Worried about Global Cooling...

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

As well, solar cells have improved to where they don't need bright sunny days to generate electicity.

Solar cells always worked in lower sunlight, it also happens that they shockingly produce less power at those levels this is still true today, further more, they also do not have unlimited lifespans and do pose a problem in terms of disposal. Further more many large scale industrial solar generation plants do not use solar cells but mirrors to focus the sunlight on various liquids which are then used to power boilers.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

First of all, I don't think your calculations are correct. California, the 5th largest economy in the world, could have all if its present electrical energy needs met with a 10 square mile section of land, already identified by PG&E by the way, in Death Valley.

The largest solar plant in the world only produces 354 MW and occupies 2.5 square miles of land, consisting of over 1,000,000 individual mirrors,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems

Even the newest propsed solar plant(i believe this is the PG&E plant you were referencing) will produce only 553 MW over a area of approximately 9.4 square miles.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...430085,00.html

The USA uses 4.064 trillion kWh of electricity per year(2006 est.)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...pa/epates.html

Now since these new plants aren't complete and haven't been put into operation yet we don't know what the total power production will be. You're welcome to try to find your own numbers but you're going to need a ton of these large scale solar plants to try and replace only the current electrical power usage of the US.

SEGS(first link) produced 11,000 million KWh of electricity between 1985-2001, however the plant wasn't fully completed til 91, so i think a fair estimate is about 1,000 million KWh per year. Based on those numbers you'd need roughly 4000 of those plants to cover the US electricity consumption and thats not counting converting any cars to electricity

However, the newer plants(link 2) use a less efficient design and cover significantly large areas over land(over twice as much) but are cheaper to manufacture.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Interesting information Dan. Thanks for the links. Interesting timing on this story too, considering the subject was brought up earlier today. Seems the mercury risk is a little overblown on the new flourescent bulbs.

http://www.slate.com/id/2183606/

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Do you bother to source check ANY of the crap you post? Do you bother to check where these groups get their funding??? Jesus, in the age where anyone with $10 can register a domain and put up a website you have to be extremely careful the sources you use and what their history is.

You quote a conference established and sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The Hartland Institute is a lobby front for those who take on issues for their corporate benefactors. Heartland is more known for being a Tobacco industry lobbiest with direct ties to Phillip Morris. Their board of directors also features ties directly to big oil and the automotive industry. First a front for the tobacco industry and now a front for the oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

CO2science.org is an organization founded by the Keith Idso, who was a paid witness for the Western Fuels Association during a Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing, is funded by Exxon Mobil.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

You really know how to pick them.

Like you said Lanny anyone can register a domain name. Because of this any website can be discredited by another website.

For example

www.sourcewatch.org is run by the Center for Media & Democracy. The Center of Media and democracy is run by two people, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. www.activastcash.com has painted these two guys as follows:

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

Now I`m sure that whoever runs www.activastcash.com isn`t unbiased and that there is some website that will discredit whoever runs it.

I guess what I`m trying to say is before using another website to discredit someones sources keep in mind that there is likely another website that can work to discredit the website you are using. So really if sourcewatch isn`t as reputable as they sound and try to discredit the heartland institute is the Heartland Institute really not a reputable website

Everyone gets funding from somewhere and they can all be influenced but it doesn`t mean that they actually are.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Very familiar with activistcash.com and use it to see what the liberals are up to. It is a direct response to sourcewatch.com and this scathing response to to the exposure provided to Center for Consumer Freedom.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nsumer_Freedom

Still presents a lot of good information, even if it is not sourced in any shape or form. Its a good place to kick off research.

You're right that everyone gets their funding from someone, but when the endowment comes directly from corporate interests, and your research falls directly in line with those interests, it certainly brings the research into question. That goes both ways. Hey, feel free to pick a scientist behind from the IPCC report and run them through the grinder and see just how much dirt you can dig up on them.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Interesting information Dan. Thanks for the links. Interesting timing on this story too, considering the subject was brought up earlier today. Seems the mercury risk is a little overblown on the new flourescent bulbs.

http://www.slate.com/id/2183606/

Ok, each bulb would have a minimum of 5ppm of mercury....a minimum. The acceptable or normal amount of mercury in a human is 1-2ppm. So lets load up the house with 25 lightbulbs with 5ppm of mercury.

