NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

I think the author makes a number of interesting observations:

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

. . . .

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

The Manhattan Declaration referred to in the article can be viewed here:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

Consider in particular the 197 climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields who have endorsed the Manhattan Declaration:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

Does not an honest evaluation of all evidence and consideration of all views now lead one to conclude, at the least, that the issue is not settled?

As my position on the matter is well-known, I will only say here that I side firmly with the skeptics.

They managed to get fewer scientists attacking global warming than they did to say evolution was wrong. That's pretty fucking impressive.

I'll wait until the turmoil settles and I become more informed about the situation before I form any SOLID opinion on Global Warming.

However, my current belief, which I very well know may be incredibly wrong, is that we aren't causing global warming, that it is happening, and that it's a natural phenomenon.

They managed to get fewer scientists attacking global warming than they did to say evolution was wrong. That's pretty fucking impressive.

31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Consider in particular the 197 climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields who have endorsed the Manhattan Declaration:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

Did you read the list of endorsers?

Half of them are economists/engineers/administrators.

A PhD does not a climate expert one make.

Did you read the list of endorsers?

Half of them are economists/engineers/administrators.

A PhD does not a climate expert one make.

There is quite a considerable amount of Geologists and natural scientists though.

The thing about science is that the time to re-evaluate a position is when new evidence is found. Scientists have been re-evaluating global warming since before the media latched onto the term.
Did you read the list of endorsers?

Half of them are economists/engineers/administrators.

A PhD does not a climate expert one make.
I found 3 economists.
55. Robert Jacomb Foster, BE (Adelaide University), palaeoclimatologist and energy economist, Director Lavoisier Group; past Councillor Royal Society of Victoria and Victorian Institute of Marine Science, Melbourne, Australia
115. Alister McFarquhar, PhD (international economy, Downing College), Cambridge, United Kingdom
166. Douglas Southgate, PhD, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

Maybe I'll sort through the rest later.

Isn't It Finally Time to Re-evaluate “Global Warming”?

Global climate change, and no.

Well, whaddya know? Wasn't very un-Swedish of me, after all. *prances on*

There is quite a considerable amount of Geologists and natural scientists though.

No there isn't.

Even if all 197 were climatologists, what % of the worlds climatologists would that be?

I'd guess not a huge one, certainly not near the 50% it'd require for me to take the group seriously.

There is quite a considerable amount of Geologists and natural scientists though.

Neither of what makes one a climatology expert. Know what does? Being a climatologist.

Did you read the list of endorsers?

Half of them are economists/engineers/administrators.

A PhD does not a climate expert one make.

Both of which points apply with even greater force to those who endorse the IPCC position. Again, the subject is not closed. Or are you arguing that every single endorser of Manhattan is somehow unqualified?

And yes, I did read the list of endorsers. This particular list is a subset of the total number of endorsers who are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields.

The more general lists can be viewed here:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=1

No there isn't.

Even if all 197 were climatologists, what % of the worlds climatologists would that be?

I'd guess not a huge one, certainly not near the 50% it'd require for me to take the group seriously.

I can't find the exact number of climatologists in the world, or even a rough number, but I'd guess at least one hundred thousand.

Both of which points apply with even greater force to those who endorse the IPCC position. Again, the subject is not closed. Or are you arguing that every single endorser of Manhattan is somehow unqualified?

And yes, I did read the list of endorsers. This particular list is a subset of the total number of endorsers who are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields.

The more general lists can be viewed here:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=1

Where is the list of climate science specialists?

The link in the OP is to the whole 197.

Edit: My bad, the list I first read was the people actually at the conference who endorsed. That was the list I have problems with. The list in the op is the correct one.

No there isn't.

Even if all 197 were climatologists, what % of the worlds climatologists would that be?

I'd guess not a huge one, certainly not near the 50% it'd require for me to take the group seriously.

You need that many? Seriously? Probably less than half of all physicists believe in string theory, does that mean we shouldn't take that seriously?

You need that many? Seriously? Probably less than half of all physicists believe in string theory, does that mean we shouldn't take that seriously?

For it to become an accepted theory that could make the difference between whether mankind makes it through the next thousand years, yes I would.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_2008_International_Conference_on_Climate_Change

A little more information on the conference where the Manhattan Decleration was put together.

Again, the subject is not closed.
Curiously enough, those who endorse the Manhattan Declaration seem to think so:

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.


That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

So yeah. What you and they want isn't a "re-evaluation" - since that's what happens in science, as Ifreann pointed out, when new evidence is presented. No, what you and they want, it seems, is a complete shutdown. "No more talk about this nasty subject."

Because it's costly. Better to live with no regrets - after all, that's the best strategy offered by the Heartland Institute.

Out of interest, eleven on the list would seem, as far as I can see, to have any real claim to being a 'climatology expert':


Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor - University of Winnipeg, Chair, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (See: here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball).)

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, France

Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.

M. R. Morgan, PhD, Cdr., FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K., now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor & Director, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (See: here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Patterson).)

Forese-Carlo Wezel, Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy

Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr., Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas, Geography, Climate, Environmental Science), retired University Professor, now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.

Robert Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A..

Robert Jacomb Foster, BE (Adelaide University), palaeoclimatologist and energy economist, Director Lavoisier Group; past Councillor Royal Society of Victoria and Victorian Institute of Marine Science, Melbourne, Australia (see: here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group).)


Of the eleven, three are members of lobby groups closely connected to the US energy industry, or the Australian mining industry.

EDIT:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_2008_International_Conference_on_Climate_Change

A little more information on the conference where the Manhattan Decleration was put together.
My, my... it was ran by an organisation wishing to "discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems", previously funded by Exxon?

I am surprised.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

I think the author makes a number of interesting observations:



The Manhattan Declaration referred to in the article can be viewed here:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

Consider in particular the 197 climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields who have endorsed the Manhattan Declaration:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

Does not an honest evaluation of all evidence and consideration of all views now lead one to conclude, at the least, that the issue is not settled?

As my position on the matter is well-known, I will only say here that I side firmly with the skeptics.

The Manhattan Declaration, although flawed in many respects, is an interesting tidbit. I am more than a bit skeptical, particularly after reading through the names of the signatories, but I don't personally know enough about the science (or the state of scientific consensus) to render a judgment.

The rantings of the OP editorial by Christopher Booker, known in some circles as the "patron saint of charlatans" (primarily due to his views on the safety of asbestos and his war against climate scientists) is less worth bothering with. See, e.g., linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health), linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker)

Out of interest, eleven on the list would seem, as far as I can see, to have any real claim to being a 'climatology expert':
*snip*

Of the eleven, three are members of lobby groups closely connected to the US energy industry, or the Australian mining industry.

EDIT:

My, my... it was ran by an organisation wishing to "discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems", previously funded by Exxon?

I am surprised.

I am shocked, shocked at these revelations. :wink:

My, my... it was ran by an organisation wishing to "discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems", previously funded by Exxon?

I am surprised.

To be fair, it's very very very difficult to get funding from a place other than organisations like this or an oil company, if you are a dissenter the the IPCC consensus. It may be their only option.

Again, I haven't and won't evaluate each of these sources independently, but it does seem the "Manhattan Declaration" is merely a pebble on the beach of scientific evidence. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

To be fair, it's very very very difficult to get funding from a place other than organisations like this or an oil company, if you are a dissenter the the IPCC consensus. It may be their only option.
Perhaps, but it's hardly a claim to being an independent and scientific investigation of climate change if one is (a) starting out as a sceptic group, and (b) one is funded by a lobby group.

Hmmm 1 former climatologist and 2 paleoclimatologists out of all that?

I would wonder who is funding the group as I suspect it's petroleum, energy, logging, etc....

Their declaration doesn't mean much when it lacks "true" climatologists.....

Again, the subject is not closed.

Surely you don't advocate we keep an open mind regarding Climate Change?

An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded.

James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas, Geography, Climate, Environmental Science), retired University Professor, now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Wait a second, I know that name...

He's a supporter of the Orgone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone) theory and a follower of Wilhelm Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich). He disputes the theory of relativity, the law of thermodynamics, and, somewhat unrelated, that HIV causes AIDS.

Still, it was amusing how familiar this sounds:
There is no valid scientific proof or even suggestive evidence to support the huge public investment in the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. As Duesberg says, the HIV hypothesis fails to explain or predict the epidemiology and pathology of AIDS. It is a failed hypothesis which has cost thousands of lives, and billions of wasted dollars. The HIV hypothesis of AIDS is not supported by science, but is rather maintained by big money pharmacy investments, by political hardball tactics from groups with clear political agendas, and by a lot of bad science, often undertaken by those who profited handsomely from the carnage. The campaign to inform the public that "HIV causes AIDS" and "everyone is at risk for AIDS" is, bluntly, a Big Lie, and should be openly exposed and corrected at every possible level.

Two years ago, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis came into existence, as a result of an effort to get the following four-sentence letter published in a number of prominent scientific journals. The letter today has nearly 400 signatories, at least half of which hold advanced degrees (Ph.D., M.D., etc.).
http://www.orgonelab.org/hiv_aids.htm

Fascinating fellow.

My, my... it was ran by an organisation wishing to "discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems", previously funded by Exxon?

I am surprised.
Tells me most of what I need to know about it.

Wait a second, I know that name...

He's a supporter of the Orgone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone) theory and a follower of Wilhelm Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich). He disputes the theory of relativity, the law of thermodynamics, and, somewhat unrelated, that HIV causes AIDS.

Still, it was amusing how familiar this sounds:

http://www.orgonelab.org/hiv_aids.htm

Fascinating fellow.
And this tells me the rest of what I need to know. So, this DeMeo character is a professional "expert", eh? Someone who collects fees to say that there is no valid scientific proof that "A" causes "B", signed J. DeMeo, PhD in <insert subject>, and the client can just fill in the A and B blanks as needed.

And this tells me the rest of what I need to know. So, this DeMeo character is a professional "expert", eh? Someone who collects fees to say that there is no valid scientific proof that "A" causes "B", signed J. DeMeo, PhD in <insert subject>, and the client can just fill in the A and B blanks as needed.

Well, to be fair I don't know if the term "professional expert" would be accurate to describe DeMeo. It's more that he's a bit... eccentric. :wink:

Wait a second, I know that name...

He's a supporter of the Orgone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone) theory and a follower of Wilhelm Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich).
Ahhh, Cloudbusting (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IRHA9W-zExQ).

Reich was, if off on a Freudian wobble, a remarkably interesting and tragic fellow. Incidentally, I believe there's an orgone research lab just outside Glasgow.



And this tells me the rest of what I need to know. So, this DeMeo character is a professional "expert", eh? Someone who collects fees to say that there is no valid scientific proof that "A" causes "B", signed J. DeMeo, PhD in <insert subject>, and the client can just fill in the A and B blanks as needed.
That's perhaps a bit harsh; if he's anything like Reich or other non-'mainstream' researchers like Robert Sheldrake or Terence McKenna, the poor sod's not a money-grabbing agenda-pusher, but 'merely' someone convinced of the illegitimacy of 'mainstream' science.

There is quite a considerable amount of Geologists and natural scientists though.

I'm sure there are young earth believers with a PhD in Geology.

Can I ask the OP a question: assuming that a 'scientific consensus' on climate change is a prerequisite, what would such a consensus look like? What is the threshold, in your view, at which dissent becomes kookiness?

I'm sure there are young earth believers with a PhD in Geology.

That would only be logical, because a PhD gives you an air of authority that you just cannot derive from simply being an orthodox Christian hardliner. We should always trust and believe people who have a PhD, right?

