How could anyone agree or disagree with me? I have not put forward a position or argument on any of this, just said I was skeptical of the current fad to blame all on greenhouse gases.

You are right, there is no discernable pattern to climate change, but we know the only constant is change. I did say we may learn more about the earth by taking a broad perspective, and looking at more than just the last few years.

I do believe that large opportunities are lost by jumping to action before taking the time to understand the problem. The temptation for those that see themselves as leaders is to rapidly propose a course of action and appear decisive. This 'ready, shoot, aim' mentality often squanders resources and can bury the opportunity to employ a good solution.

Clearly you believe that we must take some action to reduce greenhouse gases, and I am not sure it will make any difference.

 

Paper: Climate change threatens wineries

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Mon Jul 10, 5:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Climate warming could spell disaster for much of the multibillion-dollar U.S. wine industry. Areas suitable for growing premium wine grapes could be reduced by 50 percent

 

Why is it a "fad" if the scientists doing the work of measuring these things and making educated decisions as to how to inform others are saying this is what the problem is? It's not the manifestation of some tree hugger in a nudist hippy colony in California's wine country. The idea that we have been contributing to global warming started decades ago, even before the 60s.

Closing the hole in the ozone layer is a perfect example of how scientists as a team of professionals doing their job informed the wider public and got what could've been a serious problem reversed for the most part. That directly affected our environment worldwide. After that sort of success, and other of their successes like getting to the moon, why would you say I should be skeptical of what they say, or at the very least consider another source? What would that other source be? Obviously Earth's linear geological history doesn't display predictable rythms from which to make a guess.

Isn't saying you're skeptical of GW equal to saying you don't believe it's occurring? How can you be a skeptic of GW, but not the inverse argument?

I'm not saying you can't be a skeptic. You can be a skeptic all you want with regards to GW, but you have to recognize the considerable evidence there that plays against your skepticism. Being a skeptic for skepticism's sake isn't using your mind for logical deduction, given a set of arguments and accompanying evidence.

 

science by committee is not science. At the time of the "hole in the ozone layer," no-one knew what was causing it, and now that there are widespread prohibitions on CFC's, one would think, per the predictions of "scientists", it would be repairing itself, but that isn't happeneing, see link: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

You need to stop referring to "scientists" as if everyone with a degree or job in a research field is part of one monolithic group. There are biologists and doctors and archeologists and engineers, and depending on circumstances, they could all be referred to as "scientists," but obviously, they aren't all the same, and their opinions on subjects really ought to be considered against their background. Referring to any researcher as a "scientist" implies impeccable integrity, since you can't judge their statements based on their background or education - you have no idea what their specialty is, or even their name, when a generic term like "scientist" is used.

Some "scientists" insist there are ghosts in old houses, and use cameras and tape recorders to "capture" evidence. Some "scientists" insist that there is a monster in Loch Ness, or a monster in the Pacific Northwest or the Himalayas. Are these the scientists who put a man on the moon or built an atomic bomb? Are these the scientists saying "Global Warming" is going to kill us all? Or are these different scientists? Should we believe all of them equally, or do some carry more weight than others? Is a generic term like "scientist" useless when it comes to judging the validity of their conclusions?

It's kind of like those commercials for pills - put someone in a white coat, and somehow, the assumption is supposed to be that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy because they have assumed the guise of a medical professional.

 

I never said I was skeptical that there is global warming; I said that I was skeptical that the primary cause is greenhouse gases.

The scientific community is not in consensus even on the fact that warming is a long term trend much less the cause.

Throughout this discussion it seems to me that you have decided what my position is rather than reading my statements, and then made arguments against what you decided I believe. I don't deny your right to have an opinion, but in no way does it give you the right to decide what mine is so you can promote your position.

 

[QUOTE]science by committe is not science.

 

There have been many times in history when the majority of scientists believed something and were wrong. So just because most scientists think global warming is real and a man-made problem does not mean it is. I'm on the fence about the whole subject, and am not really concerned. With that being said the World is not ours to rape and pillage so I don't get mad at aging-liberal-hippy-douches like Al Gore!! The more we can do to recycle and leave less of an impact the better, IMO.

 

Regarding the ozone hole, I wasn't saying it had been solved. It HAD been reduced quite a bit by putting restrictions on CFCs however. Chlorine in the air is the major cause of the hole, and it is still there, it's just a less cohesive hole than before.

Chlorine is still being pumped into the air though, and it needs to be reduced.

 

I

 

[QUOTE]I