25 lightbulbs and millions of households=a sh*tload of mercury into our dump every year=draining into rivers and wells.

I for one think that a natural occuring gas such as CO2 that plants use for food, might......just might be a little better for the environment that say, all that mercury?

[JohnnyB]

after reading this thread, and how pretty much everybody presents negative consequences for following the other side's ideas, the only rational conclusion I can come to is that we're all pretty much screwed no matter what.

This makes me feel entirely justified in ignoring the debate and going back to living my life just as I would if there were no debate at all. Success for status quo??

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Dingbat post? Exactly what is "dingbat" about pointing out the legitimacy of the source you post your information from? Have you done any sort of education in research methodology? Validity of source is extremely important in the acceptance of research. But since that hasn't dawned on you, I guess it doesn't matter. Thankfully it matters to the scientific community and papers are peer reviewed. Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA, etc. all use scholastically peer reviewed papers as the sources of their information. Do those sourves you post from use peer reviewed papers published in association journals? I'm pretty sure they don't.

This one right here is a perfect example of a dingbat post.

You ignore 9/10 tens of what I posted and forgotten what you yourself have posted.

What you have said....

Do you bother to source check ANY of the crap you post? Do you bother to check where these groups get their funding???

What I said...
*Lanny being conservative doesn't make them wrong. Being big oil doesn't make them wrong. Without evidence that that their data is wrong saying that these sources are biased is just another one of your dingbat diatribes.

*to discount evidence to the contrary of their beliefs due to their sources of funding leaves you with these options.

1. The opposition are pure Evil. They are out to destroy the earth. Leave nothing behind for their offspring and get rich off of their funding while manipulating data.


That defies logic. So.....that leaves us with these options

1. They are right. Jansen and Suzuki due to their exuberance have exaggerated the conclusions from existing data, or have errors in their data and have chosen to ignore them.

2. They are incorrect.

3. More data is needed an the current media driven hysteria is unwarranted and talking heads like Jansen and Suzuki should shut up.



Then you have contradict yourself.....

Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA,

And these sources you quote from earlier are from?????

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...es-hansen.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17926941

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...erland&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021001766.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...nclimatechange

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011302753.html

Nevermid James Hansen is from where???? But then you confirm it....

since it was NASA's own James Hansen who finally was fed up with politicians rewriting scientific fact and blew the whistle. The science is in, the majority of the world supports it, its only a disinformation campaign that clouds the issue in North America.

So is Hansen a crappy or good source Lanny?


Lastly.....
Are employees, execs, and investors of Oil companies, Big Airline manufacturers, Car makers, etc.... (All American, of course) all hell bent on destroying the Earth no matter what or so uncaring they are willing to ignore the truth or ignore others manipulating the truth? Or worse the scientists they do fund are ALL evil and are willing to manipulate the data no matter the outcome.

You'd have to be completely delusional to believe in such things.

So that leaves you 3 options

1. Hansen is correct, though a crappy source according to you
2. His critics are right and he is promoting a number of logical fallacies that promotes political actions not supported by real-world evidence
3. Unsure....need more data.

[Crispy's Critter]

well, the obvious cause for this "global cooling" is the fact that because of the popularity of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, too many people have actually become pirates, so now we must recruit more ninja's to balance them out

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

after reading this thread, and how pretty much everybody presents negative consequences for following the other side's ideas, the only rational conclusion I can come to is that we're all pretty much screwed no matter what.

Well i think we can all agree that we do need to transition to a greener lifestyle, it's just not economical on a large scale basis yet and more breakthroughs are needed to increase the yields from renewable resources.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Strange how nothing has been mentioned of nuclear power.

But hey, lets fill up the whole country with windmills.