Or are you arguing that every single endorser of Manhattan is somehow unqualified?

Every single member? Probably not. The vast, vast, vast majority? I sure am.

Out of interest, eleven on the list would seem, as far as I can see, to have any real claim to being a 'climatology expert':


Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor - University of Winnipeg, Chair, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (See: here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball).)

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, France

Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.

M. R. Morgan, PhD, Cdr., FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K., now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor & Director, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (See: here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Patterson).)

Forese-Carlo Wezel, Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy

Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr., Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas, Geography, Climate, Environmental Science), retired University Professor, now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.

Robert Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A..

Robert Jacomb Foster, BE (Adelaide University), palaeoclimatologist and energy economist, Director Lavoisier Group; past Councillor Royal Society of Victoria and Victorian Institute of Marine Science, Melbourne, Australia (see: here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group).)


Of the eleven, three are members of lobby groups closely connected to the US energy industry, or the Australian mining industry.

EDIT:

My, my... it was ran by an organisation wishing to "discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems", previously funded by Exxon?

I am surprised.

This should be suprising to no one.

my take on global warming.

Is it happening? Defiantly. a few years of lower temperatures is not abnormal in things like climate.
Is man causing it or helping it along ? most likely.
Is it threatening human existence? not likely.

Its just normal practice of environmentalist movements to exaggerate. Most relatively new movements exaggerate. This is good for getting attention, However it is not so good for long term look of things.

The idea that the world will sink in to utter chaos with floods, rouge super hurricanes, and massive deserts inland is frankly speaking unrealistic.

Should we work to curb industrial emissions of green house gases? yes.
should we panic and destroy our economy/budgets in the process ? No.

That's perhaps a bit harsh; if he's anything like Reich or other non-'mainstream' researchers like Robert Sheldrake or Terence McKenna, the poor sod's not a money-grabbing agenda-pusher, but 'merely' someone convinced of the illegitimacy of 'mainstream' science.
Possibly, but it seems to me, he uses the exact same wording on almost any subject upon which he and any party that might own a checkbook share an interest. Oh, I'm sure he's not so much of a whore that he would make such a statement about just anything -- only on the subjects in which he is already active -- but he does seem to have a ready-made all-purpose statement that he likes to use when asked to say something.

And for the record, I should point out that I don't dismiss him just because he bucks "mainstream science." A lot of new real science gets made by people bucking the mainstream. I dismiss him because the theories he apparently does espouse are crackpot.

Its just normal practice of environmentalist movements to exaggerate. Most relatively new movements exaggerate.
The environmental movement's not all that new.

You can trace it back to the mid 1800's, with work by Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and others. Or, if you're not being generous, certainly to the time around the publishing of Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac in 1949.

my take on global warming.

Is it happening? Defiantly. a few years of lower temperatures is not abnormal in things like climate.
Is man causing it or helping it along ? most likely.
Is it threatening human existence? not likely.

Its just normal practice of environmentalist movements to exaggerate. Most relatively new movements exaggerate. This is good for getting attention, However it is not so good for long term look of things.

The idea that the world will sink in to utter chaos with floods, rouge super hurricanes, and massive deserts inland is frankly speaking unrealistic.

Should we work to curb industrial emissions of green house gases? yes.
should we panic and destroy our economy/budgets in the process ? No.
While I also do not anticipate a "Mad Max" dystopian future, the way some environmentalists predict, I would quibble with you only to the extent that the increasingly volatile weather patterns associated with global warming, and the shifting patterns of more extreme droughts and more extreme floods and storms they bring, cause damage enough to be an immediate problem. Also the interruptions in regional food availability often caused by such weather effects, themselves in turn cause outbreaks of war. History proves this. While I don't think we're all going to be scrabbling in the dust for scraps like in a Mel Gibson movie, I personally do not want to live through another 100 years of incessant warfare and social destablization around the globe like we've seen in other periods of climate shift.

Provided that could be avoided at this point, of course.

The environmental movement's not all that new.

You can trace it back to the mid 1800's, with work by Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and others. Or, if you're not being generous, certainly to the time around the publishing of Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac in 1949.

Dont be silly. The environmentalist movement was started by Al Gore in 2006 by An Inconvenient Truth.

The environmental movement's not all that new.

You can trace it back to the mid 1800's, with work by Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and others. Or, if you're not being generous, certainly to the time around the publishing of Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac in 1949.

those i list more as conservationist. slightly different movement. The modern environmentalist movement I trace to the 1955 when groups blocked dams in dinosaur national monument.
prior to most of the groups would not have opposed a dam so long as the waste was managed properly.
but 50 ish years i consider young. especially when you look in at the micro movements. global cooling, ozone layer, global warming etc.

those i list more as conservationist. slightly different movement. The modern environmentalist movement I trace to the 1955 when groups blocked dams in dinosaur national monument.
prior to most of the groups would not have opposed a dam so long as the waste was managed properly.
but 50 ish years i consider young. especially when you look in at the micro movements. global cooling, ozone layer, global warming etc.
It's older than that, I think. I remember learning about the preservationist-conservationist divide during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, about a hundred years ago.

It's older than that, I think. I remember learning about the preservationist-conservationist divide during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, about a hundred years ago.

as said in my first sentence conservationist are different from environmentalist.

Among history professors 1955 is considered the birth of the modern environmentalist movement.

Well Australia's having its 15th hottest year ever. Both average Summer and average Winter temperatures were up by more than 1%.

I'm reminded of King Canute ordering the waves to go back.
Maybe the respected climate change-denying scientists can do that when their Miami condos are flooded.
I'm sure some of them are genuine but a lot of them get funded by multinationals.

Among history professors 1955 is considered the birth of the modern environmentalist movement.

Source?

Or is this merely a fallacious appeal to authority?

While I also do not anticipate a "Mad Max" dystopian future, the way some environmentalists predict, I would quibble with you only to the extent that the increasingly volatile weather patterns associated with global warming, and the shifting patterns of more extreme droughts and more extreme floods and storms they bring, cause damage enough to be an immediate problem. Also the interruptions in regional food availability often caused by such weather effects, themselves in turn cause outbreaks of war. History proves this. While I don't think we're all going to be scrabbling in the dust for scraps like in a Mel Gibson movie, I personally do not want to live through another 100 years of incessant warfare and social destablization around the globe like we've seen in other periods of climate shift.

Provided that could be avoided at this point, of course.

historically there is less issues when the temperature rises then when it drops.
higher temperatures increase food production and bring more water inland.
look at the medieval warm period and compare it to the period afterward.

Also we could get into the Dr. Chris Landsea issue on the storms in particular and the weather patterns in relation to global warming.

as said in my first sentence conservationist are different from environmentalist.
They differ in some respects, but I don't think there's a clear line easily drawn between them. Thoreau, Muir and Rachel Carson, for example, are a very influential thinkers in environmentalism.

Among history professors 1955 is considered the birth of the modern environmentalist movement.
Emphasis on the 'modern'.

But, anyhoo, this is a minor quibble.

Source?

Or is this merely a fallacious appeal to authority?

Dr. James Olson. the American experience(id give a page number but i am away from my books). I am sorry I refuse to limit my knowledge to whatever books gets quoted in blogs or new media outlets.

Dr. James Olson. the American experience(id give a page number but i am away from my books). I am sorry I refuse to limit my knowledge to whatever books gets quoted in blogs or new media outlets.

Um. Even taking your "I read it a book" source at face value**, that would be 1 historian -- not a consensus of experts.

I love how you try to pass off things that you think you learned from a textbook as if they were irrefutable facts.

Regardless, Chumblywumbly has correctly identified how you are playing a game of semantics, not real history.

** In another thread, you said you have a deliberate strategy of making claims allegedly supported by books because it would take too long for anyone to verify your claims. linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14312506&postcount=71) That adds a grain of salt to your "it's in my textbook" assertion.

*SNIP*

Guess what? One cold winter doesn't make global warming a myth any more than that recent snow in Malibu gives it an arctic climate.

Temperatures have consistently been rising, and the last seven years have been seven of the eight hottest years on record:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

And guess what? It's not just a recent blip either:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Glaciers have been melting virtually everywhere thanks to that rising temperature:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

ZERO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations) scientific groups of national/international standing disagree with global warming.

Oh, and since you're religious, keep in mind that Benedict XVI (you may have heard of him) told a crowd of half a million people to oppose global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming#Vatican).

Um. Even taking your "I read it a book" source at face value**, that would be 1 historian -- not a consensus of experts.

I love how you try to pass off things that you think you learned from a textbook as if they were irrefutable facts.

Regardless, Chumblywumbly has correctly identified how you are playing a game of semantics, not real history.

** In another thread, you said you have a deliberate strategy of making claims allegedly supported by books because it would take too long for anyone to verify your claims. linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14312506&postcount=71) That adds a grain of salt to your "it's in my textbook" assertion.


Best part is if its in a book, chances are you can usually find it on the internet somewhere.

Oh, and since you're religious, keep in mind that Benedict XVI (you may have heard of him) told a crowd of half a million people to oppose global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming#Vatican).

NM is only religious when its ideologically convienent.

Dr. James Olson. the American experience(id give a page number but i am away from my books). I am sorry I refuse to limit my knowledge to whatever books gets quoted in blogs or new media outlets.

If you mean "American Experiences: Readings in American History Since 1865" then I'm sure you know that James Olson and Randy Roberts are the editors, not the authors, and the book is "[a] collection of secondary readings, written by a variety of authors". Your appeal to Dr. Olson's authority is not only fallacious, but invalid. That he co-edited the book(which covers over 200 years of history in ~340 pages) does not suggest that he made any kind of study into the birth of the environmentalist movement.

So you attempt to cite a book as your source and try to get us to give up has rather fallen on its face. Huzzah for Amazon (http://www.amazon.ca/American-Experiences-Readings-History-Since/dp/0321010310)

Um. Even taking your "I read it a book" source at face value**, that would be 1 historian -- not a consensus of experts.

I love how you try to pass off things that you think you learned from a textbook as if they were irrefutable facts.

Regardless, Chumblywumbly has correctly identified how you are playing a game of semantics, not real history.

** In another thread, you said you have a deliberate strategy of making claims allegedly supported by books because it would take too long for anyone to verify your claims. linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14312506&postcount=71) That adds a grain of salt to your "it's in my textbook" assertion.
I suggest you read about James Olson. if you disagree with him he will likely unleash his hook on you. and its more then just i read it in a book it was an important lecture topic.
and the fact still remains for something subjective like the difference between environmentalist and conservationist you use the opinion of professors. And I have provided one and he has provided none.

I suggest you read about James Olson. if you disagree with him he will likely unleash his hook on you. and its more then just i read it in a book it was an important lecture topic.
and the fact still remains for something subjective like the difference between environmentalist and conservationist you use the opinion of professors. And I have provided one and he has provided none.

Appeal to authority. Are you one of those people who thinks the professor is infailable? I assure you they are not.

I suggest you read about James Olson. if you disagree with him he will likely unleash his hook on you. and its more then just i read it in a book it was an important lecture topic.
and the fact still remains for something subjective like the difference between environmentalist and conservationist you use the opinion of professors. And I have provided one and he has provided none.

You have alleged that one professor of history (http://www.shsu.edu/~his_www/olson.html) agrees with you in a book that isn't even about environmentalism or conservationism. So really, you have you.

and the fact still remains for something subjective like the difference between environmentalist and conservationist you use the opinion of professors. And I have provided one and he has provided none.
There's plenty of literature in the environmental movement that cites earlier thinkers like Thoreau as important to, and part of, environmentalism.

