tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post5765568691677972606..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-38164841112660957382007-04-23T06:11:00.000-06:002007-04-23T06:11:00.000-06:00While meaningful (whoever decides that!) debate mi...While meaningful (whoever decides that!) debate might be illuminating, I'm not that qulified. As I said, as in a medical question, I am following the advice of experts I trust. I passed along my reasons for choosing my stance, not to open a debate, but to simply explain my thought process.<BR/><BR/>There are several links I have used that might offer better chances for back-and-forth than JWorld. I'll see what I can find and pass them along.<BR/><BR/>I've made a decision, and while I will keep my mind open to new data, am ready to proceed beyond discussion. I'll let you know how this journey goes.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-81670210642995648562007-04-22T14:37:00.000-06:002007-04-22T14:37:00.000-06:00I was listening to one of my associates recite wha...I was listening to one of my associates recite what he had heard concerning the melting of a particular glacier over the past several years after which I reminded him that our country’s geography was shaped by glaciers that are now melted, hmmm, must have been a warming trend some other time as well. As for the word “religion” being used, I would say Al sounds more like a preacher than many a church service I’ve attended in my lifetime, only his message has enough hot air to raise the temp more than the small change that has recently been reported. An example of his exaggeration would be the level of the ocean rising some twenty feet. Even the most ardent global warming scientist will tell you the highest could be around 20 inches. This is not a bad debate except for the demonizing of anyone who chooses to challenge the “believers”. I would enjoy intelligent dialog where we discuss the various probable causes of temperature fluctuations ranging from solar flares to volcanoes to anything mankind would possibly do that could equal either of the previous factors.danadjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541097525936777495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-47965659783867366852007-04-15T19:00:00.000-06:002007-04-15T19:00:00.000-06:00We are all placing our bets on this issue. I stand...We are all placing our bets on this issue. I stand responsible for my position and I'm sharing it with you - not pushing anyone to buy into it. <BR/><BR/>One of my links pointed out the evolution of the debate has been from <BR/>1)No, there is no global warming, to<BR/>2)There is, but it's natural, to<BR/>3)OK man is affecting it but not much, to<BR/>4)OK, humans are a big factor, but it will cost too much to fix.<BR/><BR/>This seems an apt summary to me.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-36966461958753349042007-04-13T15:47:00.000-06:002007-04-13T15:47:00.000-06:00John, I also belive the cilmate is changing. I be...John, I also belive the cilmate is changing. I believe it has been changing since the begining (whichever begining you believe in big bang 7 days etc.) However, the current warming phase that we are in started around 1900 lang before the SUV and severe increses in CO2. Actually there was a period of cooling between 1950 and 1980 or so when CO2 was on the rise. Which is why there was a cooling scare in the late 70's early 80's. <BR/>As someone who has a scientific (Ph.D.) background in an agricultural field. I can tell you that beliveing the consensus about GMO's and disbelieving the consensus about global warming is perfectly fine and should be. Comaring the scientific methods of GMO food safety research to the methods of weather forcast models is not like comparing apples to oranges it is like comparing apples to dump trucks. I do not have references at hand for the comments and points that I have made so you may not believe me. However, please do some more research and stop listeneng to the media and politicians when it comes to science. <BR/>PS. If they can predict the weather 50 years from now why can't they tell us weather it will rain tommorrow with more than a 20 or 50 % certainty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-1984465267365562052007-04-12T17:45:00.000-06:002007-04-12T17:45:00.000-06:00jr: My use of the term consensus was not a whim. ...jr: My use of the term consensus was not a whim. Please check the multiple links for my evidence. <BR/><BR/>BTW, Newt just joined the club.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-65944813244718324602007-04-12T13:25:00.000-06:002007-04-12T13:25:00.000-06:00John, when you say "I'm going with the scientists ...John, when you say <I>"I'm going with the scientists on this one"</I> I take it you mean just those who concur with the UNIPCC position. <BR/><BR/>There are many, many well qualified, well respected scientists who have very different views. For example here's a collection of <A HREF="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0" REL="nofollow">articles documenting sixteen</A> of them. They're well worth reading but beware that doing so may alter your view of the fabled "consensus".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-68727909156152254772007-04-10T06:18:00.000-06:002007-04-10T06:18:00.000-06:00I refute the term "religion". This is my best scie...I refute the term "religion". This is my best scientific judgment. Categorizing positions that way is unhelpful to say the least. This reinforces my point that the debate has become harsher from the opposition side.<BR/><BR/>The more likely outcome is a carbon tax, rather than carbon trading, I think. I will be blogging about this soon.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-2998014086227221772007-04-09T21:43:00.000-06:002007-04-09T21:43:00.000-06:00I take it that since you believe in the religion o...I take it that since you believe in the religion of global warming, what are you going to do about it??? What are you going to give up??? Al Gore is "buying" carbon credits (like the mob giving money to the church). Will you be buying these also to operate your machinery this spring??? Just curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-32327385588429321672007-04-09T14:57:00.000-06:002007-04-09T14:57:00.000-06:00I do accept that the earth is warming. I believe ...I do accept that the earth is warming. I believe the question remains how much is caused by man. (Remember, my Viking ancestors used to farm in Greenland.) Even if man causes most of the warming, the question remains if our actions today can have any appreciable effect in reversing it. One we thing we do know is that agriculture can sequester LOTS of carbon. But we need a way to get paid for it. Also, conservation tillage has reduced emmissions dramatically from ag, equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road annually. Important issue, lots of questions, few answers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com