Feel free to mention it and add something to the debate... the sarcasm regarding windmills is noticeable, but puzzling... who wants to fill the US with windmills and ignore all other forms of energy?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

after reading this thread, and how pretty much everybody presents negative consequences for following the other side's ideas, the only rational conclusion I can come to is that we're all pretty much screwed no matter what.

This makes me feel entirely justified in ignoring the debate and going back to living my life just as I would if there were no debate at all. Success for status quo??

Well... I'd suggest 'ignoring the debate and going back to living my life' is pretty much what one side represents imo...

[transplant99]

I think this thread, and the countless others that have precedeed it, shows that there simply is not enough conclusive evidence one way or the other to go forward in any decisive manner.

Much like the US politically, the polarization has increased between the two "sides" and until conclusive, indisputable, and unbiased "proof" can be agreed upon, nothing will change. Equal blame on both sides too.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

This one right here is a perfect example of a dingbat post.

No HOZ, this is a perfect example of a post where you can't freakin' read and have taken information out of context.

You ignore 9/10 tens of what I posted and forgotten what you yourself have posted.

Its because 99.9999% of the crap you post is noise. You don't even comprehend what the information is saying.

What you have said....

Do you bother to source check ANY of the crap you post? Do you bother to check where these groups get their funding???

What I said...
*Lanny being conservative doesn't make them wrong. Being big oil doesn't make them wrong. Without evidence that that their data is wrong saying that these sources are biased is just another one of your dingbat diatribes.

What it does is provide motive for the research. You probably are not aware, but disclosure of potential bias is a requirement for a paper to be peer reviewed. It is this potential hiding of this bias that brings the research into question. I'll put it into terms that you can understand. A review of Oiler prospects by Reggie Dunlop on CalgaryPuck is probably NOT going to provide valid data. Unless the relationship of potential bias is disclosed, the research is considered tainted. Researchers who do not do this can end up in a world of hurt, losing credibility and face penalties at the universities they work.

*to discount evidence to the contrary of their beliefs due to their sources of funding leaves you with these options.

1. The opposition are pure Evil. They are out to destroy the earth. Leave nothing behind for their offspring and get rich off of their funding while manipulating data.

No, what it means is that there is a high level of distrust towards those scientists who get involved in generating data to support corporate ideals of profit over social responsibility. If you can put away aside the melodrama that is ever present in every single one of your posts (a conservative staple) you will see that at no time did I say they were veil or out to destroy the planet. All I have done is indicated their undisclosed relationships and funding sources, which brings their research into question. That is a part of the scientific research process, whether you like it or not. This is why all of that wonderful work in the health effects of cigarettes done by the plethora of research scientists funded by tobacco are not accepted by the scientific community.

That defies logic. So.....that leaves us with these options

1. They are right. Jansen and Suzuki due to their exuberance have exaggerated the conclusions from existing data, or have errors in their data and have chosen to ignore them.

2. They are incorrect.

3. More data is needed an the current media driven hysteria is unwarranted and talking heads like Jansen and Suzuki should shut up.

Now you're trying to narrow the scope and using extremes to try and discount the vast majority of data involved (another common conservative practice). Jansen [sic] (I'll believe you were refering to Hansen) is a completely different story than Suzuki, so lumping them together makes zero sense. Both hold dramatically different views on the subject matter but do share one common belief, that we are doing damage to the planet and must alter our behaviors. This belief is shared by thousands of other scientists around the world. That has been confirmed through cooperative efforts like the IPCC reports and the support for political initiatives like Kyoto. The science communities from countries around the world, including 132 developing nations (China inclusinve), believe that climate change is real and that man is a signifiant contributor to those changes. This is NOT just two men leading the charge. This a collective effort of thousands and thousands of people from the scientific and political communities from maround the globe coming together to try and find answers to this problem. A concensus has been reached. Live with it.

Then you have contradict yourself.....

Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA,

Nice selective editting job you hack (another tactic conservatives love to abuse). Try quoting the whole sentence you ass.

"Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA, etc. all use scholastically peer reviewed papers as the sources of their information."

Also, taken in context it was making fun of you and your sources. You always try and put down these sources, but they are the sources that are considered the record of society. They are expected to hold to the highest levels of integrity in what they publish, and they do so.

And these sources you quote from earlier are from?????

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...es-hansen.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17926941

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...erland&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021001766.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...nclimatechange

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011302753.html

They are all quality sources, which is why I used them. Reading comprehension is a bitch for you, isn't it. They also showed the power of the political agenda in the United States and just how easy it is to twist the publics perception of the facts on climate change. NASA is the end game for this type of research and the Bush Administration went out of their way to censor and silence the top scientists at NASA and the importance of the view on climate change. The Bush Administration has taken the position similar to yours, that the science is not in. Here is the top scientist, speaking on behalf of the scientists at the government's top agency on science, saying that the science is in and humans are a significant cause of climate change.

Nevermid James Hansen is from where???? But then you confirm it....

since it was NASA's own James Hansen who finally was fed up with politicians rewriting scientific fact and blew the whistle. The science is in, the majority of the world supports it, its only a disinformation campaign that clouds the issue in North America.

So is Hansen a crappy or good source Lanny?

Been covered. NASA is the final source for the government on this type of research. They were censored because of their disagreement with the Administrations position. Bush, and his ties to Big Oil, did not want the government position to be in alignment with the vast majority of the scientific community, so they censored them and changed the facts. Funny, but I could have sworn that you, and others here, said that doesn't happen?

Lastly.....
Are employees, execs, and investors of Oil companies, Big Airline manufacturers, Car makers, etc.... (All American, of course) all hell bent on destroying the Earth no matter what or so uncaring they are willing to ignore the truth or ignore others manipulating the truth? Or worse the scientists they do fund are ALL evil and are willing to manipulate the data no matter the outcome.

There we go, more melodrama.

You'd have to be completely delusional to believe in such things.

So that leaves you 3 options

1. Hansen is correct, though a crappy source according to you
2. His critics are right and he is promoting a number of logical fallacies that promotes political actions not supported by real-world evidence
3. Unsure....need more data.

No HOZ, you'd have to be uneducated and uninformed not to recognize that corporations pay vast amounts of money for reserach to be conducted to support their political and economic position. Tobacco did it for years and got away with it. Drug companies do it every day. Same with chemical companies. The automotive industry is in the same boat. All corporations focus on the bottom line first and care little of their social responsibility. Good lord, car manufactures have teams of actuaries who try to figure out if it would cost them less to fix problems with their vehicles or just pay out settlements in law suits. Corporations don't care about anything but money and value to the shareholder.

The job of these scientists is not to prove anything, just to obfuscate. They are to inject ANY research into the discussion just to slow the momentum of the moment and cause people to pause. To refute these studies requires that the scientific method be repeated, taking up time and energy. This is exactly what the companies are paying for. Consider the profits in each quarter last year for Exxon Mobil and why they would want to drag the debate on further. Your answer can be found there.

[HOZ]

Thanks Lanny for confirming what I thought all along about you.

I'll type it one more time and see if you understand. Saying they are conservative or funded by big (whatever) doesn't make them wrong. You have to PROVE their DATA is incorrect. Kind of like.....what Doctors did to the tobacco companies.

Thats said.....here is an article written last year by Nigel Calder that makes the point very clearly.

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

No HOZ, you'd have to be uneducated and uninformed not to recognize that corporations pay vast amounts of money for reserach to be conducted to support their political and economic position. Tobacco did it for years and got away with it. Drug companies do it every day. Same with chemical companies. The automotive industry is in the same boat. All corporations focus on the bottom line first and care little of their social responsibility. Good lord, car manufactures have teams of actuaries who try to figure out if it would cost them less to fix problems with their vehicles or just pay out settlements in law suits. Corporations don't care about anything but money and value to the shareholder.

