playing a 50/50 game that tobacco will kill them and on average it will take a dozen years of their life. If it weren't so addictive would so many people play those odds? Then with global warming, add all the societal, political, economic, cultural complexities and it's a near-impossible beast to get your arms around.

So, basically global warming isn't and can't be about "fact." It's about being open to new information and doing our best to understand what it might be telling us (from "smooth sailing" to "perfect storm")...and then doing something if necessary, before it's too late.

I'm not sure I know when or what that is, but I confess some things are starting to get my attention....

(Sheesh it's late ...someone please tell me if this made any sense at all...I tried....)

From now on, I think I'm just going to agree with what Q&S says.

Cliffnotes version (from what I could gather):
Global Warming is an immense potential problem with an incredible amount of variables, and relative to Earth's history, we have very little data to go off of to gage human impact.

It's impossible to tell at an exact time how much impact humans have had on global warming. The question that we must ask is do make changes if humans are 20% responsible or do we only make changes if we are more than 50% responsible?

When it comes to global warming, there are few hard facts that humans are exacerbating global warming, only many observations and hypotheses that point to humans at fault for global warming.

Yeah, you've about got it, JB. I included the rest to try and explain the "why" behind it all...but it comes down to the fact we'll never have enough info to be absolutely sure on this (which basically becomes an excuse to ignore and do nothing). And so at what point do we have enough info to think about doing some things differently? Personally, I think we're getting pretty close....

alphabits wrote: BTW - smart chicks are hot (but not in a global warming kind of way).

If we ignore global warming/climate change it's not going to go away. If we continue raping the planet it's going to get worse. It's the old "If we close our eyes, the enemy can't see us" ploy.

I'm pretty sure you can twist the data to conform to whichever side of the argument you take. But that doesn't change the simple (and yes, inconvenient) truth of the matter: That humanity's presence on this planet has resulted in profound environmental changes far in excess of our ability to control them.

parrothead216 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: (Sheesh it's late ...someone please tell me if this made any sense at all...I tried....)

Q&S, while you were posting Mensa called and said they need you!

Also,my head hurts trying to understand what you are saying!

My head hurt by the time I finished writing that, too.

Quiet and Shy wrote:

parrothead216 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote: (Sheesh it's late ...someone please tell me if this made any sense at all...I tried....)

Q&S, while you were posting Mensa called and said they need you!

Also,my head hurts trying to understand what you are saying!

My head hurt by the time I finished writing that, too.

Thank God! I thought I was the only one!

I do know one thing, There is a "think tank" somewhere that really NEEDS YOUR MIND!

And unfortunately, doesn't need mine!

Demerara wrote:I'm pretty sure you can twist the data to conform to whichever side of the argument you take.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

To all that life deals us...there IS a silver lining...

Thursday, August 3, 2006

Global warming beer made from melting ice-caps

A Danish brewery in Greenland is brewing beer using water from the melting Arctic ice-cap. As AccordionGuy sez, "when life gives you SARS, make sarsaparilla," or in this case, "When life gives you catastrophic global warming, get drunk."
The brewers claim that the water is at least 2,000 years old and free of minerals and pollutants.
The first 66,000 litres of the new dark and pale ales are on their way to the Danish market.