

IPCC's chairman under pressure to step down after embarrassing retraction












Comments     Threshold


RE: Why stop?
By reader1 on 1/26/2010 12:41:37 PM , Rating: -1
We are going with actual science. The scientific thing to do in this situation is to reduce C02 emissions and measure the effect. That's why the so-called, "Climategate" e-mails had no effect on the discussions at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen.

RE: Why stop?
By SPOOFE on 1/26/2010 2:09:57 PM , Rating: 3

Really? We should enact the trillion-dollar legislation and THEN try to find out if we should? That's like saying we should launch astronauts into space without suits so we can measure how painfully they died from vacuum exposure.

RE: Why stop?
By Ticholo on 1/26/2010 2:36:24 PM , Rating: 5
You didn't get the point of his post.
He was being scientific about it.
He posted to see if it was the right opinion to have.
Hopefully now he knows better.

RE: Why stop?
By SPOOFE on 1/26/2010 2:52:52 PM , Rating: 3

It sure looks like he was ASSERTING that it's the right opinion to have, and he's absolutely incorrect that it is scientific: You don't conduct an experiment to make observations if your hypothesis isn't complete.

RE: Why stop?
By reader1 on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:31:49 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, since reducing emissions won't reduce atmospheric CO2 (but raising emissions will raise them), the best way to test the hypothesis is to burn all the gas and oil we can.

Cool. Glad you agree with us.

RE: Why stop?
By SPOOFE on 1/26/2010 3:33:42 PM , Rating: 3
Reducing C02 emissions is the best way to test it.

Best how? In terms of practicability? According to the UN's own reports, we'd need to drop CO2 emissions more than 80% (actually, 80% was the number they cited just to significantly SLOW DOWN the alleged warming). You think it's practical to just nix 80%+ of the plant's CO2 emissions?

The BEST way to test it is to compare historical CO2 levels - on geological time scales, which means a handful of centuries will NOT give you the proper sample size - to historically estimated temperatures. Oh, wait, they did that and found that CO2 and temperature changes were not always correlated.

RE: Why stop?
RE: Why stop?
By FITCamaro on 1/26/2010 11:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing you win is a big bag o fail.

To reach the IPCCs goals we'd have to find a way to stop volcanoes from erupting, forest fires from starting, cows from farting and taking a dump, etc.

But since you're so adamant about it, get off your damn computer. You're using energy likely coming from a coal power plant. Move into to the woods and become a tree person. Walk the walk or shut the f*ck up.

I bet you don't wish for your own standard of living to go down. But then the way you talk you just might be that stupid.

RE: Why stop?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 9:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
Checkmate I win???

Dude you are not even on the board to start playing. Do you know what the biggest producer of CO2 is? Answer Volcanoes... and supposedly more are going off now then 100 years ago, so should be plug them up, since in one year they do more damage then 100 years of human "damage"? Next question, do you know what creature produces the most CO2 (many times more than all humans)? Answer the termites in South American rain forest. So, should be chop down all the rain forest just the kill or stop these creatures from putting out so much CO2? Now the third question, Do you know the largest consumer of CO2? Answer, Plants... The increase in CO2 should be increasing plant life which will increase Oxygen levels... if we let the planet take care of itself and we do not screw it up... After all it's been doing a pretty good job for how many years now?? If you want to talk about not cutting down large forest, rain forest or to limit the cutting and replanting two trees for every one cut... then you would have a strong provable point. CO2 is something we need, getting rid of it (controlling it) is just stupid.

RE: Why stop?
By XIAOYI on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 2:35:39 PM , Rating: 5
" That's why "Climategate" had no effect on the discussions at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. "

Haha, what? Even the strongest supporters of the conference admit it failed. Not one single binding agreement came out of it, and several nations attending openly mocked calls for future emission cuts.

In any case, the conference is nothing but an excuse to push socialist agendas. The speaker there who got the most cheers (and a standing ovation, no less) was Hugo Chavez, a man who is rapidly leading his own country into economic and civil ruin.

RE: Why stop?
By Guyver on 1/26/2010 2:51:12 PM , Rating: 5
Science has yet to prove:

1. CO2 causes global warming

2. Man-made CO2 is the primary catalyst for warming on this planet.

If science proves CO2 causes global warming (outside of computer simulations based on the assumption that CO2 is the cause), then what other green house gases should be regulated? What about water vapor?

RE: Why stop?
what other green house gases should be regulated?



RE: Why stop?
By UNCjigga on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why stop?
By kattanna on 1/26/2010 5:30:27 PM , Rating: 4
CO2 has a measurable greenhouse effect and this has been well-documented for over 30 years

whats missing from that phrase is "within a controlled laboratory environment".

placing CO2 within a sealed and static container and then applying a "sun" source, while effective at directly measuring the heat trapping effect of CO2, is NOT a real world environment, and therefore cannot be used as an accurate model of how it works within our atmosphere.

RE: Why stop?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/27/2010 9:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
Umm, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on #1. CO2 has a measurable greenhouse effect and this has been well-documented for over 30 years. Perhaps you meant to phrase that as:

that's comical, no he has it correct... they have yet to prove it... well-documented for over 30 years. That is so very little data to go off of it is not even fun. The planet has been around for billions of years, there are billions of people on this planet. So for fun lets say 1 year = 1 person. By your "Well-documented" data you have asked 30 people questions and plan to implement a plan that will effect all the billion of people from this tiny amount of data.

RE: Why stop?
