Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Thanks for being a jerk to me D. I'll remember that one.
...
I have no idea why you went on the attack with your picture book comment to me. I was just discussing the subject and then you went all nasty on my ass. Not cool. I was interested in the topic. Not having you insult me.
|
Please don't take it that way. I think I made a couple of assumptions I shouldn't have, and, in retrospect, you're right - I acted the ass. I guess it just seems we debate this same topic time and time again - and it's sometimes easy to forget there are people entering the discussion who haven't done so before. Still, I may have gotten caught up in things - but that's no excuse for acting disrespectfully to you. I offer my apologies, and I sincerely hope that you'll accept them.
On to your points: I think that there's certainly a long way to go in bridging the cooperation between politicians and the scientific community. Our current executive is arguably one of the most anti-scientific in history, and it seems to me that our representatives worry more about appearances or getting elected to the next term or landing a cushy consulting job after their time in office than actually doing right.
Then there's the actual science - which isn't perfect, but even so, the peer-reviewed publication process is probably one of the best feet forward that we have going on... and nearly everything that's coming from them in the last 50 years says what we're tossing into the atmosphere on a regular basis is screwing things up - as you appear to agree with. I think it's cool that you were looking to convert to solar power.... if I owned my home, I'd probably be looking to do the same.
I've read the article you listed, and a bit more on the subject over the last hour, and it appears that the idea arose from a greater understanding of global climate systems in the 70's paired with a decrease in temperature from the 40's to 70's. It was a new science working with recent data. The idea of "global cooling" was hyped by the media though it never gained any real scientific support. In example, to quote Dr. B.J. Mason of the Royal Meteorological Society as written in the QJRMS, 1976, p 473 (Symons Memorial Lecture):
Quote:
|
At present we are in a warm interglacial period, the duration of these in the past have averaged about 50 kyr. It is probable that the present very warm interval, which has already lasted for about 10 kyr, will eventually give way to a period of colder climate. Statistically the chances that such a transition will begin in the next 100 years mayy be placed at about 1 in 100 but the full drop of 10 oC or so would probably be spread over several kyr. There is a rather higher probability that a cooling may set in but not be carried through to the full glacial conditions. The chances of a prolonged cold, but far from glacial, spell within the next century, with average temperatures lower by about 1 oC, such as occurred between 1500 and 1850, must be put quite high, about 1 in 5. However, there is no physical basis for predicting either the timing or magnitude of such changes because we do not yet understand the underlying causes. Likewise there is no real basis for the alarmist predictions of an imminent ice age which have largely been based on extrapolation of the 30-year trend of falling temperatures between 1940 and 1965. Apart from the strong dubiety of making a forecast from such a highly fluctuating record by extrapolation of such a short period trend, there is now evidence that the trend has been arrested.
|
And it's been later noted by a myriad of scientists - armed with that greater understanding of global climate systems and a lot more data - that we're most certainly in a stage of warming. The idea also seems to get hyped by the media - but the difference is that this time, unlike with "global cooling," the general concept has wide scientific support.
And, for the record, I don't think any of this mess means 'the end of the world'... just maybe the end of anywhere from thousands to millions of currently extant species... and I, personally, don't even think it'll mean the end of humankind (we're too adaptable) - but even if it does, the 'world' will certainly be here long after we're gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz
|
Quite a bit younger than you, am I? I think that you either have me confused with someone else, or you're misinformed... even if you are actually older than me (which I wouldn't have thunk by your pics), I don't think it's by any more than a couple of years.
And who says "ignorance" on any particular subject has anything to do with age? I'm 34, and ignorant of many things.... and I think it quite likely I'll leave this world remaining ignorant about things like interior decoration.... I'm just hoping you'll eventually smarten up about this particular topic... issues of morality and honesty aside, you seem a bright guy - when you choose to be.
I do understand what you're saying about the sensationalization, though... but, I think that's, sadly, just how our modern media works: 'The scientific community is saying that the world is due for massive changes over the next 200 years - how can we sell that?!'
The fact is, it's quite possible we won't see _massive_ changes in our lifetimes (give or take the polar bears going extinct, etc) - but the real message is that our children's children probably will (give or take 500 years), which is in the blink of an eye in that "geological time" I was referring to earlier.