Just one question lanny, do you honestly think the companies involved in extracting our renewable resources are above this as well?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Environmentalism = higher taxes? Maybe as an incentive to get the hell off of one standard and on to the next. Drive a big gas guzzling poluting car, and you pay big taxes. Drive a small eco-friendly bio-diesel or electric car and pay fewer taxes. It's all about choice.

O the government won't stop there. We already have a new tax on electrical and natural gas to supposedly fund research in alternate fuel sources. You see as long as they link a new tax to preventing global warming enough of you sheep will blindly embrace it as good and necessary to make it politically viable.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

How is being environmentally conscious increasing inflation? That's scare mongering at its worst.

The cost of production in Canada will rise when companies are required to utilize more expensive alternate fuels. Any retooling to new environmental standards will also increase the cost of production. These costs will be passed onto the consumer.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Again, how so. If North America makes the commitment to cleaning up our act, and develop the technologies that place us at the forefront, how do we lose share in global markets? We don't. We become leaders in global markets.

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Until you find a fuel source that is cheaper than carbon based energy you've got nothing. In the mean time you lose the global markets you've established because the cost of production is higher here because of the restrictions you've put in place.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Again, how do we lose jobs by being environmentally aware? Oh, someone used a florescent bulb, there go 10 jobs to Asia. More scare mongering.

We lose jobs because our companies won't be able to compete with countries that reside in countries with lower environmental taxes and restrictions.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Again, if we prove to be world leaders in finding new and innovative ways to be energy efficient, the world will be forced to adopt the standards we set. Sadly, it is China and Japan that are pressing forward and making efforts to be leaders in this regard. If we don't act quickly, our competitive advantage will be gone before we take the opportunity to exploit it.

Talk to me about China and Japan when their environmental standards meet our current ones here in Canada. I'm sure they are more than willing to build new more environmental friendly products if there is a market for it but, what standards are they using to manufacture these products.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That's a fallacy. China is working very hard on finding ways to meet their energy needs. They are also working very hard to clean up their environment because they know the situation they find themselves. They have built an eco-town (pop. 500,000) that will be self-sufficient with renewable energy and feature emission free transportation (the Chinese have an excellent electric vehicle production plant). They are currently building the largest damn project in the world to suppliment their power grid. They are also looking to nuclear for a source of clean power. The Chinese recognize the impact they can have on the environment and are being proactive in doing their part.

Again tell me when they catch up. Maybe if they redirected some of the billions they are spending on their ever expanding military they might be able to do more. Also, building another nuclear power plant and flooding another valley for hydro electric power doesn't do anything for the environment. All that does is increase their ability to produce more products for export. How many of their coal powered plants are scheduled to be closed or refitted to meet north American standards.
Also, their eco-town sounds more like a propagamma attempt then a change of heart. It sounds like it worked on you.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Damn those tree huggers! Who wants a beautiful country side when you can let the mines come in and make it look like this:
You can thank the tree huggers, because if you did move forward with mines like this your taxes would have to go up to replace every licence plate on every car, because that certainly isn't "Beautiful British Columbia".

Ahh!!! so your commitment to the environment only goes so far. You would rather see mining done with no consideration to the environment or the lives it effects in some third world country than ruin the view in your own back yard.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Thanks Lanny for confirming what I thought all along about you.

I'll type it one more time and see if you understand. Saying they are conservative or funded by big (whatever) doesn't make them wrong. You have to PROVE their DATA is incorrect. Kind of like.....what Doctors did to the tobacco companies.

Thats said.....here is an article written last year by Nigel Calder that makes the point very clearly.

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

That is how science really works? No, science works through the observation and collection of measurable imperical data to prove/disprove a theory. By following a documented methodolgy these findings should not only be repeatable, but consistent, through independent trial. That is how science works. Most journals will not accept papers written without the repetition and independent verification through the peer review process. This peer review process has been around since the time of Plato and Socrates. This is the basis for concensus and scientific foundation. That is how science works.

