No reason to get snippy. If anything, criticism will help the author improve their English grammar!
Todd
high1ander
Oil is not THAT finite and when supplies do begin to dwindle, prices will go up and other energy sources will be brought online. That is basic economics.
One can think the climate changes but be skeptical of those who are hysterically demanding we cripple ourselves economically absent real evidence the climate is in peril. I think we'd be better off spending money to deal with change than trying to stop it, especially since we don't have the collective knowledge to…
Well bonus points for you for ceding that point. And I agree with you that there are many on both sides of this debate who are unwilling to do the work to try to understand what the fuss is all about and who is making the most sense.
Not to beat a dead horse, but that is a kind of trollish response. We don't have a clear picture on how much of the recent warming trend is caused by humans, because we don't have a full enough understanding of all the factors which drive climate change which aren't human.
Right! The next wedding will top this one..
There are some amazing parallels to our own era. NICE anyone?
Yes Yes and YES! Love all 3!
I think the climate changes. I think the hysteria surrounding AGW is overwrought and based on flimsy science. I think people like you need to climb down off their moral high horse and stop being tools.
What does that have to do with anything I've written? What hoax to you refer?
My point is that your comparison is not apt. You compare oil company profits to government spending in one area. Do you have any idea how much oil companies spend on groups which study climate science? I'd reckon you don't.
You are poor at analogies. Oil companies don't spend their profit on climate research and the US government's budget dwarfs oil company profits.
Sure. I don't deny the planet is on a long warming trend. The hysteria over carbon emissions, used to sell bad policy proscriptions (of which you seem to be a willing tool, based on your own rhetoric), is what I take issue with.
If paleo-reconstructions of global temperature are correct, then we are at the top of an oscillation that his headed toward cooling. And the planet will be fine. We may not, but the planet got along well before we were here and will long after we are gone.
How can Global Warming® be to blame when there has been no warming in close to 20 years?
Having worked in a large public university for the better part of 20 years, I'm familiar with how it works, Bob.
Eh? What kind of argument is that? So there is absolutely nothing in either link you can address on the merits?
The history of science is replete with men and women who challenged prevailing orthodoxy and were roundly disparaged by defenders of 'existing models', only to be vindicated later in their careers or after their deaths.