Quote:

---

I see you haven't read it. Doesn't the messenger typically get shot after the message is read?

---

Quote:

---

I see you can read the definition. I guess actually grasping it will come with time.

---

Quote:

---

Develop a sense of humor. It will serve you well.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
It's a fucked up system when the IPCC lies, when scientist can't speak their mind without losing their job and when scientists can't do anti-anthropogenic warming research because nobody will fund it for fear of retribution by a hysterical public.

---

Quote:

---

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
it is to our benefit that we preserve the ecosystem.

If the ecosystem is warming on its own (and despite what you say, this may be what is happening) then preserving the ecosystem means leaving it alone so it can continue to do its thing and warm up. That's what the ecosystem has done over and over for as long as there are records and long before we were here.

Question: If we had the power to alter history, do you think we should go back in time and interfere with every other temperature peak on the graph throughout human history?

If not, why not? And why doesn't that answer apply to the current temperature peak?

---

Quote:

---

OK, then we're sorta in agreement. I think it makes sense, even absent anthropogenicy, to be conservative with the climate. This just as a matter of being good stewards of our planet.

But I don't think the current pool of evidence warrants immediate draconian measures on industries that will have negative effects on the economy and the lives of many people, and that's what a lot of the alarmists are demanding.

---

Quote:

---

Is that based on any evidence or just a wild ass guess on your part?

---

Quote:

---

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

---

Quote:

---

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

---

Quote:

---

"There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems."

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
One thing occurs to me.

Say it eventually becomes irrefutable that anthropogenicy is real and the US, Canada, Europe and other responsible countries curb emissions.

Who's going to tell China, Russia, and their ilk to follow that lead? Shit, we can't even get Japan to stop killing and eating endangered whales, and there is NO debate that they really are endangered.

Even if warming is a human-caused problem, I don't see any realistic way to stop it given current international politics. Double that with the massive erosion of good-will the US has lost since Bush's pissing contest began.

---

Quote:

---

OK, then we're sorta in agreement. I think it makes sense, even absent anthropogenicy, to be conservative with the climate. This just as a matter of being good stewards of our planet.

But I don't think the current pool of evidence warrants immediate draconian measures on industries that will have negative effects on the economy and the lives of many people, and that's what a lot of the alarmists are demanding.

---

Quote:

---

On a serious note: I'm not aware of any other reason than racism in why someone could support the death penalty for a monster who commit a horrific crime against one or two other people, but that same person has no problem with somebody like William Calley (& plenty of others involved) getting a few years house arrest & then being pardoned by the president.

---

Quote:

---

I clicked on all three links & nothing came up.

---