NationStates Jolt Archive

Polar warming 'caused by humans' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7700387.stm)

The rise in temperatures at Earth's poles has for the first time been attributed directly to human activities, according to a study.

The work, by an international team, is published in Nature Geoscience journal.

In 2007, the UN's climate change body presented strong scientific evidence the rise in average global temperature is mostly due to human activities.

This contradicted ideas that it was not a result of natural processes such as an increase in the Sun's intensity.

At the time, there was not sufficient evidence to say this for sure about the Arctic and Antarctic.

Now that gap in research has been plugged, according to scientists who carried out a detailed analysis of temperature variations at both poles.

Their study indicates that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both regions.

Researchers expected this result for the Arctic - because of the recent sharp increase in the melting of sea ice in the summer in the region - but temperature variations in the Antarctic have until now been harder to interpret.

Today's study, according to the researchers, suggests for the first time that there's a discernable human influence on both the Arctic and Antarctica.

I wonder how many people will still trot out the same tired old arguements about it being down to changes in solar activity or natural planetary changes?

if god had meant us to change global climate, he'd have given us the power to emit gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere

wtf we r f@#$% retards! we need to do something. in fact plent of ppl are doing something about it(well at least trying) but those thing that need to be done will put major companys out of buisness. the ppl with the money r the ppl. mony makes the world go round

They basically compared the temperature changes to a couple of sets of climate models, which are derived from the climate change data. Great logic.

They basically compared the temperature changes to a couple of sets of climate models, which are derived from the climate change data. Great logic.

You have any other data? Please post it and prove them wrong.

I wonder how many people will still trot out the same tired old arguements about it being down to changes in solar activity or natural planetary changes?

It is a natural planetary change. There have been a number of extreme climate changes on this planet. We just sped the process up.

You have any other data? Please post it and prove them wrong.

Well its a fact that since 2001 the carbon emmision has rose to unknown heighst due to the industrialisation of China and India, but this didn't have caused a increase in temperature if you look to the 5 years before 2001.

It is a natural planetary change. There have been a number of extreme climate changes on this planet. We just sped the process up.

"But nevertheless when you do that you see a clear human fingerprint in the observed data. We really can't claim anymore that it's natural variations that are driving these very large changes that we are seeing in our in the climate system."

From the article. By Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office.

What are your credentials?

wtf we r f@#$% retards! we need to do something. in fact plent of ppl are doing something about it(well at least trying) but those thing that need to be done will put major companys out of buisness. the ppl with the money r the ppl. mony makes the world go round

eh brah, step away from da keyboard, relax and try again. no kan unddastand you.

Well its a fact that since 2001 the carbon emmision has rose to unknown heighst due to the industrialisation of China and India, but this didn't have caused a increase in temperature if you look to the 5 years before 2001.

At the poles, sea temperature or average air temperatures?

They are air temperatures.

If it was a increase in solar activity you would be able to see this throughout the solar system. But hey! MARS IS EXPERIANCING CLIMATIC VARIATIONS SO GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE FALSE. zomg

Meanwhile I have yet to hear about a increase of the surface temperature of oh say, Vesta.

Smoke weeeeeeed. :fluffle:

They are air temperatures.

I asked hoping for a source really. I'd like to see the numbers.

They were in some Nat.Geo. Doc.

You could also look at the Mc. Intyre & Mc. Kitrick graph.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images-5/no-hockeyEng.gif
The blue line

It shows that around 1400-1450 the temperature on earth was higher then it is now. In the 15th century there were no poluting machines and factories.

Also their is evidence found in Sweden that would confirm their theory, because they found remainings of vineyards there.

From the article. By Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office.

What are your credentials?

What do my credentials have to do with it? If you must know, I don't have much. I do have my private pilots license so I do have a basic understanding of how weather and the climate works.

What are your credentials? Are you Peter Stott? No.

I don't deny global warming or the melting of polar ice caps. I deny the statement that we humans are the one and only factor in the process. There have been four major periods of climate cooling, ice ages. In between those periods what happens? The Earth warms up! It has in the past warmed up to the point where the polar ice caps have indeed melted away! This we know, it is fact, it science!

The last glacial age started about 90 000 years ago, peaked about 20 000 years ago, and ended for the most part around 10 000 years ago. 10 000 years and the polar ice is melting away to the point ships can sail through the Northwest passage unhindered? There is no doubt in the human involvement. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened eventually without us to speed the process up.

Ok, but can we stop it?

should we stop it?

how to stop it?

Ok, but can we stop it?

should we stop it?

how to stop it?

Global thermonuclear war. No really.

what would be nice is to have the actual study rather than a newspaper article

What do my credentials have to do with it? If you must know, I don't have much. I do have my private pilots license so I do have a basic understanding of how weather and the climate works.

What are your credentials? Are you Peter Stott? No.

Of course I'm not Peter Stott. I'm not arrogant enough to pretend my opinion matters on something as complex as climate change. I tend to defer to those who are experts in the subject.

I don't deny global warming or the melting of polar ice caps. I deny the statement that we humans are the one and only factor in the process. There have been four major periods of climate cooling, ice ages. In between those periods what happens? The Earth warms up! It has in the past warmed up to the point where the polar ice caps have indeed melted away! This we know, it is fact, it science!

The last glacial age started about 90 000 years ago, peaked about 20 000 years ago, and ended for the most part around 10 000 years ago. 10 000 years and the polar ice is melting away to the point ships can sail through the Northwest passage unhindered? There is no doubt in the human involvement. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened eventually without us to speed the process up.

Maybe not but we can't be sure of that. What we can now be sure of is human involvement. Now is the time to act.

Before I reform my views that climate change is a natural phenomenon and the idea of a human cause is a reflection of a phenominal human arrogance and assertion that we are the centre of the universe, I will require some kind of evidence. So far all that article has said is 'scientists' (which ones, are they respectable?) have said they have found proof (what proof? What have they found? Would it be regarded as proof by anyone else?).

Maybe not but we can't be sure of that. What we can now be sure of is human involvement. Now is the time to act.

We are sure of it. As I've already stated it has happened in the past on Earth. Hell, it has happened on Mars about 40 times. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-mars-iceage.html) How is that not sure?

