Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleFester
Forget Al Gore, he was always an idiot, and the main reason why I could never vote for him. If you studied statistics in school you would know that you need to take a larger sample of time, in fact even 100 years is even a small period of time to sample. Most of your theory falls apart if you apply REAL Scientific statistical data into the study over more than one year. Criminy, one year, you base your whole theory on one or two years record?
If you add to the equation that I see no person or company profiting from this "swindle" even close to what the oil companies are sucking out of your pocket in fuel costs. Rather people are trying to show you that something is happening with climate. To prove this you simple go to recorded weather for the past 100 years and you will see the last decade was hotter than it's ever been in recorded and in fact the result of the industrial age was hotter weather. It is undeniable statistical scientific fact.
So my questions to you are:
1. Is efficiency through better products, insulation, energy efficient appliances, better fuel mileage, etc a bad thing? Enough to condemn
people for trying to be less of a burden on the planet?
2. Is there any company making billions of dollars from this "swindle" similar to the oil companies that have been bending us over for the past 100 years?
3. Are you guys here to promote the use of fossil fuels until there is no longer any hydrocarbon left in the ground? It almost sounds as though most of you are funded by the oil companies themselves.
I have the utmost respect for you guys, especially Peter, but damn, this is some weird stuff you guys have going on here.
|
Dear UncleFester,
This thread is not about who may be profiting from the "climate change" issue, or a policy of "doing nothing". It is about SCIENCE. If you look at the ad for
Save on Home Energy on the main thread page, you can see that Aaron and I are very much in support of "efficiency through better products, insulation, energy efficient appliances, and better fuel mileage", as you say. We are also not "condemning anyone for wanting to be less of a burden on the planet." In fact, we promote those ideas and help others implement them for saving energy and money!
What we are trying to explore in this thread is the possibility that "climate change" is primarily a natural cycle, and that the idea that CO2 is a primary driver of this process is based on lousy science.
I believe that burning "prehistoric carbon" as a way to power this society is economically unsustainable, environmentally polluting, and scientifically unnecessary. But I do not believe it is contributing in any significant way to the changes in the weather or the climate that we are observing. The "Industrial Revolution" just happened to begin at approximately the same time as the northern hemisphere was emerging from "The Little Ice Age". But we have not even returned to the temperatures that existed before that, during what was called "The Medieval Warm Period" around 1000 years ago.
If you watch the film linked at the beginning of this thread, and read the whole thread, I think much of this material has been covered before.
Sorry for the confusion.
Peter