See, for example, this (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tauik_vFkUsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Environmental+Virtue+Ethics#PPA31,M1) paper by Philip Cafaro.

If God had wanted to save the polar bears, he wouldn't have given us SUVs.

If God had wanted to save the polar bears, he wouldn't have given us SUVs.

Didn't you hear? Jehovah died a couple months ago...

historically there is less issues when the temperature rises then when it drops.
higher temperatures increase food production and bring more water inland.
look at the medieval warm period and compare it to the period afterward.

Also we could get into the Dr. Chris Landsea issue on the storms in particular and the weather patterns in relation to global warming.
Temperatures both rise and fall drastically during periods of significant shift. A persistant temperature shift over a century or two will cause major, permanent social changes. But I am thinking of the more immediate effects of shorter term destablization of agricultural cycles as well as economic and commercial impacts of destablization of coastal regions and major waterways, and the related movements of populations, often under emergency conditions -- all while temperatures and weather patterns bounce wildly all over the place from year to year.

The greenhouse gas effect has been beaten dead and the coffin nailed shut. Man causes this effect due to large amounts of CO2 and other gases. Only oil companies are contracting self-acclaimed pseudo-scientists to cloud this issue. Every single claim that has been certain that man made gases are irrelevant to climate change have been rejected by scientific peer review, period.

Heres my two cents, although, realistically, I doubt anyone much cares what my thoughts on the subject are.

About the whole Co2 thing: Yes, we are producing mass amounts of the stuff. But, guess what, thats been happening throughout history. Its not like the gas just suddenly appeared when humanity reached the Industrial Revolution. Even before there were humans, there was much in the way of volcanic activity, and all the smoke and ash contributed its share of Co2. And, although this may sound like a joke, dinosaurs farting. Remember a few years back when they were saying how much Co2 cows released? How much would a dinosaur give off? I've personally no idea, but I'm willing to bet its more than a car or ten.

And, I also saw someone mentioned that the glaciers are melting. Again, yes they are. But so what? They've been doing so since the last Ice Age. A few thousand years ago half of North America was covered by a glacier, and they've slowly been receding since then.

Overall, my thought is that although humanity may very well be contributing to the climate change, its going to happen regardless of what we do. Its a naturral cycle of the earth.

Heres my two cents, although, realistically, I doubt anyone much cares what my thoughts on the subject are.

About the whole Co2 thing: Yes, we are producing mass amounts of the stuff. But, guess what, thats been happening throughout history. Its not like the gas just suddenly appeared when humanity reached the Industrial Revolution. Even before there were humans, there was much in the way of volcanic activity, and all the smoke and ash contributed its share of Co2. And, although this may sound like a joke, dinosaurs farting. Remember a few years back when they were saying how much Co2 cows released? How much would a dinosaur give off? I've personally no idea, but I'm willing to bet its more than a car or ten.

And, I also saw someone mentioned that the glaciers are melting. Again, yes they are. But so what? They've been doing so since the last Ice Age. A few thousand years ago half of North America was covered by a glacier, and they've slowly been receding since then.

Overall, my thought is that although humanity may very well be contributing to the climate change, its going to happen regardless of what we do. Its a naturral cycle of the earth.
You know what strikes me as funny?

The fact that so many who either deny global warming or pooh-pooh the alarm over it AND so many of those who sound alarms over it, seem to forget that there are overwhelmingly good reasons for us to stop doing the things that contribute to or hasten global warming.

And those good reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. Instead they have to do with the fact that most of what contributes to global warming also, either in relation to global warming or separate from it, contribute to toxic pollution of our environment with a directly related negative impact on public health. They also contribute to a global economy in ways that are no longer economically sustainable.

So, in the interest of not bankrupting ourselves and of reducing rates of various cancers and respiratory disorders, why the fuck should we not just do what the environmentalists say already? And if it just happens to slow down global climate change even a little, we can take that as an added bonus.

Because, personally, I say that, as a race, we think entirely too much of ourselves. We can't change the world, either by stopping what we're doing or starting something supposed to help. And realistically, by the time we screw up the environment to the point where it would start killing us, we'd probably of killed each other off in a nuclear war anyways. That, and its a little arrogant to think we can hurt the earth. The earths been around for about 6 billion years, and I'm sure in that time its seen a lot worse than us. We've been around for, oh, lets say sixty thousand years. And we've been harming the environment for a couple hundred. There is no way in hell that in that time, we are going to unravel six billion years of work. The earth is adaptive, it will most likely change to include whatever the hell we're doing to it. Humans are adaptive to, we'll do the same thing.

So, my opinion is that, yes, we are altering the environment. Is it a problem? Maybe. Is it a long term problem for us? Nope.

We can't change the world, either by stopping what we're doing or starting something supposed to help.
Almost the entirety of human history would disagree with you there.

Perhaps one of the defining features of humanity is the scope of change we can effect upon the world (and, subsequently, those beings inhabiting the world).

That would depend on your view of chaning the world. Can we cause several species to go extinct? Yep. Can we have world wars that alter several countires? Yep. Can we have government reforms? Yep. Does all this mean much in the grand shceme of things? Nope.

That would depend on your view of chaning the world. Can we cause several species to go extinct? Yep. Can we have world wars that alter several countires? Yep. Can we have government reforms? Yep. Does all this mean much in the grand shceme of things? Nope.
With such a defeatist attitude, why do anything at all?

Why save a child if, "in the grand shceme of things", it won't mean much?

Because, personally, I say that, as a race, we think entirely too much of ourselves. We can't change the world, either by stopping what we're doing or starting something supposed to help. And realistically, by the time we screw up the environment to the point where it would start killing us, we'd probably of killed each other off in a nuclear war anyways. That, and its a little arrogant to think we can hurt the earth. The earths been around for about 6 billion years, and I'm sure in that time its seen a lot worse than us. We've been around for, oh, lets say sixty thousand years. And we've been harming the environment for a couple hundred. There is no way in hell that in that time, we are going to unravel six billion years of work. The earth is adaptive, it will most likely change to include whatever the hell we're doing to it. Humans are adaptive to, we'll do the same thing.

So, my opinion is that, yes, we are altering the environment. Is it a problem? Maybe. Is it a long term problem for us? Nope.

My problem with Global Warming is that it's Al Gore's pet cause, and I can't stand Al Gore.

It's the same with Universal Healthcare: I'd be a lot more likely to support it if that disgusting 300 pound blob of egomaniacal raw cookie dough who made "Sicko" didn't believe in it so strongly. But I can't support it because Micheal Moore supports it, and Moore is literally a walking, talking piece of crap. A scientific marvel: A pile of feces that walks and talks. (I do basically agree with it, of course...but only with the problem Moore is addressing and the idea that everyone should have health care. I think Moore's solutions are /r/tarded.)

Maggots, all of them. Political maggots who intentionally corrupt the intelligence and reasonableness of people and then feed off of it. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter. All of them do it, and all of them can burn in hell.

Defeatist? Not at all. I'm not interested in changing the world. I'm interested in changing my life. All I'm saying, is that, in reality, humanity doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of the world. Thats I prefer to live in the moment.

Because, personally, I say that, as a race, we think entirely too much of ourselves. We can't change the world, either by stopping what we're doing or starting something supposed to help. And realistically, by the time we screw up the environment to the point where it would start killing us, we'd probably of killed each other off in a nuclear war anyways. That, and its a little arrogant to think we can hurt the earth. The earths been around for about 6 billion years, and I'm sure in that time its seen a lot worse than us. We've been around for, oh, lets say sixty thousand years. And we've been harming the environment for a couple hundred. There is no way in hell that in that time, we are going to unravel six billion years of work. The earth is adaptive, it will most likely change to include whatever the hell we're doing to it. Humans are adaptive to, we'll do the same thing.

So, my opinion is that, yes, we are altering the environment. Is it a problem? Maybe. Is it a long term problem for us? Nope.
So, it is your opinion that I should be happy now with the prospect of being sick and poor now because in 100,000 years, nobody will care what happened to me?

In other words, is it your contention that I should not worry about today because the sun will come out tomorrow?

Did you fail to comprehend what I said, or did you just choose to ignore it?

I said that there are perfectly good reasons for us, for our own sakes, now, today, in our own lifetimes, to listen to the environmentalists, and that those reasons HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, or with the fate of the planet or any of that sort of thing you seem to think is so arrogant.

I have to be honest and admit that I don't really give a shit about the planet. I mean, I do but I also know perfectly well that the planet does not need our help to fix itself. My take on the whole global warming issue has always been this: Nature has its own ways of establishing equilibrium and fixing environmental imbalances. The problem for human beings is that it will be very, very bad for us to just let nature fix the problem, because nature's way of fixing problems usually ends with the extinction of whatever species is dominant and most impactful on the environment, and guess who that is nowadays?

But all of that is beside the point. The POINT is this: I see no reason why I should live in filth and illness and economic instability when I can have cleanliness, health and new jobs by developing new energy technologies. If that just happens to benefit the polar bears as well, yippee, but frankly, it's MY lungs I'm worried about.

Maggots, all of them. Political maggots who intentionally corrupt the intelligence and reasonableness of people and then feed off of it.
Then ignore those who say these things for personal gain, and instead listen to any number of fantastic, enlightened thinkers on the subject.

Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Mary Midgley, James Lovelock, David Attenborough, Peter Singer, Murray Bookchin, etc., etc.


I'm not interested in changing the world. I'm interested in changing my life.
Changing your life will necessitate changing the world.

All I'm saying, is that, in reality, humanity doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of the world.
And I'm saying you're wrong.

Humans have a massive impact upon the world; obviously.

I prefer to live in the moment.
Unfortunate for you, then, that the moment includes a number of growing ecological and socio-economic problems.

Defeatist? Not at all. I'm not interested in changing the world. I'm interested in changing my life. All I'm saying, is that, in reality, humanity doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of the world. Thats I prefer to live in the moment.
Then why not clean up the moment?

And if that works for you, roll with it. I'm not saying you should do any of those things. What I'm saying, is that the enviromentalists have no clue what they're talking about, so "doing as they say" as you put it, won't do anything. As an individual, what I feel we need to do, is work hard, worry about yourself, and try to change your own life for the better. Worrying about the environment isn't going to change your life.

Then why not clean up the moment?

Same as my previous post, pretty much. We can't clean up the environment. Whats done is done. We should be concentrating on making a good life for our families rather than trying to change the environmet.

That would depend on your view of chaning the world. Can we cause several species to go extinct? Yep. Can we have world wars that alter several countires? Yep. Can we have government reforms? Yep. Does all this mean much in the grand shceme of things? Nope.
This shows a remarkable ignorance about history. It's all very well to know and not care, but in the 21st century there really is very little excuse for knowing how to use the internet but not knowing how much human impact on the environment has mattered -- to humans -- in the long term over the course of our existence.

If you want to just shrug off climate change as not worth your attention, go right ahead. But please do not try to make an argument about it based on such an apparent lack of knowledge.

Then ignore those who say these things for personal gain, and instead listen to any number of fantastic, enlightened thinkers on the subject.

Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Mary Midgley, James Lovelock, David Attenborough, Peter Singer, Murray Bookchin, etc., etc.

I love David Attenborough.

But Attenborough hasn't proposed any solutions to the problem that I'm aware of. He just brings about knowledge on the topic. He has made shows that show that yes, the earth is getting warmer and yes, human beings are causing it.

I don't disagree with that. But Al Gore's solutions are deeply troubling to me, and I think he would sacrifice the economy upon the alter of global warming, which I thoroughly disagree with.

