Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kabana

Newbies
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    David Henry
  • School or University
    BSHS
  • Occupation
    Taxi Driver.

Kabana's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I don't know about easily fooled...but the 19 000 where duped by a pretense, as I showed. The scientists from the Warning to Humanity Statement were mainly senior scientists including approx half the living noble prize winners AND their warning of biosphere degradation is being backed up by other reports from scientists 10-12 yrs on...such as the GEO-3 report of 2002. About to read that post now.
  2. AisA Yeah, thanks for that. Maybe it's the nature of scientific modelling and the difficulty of modelling a semi-chaotic system. What are suggesting though, that we have no right to assume anything because we don't have what you describe as certainty? The science{facts and theory} suggest we're having an influence, as in GHG theory. For the record, I'm not a fan of Kyoto, but the idea that we can destroy the economy is rather tame considering Interface Carpets example.
  3. As I'm a Taxi Driver, I speak with a variety of scientists from CSIRO and DPI at Myers Road Indooroopilly, Brisbane....and after doing some looking into the issue of GW using critical thinking, I concluded that only those scientists or people who can think critically and investigate the matter have a clue, IOW, a biologist might be properly informed on GW, but unless they've properly studied the issue, their input is worthless. Also note that half of the living Noble prize winners endorsed The Warning to Humanity Statement and that there are 100's of international news articles attesting to the damage we're doing, such as the effect on coral reefs.
  4. What is your logical justification for the belief that they're lying, and by extension many of the world's scientists and presumably the NAS? How is it trolling to discuss the value basis of any doctrine?
  5. So you think the scientists of the GEO-3 report are lying? Did you delete my post? EDIT: What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming? Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project. In global environment Prominent Skeptics Organizations Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind." The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.
  6. Pat Michaels and Fred Singer are what is known as Fossil Fools, IOW, they use their expertise to create doubt+that web-site isn't a peer-reviewed journal is it? I'm not suggesting that everything the IPCC say is 100%, just that it has my support until someone convinces me otherwise. Also, I'm of the mind that science=enough proper facts logically inferenced leading to a reasonable conclusion, and AFAIK, my description of the altering of an internal climate mechanism is accurate and the theoretical basis of belief in anthropogenic GW along with an observed global heating trend. Btw, whilst I'm an environmentalist of sorts, I do realize that what's ideologically desirable isn't always practical....and it seems that the world has fallen in love with capitalism, so whilst I think capitalism is dodgy ideologically, it has the necessary worldwide psychological support, even if that is in denial of some of the prestigious scientific warnings, such as The Warning To Humanity Statement and the GEO-3 Report. EDIT: 1700 Senior Scientists endorse the Warning to Humanity Statement 1992 Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about 1100 Scientists offer the GEO-3 report 2002 (05/22/2002) UN report by 1,100 scientists warns 70% of the natural world will be destroyed over the 30 years due to over-population, deforestation, pollution, global warming, the spread of non-native species, and other human impacts, causing the mass extinction of species, severe water shortages, and the collapse of human society in many countries.
  7. Hello. I'm curious why you think that's a myth? My understanding is that climate is a result of internal/external climate mechanisms, one such internal mechanism is the atmospheric composition, whereby if you alter the relatively stable chemical composition, then you can further delay the release of IR radiation, which adds to the global energy budget....this physically manifests itself in a number of ways, and of course theoretically it should raise the earths average global temperature. Btw,{and this is for anyone}..if the IPCC, The National Academy of Sciences and various other established/reputable institutions endorse "most" of the IPCC's conclusions...how isn't that a consensus?..... as we never have total agreement.
×
×
  • Create New...