As for acting on it. How and why? We've been pumping noxious chemicals into the air for 150 years all around the world. Running a car on veggie oil and buying fluorescent light bulbs like they're going out of style won't reverse or stop the process. It's like trying to stop a speeding train with with nothing more than sheer will. What we should be doing is figuring out how to live with the changes we've helped make. We screwed the pooch on this one and there is no turning back.

Well lets say the North pole will melt... The then the hot Gulf Stream will stop streaming and transporting warm air and water towards Europe and the North pole, Due to this temperatures will drop and the North Pole will freeze frozen again...

Let's just blow up the planet and be done with this whole headache.

what would be nice is to have the actual study rather than a newspaper article

Nature Geoscience wants $18 an article. I'm not buying it.

You could also look at the Mc. Intyre & Mc. Kitrick graph.

let's not and use real data instead

Also their is evidence found in Sweden that would confirm their theory, because they found remainings of vineyards there.

denialist mythology moves northward! what happened to england?

Before I reform my views that climate change is a natural phenomenon and the idea of a human cause is a reflection of a phenominal human arrogance and assertion that we are the centre of the universe, I will require some kind of evidence. So far all that article has said is 'scientists' (which ones, are they respectable?) have said they have found proof (what proof? What have they found? Would it be regarded as proof by anyone else?).

what, exactly, would you be willing to accept as evidence?

We are sure of it. As I've already stated it has happened in the past on Earth. Hell, it has happened on Mars about 40 times. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-mars-iceage.html) How is that not sure?

As for acting on it. How and why? We've been pumping noxious chemicals into the air for 150 years all around the world. Running a car on veggie oil and buying fluorescent light bulbs like they're going out of style won't reverse or stop the process. It's like trying to stop a speeding train with with nothing more than sheer will. What we should be doing is figuring out how to live with the changes we've helped make. We screwed the pooch on this one and there is no turning back.

So we should do nothing?

The problem with accepting what has happened on the past and using it to explain what is happening now is is the a huge new variable, humanity, has been introduced.

As for acting on it. How and why? We've been pumping noxious chemicals into the air for 150 years all around the world. Running a car on veggie oil and buying fluorescent light bulbs like they're going out of style won't reverse or stop the process.

not a believer in the importance of ceasing digging when attempting to get out of a hole?

Ok, but can we stop it?

Possibly not but we should try.

should we stop it?

Yes.

how to stop it?

Stopping it could we be out of our current technological reach but efforts to reduce mankinds impact can't hurt. Maybe at some point in the future we will be able to reverse the damage we're doing, it would be nice if we can survive that far.

Ok, but can we stop it?

yes, more or less. we know the causes and the mechanisms at play (mostly)

should we stop it?

i can't think of a good reason not to

how to stop it?

transfer to carbon neutral/carbon negative power and transportation technologies - these already exist! also, engage in carbon sequestration both industrially and through ecological restoration - also totally possible now!

I wonder how many people will still trot out the same tired old arguements about it being down to changes in solar activity or natural planetary changes?

All the conservatives and lolbertarians will, naturally.

From the article. By Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office.

What are your credentials?


Appeal to authority much? Also, to be fair, this is just a study done by a handful of scientists. Before anything is *certain* there needs to be more people doing tests with this, and coming up with the same conclusion, for there to be any proof of human involvement of the melting of polar ice caps.

not a believer in the importance of ceasing digging when attempting to get out of a hole?

No, I'm of the philosophy that once the hole has been dug, we may as well make it a comfortable hole rather than desperately claw at the sides in an attempt to escape.

I don't deny global warming or the melting of polar ice caps. I deny the statement that we humans are the one and only factor in the process. There have been four major periods of climate cooling, ice ages. In between those periods what happens? The Earth warms up! It has in the past warmed up to the point where the polar ice caps have indeed melted away! This we know, it is fact, it science!

The last glacial age started about 90 000 years ago, peaked about 20 000 years ago, and ended for the most part around 10 000 years ago. 10 000 years and the polar ice is melting away to the point ships can sail through the Northwest passage unhindered? There is no doubt in the human involvement. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened eventually without us to speed the process up.

Geologically speaking, you can hold constant Earth's contribution (as a steady state flux) to greenhouse gas emissions constant. On centennial and less timeperiods humans are the most likely explanation for change.

There have been countless numbers of Ice Ages, 4 doesn't even come close. Just a reminder, we are in an ice age now and geologically speaking the Earth at these cool temperatures is rather unusual.

The last glacial period started around 28 thousand calender years ago with its termination into the current interglacial around 10 500 cal BP. You incorrectly assume that over the last 10500 years things gradually warmed to today. If you look at the last few major glacial/interglacial terminations temperature rapidly rise to a zenith early in the interglacial (for example, 8000-10000 kyr BP in the Northern Hemisphere is thought to have been warmer than pre 1800's) and then hoverer about a mean for ~10 thousand years and then gradually get cold. Its the rapid warming that makes graphs look like a "saw tooth" which you might have come across in the past.

Over the course of "natural variability in the system" we have no evidence that the Arctic Ocean was ever reduced to today's volumes or ice free. This suggests that something more is at work than "natural variability".

If you really want to bash global warming find a new argument. I for one would go after how the models are programed to respond to changes in CO2.

I wonder how many people will still trot out the same tired old arguements about it being down to changes in solar activity or natural planetary changes?

Because the world has always been exactly the same temperature, always.

Because the world has always been exactly the same temperature, always.

No it hasn't.

Now you're just being silly.

I have no doubt humans helped speed up the process... but has anyone thought that the global wobble might have something to do with it?

Geologically speaking, you can hold constant Earth's contribution (as a steady state flux) to greenhouse gas emissions constant. On centennial and less timeperiods humans are the most likely explanation for change.

There have been countless numbers of Ice Ages, 4 doesn't even come close. Just a reminder, we are in an ice age now and geologically speaking the Earth at these cool temperatures is rather unusual.

The last glacial period started around 28 thousand calender years ago with its termination into the current interglacial around 10 500 cal BP. You incorrectly assume that over the last 10500 years things gradually warmed to today. If you look at the last few major glacial/interglacial terminations temperature rapidly rise to a zenith early in the interglacial (for example, 8000-10000 kyr BP in the Northern Hemisphere is thought to have been warmer than pre 1800's) and then hoverer about a mean for ~10 thousand years and then gradually get cold. Its the rapid warming that makes graphs look like a "saw tooth" which you might have come across in the past.