I really do like the article, but it is also very flawed in its own right. It uses the comments of one scientist on one subject, that being cold fusion, to completely discount the process and work of thousands of other scientists. The study done by the scientist who had his work rejected by journal after journal stuck with the process and obviously kept refining his findings. You don't just peddle your findings from one journal to the next until someone publishes them. That is not how publication works. Too bad the author of the article failed to mention that.

Here is another point that the author misses, and is the most pressing point that is lost on most people. The science community has come together, and scientists from all different specialities, have agreed upon what they think the source of climate change and global warming is. Each of them has their own field of study and expertise, but they have agreed on the source of this problem. There is concensus amongst thousands of scientists, scientific organizations and countries. Are they 100% certain? No, because science is never 100% certain of anything, which is the strength of science in the first place. Those who make claims counter to the concensus theory have been lone voices. They have their own research specialities and their own theories. There is no concensus amongst these voices other than they think that CO2 is not the problem. Are they 100% certain? No. Do they present a unified theory as a disconscenting concesus? No. They continue to argue amongst themselves what they think the cause is. The only thing they agree on is that CO2 is not the problem (they think).

Again, I will put this into terms that you can understand. There is concensus that the NHL is the best hockey league in the world. The vast majority of hockey experts agree that the NHL is without a doubt the best league out there, regardless of their afiliation with a team and what they think about the other clubs. They will say that top to bottom, each club in the NHL are the best teams in the world and this leads to the NHL being the only league for those who wish to play the highest calibre of hockey. This is concensus. Conversely, there are some Russians who claim otherwise, the RSL is the best. There are some Swedes who claim the best is the SEL. There are some who even say the best hockey league in the world is the CHL. The only thing they can agree upon is their belief that the NHL is not the best. Beyond that, they are at complete odds with each other. There is no concensus. There is no unified theory. It's all noise. They have their theories, but they are on the fringe because there is no unified theory.

Now what would happen if ESPN picked up one of these knuckleheads and started promoting it as the best league in the world, or even that the NHL was second rate? The unkowledgeable people out there might begin to believe that and discount the NHL. This is exactly what is happening right now in the climate change debate. There are elements whose sole intent and purpose is to obfuscate and confuse the issue. It does not matter that there is no unified theory to counter the CO2 theory, ANY theory will do, as long as it adds another layer of complexity and extends the argument. That is the flaw in the argument against the IPCC and why it does not hold water. Until they can present a unified theory there is no serious counter to the CO2 theory. That's the end game. Live with it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Just one question lanny, do you honestly think the companies involved in extracting our renewable resources are above this as well?

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you're asking if I think that all corporations are the same, regardless of industry, then yes, I think they are all the same and would pimp their mothers out if it would increase profits. Corporations have proven themselves to be one thing, untrustworthy. The only way they do the right thing is if the government, or advocacy groups, watch them like hawks. What is really sad is that the only way out of the problem we find ourselves is through corporate leadership and participation. This is one of the reasons why I am resigned to the fact that nothing will ever get done and that we will continue to pollute and damage our planet.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think this thread, and the countless others that have precedeed it, shows that there simply is not enough conclusive evidence one way or the other to go forward in any decisive manner.

Much like the US politically, the polarization has increased between the two "sides" and until conclusive, indisputable, and unbiased "proof" can be agreed upon, nothing will change. Equal blame on both sides too.

That makes little sense. Let's say a policeman says that a school bus may or may not have a bomb on it. It's a 50/50 gamble. Maybe there is. Maybe their isn't. Do you put your kid on the schoolbus?

We can't agree on evolution. If we wait for "all the science to be in" we will have determined that global warming is man-made 10,000 years after Manhattan is under water.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think this thread, and the countless others that have precedeed it, shows that there simply is not enough conclusive evidence one way or the other to go forward in any decisive manner.

We are a bunch of guys on a message board though, and I don't know that a single one of us is a climate scientist of any stripe. Our online bickering isn't really an indicator of anything other than Flames fans can't agree on this issue. Considering where most of us live on top of that...