Tuesday, December 27, 2011

The Skeptics 1

1) Ivar Giaever - Nobel Prize winner for physics.............2) Dr. Joanne Simpson - atmospheric scientist, first woman in the world to ever earn a PhD in meteorology.............3) Dr. Kiminon Itoh - environmental physical chemist.............4) Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck - chemical engineer Abo Akademi University of Finland.............5) Dr. Pal Brekke - solar physicist and senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Center in Oslo.............6) Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera - researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.............7) Geoffrey Duffy - professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering University of Aukland.............8) Dr. William Briggs - climate statistician at the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee.............9) Andrei Kapista - Russian geographer and Antarctic ice-core researcher.............10) Dr. Will Happer - physicist Princeton.............11) Dr. Miklos Zagoni - Hungarian physicist.............12) Dr. David Gee - geologist Uppsala University Sweden.............13) Dr. Philip Lloyd - nuclear physicist and chemical engineer.............14) James Peden - atmospheric physicist and formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.............15) Dr. Phil Chapman - astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut/M.I.T. physics professor.............16) Delgado Domingos - environmental scientist and founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group.............17) Dr. Takeda Kunihiko - vice chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research Chuba University Japan.............18) Dr. Eduardo Tonni - paleontologist at the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires.............19) Dr. Art Douglas - atmospheric scientist Creighton University.............20) D. Patrick Frank - more than 50 peer reviewed articles.............21) Jack Schmitt - astronaut (Apollo 17)/geologist and formerly of the Norwegian and U.S. geological surveys.............22) Dr. Richard Keen - climatologist University of Colorado.............23) Dr. G. LeBlanc Smith - Principal research scientist with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.............24) Dr. Arun Ahluwalia - geologist Purijab University India.............25) Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more..............................................................................................Look, folks, I'm not saying that there isn't global-warming, or even that man hasn't played a role in it. I'm just saying that MAYBE we need to show a little bit of prudence, for Christ (the fact that Boone Pickens couldn't make a go of it with windmills, the fact that even with an $8,000 tax credit nobody really wanted those crappy electric cars, Solyndra, etc.).

5 comments:

  1. A list of skeptics does not an argument make.

    First, you have to look at the basic science behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    First, "greenhouse" gases, like CO2, are naturally occurring and keep the atmosphere warm as they trap radiant heat reflected by the Earth from the Sun. It was with these conditions that we have the rise of fauna on the planet.

    When we destroy vast areas of deep, layered flora, like rain forests or reefs, which breathe CO2 and help regulate the atmosphere, we, by definition, are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. There is no argument against that.

    Now, add to that massive global increases in industrial emissions of CO2, it becomes utterly impossible to argue that it will not have some effect.

    Try to look at it this way:

    In the natural history of the planet, when has there been trillions of internal combustions everyday? When has there been tens of thousands of power plants? When has there been deforestation and oceanic dead zones at the levels we have today?

    We are gambling with the future of our atmosphere.

    Here's the main problems I have with the skeptics, however: Wouldn't it be prudent and responsible to assume the worst? Isn't that the mature, conservative way to think about all this? Since when is pollution is a good idea anyway? And knowing fossil resources are finite, why wouldn't we be looking beyond them anyway?

    It just seems a silly argument to be having at all.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. jmj - While I disagree with your opening premise I do acknowledge you have made some valid observations.

    My question to you is, what do you believe specifically should be down to address the potential problem of global warming?

    Should we not employ all of our energy source potentials while the private sector creates the technology to give us efficient and affordable energy alternatives?

    I await your response.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gentlemen, I made the list because people on the hard left are always saying that the debate is settled and that there is a clear consensus about it.......And in terms of troubling data, how 'bout the fact that, even WITH all of this man-made activity, man-made greenhouse gasses STILL only make up 1-5% (depending upon whether or not you include water vapor) of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? What about that, Jersey?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Will - Climate change has been occurring throughout history. The impact of human activity is, as you point out but a small aspect of climate change.

    My question for jersey was meant to acknowledge that at some point in the distant future we will indeed run out of fossil fuels. The concept of alternative renewable energy does make sense in the long view. Therefore it should be considered and developed. Ultimately science will find solution to our issues and the private sector will find ways to effectively produce and market them..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, had to work...

    I don't know, Les, what can be done specifically to address the environmental consequences of the Industrial Revolution, such as the rise of greenhouse gases and it's correlation to it.

    The West has been getting cleaner, with deindustrialization playing a large part in that, but the New Industrial Revolution, really just beginning, in the Developing World will make the West's look quaint.

    We're talking about BILLIONS of people industrializing - and fast.

    Here's the good news about that, at least for the environment, which is pretty friggin' important when you think about it:

    Fossil fuels are a finite resource. We use them at far greater a pace than the Earth can produce them. As supply dwindles, as it does, while demand rises exponentially, as it is, prices will rise and rise, until we have no choice but to use them less and more wisely.

    Eventually, there will be no choice. Whatever you may think about Global Warming, it doesn't matter, eventually we will have to find another source of mass energy supply.

    Instead of starting wars, polluting the environment, and hastening the inevitable, it is in our broad, long-term, moral, human, economic, national interest to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

    For the life of me, I can't even imagine fussing over any one of the many, many, many smart, responsible, patriotic reasons for that.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.