The solution isn't easy, and a lot of it has to do with technological innovation that has yet to be seen. Trees that absorb more C02, for instance, which they're working on.

It's the same with Moore. I agree that everyone should have health care, but I don't agree with how he proposes to go about giving it to them.

Same as my previous post, pretty much. We can't clean up the environment. Whats done is done. We should be concentrating on making a good life for our families rather than trying to change the environmet.
Well, I'm sorry, that's just bullshit. If you are actually doing to argue that no longer pumping toxins into the air we breathe by the burning of fossils fuels will make no difference to public health, then you are either bullshitting us on purpose or you really are the most ignorant person I've met in a while.

We should be concentrating on making a good life for our families rather than trying to change the environmet.
I'd contend that these goals are one and the same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology).

*Sigh* My point exactly. I'm not interested in the long term. I'm interested in the here and now. The world isn't going to end in my lifetime, barring a nuclear war or somesuch, so I really don't care much.

I love David Attenborough.

But Attenborough hasn't proposed any solutions to the problem that I'm aware of. He just brings about knowledge on the topic.
He has advocated some action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_attenborough#Views_and_advocacy).

I don't disagree with that. But Al Gore...
Ignore Gore. Ignore Moore.

They are cretins, you are right. You should not then listen to them.

I'd contend that these goals are one and the same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology).
Although that is a specific philosophy I don't really buy into, I agree that cleaning up our environmental habits and making a better life for our families is one and the same thing. One only has to look at state health department records to watch childhood and adult asthma, lung disease, and heart disease rates go up and down in direct relation to restrictions on industrial pollution versus lifting of such restrictions. The less pollution, the fewer people get sick. The more pollution, the more sickness, with the concurrent impact on the economy as well as overall rise in human suffering.

Well, I'm sorry, that's just bullshit. If you are actually doing to argue that no longer pumping toxins into the air we breathe by the burning of fossils fuels will make no difference to public health, then you are either bullshitting us on purpose or you really are the most ignorant person I've met in a while.

That will make a difference. I'm not going to argue with that. What I'm saying, is that we shouldn't change how we live based on what the enviromentalists say. If you want to do it for that reason, go ahead. Personally, I'm interested in the practicalness of alternative fuel. When we get to the point where it works just as well as fossil fuels, then sure, I'll switch. But not now.

I'd contend that these goals are one and the same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology).

Go ahead and contend. I honestly don't much care what you think. Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Oh, and one more thing about public health before I start to ignore this thread, is it really all that bad? The human lifespan has grown exponentially for the past while now.

*Sigh* My point exactly. I'm not interested in the long term. I'm interested in the here and now. The world isn't going to end in my lifetime, barring a nuclear war or somesuch, so I really don't care much.
And yet you pooh-pooh the idea of doing what the environmentalists say -- such as reducing energy consumption/fuel burning; developing non-polluting alternate energy sources; using non-toxic "green" materials in consumer products, building materials, etc. All such thing are geared towards one ultimate goal -- reducing the level of toxicity in the environment, which will be good for our health.

Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it.
Eeuch.

Is there anything worse than apathetic wussiness?

*Raises eyebrow* So because I don't feel like arguing with someone who won't listen, I'm a wussie?

That will make a difference. I'm not going to argue with that. What I'm saying, is that we shouldn't change how we live based on what the enviromentalists say. If you want to do it for that reason, go ahead. Personally, I'm interested in the practicalness of alternative fuel. When we get to the point where it works just as well as fossil fuels, then sure, I'll switch. But not now.
THAT IS WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS SAY!

I mean, are you kidding us with this line of argument? Are you aware of how self-contradictory, unrealistic, and just plain nonsensical you are being?


Oh, and one more thing about public health before I start to ignore this thread, is it really all that bad? The human lifespan has grown exponentially for the past while now.
Yes, it is all that bad that children die of cancers that have been linked to environmental toxins. It is all that bad that, sometimes, children are born with severe deformities due to pregnant women being exposed to high levels of environmental toxins. It is all that bad that human beings are suffering with preventable illnesses every day due to prolonged exposure to environmental toxins. It is all that bad that the world's economy is carrying the extra burden of all that illness, almost all of which could be reduced within a couple of decades just by decent regulation of industrial emissions.

And it is even worse that there are people like you, who say such brainless BS about it.

*Raises eyebrow* So because I don't feel like arguing with someone who won't listen, I'm a wussie?
No, I think it's more the way you cop that "well, I don't want to talk to you anyway, neener-neener" attitude when you can't come up with a counter to his argument or a defense of your own.

Oh, and by the way, don't let us stop you from your plan to ignore this thread.

But don't forget the parting "neener-neener" for the rest of us.

So because I don't feel like arguing with someone who won't listen, I'm a wussie?
The statement "I honestly don't much care what you think. Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it" is an apathetic wuss-out. It's a lack of debate... which is pretty galling on a debate forum.

And how am I refusing to listen?

You don't think humans mean very much, don't think we can change the world and want to 'live in the moment'. I imagine you must simply stand still all day.

And then there are people like you, who play these up to no end. Yes, they are happening. But, realistically, its pretty rare. Some kids die of cancer. Some kids get trampled by horses to. Should we start getting rid of everything thats potentially dangerous?

And, since it seems we've degenerated into flaming, I bid you, adiue. Or however the hell you spell it.

Does not an honest evaluation of all evidence and consideration of all views now lead one to conclude, at the least, that the issue is not settled?
Ummmmm NO!!! The keywords you chose "honest evaluation", and "all evidence and consideration of all views", are debatable and not as inclusive as you would have us believe.

If we go under the assumption that it's all that oil we're burning, and we act upon it, and it proves false, we're still ahead. Alternative energy will create so many jobs, break us of our addiction to something that eventually will run out no matter what we do, end the risk of oil spills, and get rid of those unsightly pumps and pipelines.

If we go under the assumption that it's all that oil we're burning, and we act upon it, and it proves false, we're still ahead. Alternative energy will create so many jobs, break us of our addiction to something that eventually will run out no matter what we do, end the risk of oil spills, and get rid of those unsightly pumps and pipelines.

Well that is the good thing out of all this hype. God knows we are going to need a lot more energy to heat our homes now with the Ice Age coming.

And then there are people like you, who play these up to no end. Yes, they are happening. But, realistically, its pretty rare. Some kids die of cancer. Some kids get trampled by horses to. Should we start getting rid of everything thats potentially dangerous?

And, since it seems we've degenerated into flaming, I bid you, adiue. Or however the hell you spell it.
While you're away, why not take a moment to learn how to use the quote button? It will help us know which of us you're pissed off at. Thanks.

If we go under the assumption that it's all that oil we're burning, and we act upon it, and it proves false, we're still ahead. Alternative energy will create so many jobs, break us of our addiction to something that eventually will run out no matter what we do, end the risk of oil spills, and get rid of those unsightly pumps and pipelines.
Seems obvious, doesn't it? I really see no downside to the phasing out of fossil fuels to be replaced with new technologies.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? I really see no downside to the phasing out of fossil fuels to be replaced with new technologies.

I see a potential downside, one that I would love to see overlooked but never will be: Oil companies will lose money if we stop using oil. My take on that is quite simple: Tough. They'll get over it. Many industries have gone under as their products were outmoded in favor of something better.

I see a potential downside, one that I would love to see overlooked but never will be: Oil companies will lose money if we stop using oil. My take on that is quite simple: Tough. They'll get over it. Many industries have gone under as their products were outmoded in favor of something better.

Why on Earth should anyone worry about oil companied losing money? Exxon/Mobil alone posted $40B in PROFITS last year. Profits -- so there's none of that "oh, it goes into exploration and advertising" crap. Profit.

If they're not smart enough to save, wisely invest, or re-tool with that money, they probably should go under.

Honestly I've never gotten the "but... but... the economy" thing in regards to opposing doing something about global warming. I'd rather be poor than dead.

And that's even ignoring that not combating global warming is practically guaranteed to completely destroy the economy anyways.

Why on Earth should anyone worry about oil companied losing money? Exxon/Mobil alone posted $40B in PROFITS last year. Profits -- so there's none of that "oh, it goes into exploration and advertising" crap. Profit.

If they're not smart enough to save, wisely invest, or re-tool with that money, they probably should go under.

Actually, Exxon/Mobil is truly an "energy" company, not just an oil company. Last year alone, we put millions into the research and development of advanced, renewable energy like wind, solar, and coastal oscillating wave column turbines.

Exxon/Mobil. Because we live here, too.

Note, the above is for public relations novelty purposes only and does not represent any authentic intent to supplant our petroleum based business until we have sold every last god damn black drop in this planet to you fucking people.

Actually, Exxon/Mobil is truly an "energy" company, not just an oil company. Last year alone, we put millions into the research and development of advanced, renewable energy like wind, solar, and coastal oscillating wave column turbines.

Exxon/Mobil. Because we live here, too.

Note, the above is for public relations novelty purposes only and does not represent any authentic intent to supplant our petroleum based business until we have sold every last god damn black drop in this planet to you fucking people.

Made of, and sloppin' over with, awesome.

Actually, Exxon/Mobil is truly an "energy" company, not just an oil company. Last year alone, we put millions into the research and development of advanced, renewable energy like wind, solar, and coastal oscillating wave column turbines.

Exxon/Mobil. Because we live here, too.

Note, the above is for public relations novelty purposes only and does not represent any authentic intent to supplant our petroleum based business until we have sold every last god damn black drop in this planet to you fucking people.

Kick ass. You should stay a while.

Edit:

Made of, and sloppin' over with, awesome.

Great minds...

Christopher Booker is a proven, unrepentant liar.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health)

So what can you say about a man who makes the same mistake 38 times? Who, when confronted by a mountain of evidence demonstrating that his informant is a charlatan convicted under the Trade Descriptions Act, continues to repeat his claims? Who elevates the untested claims of bloggers above peer-reviewed papers? Who sticks to his path through a blizzard of facts? What should we deduce about the Sunday Telegraph's columnist Christopher Booker?

Two years ago, John Bridle's misleading CV and dodgy record were exposed by the BBC's You and Yours programme. So the BBC immediately became part of the conspiracy: in Booker's words "a concerted move by the powerful 'anti-asbestos lobby' to silence Bridle". He suggested that the broadcasting regulator Ofcom would clear Bridle's name. In June this year it threw out Bridle's complaint and published evidence even more damning than that contained in the programme. So has Booker changed the way he sees "Britain's leading practical asbestos expert"? Far from it. He tells me that "my view of Ofcom has plummeted": it too has joined the conspiracy.

My favourite Booker column is the piece he wrote in February, titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". In September 2007, he reported, "sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km". To reinforce this point, he helpfully republished the graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.

What other reason can there be for a person to continue writing such tripe?

He's paid to do it.

A combination of human activities and natural issues are causing global warming, thats my opinion. :)

I think people are misunderstanding what is meant by "global warming" if they think every place on the earth would get hotter. (Global climate change really is a better way of putting it.) For istance, extra water from melting ice would enter the oceans and could potentially alter the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream brings warmer water north towards Europe, and is what keeps temperatures in Europe warm compared to other places at similar latitudes. If the Gulf Stream is altered away from Europe, we would expect to see colder temperatures there, not warmer ones.

Maggots, all of them.Maggots: The Record?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmatics#Maggots:_The_Record_Era_.281987.29

Be careful about suggesting anything contradictory to global warming or the fanatics around here might flame you into a wall.

As my position on the matter is well-known, I will only say here that I side firmly with the skeptics.

Denial isn't skepticism.