Over the course of "natural variability in the system" we have no evidence that the Arctic Ocean was ever reduced to today's volumes or ice free. This suggests that something more is at work than "natural variability".

If you really want to bash global warming find a new argument. I for one would go after how the models are programed to respond to changes in CO2.

Sorry, I was only quoting the sources I had at hand. I am not however bashing global warming. I am bashing the romantic thought that "we can undoubtedly reverse the process we had sole cause in creating". We can't and we didn't.

No it hasn't.

Now you're just being silly.

I think that was the point of my little sarcastic post.

I think that was the point of my little sarcastic post.

Oh....then I'm having problems understanding what relevence your post had to human driven climate change. :confused:

Sorry, I was only quoting the sources I had at hand. I am not however bashing global warming. I am bashing the romantic thought that "we can undoubtedly reverse the process we had sole cause in creating". We can't and we didn't.

Well my suggestion would be maybe we all should critically look at the facts. There are some aspects of the theory that are taken as common knowledge when the supporting data are very weak.

That said, if the models are correct then we 100% did create the warming we are currently seeing because the models ALL account for recorded natural variability over the past 100 years. You miss my point about geologic time vs human time. Geologic time (natural variability) says that CO2 doesn't get much higher than 260 ppm +- a few ppm. We have pushed it 130 ppm higher, there is nothing in the "natural" system that can account for that.

The million dollar question is how does a 100 ppm increase of CO2 translate into temperature.

first while i do believe in global warming. This is a bs article. they used a climate model. this means a computer program. when your trying to prove what you believe in of course you write the program to suit your beliefs.

first while i do believe in global warming. This is a bs article. they used a climate model. this means a computer program. when your trying to prove what you believe in of course you write the program to suit your beliefs.

1) thats not how models work
2) if you want to talk about anything that hasn't happened yet (i.e. global warming) then you use a model.
3)it wasn't a model derived specifically for this purpose. It was 4 models based off of a master model... from the paper

We compare observed temperatures
with simulations from four CMIP3-coupled climate models
(UKMO-HadCM3, PCM, CCSM3 and MIROC3.2(medres)). We
choose all CMIP3 models for which an ensemble with natural
forcings alone is available, and which include stratospheric ozone
depletion in their combined anthropogenic and natural forcings
simulations. Previous work has shown that, as a group, these
four models perform better than average at simulating Antarctic
climate14, climate and variability in the northern extratropics15
and variability in Arctic temperature4.

1) thats not how models work
2) if you want to talk about anything that hasn't happened yet (i.e. global warming) then you use a model.
3)it wasn't a model derived specifically for this purpose. It was 4 models based off of a master model... from the paper

We compare observed temperatures
with simulations from four CMIP3-coupled climate models
(UKMO-HadCM3, PCM, CCSM3 and MIROC3.2(medres)). We
choose all CMIP3 models for which an ensemble with natural
forcings alone is available, and which include stratospheric ozone
depletion in their combined anthropogenic and natural forcings
simulations. Previous work has shown that, as a group, these
four models perform better than average at simulating Antarctic
climate14, climate and variability in the northern extratropics15
and variability in Arctic temperature4.

Do you have to paper? If so then please post it here.

I'll start paying attention to this when China does. Until then I don't know why anybody is even remotely interested - except that it is just another excuse for annoying busybodies to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

I also sometimes wonder why the people who feel that this is like the hugest crisis ever in the history of all motherfucking crises don't go and kill themselves. That is undeniably the fastest way to reduce your personal carbon footprint.

Do you have to paper? If so then please post it here.

I do have the paper but it would be a big copyright violation for me to post it on the internet.

can you get it from here?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo338.html

ah nevermind, I see that you can't. Umm your local library could get it for you on the up and up.

I'm sure that global warming is caused by humans. I just don't care. We've survived far worse.

I do have the paper but it would be a big copyright violation for me to post it on the internet.

can you get it from here?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo338.html

I can but it would be $18.

I'd love to read it but not that much.

Thanks anyway.

I'm sure that global warming is caused by humans. I just don't care. We've survived far worse.

Such as?

I can but it would be $18.

I'd love to read it but not that much.

Thanks anyway.

local library could help you out for sure. They all have agreements with Universities for Interlibrary loan. Probably would email you a pdf in a day or two.
Thats what I do when I don't have access to something.

Oh....then I'm having problems understanding what relevence your post had to human driven climate change. :confused:

Exactly

Such as?

He might be talking about how humans have survived climate change before, you know all the times the climate has changed that humans cause with all their carbon emissons.

Such as?

Black Death.

I'll start paying attention to this when China does. Until then I don't know why anybody is even remotely interested - except that it is just another excuse for annoying busybodies to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

I also sometimes wonder why the people who feel that this is like the hugest crisis ever in the history of all motherfucking crises don't go and kill themselves. That is undeniably the fastest way to reduce your personal carbon footprint.

You forgot to mention India.

The reason we should try to make a difference is because we can.

Your arguement amounts to saying child abuse happens in Thailand so why should we try to stop it on our shores.

He might be talking about how humans have survived climate change before, you know all the times the climate has changed that humans cause with all their carbon emissons.

If climate change is such a crisis, why has nobody died because of it?

Such as?

Everyday we don't have a nuclear war can be considered a good day.

He might be talking about how humans have survived climate change before, you know all the times the climate has changed that humans cause with all their carbon emissons.

When in the past have humans been contributing the same amount of pollution to the atomosphere as now?

I'll start paying attention to this when China does. Until then I don't know why anybody is even remotely interested - except that it is just another excuse for annoying busybodies to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

That too. I don't drive, so I haven't made anything; it's the industries that are causing all the real damage.

It's a lot like the drought here in Australia; the govt. is encouraging us to go French and use as little water as possible, while the vast majority of water is used by corporations and industry.

When in the past have humans been contributing the same amount of pollution to the atomosphere as now?

Isn't that my point? And yet we have still seen climate change.

what, exactly, would you be willing to accept as evidence?

