Ok, so the Midwest is freezing its collective balls off with temps of 42 below zero. Schools have been closed for two days because of the OBSCENELY bitter cold
( Read more... )
I'm not even going to bother trying to sell you on the factual science of global warming, because you wouldn't believe me no matter what I said. I'm just going to correct some factual errors and fallacies in your post.
First, Dr. Hiedi Cullen had nothing whatsoever to do with the U.N. Report. While she might be offering soundbytes or quotes/analysis on the television, she had nothing to do with writing the report. Your assertion to the contrary is misleading.
Second, there is no need to hold in your methane, for three very important reasons. 1)Due to the chemical reactions that occur as well as the bacteria in our gut, humans produce only a very, very negligible amount of methane from the digestion process. 2)The report clearly defines methane as coming from natural sources (primarily herds of ruminant livestock, the numbers of which have been increasing yearly for about 60 years). 3)The U.N. report makes very clear that the increase of methane is only corralative, NOT causal. Meaning simply that an increase in methane emmissions is not damaging by itself, but begins to become an issue when coupled with de-forestation and rising nitrogen levels.
Quote:There is NOTHING we can do about how strong the core winds of a hurricane becomes While factually accurate your logic is flawed. While there is nothing you can do to change the winds of a hurricane, we have, verifiably, changed the weather conditions that produce hurricanes. As the artic stream becomes wider and moves further south before reaching parity with surrounding water temprature and average surface tempratures continue to rise conditions for more hurricanes exist.
Quote:There is NOTHING we can do about how violent a tornado becomes Again, technically true but missis the point through logical fallacy of first principles. While we cannot prevent, or even very accurately predict tornados, we do know that the mechanisims that cause them can be influenced, i.e. surface winds. Ground level wind speed being checked by windbreaks, natural or man-made can prevent the formation of tornados. (Can. Doesn't always, but can). Nature's most prevalent windbreak is trees. Lots of trees.
Quote:Sure haven't heard global warming with regard to the cold blast this week.
Actually, we have. Your much maligned U.N. Report does in fact contain a protion explicitly referring to weather extremes. Tropical depressions pull the jet stream farther south, thus drawing sub-artic weather into areas it wouldn't normally be found. But the mechanics of it aren't the point. The point is that your statement is factually incorrect.
Blind pilot flying a 747? Totally not impossible since Boing has auto-pilot and flight computers that can lift-off and land the plane. The pilot has become a redundant safty system.
Last thing I'm going to beat on you about is this: No reputable person has EVER said that global warming will "destroy the earth". Because you are correct. The Biosphere of earth is a self-correcting mechanism. All anyone has said about global warming is that the influence of man on the environment will, if it were to continue as is, make it impossible for the earth to support large mammalian lifeforms (of which man is one). That climate change can, and has, wiped out entire orders of species is an established fact. That global warming will "destroy the earth" and make it uninhabitable is rank supposition of the worst kind, because its almost true. Global warming, should it one day be proven to your standards, if left unchecked will make the earth uninhabitable for humans. And thats all.
I'm curious to know this though: In 2009, when an administration that believes in science is sworn in, will you be more friendly to global warming at that point?
First, Dr. Hiedi Cullen had nothing whatsoever to do with the U.N. Report. While she might be offering soundbytes or quotes/analysis on the television, she had nothing to do with writing the report. Your assertion to the contrary is misleading.
Second, there is no need to hold in your methane, for three very important reasons. 1)Due to the chemical reactions that occur as well as the bacteria in our gut, humans produce only a very, very negligible amount of methane from the digestion process. 2)The report clearly defines methane as coming from natural sources (primarily herds of ruminant livestock, the numbers of which have been increasing yearly for about 60 years). 3)The U.N. report makes very clear that the increase of methane is only corralative, NOT causal. Meaning simply that an increase in methane emmissions is not damaging by itself, but begins to become an issue when coupled with de-forestation and rising nitrogen levels.
Quote:There is NOTHING we can do about how strong the core winds of a hurricane becomes
While factually accurate your logic is flawed. While there is nothing you can do to change the winds of a hurricane, we have, verifiably, changed the weather conditions that produce hurricanes. As the artic stream becomes wider and moves further south before reaching parity with surrounding water temprature and average surface tempratures continue to rise conditions for more hurricanes exist.
Quote:There is NOTHING we can do about how violent a tornado becomes
Again, technically true but missis the point through logical fallacy of first principles. While we cannot prevent, or even very accurately predict tornados, we do know that the mechanisims that cause them can be influenced, i.e. surface winds. Ground level wind speed being checked by windbreaks, natural or man-made can prevent the formation of tornados. (Can. Doesn't always, but can). Nature's most prevalent windbreak is trees. Lots of trees.
Quote:Sure haven't heard global warming with regard to the cold blast this week.
Actually, we have. Your much maligned U.N. Report does in fact contain a protion explicitly referring to weather extremes. Tropical depressions pull the jet stream farther south, thus drawing sub-artic weather into areas it wouldn't normally be found. But the mechanics of it aren't the point. The point is that your statement is factually incorrect.
Blind pilot flying a 747? Totally not impossible since Boing has auto-pilot and flight computers that can lift-off and land the plane. The pilot has become a redundant safty system.
Last thing I'm going to beat on you about is this: No reputable person has EVER said that global warming will "destroy the earth". Because you are correct. The Biosphere of earth is a self-correcting mechanism. All anyone has said about global warming is that the influence of man on the environment will, if it were to continue as is, make it impossible for the earth to support large mammalian lifeforms (of which man is one). That climate change can, and has, wiped out entire orders of species is an established fact. That global warming will "destroy the earth" and make it uninhabitable is rank supposition of the worst kind, because its almost true. Global warming, should it one day be proven to your standards, if left unchecked will make the earth uninhabitable for humans. And thats all.
I'm curious to know this though: In 2009, when an administration that believes in science is sworn in, will you be more friendly to global warming at that point?
Comment edited and reposted to change bad HTML markup. Also to add link below:
21 page UN report summary (.pdf format)
Reply
Leave a comment