Be careful about suggesting anything contradictory to global warming or the fanatics around here might flame you into a wall.

As you clearly can see in... which posts?

Meh indeed.

"The suggestion that humans are responsible for at least a significant component of climate change comes from several lines of evidence. Theoretical considerations suggest that discharging carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere will cause atmospheric warming, as can be directly observed above all cities in the developed world where energy use involves burning fossil fuels. Measurements of carbon dioxide and methane preseved in ice cores from Antarctica and Kallaallit Nunaat (Greenland) indicate that the concentrations have been relatively stable over the past 10000 years. However, since 1800, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the ice and the atmosphere has increased by about 30% and the concentration of methane has doubled.

Proxy data, historical records, and numerical temperature and precipitation observations allow comparison between what has happened under the purely natural circumstances that undoubtedly existed prior to 1800 AD, and what has happened since then. The most striking difference is not in the type of climate changes, or the areas of occurrence, or the consequences to organisms: it is the speed at which the changes are occuring. Changes that required hundreds , thousands, or tens of thousands of years in the natural and geological records are now seen within the span of decades. The rates of climate change are increasing, along with increased human production of carbon dioxide and methane. The acceleration of the rate of change began in the early 1800s, just as human consumption of fossil fuels increased. Ongoing climate changes directly above cities are proportional to the amount of energy consumed by each, with differences evident due to city size, lifestyle, and economic wealth. Taken all together, the acceleration of climate change cannot be explained solely by natural causes: human activity is the only factor that has changed substantially in Earth's climate system since 1800."

- Geography 1050: Introduction to the Principles & Practice of Geography. Memorial University of Newfoundland Department of Geography. 2008-2009 version.

(My geography textbook from last semester)

Be careful about suggesting anything contradictory to global warming or the fanatics around here might flame you into a wall.

That would be fine advice if you could back it up with any examples.

Christopher Booker is a proven, unrepentant liar.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health)

What other reason can there be for a person to continue writing such tripe?

He's paid to do it.

Wow. Just wow. That's some serious mental contortionism. Thanks for posting that.

All well and good but it does nothing to address the melting of the Polar Ice Caps (what is it all an illusion?) and the fact that my Christmas in Northwest Rural PA (northeast USA) was 60 degrees...

Anyone who thinks a cold winter disproves climate change (or vice versa for a mild one) needs to look up the word "average" in a good dictionary.

Anyone who thinks a cold winter disproves climate change (or vice versa for a mild one) needs to look up the word "average" in a good dictionary.

Why say "Climate Change" when in fact you mean "Global Warming"?

Why say "Climate Change" when in fact you mean "Global Warming"?

Climate change is more accurate. Some places will get colder if the ice caps melt for example.

Well, It has been Unnaturally colder, earlier here than normal, Hell, New Orleans got a good bit of Random Snow...


But, we've had a volatile Winter Climate down here for as long as I can remember, so, like always, it went back up to Seventy afterwards and back down to 29 after that...


no matter what anyone predicts down here...we all sit around going "FTW!?" lol

I see a potential downside, one that I would love to see overlooked but never will be: Oil companies will lose money if we stop using oil. My take on that is quite simple: Tough. They'll get over it. Many industries have gone under as their products were outmoded in favor of something better.
Or they could diversify... You know, go where the money of tomorrow will be, just as if they were good capitalists.

Wow. Just wow. That's some serious mental contortionism. Thanks for posting that.

My brain still hurts from the effort of trying to understand how a grown person who can, presumably, walk upright and tie his own shoes, could reasonably point to an increase in ice coverage in winter and believe that he had stumbled upon something novel. If that's all t takes to get paid, I am definitely in the wrong business.

I see a potential downside, one that I would love to see overlooked but never will be: Oil companies will lose money if we stop using oil. My take on that is quite simple: Tough. They'll get over it. Many industries have gone under as their products were outmoded in favor of something better.
If they have any sense they'll start investing in research into alternate energy sources themselves. Really now, can they be so deluded that they think that their precious oil will never run out?
My brain still hurts from the effort of trying to understand how a grown person who can, presumably, walk upright and tie his own shoes, could reasonably point to an increase in ice coverage in winter and believe that he had stumbled upon something novel. If that's all t takes to get paid, I am definitely in the wrong business.

BREAKING NEWS: Small drops of water have been observed falling from the sky, totally disproving global warming.

Isn't it time we stopped approaching things from a scientific perspective, ignored relevant data, and appealed to the wisdom of political hacks paid by special interest groups to spew absolutely idiotic drivel, and call that science instead?

I agree with myself!

I also think that from now on, we rename Ants and Polar Bears as each other. Hey look, the polar bears aren't dying out at all, in fact they're more populous than ever! Ha ha, you liberal suckers and your fancy education can't fool me, cuz I'm a SKEPTIC!

Defeatist? Not at all. I'm not interested in changing the world. I'm interested in changing my life. All I'm saying, is that, in reality, humanity doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of the world. Thats I prefer to live in the moment.

This message brought to you by the Heartland Institute.

http://www.heartland.org/bin/h/m/chicago_left.jpg

Now remove those pesky smoking bans!

Isn't it time we stopped approaching things from a scientific perspective, ignored relevant data, and appealed to the wisdom of political hacks paid by special interest groups to spew absolutely idiotic drivel, and call that science instead?

I agree with myself!

I also think that from now on, we rename Ants and Polar Bears as each other. Hey look, the polar bears aren't dying out at all, in fact they're more populous than ever! Ha ha, you liberal suckers and your fancy education can't fool me, cuz I'm a SKEPTIC!

*covers you with honey and sends in the ants*

*covers you with honey and sends in the ants*

Kinky

The Manhattan Declaration, which I cited, is only one of the more recent expressions of skepticism. There are many, many others. That is the point: the issue should not be considered settled.

Examples abound:

1) http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Report of revised view of Dr. Claude Allegre, one of the first scientists to raise the issue of “global warming”.

2) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Sen. Inhofe's EPW blog; refers to Dr. Allegre, numerous other authorities expressing skeptical views on global warming. Follow the included links.

3) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Sen. Inhofe's EPW blog, referring to updated report: now over 650 scientists dissent. Follow the included links.

An exemplary quotation: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

4) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

Senator Inhofe’s EPW blog, reporting a survey of recent papers on climate change:

“Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.”

Again, follow the included links.

5) http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

View of Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute (and thus not on the payroll of, e.g., Exxon): natural cycles are involved, and global cooling may be likely.

6) http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm

Sunspot activity at a recent low. Reduced sunspot activity correlated with cooling.

7) http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

Refers to work by Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirming his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures. (See http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 for abstract.)

Also refers to data collected by weather-satellite scientists Dr. David Douglass of the University of Rochester and Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville:

“For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."”

IMHO the credentials of these scientists are at least as substantial as those on the other side of the issue. Dismissing them out of hand would be unwise.

Again: regardless of which side you favor, I submit that the issue is far from “settled.”

Denial isn't skepticism.

especially given that the denialist side believes every single last bit of bullshit various shills, scammers, and noted idiots suggest to them. even if they have been disproven for years. even if they are flat out mutually contradictory. there is no idea so dumb that you can't find denialists willing to hold it as absolute truth, so long as it in some way can be (mis)construed as opposing the DFHs.

that ain't skepticism, that's gullibility.

especially given that the denialist side believes every single last bit of bullshit various shills, scammers, and noted idiots suggest to them. even if they have been disproven for years. even if they are flat out mutually contradictory. there is no idea so dumb that you can't find denialists willing to hold it as absolute truth, so long as it in some way can be (mis)construed as opposing the DFHs.

that ain't skepticism, that's gullibility.

I refer to my preceding post:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Given the choice between the opinion of one of the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years and your characterization of "the denialist side", I will give credence to the opinion of the preeminent scientist.

I refer to my preceding post:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Given the choice between the opinion of one of the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years and your characterization of "the denialist side", I will give credence to the opinion of the preeminent scientist.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Is that all you got, or are you going to refer back to a previous post in which you used some other flavor of fallacious reasoning? I noticed a strawman a few posts of yours back, might want to re-post that a few times.

what its time to reevaluate is the degree to which tecnology is dependent on the use of combustion, and the simple bottom line reality is that it isn't, at all.

what its time to reevaluate is what being responsible is, what having a conscience is, and to understand just exactly how it is in each and every last one of our own personal intrests, as well as each other's, to do so.

You're kidding, right? Technology is almost solely dependent on energy derived from combustion. Anything that uses electricity, you can be pretty sure that electricity came from a power plant burning fossil fuels - not to mention the type of power used for every single widely-used vehicle in existence...

You're kidding, right? Technology is almost solely dependent on energy derived from combustion. Anything that uses electricity, you can be pretty sure that electricity came from a power plant burning fossil fuels - not to mention the type of power used for every single widely-used vehicle in existence...

Or nulclear.

It does seem astounding though that some people are still not properd to admit a link between planet wide pollution, and global warming.

Does not an honest evaluation of all evidence and consideration of all views now lead one to conclude, at the least, that the issue is not settled?


No, actually the issue is settled about the CLIMATE CHANGE. It's happening. (see the UN-IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change).

The climate change includes: higher AVERAGE temperatures on an AVERAGE taken on the whole world, hence more ENERGY available in the atmosphere (and hydrosphere!), hence MORE EXTREME atmospherical phenomena. This includes heatwaves in previously temperate areas, hurricanes forming in the Mediterranean, and stronger winter storms, which means blizzards and heavy snowfalls even in previously temperate areas. The fact that the average increase of temperatures is due to the increase in greenhouse-gas emission, related to human activity, is quite solid.

The use of the wording "global warming" is stupid, as it gives a chance for the "skeptical climate experts" (who, of course, cannot be suspected of having some kind of interest thereupon... absit iniuria verbis!) to say "hey, here in Bigtopia we've had a -0.1 °C average last year, HENCE there is no global warming!". The correct wording is "global climate change".

For it to become an accepted theory that could make the difference between whether mankind makes it through the next thousand years, yes I would.

Oh yes, of course, Global Warming will wipe us out, silly me. That's shit. Assuming we are causing Global Warming, I highly doubt that we could warm the world enough to burn us all to death.

(see the UN-IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change).

You know most of the people that work for the IPCC aren't actually climatologists, meteorologists, or even scientists? They're just UN workers, but they add them to the list to beef it out and make it look more impressive. On one of their papers they credited it to about 2,500 people and only 52 were climatologists or meteorologists. A few more did other sciences, but the vast majority either hadn't worked on it, and only found out that they supposedly had after it was published, and the rest were just UN workers and diplomats etc.

Oh yes, of course, Global Warming will wipe us out, silly me. That's shit. Assuming we are causing Global Warming, I highly doubt that we could warm the world enough to burn us all to death.

Or, on a less dramatical and more serious level, even the average temperatures of sub-saharian Africa raising by 1 °C means that millions of people more will suffer starvation and diseases, because of lack of water (for irrigating crops and for drinking). Thus increasing the need for immigration towards other countries, which leads to increased social tensions (xenophobia, pressure on welfare system) even in distant countries.

Climate change is more accurate. Some places will get colder if the ice caps melt for example.

Like where?

Or, on a less dramatical and more serious level, even the average temperatures of sub-saharian Africa raising by 1 °C means that millions of people more will suffer starvation and diseases, because of lack of water (for irrigating crops and for drinking). Thus increasing the need for immigration towards other countries, which leads to increased social tensions (xenophobia, pressure on welfare system) even in distant countries.

At the rate we're going, even if we were causing Global Warming, it'd take a very long time to raise temps by 1 degree.