Something that is substantiated, rather than bold claims such as :

"Their study indicates that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both regions."

How has it indicated that? What evidence exists beyond the claim of a journalist?

Black Death.

I can't argue with that.

It has nothing to do with climate change though.

If climate change is such a crisis, why has nobody died because of it?

......


Do you know how this works?

Isn't that my point? And yet we have still seen climate change.

Are you arguing that humans have nothing to do with climate change?

I'll start paying attention to this when China does. Until then I don't know why anybody is even remotely interested - except that it is just another excuse for annoying busybodies to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

^This, though I'm in Australia and when we contribute only 1% of total carbon emissions and China produces a very greater amount and yet don't do anything about it there is no point in us doing anything about it because China will be increasing theirs by a larger amount then we stop.

I also sometimes wonder why the people who feel that this is like the hugest crisis ever in the history of all motherfucking crises don't go and kill themselves. That is undeniably the fastest way to reduce your personal carbon footprint.

Well that would be the sensible solution if you really wanted to stop it they would kill themselves and everybody else which believes this and the problem would be solved.

Are you arguing that humans have nothing to do with climate change?

Absolutely nothing? No, this climate change they have contributed a fraction to it.

I'll start paying attention to this when China does. Until then I don't know why anybody is even remotely interested

What about leading by example?

Absolutely nothing? No, this climate change they have contributed a fraction to it.

What fraction?

You forgot to mention India.

The reason we should try to make a difference is because we can.

Your arguement amounts to saying child abuse happens in Thailand so why should we try to stop it on our shores.

Stopping child abuse on our shores may have some lasting effect on some people's lives.

But I was given to understand that overproduction of teh dreaded carbon emissions had global consequences, and would effect everybody whether they produced them or not.

And since china plans to produce so much that anything we do won't even begin to offset their increases, and we are already accelerating towards doomsday even if we hold current current global levels of production static, everybody everywhere is already doomed. So why worry about it?

So clearly it is not the same thing as child labor.

What about leading by example?

Yah, I don't think China is going to be following the US 'example' anytime soon. Read my sig. In fact, quite understandably, they'll just do the opposite to piss us off.

Such as?

Apparently that last ice age thingy was pretty touch and go. Something about nearly everyone dying out.

Yah, I don't think China is going to be following the US 'example' anytime soon. Read my sig. In fact, quite understandably, they'll just do the opposite to piss us off.

Well what can we do? Is there anything you can offer other than the dismal bleakenomics? If China really is going to cause world doom, isn't it theoretically justifiable to start aggressive measures?

Apparently that last ice age thingy was pretty touch and go. Something about nearly everyone dying out.

completely false.

Stopping child abuse on our shores may have some lasting effect on some people's lives.

But I was given to understand that overproduction of teh dreaded carbon emissions had global consequences, and would effect everybody whether they produced them or not.

And since china plans to produce so much that anything we do won't even begin to offset their increases, and we are already accelerating towards doomsday even if we hold current current global levels of production static, everybody everywhere is already doomed. So why worry about it?

So clearly it is not the same thing as child labor.

If we're already doomed then why worry about anything?

Apparently that last ice age thingy was pretty touch and go. Something about nearly everyone dying out.

Which one? Do you have a source for that?

I can't argue with that.

It has nothing to do with climate change though.


Actually, climate helped:

In the late 14th century, Europe was literally, very warm...like they said, there were vineyards in Nordic Countires. Then, when the Gulf Stream failed, the temperature dropped, causing crop failures, upswing in food shortages, and a rise in death. Then, when the Plague arrived, it found a perfect environment to breed and spread, thus causing the Black Plague.

It pretty much ended when better methods of hygine where found, invention of soap, as well as the climate returning to a more balanced stance.

Well what can we do? Is there anything you can offer other than the dismal bleakenomics? If China really is going to cause world doom, isn't it theoretically justifiable to start aggressive measures?

Peak oil may yet save us.

18th Century, here we come!!!!!

Something that is substantiated, rather than bold claims such as :

"Their study indicates that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both regions."

How has it indicated that? What evidence exists beyond the claim of a journalist?

Well you could take the time to read the paper that the journalist is referring to. You will find that it builds on the work of others and uses models that account for the "natural" variables in the climate system that we can observe and record. When you add the effects of all of those things, they are not enough to be accountable for the changes we are currently observing. Their suggestion is that CO2 is likely responsible candidate for the increased warming. Since we see strong correlation between burning fossil fuels and CO2 increases it doesn't take a whole lot to suggest we are responsible for the overprint on natural variability

Which one? Do you have a source for that?

Ambrose SH (1998) Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J Hum. Evol. 34:623-651

Actually, climate helped:

In the late 14th century, Europe was literally, very warm...like they said, there were vineyards in Nordic Countires. Then, when the Gulf Stream failed, the temperature dropped, causing crop failures, upswing in food shortages, and a rise in death. Then, when the Plague arrived, it found a perfect environment to breed and spread, thus causing the Black Plague.

It pretty much ended when better methods of hygine where found, invention of soap, as well as the climate returning to a more balanced stance.

I love how winemaking in England and Nordic regions is proof positive for warmer temps.
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____15334.aspx
look people grow grapes there today. Whats that mean?

The gulf stream didn't "fail" and the plauge has been around a lot longer than the time period you are referring to. It may have taken advantage of a cooler climate, however there are 100 other factors that made it so deadly.

Ambrose SH (1998) Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J Hum. Evol. 34:623-651

that paper doesn't conclude that the last ice ages almost wiped out humans BTW.

I love how winemaking in England and Nordic regions is proof positive for warmer temps.
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____15334.aspx
look people grow grapes there today. Whats that mean?


So you are saying that it hasn't gotten warmer?

that paper doesn't conclude that the last ice ages almost wiped out humans BTW.

Sorry, try this one.

Rampino MR, Ambrose MH (1999) Volcanic Winter in the Garden of Eden: The Toba super-eruption and the Late Pleistocene human population crash. World Archeological Congress.

Ambrose SH (1998) Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J Hum. Evol. 34:623-651

Oh, Your talking about an ice age caused by a 'supervolcano', not part of the natural cycle of climate change.

Oh, Your talking about an ice age caused by a 'supervolcano', not part of the natural cycle of climate change.

