|
jffryfnt (August 30, 2008 at 4:59 am)
stop pretending it doesnt exist, many times you've been told how to find the information but you don't seem to bother to really look at it and think about it. you end up running into something else on the internet that just so happens to be congruent to your ill conceived scientifically ignorant preconceptions. If it is the pursuit of knowledge that you truly seek, tear down the barriers in your head that prevents you from that pursuit.
st3v3mj (August 29, 2008 at 1:53 am)
In the years to come, this issue (global warming) will dwarf all issues combined, it will become the only issue.Tim Flannery
luvabl3angel (August 29, 2008 at 1:51 am)
not c02 maybe, but methane yea!
TheStarsHaveFaces (August 29, 2008 at 1:34 am)
you make it sound like all these science magazines are cover to cover filled with talk of co2. But there's a problem with all your big talk. i.e., you never back it. Why don't you produce these studies that back what you say?
grastog1313 (August 28, 2008 at 11:53 pm)
2) "The challenge is not how to save the world most efficiently — just how to save the world." In years reading the journals, I've never before encountered such extreme concern, so uniformly expressed, as now finds its way everywhere into mainstream science. We've discussed the evidence many times, but it's worth also understanding the depth of concern those words communicate to appreciate how dangerous that evidence appears to the world of science.
grastog1313 (August 28, 2008 at 11:49 pm)
1)One of my reasons for urging capemall and others to read the science journals is to understand what has grown into a pervasive, near universal sense of urgency on the need to curtail CO2 to avoid the potential disasters of unabated warming - a perspective far different from what we encounter on YouTube. Extreme language is a norm for politics, while science speaks in sober terms, but if one Googles "Nature" then Archive, Aug. 14, and the Editorial, the text contains an unprecedented warning -
capemall (August 28, 2008 at 9:04 pm)
also gras..since we are making judgements..I think you have no grasp of the concepts..you only seem to say the same prepared statements with slight variations over and over and anytime someone brings up a topic requiring independant thought you answer something entirely different that allows the use of the prepared statements
capemall (August 28, 2008 at 9:01 pm)
gras I appreciate your opinion..but I consider it the opinion of an advocate and as such seriously slanted...I am fully capable of telling the difference between opinion pieces and peer reviewed papers..since you have entered the conversation then perhaps you would like to state the climate sensitivity ranges as have been published and support the argument for it being settled science?
grastog1313 (August 28, 2008 at 8:49 pm)
2) Do you have access to the science literature through a local University? If so, that would be a good start. You can get a fairly good perspective on climate science from Nature, Science, and PNAS, via their own articles and their summaries of the literature. Beyond that, some premier journals are GRL, JGR, J. Climate, etc., but the references in papers you read will create a chain of their own. The perspective is enormously different from the one you encounter on YouTube or Internet blogs.
grastog1313 (August 28, 2008 at 8:46 pm)
1) "...what makes you think I haven't read on climate sensitivity?" My perception from past exchanges is that you do read, but mainly secondary sources (blogs, media, etc.), whereas for an accurate perspective on the current state of climate science in general, and climate sensitivity in particular, there's no substitute for reading, in full, the papers in the climate science literature, where I believe you'll encounter the strong sense of urgency on the need to curtail CO2. |