All life (as we know it) could be ended with a large meteor striking the planet.
A great deal of life could end with extreme global warming resulting in a New Ice Age. One of these events is beyond our control while the other one may be partly under our control.
We could just do nothing but do you notice that we've been having a lot of extreme weather events lately:
Melting Ice Caps
An increase in tornados, cyclones and hurricaines
Increasing desertification in many continents
Bleaching of coral and warming of oceans that absorb much of our CO2

We actually could do some things that wouldn't hurt us too much. I'm not sceptical about global warming - I'm sceptical about all those bent economists that bleat about how we mustn't intervene to cut down pollution because that will anger that Great God "Profit".

You know most of the people that work for the IPCC aren't actually climatologists, meteorologists, or even scientists? They're just UN workers, but they add them to the list to beef it out and make it look more impressive. On one of their papers they credited it to about 2,500 people and only 52 were climatologists or meteorologists. A few more did other sciences, but the vast majority either hadn't worked on it, and only found out that they supposedly had after it was published, and the rest were just UN workers and diplomats etc.

That's why I think that the UN-IPCC is reliable. You don't need 2500 meteorologists in a centralised panel to analise such a phenomenon like the global climate change. You need to collect ALL kind of data: including efficiency of agriculture, increase or decrease of some kind of maladies, geological data about erosion, oceanographical studies about deep and surface streams (example: El Nino), data from satellites about the albedo of Earth in various portions of the spectrum, etc etc.
The biggest part of the work is COLLECTING the data, and there's no need to be a scientist for it.

At the rate we're going, even if we were causing Global Warming, it'd take a very long time to raise temps by 1 degree.

Here in Italy the average temperatures have ALREADY risen by 1 degree if compared with 1950. Remember, it's about the AVERAGES: LOCALLY you have greater increases, or greater decreases.

And the temperatures of the waters of Mediterranean have reached 27 °C this summer, that is, the threshold for hurricanes.

... AND IT'S "CLIMATE CHANGE" NOT "GLOBAL WARMING"!!!

Melting Ice Caps

http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2008/9/10/melting-arctic-sea-ice-and-global-warming-hype.html

Also, Antarctica is gaining ice.

http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2008/9/10/melting-arctic-sea-ice-and-global-warming-hype.html

Also, Antarctica is gaining ice.
Which just supports another poster's comment that some places will get colder while others get hotter as a result of global climate change.

Oh yes, of course, Global Warming will wipe us out, silly me. That's shit. Assuming we are causing Global Warming, I highly doubt that we could warm the world enough to burn us all to death.

Who metioned being burnt to death? :confused:

Answer me this, what impact do you think a redution of arable land due to rising sea levels and desertification will have on the future of humanity? Especially considering we can barely feed 6 billion people now and people are currently trying find ways to increase that to 9 billion within the next 50 years to match population growth.

No need to burn when you've already starved.

Who metioned being burnt to death? :confused:

Answer me this, what impact do you think a redution of arable land due to rising sea levels and desertification will have on the future of humanity? Especially considering we can barely feed 6 billion people now and people are currently trying find ways to increase that to 9 billion within the next 50 years to match population growth.

No need to burn when you've already starved.
Oh, I'll bet we could do both. Fire often breaks out during war. Famine often ignites war. *looks at Africa*

The Manhattan Declaration, which I cited, is only one of the more recent expressions of skepticism.
The Manhattan declaration isn't skpticism, it's denial.
There are many, many others. That is the point: the issue should not be considered settled.
The Manhattan Declaration disagrees. And I'm still amused that you're advocating such an open-minded approach.

Examples abound:

....

Again: regardless of which side you favor, I submit that the issue is far from “settled.”
Of course. It won't be settled until it's history. Science is meant to constantly question the status quo. The question is, how settled does it have to be before we start to act? How many scientists to we need telling us that global climate change is hppenin and we're not helping before we change our ways?
Oh yes, of course, Global Warming will wipe us out, silly me. That's shit. Assuming we are causing Global Warming, I highly doubt that we could warm the world enough to burn us all to death.
You greatly misunderstand how global climate change is a danger to humanity. There's a good reason the term "Global Warming" has largely been dropped. It's inaccurate.
Like where?
IMS the melting of the ice caps will....somehow(I forget the gist of the science and never really understood it) stop the gulf stream, which warms north-eastern Europe. If that stops then Ireland and the UK will get a lot colder. The British Isles are about as far north as Canada, so without the gulf stream I figure we'll get about that cold. Quite the local disaster.
http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2008/9/10/melting-arctic-sea-ice-and-global-warming-hype.html

Also, Antarctica is gaining ice.

When is the last time the global average temperature has been below 0 degrees C? I bet it's been a long time, if ever. Yet there are still ice caps. How can this be possible? How can ice exist naturally when the global average temperature is above the melting point for water?



Oh, I know. There's a difference between global average temperature and local temperature.

Also, Antarctica is gaining ice.

only if losing 196 gigatons of it per year counts as 'gaining'

Sen. Inhofe's EPW blog, referring to updated report: now over 650 scientists dissent.

speaking of gullibility... (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/inhofes-mauvais-blague/)

man, there aren't actually even 650 different people on the list. that's just sad.

An exemplary quotation: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

yay, creationist-style quote mining (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/). any particular reason you didn't quote this part?

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

yay, creationist-style quote mining (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/). any particular reason you didn't quote this part?

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

Lol, hoist with his own petard.

speaking of gullibility... (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/inhofes-mauvais-blague/)

man, there aren't actually even 650 different people on the list. that's just sad.



yay, creationist-style quote mining (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/). any particular reason you didn't quote this part?

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."
Nice! :D All those carefully picked cherries turn out to be rather sour for him.

Isn't It Finally Time to Re-evaluate “Global Warming

By "Re-evaluate" you mean accept your opinion and that of other denialists as the one true way, and join the Republican war on science?

Personally, I am skeptical about whether we are causing Global Climate Change or if it is simply part of the cycle that the world has been going through.

That being said, I see no harm at all in trying to reduce the production of greenhouse gases/pollution and switching to renewable energy sources. Fossil fuels are not going to last forever and how can a reducing pollution be a bad thing?

Also my main problem with some of the loudest proponents of "Global Warming" is the predictions of what the effects are going to be 25, 50, or 100 years in the future. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather a week in advance and yet I am supposed to believe that it is possible to accurately predict 25 years in advance? I don't think so. Although, again, I see no harm in taking action to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and pollution.

Personally, I am skeptical about whether we are causing Global Climate Change or if it is simply part of the cycle that the world has been going through.

That being said, I see no harm at all in trying to reduce the production of greenhouse gases/pollution and switching to renewable energy sources. Fossil fuels are not going to last forever and how can a reducing pollution be a bad thing?

Also my main problem with some of the loudest proponents of "Global Warming" is the predictions of what the effects are going to be 25, 50, or 100 years in the future. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather a week in advance and yet I am supposed to believe that it is possible to accurately predict 25 years in advance? I don't think so. Although, again, I see no harm in taking action to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and pollution.

What have Meteorologists got to do will climate models? :confused:

What have Meteorologists got to do will climate models? :confused:

By my understanding (which admittedly could be horribly flawed) the programs used are similar (this being based on what I was told by a meteorologist).


My main point, in case it was lost in my rambling, still stands though.
Even if we are not responsible for Global Climate Change, that does not mean that we shouldn't make efforts to stop/slow it.

Personally, I am skeptical about whether we are causing Global Climate Change or if it is simply part of the cycle that the world has been going through.

That being said, I see no harm at all in trying to reduce the production of greenhouse gases/pollution and switching to renewable energy sources. Fossil fuels are not going to last forever and how can a reducing pollution be a bad thing?

Also my main problem with some of the loudest proponents of "Global Warming" is the predictions of what the effects are going to be 25, 50, or 100 years in the future. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather a week in advance and yet I am supposed to believe that it is possible to accurately predict 25 years in advance? I don't think so. Although, again, I see no harm in taking action to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and pollution.

This.

None of the global warming models predicted this year's temperatures - something all of them should have been more than capable of.

As an aside, I believe that humanity will destroy itself by other means long, long before global warming becomes a real threat.

Interestingly, the US has radically reduced (this year only) its use of fossil fuels (over a trillion person-miles not drive) just due to gas and oil prices.

That's a substantial reduction in greenhouse gases and I don't hear any environmentalists saying, "hey, that's some good news".

They only want to trumpet the bad news. That's where the grant money comes from.

This.

None of the global warming models predicted this year's temperatures - something all of them should have been more than capable of.

Climate =/= weather, learn your scientific disciplines.

Climate =/= weather, learn your scientific disciplines.

Sorry, the scientists themselves say they're unable to explain the current year, and not for the reason you're giving. They say it should be several degrees warmer, and it's not.

speaking of gullibility... (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/inhofes-mauvais-blague/)

man, there aren't actually even 650 different people on the list. that's just sad.



yay, creationist-style quote mining (http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/). any particular reason you didn't quote this part?

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

The point remains: Dr. Simpson does not accept that "global warming" is occurring. Her recommendation is based on an abundance of caution, not on the conclusion that global warming is an established fact.

Sorry, the scientists themselves say they're unable to explain the current year, and not for the reason you're giving. They say it should be several degrees warmer, and it's not.

i'd ask for a source, but since we all know you can't comprehend what you read there isn't much point, is there?

Snip.

For someone who claims "an open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded" and who demands blind faith in your religion from your hypothetical children lest they be disowned, NM, you show so much willingness to doubt science when it doesn't agree with you, and hold onto such flimsy excuses.

Do you have a dog in that fight?

I'm just going to wait until Climate Modeller 2009 is released and solves all the mysteries. And predicts 5 different kinds of horrible doom with the improved "I need a grant" mode.

No, actually the issue is settled about the CLIMATE CHANGE. It's happening. (see the UN-IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change).

The climate change includes: higher AVERAGE temperatures on an AVERAGE taken on the whole world, hence more ENERGY available in the atmosphere (and hydrosphere!), hence MORE EXTREME atmospherical phenomena. This includes heatwaves in previously temperate areas, hurricanes forming in the Mediterranean, and stronger winter storms, which means blizzards and heavy snowfalls even in previously temperate areas. The fact that the average increase of temperatures is due to the increase in greenhouse-gas emission, related to human activity, is quite solid.

The use of the wording "global warming" is stupid, as it gives a chance for the "skeptical climate experts" (who, of course, cannot be suspected of having some kind of interest thereupon... absit iniuria verbis!) to say "hey, here in Bigtopia we've had a -0.1 °C average last year, HENCE there is no global warming!". The correct wording is "global climate change".

Then the issue that is being "settled" is a non-issue that needs no settlement. Climate is always "changing." Climate has "changed" throughout geological history. Climate varies naturally. If they mean anthropogenic global climate change, then they should say so. Cause for skepticism would still remain.

Then the issue that is being "settled" is a non-issue that needs no settlement. Climate is always "changing." Climate has "changed" throughout geological history. Climate varies naturally. If they mean anthropogenic global climate change, then they should say so. Cause for skepticism would still remain.

So this whole thread has been about regular global warming?

Where's the thread on evaluating anthropogenic global warming. That could be interesting...

The point remains: Dr. Simpson does not accept that "global warming" is occurring.
She doesn't write that; she voices caution on the way the term is used, but certainly agrees that current human practice is causing detrimental environmental effects.

It depends what you're denying here. If you agree with Booker, who argues we should halt any measures that would prevent environmental damage, then Simpson in no way supports such a foolish proposal.