One could argue that vulcanism is part of the natural cycle.

Regardless, we really are digressing here.

So you are saying that it hasn't gotten warmer?

No

people say the medieval warmth was warmer than today because people were growing grapes in England (or more recently Nordic countries).

So what, people have been growing grapes there for a long time. They still grow them there today.

Its a non-issue and doesn't add anything to paleotemperature reconstructions.

Oh, Your talking about an ice age caused by a 'supervolcano', not part of the natural cycle of climate change.

Those papers are NOT talking about ice ages derived from super volcanoes
they are talking about big eruptions that change the weather for 2-10 years (and the latest research suggests that super eruptions affect climate much less than previously thought)

the anthropologists are looking for mechanisms to explain changes in population. These events are hardly climate related.

One could argue that vulcanism is part of the natural cycle.

Regardless, we really are digressing here.

I don't think so. Massive volcanic eruptions alongside major asteriod impacts are major natural disasters and have both severely damaged biodiversity on Earth.

Why aren't we considering human impacts to be just as serious?

No

people say the medieval warmth was warmer than today because people were growing grapes in England (or more recently Nordic countries).

So what, people have been growing grapes there for a long time. They still grow them there today.

Its a non-issue and doesn't add anything to paleotemperature reconstructions.

I always took it to mean that it was warmer, then it got much colder, then it got warmer again. Not that medieval warmth was warmer.

Also, modern viticulture isn't a fair comparison. Peoples are much better at farming these days. (Well at least keeping things alive).

I always took it to mean that it was warmer, then it got much colder, then it got warmer again. Not that medieval warmth was warmer.

Also, modern viticulture isn't a fair comparison. Peoples are much better at farming these days. (Well at least keeping things alive).

it goes back to the IPCC 2 report vs the IPCC 3 report and the Mann curve. The first attempts at the last 2000 years showed warmer medieval warmth than today but those were only N.H. records. Mann tried to do a global record temp reconstruction and the medieval warmth disappeared relative to the temps today(suggesting it was cooler than today). So is it real or not? IS it global or just a N. H. thing?

Why aren't we considering human impacts to be just as serious?

I don't think most people treat them as trivial (apart from the apocalypse now crowds), I think most people just treat them the same way they do massive natural disaster type things or nuclear war; an unpleasant possibility that may or may not come to pass: and there isn't very much that can be done one way or another.

The reality is that we are far more likely to go in a nuclear holocaust anyway.

And, even if we are not at peak oil now, we will be soon enough. And since that will be the end of our petrochemical economy, it's a self correcting problem most likely.

And, even if we are not at peak oil now, we will be soon enough. And since that will be the end of our petrochemical economy, it's a self correcting problem most likely.Oil being the end product of dead bioorganisms, it can be synthesised from... Well... Dead bioorganisms.

The quality wont be as good, and it'll screw up biospheres harder than ever before, nevermind energy costs, and sheer availability means that it isn't a solution to energy issues - but the petrochemical industry is quite safe.

I'll start paying attention to this when China does. Until then I don't know why anybody is even remotely interested - except that it is just another excuse for annoying busybodies to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

How very mature of you. I wonder if the Chinese are saying the same thing...

I also sometimes wonder why the people who feel that this is like the hugest crisis ever in the history of all motherfucking crises don't go and kill themselves. That is undeniably the fastest way to reduce your personal carbon footprint.

No comment.

How very mature of you. I wonder if the Chinese are saying the same thing...
To be honest, the Chinese can do what they want, and ditto the the USA, Russia or any other country. What matters is is doing what is right, and as far as I'm concerned, if shit really does hit the fan, we (the UK) should be able to turn around and say "well, we did our bit, what about you?". Sure, I'd love to get international cooperation in reducing CO2 emissions, but the failings of others is no reason to intentionally fail ourselves.

the failings of others is no reason to intentionally fail ourselves.

So true - just because someone else doesn't want to try and change does not mean you should just give up I think.

Lets spend billions to not make a difference on a cyclical phenomenon.

Lets spend billions to not make a difference on a cyclical phenomenon.
Even though as a side effect you reduce the costs of pulmonary diseases by billions and through sustainable developement sustain biodiversity and habitability to your grand children?

I'm willing to gamble with those odds.

Lets spend billions to not make a difference on a cyclical phenomenon.

I'm not claiming it not to be a cyclical process; which seems to be a part of Earth's natural life - I just feel that the human population is speeding the process up whilst at the same time flippantly using resources like a selfish brat child.

Isn't this very old news?

How very mature of you.

I thought so too. It's called dealing with reality.

I wonder if the Chinese are saying the same thing...

Oh, I imagine they are pretty much resolved to do the opposite to whatever we do at this point, just as a matter of pride.

After all, we did sell them all that shitty mortgage paper.

I thought so too. It's called dealing with reality.

Oh, I imagine they are pretty much resolved to do the opposite to whatever we do at this point, just as a matter of pride.

After all, we did sell them all that shitty mortgage paper.

Mhhh...
You telling me that Palin is the shrewdest green in the world?
Is that the reason of "drill baby, drill"?

But I don't really see China disarming... Might be that you are wrong?

I thought so too. It's called dealing with reality.


Reality and maturity would be better served if you spent resources researching and developing cleaner, energetic, long term solutions, and then sitting back and watching as fossil fuel dependent China plays catch up or collapsing from failure to catch up, rather than being involved in a game of "let's see how badly we can abuse our ecosystem"


Oh, I imagine they are pretty much resolved to do the opposite to whatever we do at this point, just as a matter of pride.


Some things China does, is more a matter of pragmatism than pride. Especially their drives in nuclear energy development and lunar ambitions.

Oil being the end product of dead bioorganisms, it can be synthesised from... Well... Dead bioorganisms.

The quality wont be as good, and it'll screw up biospheres harder than ever before, nevermind energy costs, and sheer availability means that it isn't a solution to energy issues - but the petrochemical industry is quite safe.

Actually the ones done thus far (in experiment stages) pull more CO2 out of the air then they release and are of higher quality than current fuel.
Seems we just got to switch to that.

Everyday we don't have a nuclear war can be considered a good day.

"Today I didnt even have to use my ICBM
I got to say it was a good day."

