There were things there to debate if you actually read it rather than looking up what website it was posted on.
As I said: I'm not here to debate a website. I'm happy to debate a poster on RF.
Tell you what, you write a critique of every person anyehere who has expoused global warming then I'll write a critique of everone who has dismissed it.
I believe many people before me have stated things like "Most of the climatologists agree we are to blame" yet when someone opposes this view (and apparently yours) you instantly want numbers... Here is one of the sites you dismissed because they are biased. They also request that scientists review their materials and sign their petition if they agree... Here is the petition...
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/
An anti-global-warming site is looking for people to sign a petition. I'm missing the relevence to the topic.
BTW, a neat discussion of "balance" in relation to Global Warming:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
Public:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l4a
Scientific community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Both the IPCC (the UN's lead climate authority) and the AMC[American Meterological Association] (the group all those weathermen on TV get certified by) agree both in global warming and in the fact that it's been influenced by human emissions. Bush's own study (you know, the guy trying to downplay it) the " Federal Climate Change Science Program" agreed with this assessment.
In December 2004,
Science published an essay by geologist and science historian
Naomi Oreskes that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. Analyzing 928 papers, not a single one opposed Global Warming and the human influence on it, and 75% directly supported it.
Go back 10 years, and the picture looks different; but the consensus seems pretty strongly established.
You said you knew of no scenario where global climate change would be a threat. We know that the global climate throughout the years has changed, and we also know that in the past a change of .000000000000000000000000001 was not exactly a threat.
And I said that such a change would be an equivocation of "Global Warming" as it has been used thusfar and was used by me in my statement. It's therefore both dishonest and fallacious.
You invoke the "butterfly effect" which actually would go so far as to say a butterfly can be a threat because it could eventually cause a tidal wave half way around the world. There is no scientific research to this actually
Of course there is. The specific term for "butterfly effect" is called "extreme dependance on initial conditions". It's the reason that one cannot predict non-cyclic phenomina in complex systems (like weather) very far in advance. It's a well established fact.
Can you tell me what creatures would die if the temperature of the earth went down .000000000000000000000000001 in a year then back up .000000000000000000000000001 the next year?
Chaos establishes that I cannot. One can change the weather, but one cannot tell what the weather would have been had he not changed it. Since it's impossible to predict what will happen in the next year (amongst non-cyclic phenomina), it would be impossible to gauge what specefic events were different than they would have been.
Maybe without global warming Katrina would have been a cat 1 that hit Mexico. Maybe without global warming it would have been a cat 5 that slammed NO dead-on. There's no way to predict it *because* of the butterfly effect.
You really should pick up a good book on Chaos, it would explain a lot of tihs for you.