For someone who claims "an open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded" and who demands blind faith in your religion from your hypothetical children lest they be disowned, NM, you show so much willingness to doubt science when it doesn't agree with you, and hold onto such flimsy excuses.

Do you have a dog in that fight?

I don't demand "blind" faith from any children I may have. Their faith will be fully informed.

I don't doubt "science" when it doesn't agree with me. I doubt the conclusions drawn by certain scientists from observed data. I agree with the conclusions drawn by other scientists from observed data.

As I stated in the OP, I favor the skeptics. The topic was phrased more neutrally in order to facilitate discussion.

As for having a dog in this fight, my dog is continued economic and personal freedom, which will suffer if ill-advised restrictions allegedly justified by faulty analysis of observed data are enacted into law.

BTW: I have an "openable" mind, not an "open" mind. A logically persuasive and convincing argument is likely to be admitted to the fortress. Other arguments are not likely to be admitted.

Also, can anybody explain why temperatures dropped in 1940, then started rising again in the oil crisis of the 70s? Oh right, you can't.

As I stated in the OP, I favor the skeptics.

No, you don't. You're not being a "skeptic" by disagreeing with evidence.

Furthermore, if you gave a damn about personal freedoms, you would not favor criminalizing homosexuality.

Also, can anybody explain why temperatures dropped in 1940, then started rising again in the oil crisis of the 70s? Oh right, you can't.

Did they?

Personally, I am skeptical about whether we are causing Global Climate Change or if it is simply part of the cycle that the world has been going through.

That being said, I see no harm at all in trying to reduce the production of greenhouse gases/pollution and switching to renewable energy sources. Fossil fuels are not going to last forever and how can a reducing pollution be a bad thing?

Also my main problem with some of the loudest proponents of "Global Warming" is the predictions of what the effects are going to be 25, 50, or 100 years in the future. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather a week in advance and yet I am supposed to believe that it is possible to accurately predict 25 years in advance? I don't think so. Although, again, I see no harm in taking action to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and pollution.

Increasing energy efficiency, reducing pollution and developing alternative energy resources (including nuclear) are laudable goals that I support. However, I support them for reasons that have nothing to do with "climate change."

Also, can anybody explain why temperatures dropped in 1940, then started rising again in the oil crisis of the 70s?

gee, what could possibly have happened near those dates that might impact both carbon output and air quality?

gee, what could possibly have happened near those dates that might impact both carbon output and air quality?

World War 2, with the huge increase of carbon it must have put into the air, the rebuilding of Europe in the 50s, which also must have put out a lot of CO2, and also electricity use etc was on the rise.

gee, what could possibly have happened near those dates that might impact both carbon output and air quality?

I sense... sarcasm.

World War 2, with the huge increase of carbon it must have put into the air, the rebuilding of Europe in the 50s, which also must have put out a lot of CO2, and also electricity use etc was on the rise.

Not like there was a lot of dust being thrown up into the atmosphere at that time was there?

World War 2, with the huge increase of carbon it must have put into the air, the rebuilding of Europe in the 50s, which also must have put out a lot of CO2, and also electricity use etc was on the rise.

and what, exactly, does smog do to the temperature in an area?

Not like there was a lot of dust being thrown up into the atmosphere at that time was there?

i'm sure the destruction (and subsequent rebuilding) of europe's industrial capacity was done in as clean a way as possible.

i'm also positive that a single volcano heats up the earth a bajillion degrees and that grapes don't grow in england but used back in the day or some such.

i'm sure the destruction (and subsequent rebuilding) of europe's industrial capacity was done in as clean a way as possible.

i'm also positive that a single volcano heats up the earth a bajillion degrees and that grapes don't grow in england but used back in the day or some such.

Well recently some vineyards have proved viable down in the south coast.

i'm sure the destruction (and subsequent rebuilding) of europe's industrial capacity was done in as clean a way as possible.

But you still haven't answered as to why, even though CO2 emissions skyrocketed, temperatures dropped.

Well recently some vineyards have proved viable down in the south coast.

My dad has a grapevine in his back garden, and has done since I was 7 or so. What difference does that make?

My dad has a grapevine in his back garden, and has done since I was 7 or so. What difference does that make?
So let me do the math... he has had that grapevine for 4 years now..?

So let me do the math... he has had that grapevine for 4 years now..?

Try 17. Also, what? What the Hell was that supposed to mean?

Sorry, the scientists themselves say they're unable to explain the current year, and not for the reason you're giving. They say it should be several degrees warmer, and it's not.

Oh is that what "the scientists themselves say?" Well I'm so glad you're here to just say what "they say," because otherwise I might be left to conclude that it's really just, you know, what you're saying. Thank goodness there is much support for your argument in a completely different universe.

None of the global warming models predicted this year's temperatures - something all of them should have been more than capable of.

Also my main problem with some of the loudest proponents of "Global Warming" is the predictions of what the effects are going to be 25, 50, or 100 years in the future. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather a week in advance and yet I am supposed to believe that it is possible to accurately predict 25 years in advance? I don't think so.

OK, is there a person on this thread who has an objection to CLIMATE change theories NOT rooted in TOTAL IGNORANCE of the fact that CLIMATE is not THE WEATHER?

You all call yourselves skeptics, but the only thing you are skeptical about doing is LEARNING.

I refer to my preceding post:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Given the choice between the opinion of one of the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years and your characterization of "the denialist side", I will give credence to the opinion of the preeminent scientist.

But why take the opinion of ONE of the most pre-eminent scientists?

Sorry, the scientists themselves say they're unable to explain the current year, and not for the reason you're giving. They say it should be several degrees warmer, and it's not.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/#more-632

Oh yes, of course, Global Warming will wipe us out, silly me. That's shit. Assuming we are causing Global Warming, I highly doubt that we could warm the world enough to burn us all to death.

Actually, that's not an unreasonable claim, but not in the way you flippantly suggest.

You wouldn't have to raise the temperature very much to mess with permanently frozen expanses (something we're already seeing happening at an intimidating rate). The problem isn't the melting of the ice, per se... nor even it's subsequent effect on sea levels (although those two factors may have their own unpleasant effects).

What we really need to worry about, is albedo.

But why take the opinion of ONE of the most pre-eminent scientists?

Because that's one that agrees with his pre-existing bias. Remember, this isn't about science, it's about politics. The "liberal" position on climate change is being challenged by so-called conservative so-called skeptics as a matter of principle, not as a matter of science.

At the rate we're going, even if we were causing Global Warming, it'd take a very long time to raise temps by 1 degree.

No, it wouldn't. Temperature change is largely offest by 'heat sinks' - like ocean water, but that can only offset so much increase in temperature before it 'overflows' so to speak, by exceeding the specific heat capacity of sea water at standard pressure.

Which is why we're seeing polar ice melting. Our global climate has been warming by about .2 of a degree each decade for the last thirty years. If we assume that the heat-sink property is constant (which is a poor assumption, if our polar ice is melting, now, we must be having substantially less effect of heat-sinking - but I'm assuming it for the sake of conservatism), and if we assume that our generation of greenhouse gasses and heat pollution remain constant (which is another poor assumption, since both factors have been increasing - but again, I'm erring on the side of caution) - then it would take about 50 years to raise the average global temperature ONE degree.

As I said, though... that's a conservative estimate.

If pollution increases, heat-pollution continues, and heat-sink effects are less than consistent with previous levels.... then the amount of time to gain one degree will be proportionally shorter.

Oh yes, of course, Global Warming will wipe us out, silly me. That's shit. Assuming we are causing Global Warming, I highly doubt that we could warm the world enough to burn us all to death.
You should read up on "Global climate change".

We actually could do some things that wouldn't hurt us too much. I'm not sceptical about global warming - I'm sceptical about all those bent economists that bleat about how we mustn't intervene to cut down pollution because that will anger that Great God "Profit".
Well they did do a heck of a job in forseeing and stopping the... current... economic... crisis...

Damn.


Interestingly, the US has radically reduced (this year only) its use of fossil fuels (over a trillion person-miles not drive) just due to gas and oil prices.

That's a substantial reduction in greenhouse gases and I don't hear any environmentalists saying, "hey, that's some good news".

Is it good news?

And by that I mean: As the oil price has plummeted lately, and the gas price seems to follow, how do you imagine that the reduced usage of fossile fuels will be a permanent thing?

The point remains: Dr. Simpson does not accept that "global warming" is occurring.
That's not what she's saying though, as you would have known if you'd bothered to actually read the linked quote.

There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring.

She calls into question the human factor but remains sceptical.

Actually, that's not an unreasonable claim, but not in the way you flippantly suggest.

You wouldn't have to raise the temperature very much to mess with permanently frozen expanses (something we're already seeing happening at an intimidating rate). The problem isn't the melting of the ice, per se... nor even it's subsequent effect on sea levels (although those two factors may have their own unpleasant effects).

What we really need to worry about, is albedo.

I'd also add that we need to worry about the thawing of frozen deposits of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gass.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081219-methane-siberia.html

Personally, I am skeptical about whether we are causing Global Climate Change or if it is simply part of the cycle that the world has been going through.

That being said, I see no harm at all in trying to reduce the production of greenhouse gases/pollution and switching to renewable energy sources. Fossil fuels are not going to last forever and how can a reducing pollution be a bad thing?

Also my main problem with some of the loudest proponents of "Global Warming" is the predictions of what the effects are going to be 25, 50, or 100 years in the future. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict the weather a week in advance and yet I am supposed to believe that it is possible to accurately predict 25 years in advance? I don't think so. Although, again, I see no harm in taking action to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and pollution.

Here's the way I see it.

We know we're producing pollution. Pollution that we can see doing environmental damage (like deforestation) and pollution that we can't 'see' but we can measure (like depletion of ozone, or increasing oceanic temperatures).

We know that pollution impacts things like asthma.

So - we've got a whole load of reasons - ignoring climate change - to reduce our global pollution footprint, and start thinking a bit smarter, environmentally.

Now - on top of that - we have the argument for global climate change.

Is it all man-made? Is it partly man-made? Is it all natural?

To a certain extent - that doesn't even matter and that's the really significant detail that climate-change-denial misses. Even if climate change is cyclic, and we're just hitting the slope of a natural cycle - if it gets too hot or too cold or too stormy, or whatever - we're going to die. In the billions.

The scariest thing would be - if anthropogenic pollution ISN'T a noticable component of global climate change... it would mean there's NOTHING we can do to oppose the cycle, to mitigate the damage.

In other words - we better HOPE we're having an effect, because that at least means we COULD stop.

If I may add, global warming needs to be taken seriously. My grandmother lives in the Caribbean and she told me while visiting for Christmas that people in Puerto Rico, where she resides, have reported seeing snowflakes on high altitudes, like from skyscrapers and all. In the Caribbean!

if it gets too hot or too cold or too stormy, or whatever - we're going to die. In the billions.

But it'll probably just go up and down within a degree or 2 like it has done for millions of years.

But you still haven't answered as to why, even though CO2 emissions skyrocketed, temperatures dropped.

As a guess, based on having seen .... why, NO data presented by you... atmospheric particulates acting as a form of 'cloud cover', which would increase upper atmospheric albedo (which we were not even measuring at that point, unfortunately), and reduce surface temperatures.

But it'll probably just go up and down within a degree or 2 like it has done for millions of years.

Also, aliens will probably visit Earth and save us from our collective idiocies.

But it'll probably just go up and down within a degree or 2 like it has done for millions of years.

Missed the point, huh?

Big climate swings (and 2 degrees WOULD be a BIG climate swing) cause mass extinctions. And this time - we're here... which means we'll be on that 'mass extinction' list.

Missed the point, huh?

