tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post6513181368582588536..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear ShadesRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-30327855449843002392010-08-20T13:52:55.232-05:002010-08-20T13:52:55.232-05:00All;
If global warming even MIGHT be an existenti...All;<br /><br />If global warming even MIGHT be an existential crisis, does that not mean that we should at least consider taking remedial action even if it's not all attributed to human activity?sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-31858205184217006302010-08-19T00:21:47.601-05:002010-08-19T00:21:47.601-05:00I wonder if Russ was noting the irony of the GWINH...I wonder if Russ was noting the irony of the GWINH ("Global Warming Is Not Happening") camp's last ridiculous argument....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-24321180356927016202010-08-18T12:31:40.852-05:002010-08-18T12:31:40.852-05:00Pat MacDonald would be horrified to see his song t...Pat MacDonald would be horrified to see his song title used in this way.xoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08846380556286798188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-45647693106399216562010-08-18T10:01:01.810-05:002010-08-18T10:01:01.810-05:00After nearly a year of investigation, It became ve...After nearly a year of investigation, It became very clear that sunspots are the main cause of any climate change. I have the grafs to show it in my book published in 2008. One sectionwas devouted to the problem or lack of a problem.<br />"UNMASKING 100 LIBERAL MYTHS...."! Get it on Amazon!<br />John HylandJohn Hylandhttp://jhylandwritings.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-79668632969130272742010-08-18T06:50:09.825-05:002010-08-18T06:50:09.825-05:00I agree that RoJo is crazy. At some point the dud...I agree that RoJo is crazy. At some point the dude is actually going to have to say something. The latest commercial well illustrates the campaign he is running. He offers Warren Harding-quality nostrums and nothing else. This is likely the rare instance where the incumbent challenges the challenger to as many debates as possible. At that point the RoJo party will be over fairly quickly. He's a maroon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-84407183016333750922010-08-17T23:07:30.637-05:002010-08-17T23:07:30.637-05:00"Some (even the IPCC) think solar activity pl..."Some (even the IPCC) think solar activity plays a role..."<br /><br />No. <i>Every</i> climate scientist is aware of the suns influence. It's one of the major variables in any decent model (along with earth orbit, atmospheric particulate matter (e.g. volcanic ash) and greenhouse gases). <br /><br />I highly recommend this <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page1.php" rel="nofollow">global warming primer from NASA</a>. A quick 5 minute read.jimspicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316014985662331998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-69824009414555274302010-08-17T17:22:32.928-05:002010-08-17T17:22:32.928-05:00I actually don't agree with Ron that the notio...I actually don't agree with Ron that the notion of AGW is "crazy." As I have said here before, the theory behind the idea that green house gases could raise climate temperature is sound, but whether they actually are doing so and by how much is another matter. There is certainly evidence of rising temperatures and, although there are other potential explanations for that, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that there is some amount of AGW going on.<br /><br />But ... to go from there to full blown Gore panic is quite another matter. The stuff I read never seems to really support the idea that global warming is an existential threat such that we need to turn the world upside down.<br /><br />The one thing that doesn't help you sort this out is asking who has a financial interests. There are oxes to be gored on both sides of this question.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-61674054897745984552010-08-17T14:56:57.971-05:002010-08-17T14:56:57.971-05:00Dude, you're a lawyer. Why do you have any st...Dude, you're a lawyer. Why do you have any standing to contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus on <br />anthropogenic climate change? Its nonexistence is a fairy tale the American Right likes to tell itself, in part because it's (yes) inconvenient and in part because it keeps the cash rolling in from emitting industries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-49885887070969269982010-08-17T13:03:25.939-05:002010-08-17T13:03:25.939-05:00I loves me some Nuance. I can eat 'em all day...I loves me some Nuance. I can eat 'em all day long. Ding-Dongs I can't swallow, though.<br /><br />So what did RoJo mean by "it is far more likely that it is just sunspot activity"? He's making a distinct claim, not a general point - on what basis? He intended to dismiss global warming, not define its causes. I wonder what scientific literature he's read, and whether he's read it more times than he's read the Constitution. <br /><br />Science loves nuance, too, almost as much as lawyers. You can make a career out of it either way. You might be able to wheedle past a judge or two, but eventually the facts and certainty will catch up with you.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-51577488421350415262010-08-17T12:20:37.078-05:002010-08-17T12:20:37.078-05:00Foust hates nuance.
There are, even if you don...Foust hates nuance.<br /><br />There are, even if you don't want to admit it, scientists all over the place on this. While the complete dismissal of AGW seems to be a decidedly minority point of view, the ideas that global warming is not an existential crisis and that there is relatively little we can do to change are not.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-11860011275515053162010-08-17T11:11:56.931-05:002010-08-17T11:11:56.931-05:00Standard Contradictory Disclaimerâ„¢: The fact that...Standard Contradictory Disclaimerâ„¢: <i>The fact that scientists differ does not, of course, mean that each side has a point. Sorting through all of this would take time and expertise and I will guarantee you that no local blogger has done the work necessary to definitively pronounce on this.</i> <br /><br />Except for RoJo and Esenberg, where merely mentioning a possible co-factor in climate change shows that you are wise enough to be making policy decisions about it. Those silly scientists, what are they thinking? Are they even investigating this properly, and if they do, aren't they likely to be injecting their own personal opinions into the limited data? I don't know, I'm just asking the question!<br /><br />If only this healthy skepticism and acceptance of the limits of human knowledge and endeavor could be applied to expectations about public works projects like sewers.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.com