Unfortunately, you can't turn that into a good early 90s rap. :'(

Reality and maturity would be better served if you spent resources researching and developing cleaner, energetic, long term solutions, and then sitting back and watching as fossil fuel dependent China plays catch up or collapsing from failure to catch up, rather than being involved in a game of "let's see how badly we can abuse our ecosystem"


You think just because there is clean energy people are going to stop fucking up the ecosystem?

Face it, even if the global warming thing never comes to pass, mankind will inevitably find some other way to fuck up monster big. Idiots run the show. That's just the way it is. If nothing else, it's only a matter of time before a big war breaks out, with the inevitable miscalculation and the resulting nuclear exchange.

Personally, I would shoot all the people with ambition and a proven 'work ethic' since those people are usually responsible for 99% of the world's ills. But even that is only delaying the inevitable.

In the mean time I am not going to worry about it.

Peak oil may yet save us.

18th Century, here we come!!!!!

Btw, have you got any sources that show that nothing we do can offset China's effect?

You think just because there is clean energy people are going to stop fucking up the ecosystem?

Clean, energetic, energy. Renewable helps too. Fossil fuel wise, it will have to stop eventually. It'll become too expensive for anything other than one last gasp of military fuel to secure what little remains, incidentally speeding up the use.

But if you build clean, energetic, energy, people will eventually adopt it. Certainly, coal and oil didn't stop wood burning in some parts of the world, but it did bring an end to the majority use as a fuel in most of it.

People compete. Nations compete. They can't help it, it's in their nature. If someone tomorrow were to make a breakthrough in energy that was better than oil, even if it was the most closely guarded secret in the world, every other nation would start their own crash programs to replicate it or steal it.

Lead by example works not by limiting yourself, but by pulling so far ahead, everyone else becomes jealous, or realizes that they can't allow you to maintain that lead.


Face it, even if the global warming thing never comes to pass, mankind will inevitably find some other way to fuck up monster big.

Very likely. The Darwin Awards may have a species level prize to award sooner or later.

But that doesn't mean we should curl up and die I think.


In the mean time I am not going to worry about it.

Ignorance, or apathy, usually doesn't lead to much bliss.

1) thats not how models work
2) if you want to talk about anything that hasn't happened yet (i.e. global warming) then you use a model.
3)it wasn't a model derived specifically for this purpose. It was 4 models based off of a master model... from the paper

We compare observed temperatures
with simulations from four CMIP3-coupled climate models
(UKMO-HadCM3, PCM, CCSM3 and MIROC3.2(medres)). We
choose all CMIP3 models for which an ensemble with natural
forcings alone is available, and which include stratospheric ozone
depletion in their combined anthropogenic and natural forcings
simulations. Previous work has shown that, as a group, these
four models perform better than average at simulating Antarctic
climate14, climate and variability in the northern extratropics15
and variability in Arctic temperature4.

BS all models that goes beyond 10 days in predicting the weather is written with a purpose. and predicting 100 years off of 10 years predicting is not what i call accurate. Predictions =/= proof.

BS all models that goes beyond 10 days in predicting the weather is written with a purpose. and predicting 100 years off of 10 years predicting is not what i call accurate.
All Hail Discordia!

BS all models that goes beyond 10 days in predicting the weather is written with a purpose. and predicting 100 years off of 10 years predicting is not what i call accurate. Predictions =/= proof.
I've no real wish to get involved in yet another AGW-style topic but, as a point of order, I'd just like to make the point that there's a vast, vast difference between predicting the weather and predicting the climate. These are not interchangeable terms.

All Hail Discordia!
Indeed.

And Lorenz, her disciple. :tongue:

All Hail Discordia!

no. I believe in global warming.
I think these computer models cause more trouble then they are worth. They also can hurt the cause because if for some unknown factor come up incorrect for a few years it makes people fall away from the don't release Co2 camp.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/18/will-msm-report-2008-arctic-ice-increase

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

and the polar bear population is not falling.

no. I believe in global warming.
I wasn't implying you weren't.

Just giving a nod to chaos and it's effects on weather prediction (noting the difference, as Longhaul rightly notes, between weather and climate prediction).


Indeed.

And Lorenz, her disciple. :tongue:
I like butterflies...

Btw, have you got any sources that show that nothing we do can offset China's effect?

All I know is that the chinese academy of sciences said it was going to double by 2020, and that they are already producing as much as the US.

I'm sure its on the web somewhere.

Rio Tinto was flabbling about it earlier this year because they didn't want the carbon trading scheme.

Ignorance, or apathy, usually doesn't lead to much bliss.

It's called hedging. It's not ignorance or apathy. Just positioning yourself for all possible outcomes.

The solution is obvious... lets make cars run on blood... :)

Something that is substantiated, rather than bold claims such as :

"Their study indicates that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both regions."

How has it indicated that? What evidence exists beyond the claim of a journalist?

here you go:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
its just a starting point, but i hope this helps

Lets spend billions to not make a difference on a cyclical phenomenon.

this is not a cyclical phenomenon. thanks for playing.

this is not a cyclical phenomenon. thanks for playing.

ooh, zing! :D

...

L doesn't necessarily want the world to burn. but since he figures its going down in flames regardless, he wants box seats.

L doesn't necessarily want the world to burn. but since he figures its going down in flames regardless, he wants box seats.

I don't exactly figure that it is going to go down in flames because of the global warming thing though. It's a nuanced position.

I wasn't implying you weren't.

Just giving a nod to chaos and it's effects on weather prediction (noting the difference, as Longhaul rightly notes, between weather and climate prediction).



I like butterflies...

its one thing for scientist to use this. Its another to explain things to the public. let an unknown principle cause an unpredicted element drop the temperature temporarily for one decade and people will be screaming it is okay to burn fossil fuels again.

You show them something like this as proof the common masses tend to disregard it where as a scientist would just try and figure out the unknown variable.

