Global Warming a fake?

[lawcat]

I don't know how strong the evidence is of global warming and its effects. I think there is pretty much a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real, and that is enough for me for now.
But, if that was not convincing enough, consider that five nation that surround polar ice cap are already battling for division of future resources--namely petroleum and natural gas--as well as the rights of meritime north-west passage for commercial shipping.

Check out this Arctic Rush link

YouTube - Inside Story - Arctic rush - 29 May 08...

Also, at 6:00am, on July 21, the Investigation Discovery will air a special on Arctic Rush which is really informative; I watched it this morning.
Investigation Discovery :: TV Listings :: Arctic Rush

Some native tribal communities are bringing human rights violations issue in front if international tribuals to protect their community from global warming. They allege that they are already marginilized as people, and now the industrial nations are destroying their habitat in violation of their human rights.

http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/coun...2005Dec07/view

YouTube - Sheila Watt-Cloutier on Climate Change...

[GAHD]

You guys might find this site of use: CO2 emissions, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

[HydrogenBond]

Real old time science is not based on consensus. The laws of science are not up for a vote like an elected official running for office. Real science is suppose to be something solid, anyone can derive independently, since it is based on the natural laws of nature, independent of subjectivity.

Let us invent a new type of science, called elected (consensus) science. In this type of science, we need to campaign to get our science candidate elected for a term in office. Once elected, it will lead, but based on the philosophy of the political science party that is running the campaign.

We need polls and graphs. There will also be clever rhetoric using emotional appeal, with fear the best way to motivate and keep people irrational so you can get their vote. Next, special interest groups, who will benefit by their elected science, will give campaign contributions in terms of money and effort.

We will also need mudslinging to put down and undermine the opposition. In real science, as long as someone follows the rules of the scientific method, their results are valid science. But in elected science, we need to treat the opposing results, in a subjective way, using smear campaigns. We have to make promises we can't keep and pretend we have all the answers. We may also need to buy votes and public influence, by trading positions in the future science administration, for cooperative efforts during the campaign. We will also need to get the layman on board, even if they are not good at science. They will have an impact on other elected officials, who can help influence the science election.

Maybe, during the next science election cycle, we can run the BB theory for election. We will follow the political science campaign template that is being pioneered. In the real world of science, String Theory is following the rules of the science method and has a voice. But in elected science, we need to ignore this and try to smear it, and make it appear anyone who follows this science, look like a quack. Once this starts to stick other scientists trying to protect careers will find it necessary to follow the crowd. Once the new science is elected it will remembers its enemies and reward allies.

[Zythryn]

Hydrogen, true, science does not come to conclusions based on consensus.
However, just because there is consensus does not mean that the conclusion most agree on is wrong.

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Hydrogen, true, science does not come to conclusions based on consensus.
However, just because there is consensus does not mean that the conclusion most agree on is wrong.

Moreover, who should we rely on to tell us about global warming other than the scientists? Who is in the best position to provide consensus opinion?

[lemit]

I have a dumb question. What are the proposed solutions to global warming?

--lemit

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by lemit

I have a dumb question. What are the proposed solutions to global warming?

--lemit

The solution, to my understanding, is: (1) reduction of emissions of hydrocarbons (we all know this), (2) mitigation of necessary emission through inovative emissions-processing (for example, some scientists are developing processing equipment for the proceesing of hydrocarbon disharge beased on chemical reactions of hydrocarbons with causetic soda or hydrogen, to produce less detrimental byproducts, see Turning emissions into baking soda), and (3) wait-and-see strategy to allow the environment to correct itself to new levels.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by lemit

I have a dumb question. What are the proposed solutions to global warming?

--lemit

Grab yourself a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the following feature presentation:

The solutions to Global Warming include. . . - Hypography Science Forums

[lemit]

In a way--that is, completely--I was asking a rhetorical question.

The question I was leading up to is, do the environmental fixes themselves threaten the environment? Do they pose a potential danger as great as or greater than the potential danger posed by human-influenced climate change?

If the potential solutions pose no danger, why not institute them immediately. That way, the alarmists can show how well the problem has been solved, while the denialists can claim there never was a problem in the first place. The argument can continue, possibly longer than it could have otherwise.

Everybody can be happy and smug for generations to come. Isn't that what we all want?

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

It's rather simple, really. Stop burning fuels in the way we do and stop adding CO₂ to the atmosphere. The problem, of course, is pretty much everything we do relies on those fuels, hence the delay and deliberation.

Also, since when are people who understand the science and recognize what it's telling us "alarmists?" Seems pretty derogatory, and for no good reason, if you ask me.