As far as science being settled….this reminds me of the EPA banning DDT. Little or poor evidence….scare-mongering….dont you want to save the peregrine falcons and bald eagles? ......ban the stuff then watch as the rest of the world….areas with malaria…...poor people start to die… you see the science was settled…...ya right…...
Another diversion tactic. Science is never settled.
As far as science being settled….this reminds me of the EPA banning DDT. Little or poor evidence….scare-mongering….dont you want to save the peregrine falcons and bald eagles? ......ban the stuff then watch as the rest of the world….areas with malaria…...poor people start to die… you see the science was settled…...ya right…...
Another diversion tactic. Science is never settled.
Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?
By Marla Cone and Environmental Health News
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria
“The 15 environmental health experts, who reviewed almost 500 health studies, concluded that DDT “should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available.”
We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue using DDT if we know about the health risks,” said Tiaan de Jager, a member of the panel who is a professor at the School of Health Systems & Public Health at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. “Safer alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should be phased out without putting people at risk.”“
No, not a diversion tactic….a fact. When new facts appear one cannot simply ignore it because it does not fit into your existing data….
It’s a diversion if you cherry pick your graph start and end dates
It’s a diversion if you ignore ocean warming,
It’s a diversion if you ignore our cryosphere melting,
It’s a diversion if you ignore that Earth is retaining more solar heat due to atmospheric GHGs insulating properties.
it is a diversion if you ignore solar output
it is a diversion if you ignore that the antarctic is accumulating ice
it is a diversion if you include urban heating effect
yup….we could do that all day couldn’t we…...
As you know I’m one who doesn’t understand the controversy. I mean we understand the green house effect and what increased green house gases in the atmosphere does.
Waiting for data to be as conclusive as you would like, to show that increased greenhouse gases are doing what we would expect them to do seems rather unnecessary and futile, as you wouldn’t be convinced until it was too late.
Not to mention that virtually all the scientists who actually study the phenomenon are in agreement that it is happening. This has been consensus science for over a decade now.
Hi Stephen, I am not saying wait for conclusive evidence….I do not think that there will ever be a way to stop polluting our planet…..this is what we and every creature here does…...we will not go back to a simple agrarian or hunter gatherer society .....we must do what we need to survive…...energy is survival. Since when has life been fair?
This is a copy of the earlier nonsense tactic used against evolution by creationists, to which biologists responded with “Project Steve”. You get a ragbag of people, most of whom are not trained in the relevant science, to sign a petiton. Science isn’t done that way.
What matters is the consensus of those who actually study the phenomenon. In this case, climatologists, climatological bodies, and other international science bodies.
Sorry to say but you have been thoroughly duped by wealthy oil barons and their hired propagandists. See also:
Hi Stephen, I am not saying wait for conclusive evidence….I do not think that there will ever be a way to stop polluting our planet…..this is what we and every creature here does…...we will not go back to a simple agrarian or hunter gatherer society .....we must do what we need to survive…...energy is survival. Since when has life been fair?
Humans pollute more than all other creatures combined. I think that we can find less polluting ways to have the energy that we need to survive (and thrive). In fact, it appears that the survival of many in future generations may depend on us doing so.
Sine, your stance is apparently evolving from “there is not enough evidence of AGW to be concerned about it”, to “maybe there is, but so what, we can’t do anything about it”.
Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer