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

Throw in the information from here: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

and historical data discussed here: http://science.jrank.org/pages/4184/Maunder-Minimum.html

And you have a good argument for why it isn't humanity's fault. I thought it was our fault, until I started to read things arguing against it. For example

according to GISS NASA, from 1880-2000, the climate changed only one third of a degree upwards Celsius

According to GISS NASA, from 1888-2004, the average temperature in Punta Arenas, the closest city to Antarctica, has decreased almost a seventh of a degree Celsius

According to Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., et all. "Antarctic Climate Cooling and Terrestrial Ecosystem Response" as published in Nature 2002, from 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic Valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per DECADE with serious ecosystem damage from cold

Comiso, J. C., "Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements," as published in Journal of Climate in 2000, Both Satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years

Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., "Positive Mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica," as published in Science 2002, Side Looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at a rate of 26.8 gigatons/yr, reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years

Thompson, D. W. J., and Solomon, S., "Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change," as published in Science 2002, Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat, Ice shelves have retreated but Sea Ice has returned

Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., et all. "Climate and Atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from Vostok Ice Cores, Antarctica," as published in Nature 1999, During the last four interglacial, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer than it is today

Then you have the Oregon Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) signed by thousands of scientists who reject the theory of Global Warming

And please, don't start with that whole "They are paid by Oil Lobbyists" crap. To quote State of Fear by Michael Crichton

Evans picked up the sheet of paper [Ed. That sheet of paper referenced the above peer reviewed studies] again, and folded it carefully. He slipped it into his pocket. "These studies are probably financed by the coal industry," he said.
"Probably," Kenner Said. "I'm sure that explains it. But then, everybody's paid by somebody. Who pays your salary?"
"My law firm."
"And who pays them?"
"The clients. We have several hundred clients."
"You do work for all of them?"
"Me, personally? No."
"In fact, you do most of your work for environmental clients," Kenner said. "Isn't that true?"
"Mostly. Yes."
"Would it be fair to say that the environmental clients pay your salary?" Kenner said.
"You could make that argument."
"I'm just asking, Peter. Would it be fair to say that environmentalists pay your salary?"
"Yes."
"Okay. Then would it be fair to say that the opinions you hold are because you work for environmentalists?"
"Of course not --"
"You're not an environmental stooge? A mouthpiece for a great fundraising and media machine - a multi-billion-dollar industry in it's own right - with it's own private agenda that's not necessarily in the public interest?"
"God damn it --"
"Is this pissing you off" Kenner said.
"You're damn right it is!"
"Good," Kenner said. "Now you know how legitimate scientists feel when their integrity is impugned by slimy characterizations such as the one you just made. Sanjong and I gave you a careful, peer-reviewed interpretation of data. Made by several groups of Scientists from several different countries. And you're response was first to ignore it, and then to make an ad hominem attack. You didn't answer the data. You didn't provide counter evidence. You just smeared with innuendo."


And now, some documentaries! First, one from the BBC (http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx). Then one from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&ei=axsLSd2CEYKM-QHK9fH0Dw&q=Great+Global+Warming+Swindle). And lastly, one from CNN (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2951065823736508883&ei=yRsLSfa7KoXc-AHwxfX4Dw&q=Exposed%3A+Climate+of+Fear).

I have more peer reviewed articles if you want them...

And please, don't start with that whole "They are paid by Oil Lobbyists" crap. To quote State of Fear by Michael Crichton


You seriously aren't attempting to use a fictional work as a working example of the real world are you?

BS all models that goes beyond 10 days in predicting the weather is written with a purpose. and predicting 100 years off of 10 years predicting is not what i call accurate. Predictions =/= proof.

sorry but your wrong...

most of the models are designed to accurately recreate the temperatures of the past 100 years and then project that into the future.

A smaller subset of these models try the past 2000 years and go into the future.

Your comparison of weather models to climate models is false since they are governed by a different set of variables.

You seriously aren't attempting to use a fictional work as a working example of the real world are you?

I was providing the counter argument. If you can dismiss the work of my scientists with the claim that they are paid shills for the Oil and Coal Industries, I will do the same with your scientists by calling them paid shills of the Environmental Lobby. I am trying to get people to actually pay attention to what is being said.

Then you have the Oregon Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) signed by thousands of scientists who reject the theory of Global Warming



The Oregon petition is silly.

I'm a doctor, next time you need an operation why don't you come and see me.

Problem is I am not a medical doctor... but since I am a doctor I probably know what I am talking about and therefore can perform an operation on you.


Thats what the Oregon petition is. Lots of "scientists" who's field of expertise is not climate related.

I was providing the counter argument. If you can dismiss the work of my scientists with the claim that they are paid shills for the Oil and Coal Industries, I will do the same with your scientists by calling them paid shills of the Environmental Lobby. I am trying to get people to actually pay attention to what is being said.

But...one lobby has a history of funding junk science and WAY more money, while the other...

You are aware that some of those who signed the Oregon Petition where included in the IPCC signatories because they left in annoyance after being told that there was to be no debate over the cause, and only how to stop a supposed problem right?

You are also aware that some of those who disagree with Global Warming who where included in the IPCC report where in the documentaries above right?

Paleontologists, Geologists, Paleobotanists, etc., people for who climate is part of their job description, have signed on to that petition. As have the scientists who wrote those peer-reviewed studies I cited above.

You are aware that some of those who signed the Oregon Petition where included in the IPCC signatories because they left in annoyance after being told that there was to be no debate over the cause, and only how to stop a supposed problem right?

You are also aware that some of those who disagree with Global Warming who where included in the IPCC report where in the documentaries above right?

Paleontologists, Geologists, Paleobotanists, etc., people for who climate is part of their job description, have signed on to that petition. As have the scientists who wrote those peer-reviewed studies I cited above.

Right I am aware. Now I want you to be specific and give me a number. It can be a ratio or a percentage, up to you. I want the number of signers who study in a climate related field vs the total number of signers.

There are always dissenters, thats what makes science go forward.

As for your peer reviewed articles listed above. You read the titles, did you read the papers? I have read a couple of those papers and their conclusion is not that global warming is false or disproved.

But...one lobby has a history of funding junk science and WAY more money, while the other...

Oh? You are aware that the environmentalist lobby was started because Margaret Thatcher wanted to get off of Coal and Oil and into Nuclear Energy Right? Or that the Environmental Lobby is trying to prevent the University of Columbia from developing their Carbon Scrubbers because it doesn't fit their agenda?

Also, the Oil and Coal Lobbies are currently investing their money into clean coal and alternate energy technologies. They may not agree with Global Warming, but they realize that enough people do that they need to shift for the future. In fact, Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Shell are some of the leading researchers into Alternative Energy.

Right I am aware. Now I want you to be specific and give me a number. It can be a ratio or a percentage, up to you. I want the number of signers who study in a climate related field vs the total number of signers.

There are always dissenters, thats what makes science go forward.

And yet Al Gore says there is no dissenters. I will do my best to get you that list, but there are tens of thousands of signatures on that petition, and I am just a teenager in my basement with the internet.

Edit: Here we go (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html).

And yet Al Gore says there is no dissenters. I will do my best to get you that list, but there are tens of thousands of signatures on that petition, and I am just a teenager in my basement with the internet.

Edit: Here we go (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html).

from your page
Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

This proves nothing. I want you to go through those thousands of signatures and pull out all the people who actually have expertise in climate science.
When you do that you will find almost all of those signatures are from people who are expressing an opinion based on bias and a few who express an opinion based on scientific result.
My Dr analogy is 100% accurate in this case.

from your page
Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

This proves nothing. I want you to go through those thousands of signatures and pull out all the people who actually have expertise in climate science.
When you do that you will find almost all of those signatures are from people who are expressing an opinion based on bias and a few who express an opinion based on scientific result.
My Dr analogy is 100% accurate in this case.

Prove it. I want sourced citations that that is the case. If that is true, it should be VERY easy to find because the Eco Lobby would be screaming it at the top of it's lungs. So I challenge you to prove it yourself.

Here's a list of actual scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Prove it. I want sourced citations that that is the case. If that is true, it should be VERY easy to find because the Eco Lobby would be screaming it at the top of it's lungs. So I challenge you to prove it yourself.

your own link supports my case for me. What else do I have to do?

I ask you what does a mechanical engineer know about climate change? There are 2,581 signatures of mechanical engineers on that petition according to your link.

scroll down they are all listed plain as day.

But...one lobby has a history of funding junk science and WAY more money, while the other...

To be fair, the fact that they are getting funded by Oil and Coal lobbies is not a valid criticism in itself, you can't get funding from environmental lobbies if you have unorthodox conclusions like that, Oil and Coal lobbies are their only possible source of funding for their research.

To be fair, the fact that they are getting funded by Oil and Coal lobbies is not a valid criticism in itself, you can't get funding from environmental lobbies if you have unorthodox conclusions like that, Oil and Coal lobbies are their only possible source of funding for their research.

Exactly, and there are some who have had to go to work for them because they can't get funding anywhere else.

Hell, I am tempted at times to go work for them because then I would get paid to tell people that Global Warming is stupid.

And yet Al Gore says there is no dissenters. I will do my best to get you that list, but there are tens of thousands of signatures on that petition, and I am just a teenager in my basement with the internet.

Edit: Here we go (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html).There are also hundreds of dissenters who claim the Earth is flat.

Tens of thousands of dissenters who claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Tens of millions who think 'Evolution' is a tool of the devil.

Frankly, numbers mean shit (And yes, I know, this can be used in either direction).

Conclusion? Do your own research. It's not particularly hard to take the claims, numbers and figures of either side and put them to the test - does the ''Volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans' claim hold (After finding the actual numbers: Are they actually possible? I.e. checking human carbon output vs. OPEC production)? Are those graphs really from NASA? Is the ice actually melting? Does the sun actually increase its energy output, and if yes, is the additional output sufficient to explain the rising temperatures? Do the temperatures actually rise?

Granted, not all of these issues are easy to come by through neutral sources, so at times it'll be necessary to compare two biased sources and to spend a little while trying to figure out which one is correct by tirelessly comparing each other's claims to secondary sources (Base stats, for example, i.e. the atmosphere's mass and composition, or the solar constant) to see which one is, well... Feasible, but it's quite possible without needing to have a doctorate, or even a bachelor.

Oh, and doing it repeatedly, of course. Not just over one issue, but over multiple ones. One side is making up significantly more bullshit than the other, but tbh - said other still makes some claims that are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Should we really try to reverse what we've done? Couldn't we potentially cause even more damage?

I honestly think we'd be far better off adapting our technology, crops, and so on and so forth to the new climate that will emerge from the chaos rather than waste time, energy, and resources trying to reverse it.

I do have to laugh when I hear about global warming. Guess it makes people feel important to think that they can cause it. Yes, we need to stop poluting the air and especially the water. It seems to me it was cleaner when we used outhouses and put in lime to keep them decomposing. As one man said, "Eliminate (I am using a polite word rather than an exact quote) in the house where I eat and sleep - how gross!!"

I do have to laugh when I hear about global warming. Guess it makes people feel important to think that they can cause it. Yes, we need to stop poluting the air and especially the water. It seems to me it was cleaner when we used outhouses and put in lime to keep them decomposing. As one man said, "Eliminate (I am using a polite word rather than an exact quote) in the house where I eat and sleep - how gross!!"

Actually, local pollution for cities before industrialization was just about as bad for your health and for your general nasal pleasure. It just stayed local rather than going all over the place.

Do you realise that the Earth's human population has doubled from the 1960's. That's twice as many people consuming resources. Then look at how the world's industry has increased.
Can any sane person out there not be apprehensive about the impact of humans of this planet?

Do you realise that the Earth's human population has doubled from the 1960's. That's twice as many people consuming resources. Then look at how the world's industry has increased.
Can any sane person out there not be apprehensive about the impact of humans of this planet?

well relgion dosnt equal instanity yet altho they all seem to preach the part of "spread forth and multiply"

I think thats insane but there would be billions that disagree

Self sac you are sort of making a good point - sort of.... I also think that "Go forth and multiply" is somewhat out of date. If some preacher tried that line on me I'd tell him to go forth (and multiply).

Why can't people learn to take the good parts of religion and leave the really dated parts back in the Bronze Age where they belong? I'm am totally sick of rabid, gun-toting, bible-waving howling at the moon ignoramusses telling the world what to do!
And yes, George Bush definitely belongs in that category.
If there is a God, thank him or her that George the Second can't have a third term.

I think it comes down to bashing your belief into another. After all the definition of political (and other) bipartisanship is "you agree with me and its bipartisan"