Big climate swings (and 2 degrees WOULD be a BIG climate swing) cause mass extinctions. And this time - we're here... which means we'll be on that 'mass extinction' list.

Not really. There have been times in human history, albeit 10,000 - 6,000 years ago , where temperatures have been up to 4, possibly 5 degrees higher than today, and we made it through that. Actually, that brought us out of the Ice Age and into civilisation.

Not really. There have been times in human history, albeit 10,000 - 6,000 years ago , where temperatures have been up to 4, possibly 5 degrees higher than today, and we made it through that. Actually, that brought us out of the Ice Age and into civilisation.

So a rise in temperatures...will only make us more civilized. Wow, I'm really looking forward to the future now! :p

Also, aliens will probably visit Earth and save us from our collective idiocies.

I wouldn't. I'd either eliminate the potential threat or pop some popcorn and watch us destroy ourselves. *nod*

Not really. There have been times in human history, albeit 10,000 - 6,000 years ago , where temperatures have been up to 4, possibly 5 degrees higher than today, and we made it through that. Actually, that brought us out of the Ice Age and into civilisation.

Source?

Not really. There have been times in human history, albeit 10,000 - 6,000 years ago , where temperatures have been up to 4, possibly 5 degrees higher than today, and we made it through that. Actually, that brought us out of the Ice Age and into civilisation.

You still haven't answered this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14344815&postcount=139

It applies whether the temperature goes up or down, an ice age would also put a considerable dent in arable land.

Not really. There have been times in human history, albeit 10,000 - 6,000 years ago , where temperatures have been up to 4, possibly 5 degrees higher than today, and we made it through that. Actually, that brought us out of the Ice Age and into civilisation.

*sigh*

There's these things that have come to be since 10,000 fucking years ago. Maybe you've heard of them. They're called cities.

They're a foundation of civilization (a defining characteristic actually), they contain the majority of human population, there's a whole lot of them - the vast majority of which are on a coast or by a river.

So yeah, our species may well survive the flooding and destruction of most of our cities. NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT THEN RIGHT?

There's these things that have come to be since 10,000 fucking years ago. Maybe you've heard of them. They're called cities.

Cities emerged at the start of the warming, actually.

Not really. There have been times in human history, albeit 10,000 - 6,000 years ago , where temperatures have been up to 4, possibly 5 degrees higher than today, and we made it through that. Actually, that brought us out of the Ice Age and into civilisation.

Source?

I'll save you the trouble and inform you that you don't have one, because what you just said is blatantly wrong, on account of the fact that North America wasn't fucking underwater six to ten thousand years ago.

You still haven't answered this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14344815&postcount=139

It applies whether the temperature goes up or down, an ice age would also put a considerable dent in arable land.

Sorry, didn't see that. It'll have a big impact, assuming things stay as they are, and a horrific one if things warm up.

Cities emerged at the start of the warming, actually.

Thanks for completely ignoring my point.

Source?

I'll save you the trouble and inform you that you don't have one, because what you just said is blatantly wrong, on account of the fact that North America wasn't fucking underwater six to ten thousand years ago.

It's called the Holocene Maximum. It turns out it was 4 degrees at the north pole, with 3 - 9 in Siberia, but 2 degrees on average. My mistake.

Source?

I'll save you the trouble and inform you that you don't have one, because what you just said is blatantly wrong, on account of the fact that North America wasn't fucking underwater six to ten thousand years ago.
That's because North America used to be inflatable. It wasn't until Europeans came with their pointy shoes that it popped and became a regular, solid landmass.

Thanks for completely ignoring my point.

Point being?

That's because North America used to be inflatable. It wasn't until Europeans came with their pointy shoes that it popped and became a regular, solid landmass.

That's right, blame us for all you problems. :rolleyes::)

That's right, blame us for all you problems. :rolleyes::)

Since we made you who you are and all. <.<


(Joke intended!)

Cities emerged at the start of the warming, actually.

I think you're talking about the end of the last phase of the Wurm Glacial Period, which finished about 10,000 years ago?

Which wasn't a GLOBAL glacial period. Indeed, the last GLOBAL glacial period seems (from the evidence) to have been somewhere between 800 and 600 million years ago.

Are you refering to the end of the last local glacial period... as 'the start of the warming'?

Point being?

We are not cavemen. We have cities that presumably, us civilized people would prefer not to see all get destroyed. So the naive "we got through it last time" dismissal is only relevant if the only concern you have is whether humanity as a species survives.

So the point? Look somewhere above your head dude, you might see it flying by.

That's right, blame us for all you problems. :rolleyes::)
At least I'm not from Australia, which was the only flying continent until you killjoys shot it down.

It's called the Holocene Maximum. It turns out it was 4 degrees at the north pole, with 3 - 9 in Siberia, but 2 degrees on average. My mistake.

You do realize that global average temperatures were probably lower during that period than they are today, right?

No, you didn't, because all you did was read the first few lines of the wikipedia entry.

At least I'm not from Australia, which was the only flying continent until you killjoys shot it down.

Well we can't have giant islands whizzing about all over the place. It's uncivilised.

Anyway, it was a health and safety nightmare. What if someone fell off?

Missed the point, huh?

Big climate swings (and 2 degrees WOULD be a BIG climate swing) cause mass extinctions. And this time - we're here... which means we'll be on that 'mass extinction' list.

Big claims require big evidence. Which "mass extinctions" are you referring to, and how exactly did 2 degree changes in climate cause them?

Well we can't have giant islands whizzing about all over the place. It's uncivilised.

Anyway, it was a health and safety nightmare. What if someone fell off?

But someone did fall off. The English fell there!:eek2:

We are not cavemen.

And we weren't then.

So the naive "we got through it last time" dismissal is only relevant if the only concern you have is whether humanity as a species survives.

Not at all. We've had cities for 11,000 years. They survived last time. I don't see why they won't this time, assuming all of this does happen.

But someone did fall off. The English fell there!:eek2:

Only after we shot it down.

Captain Cook was awesome but he wasn't Superman...at least I don't think he was...he did wear glasses...

I think you're talking about the end of the last phase of the Wurm Glacial Period, which finished about 10,000 years ago?

Which wasn't a GLOBAL glacial period. Indeed, the last GLOBAL glacial period seems (from the evidence) to have been somewhere between 800 and 600 million years ago.

Are you refering to the end of the last local glacial period... as 'the start of the warming'?

A "global glacial period" and a "globial glaciation" are two different things. Ice ages have occurred many times without leading to "Snowball Earth". Just because the entire surface of the globe isn't covered by ice doesn't mean that the overall global climate isn't conducive to glacier formation in certain locations that otherwise aren't covered by ice.

IMO the arguments of some Russian scientists, among others, who think we should be concerned about future global cooling should be given serious consideration.

It's called the Holocene Maximum. It turns out it was 4 degrees at the north pole, with 3 - 9 in Siberia, but 2 degrees on average. My mistake.

That's still a blatant misrepresentation - I wondered if the 'Holocene Maximum' was what you meant.

The profile of the Holocene Maximum was increased temperatures at the North Pole, SLIGHTLY increased temperatures in the North and Northwest of Europe... and actual COOLING in Southern Europe. Tropical areas are not evidenced to have changed noticably at all.

The evidence suggests oceanic water may have increased by as much as one degree.

Global temperatures are estimated to have been LOWER, on average, than they are today.

future global cooling

That made me think, remember when a "vast consensus" of scientists said the world was going to freeze?

Not at all. We've had cities for 11,000 years. They survived last time. I don't see why they won't this time, assuming all of this does happen.

I thought you said that cities were formed during the 'warming' period? Now you're saying they already existed during the Wurm glacial period?

That made me think, remember when a "vast consensus" of scientists said the world was going to freeze?

No, because that never fucking happened. Read some history, for the love of God.

SLIGHTLY increased temperatures in the North and Northwest of Europe

More than slightly.

Tropical areas are not evidenced to have changed noticably at all.

Except for the Great Barrier Reef, which was a degree warmer.

Global temperatures are estimated to have been LOWER, on average, than they are today.

I haven't seen any evidence for that. Everything I've seen shows it to be warmer.

A "global glacial period" and a "globial glaciation" are two different things.


Yes. One is a period, and the other is the formation of glaciers.

And?


Ice ages have occurred many times without leading to "Snowball Earth".


I know. In fact, I highlighted the last time the evidence supprts a glocal glacial phenomenon, specifically.

What are you going to do, post back all of my comments at me, with very slight changes to the wording?


Just because the entire surface of the globe isn't covered by ice doesn't mean that the overall global climate isn't conducive to glacier formation in certain locations that otherwise aren't covered by ice.


I bet you think that made sense.


IMO the arguments of some Russian scientists, among others, who think we should be concerned about future global cooling should be given serious consideration.

We should be concerned about global cooling. That's why the term 'global warming' is rarely used, because it isn't accurate. It's climate change that's of concern.

Incidentally - the two extremes aren't as isolated from one another as it seems. A large enough movement towards overall temperature increase could precipitate a global freeze.

That made me think, remember when a "vast consensus" of scientists said the world was going to freeze?

There certainly were some distinguished scientists who expressed concern about a possible future ice age due to excessive combustion of fossil fuels. One of them was none other than Dr. James Hansen:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

It seems that Dr. Hansen has changed his mind since 1971, and now thinks that global warming is the threat, not global cooling.

There certainly were some distinguished scientists who expressed concern about a possible future ice age due to excessive combustion of fossil fuels. One of them was none other than Dr. James Hansen:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

It seems that Dr. Hansen has changed his mind since 1971, and now thinks that global warming is the threat, not global cooling.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

That made me think, remember when a "vast consensus" of scientists said the world was going to freeze?

No, but I remember when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Therefore all psychology is now disproven!

And we weren't then.

We weren't an industrialized civilization utterly dependent on infrastructure, agriculture and urbanization then. We are now. Do you need me to explain the concept of civilization to you now?

Not at all. We've had cities for 11,000 years. They survived last time.

See above so you can continue to ignore it.

I don't see why they won't this time, assuming all of this does happen.

See above so you can continue to ignore it.

And we weren't then.



Not at all. We've had cities for 11,000 years. They survived last time. I don't see why they won't this time, assuming all of this does happen.

So New York, right there on the coast, was there 11,000 years ago? People were sailing around the canals of Venice 11,000 years ago? I bet 11,000 years ago couples dreamt of going to Paris for their honeymoons and climbing the Eiffel tower together.



Or, :eek: , could cities have possibly been vastly different then than they are now, thus rendering any comparison useless?!

So New York, right there on the coast, was there 11,000 years ago? People were sailing around the canals of Venice 11,000 years ago? I bet 11,000 years ago couples dreamt of going to Paris for their honeymoons and climbing the Eiffel tower together.

And Çatalhöyük is a thriving metropolis to this day!

We should be concerned about global cooling. That's why the term 'global warming' is rarely used, because it isn't accurate. It's climate change that's of concern.

Incidentally - the two extremes aren't as isolated from one another as it seems. A large enough movement towards overall temperature increase could precipitate a global freeze.

The overwhelming emphasis has been on global warming, not global cooling. "Climate change" is just a way to avoid admitting that global warming may not be the big threat it's been portrayed as.

And since the global climate has changed throughout geological history, it seems presumptuous to think that it should somehow be stabilized at any given point, or that we can, or should, carry out such a stabilization.

To your last point: I saw "The Day After Tomorrow" too. I don't give it too much credence.

And Çatalhöyük is a thriving metropolis to this day!

Jericho and Damascus, heard of them?

Or, :eek: , could cities have possibly been vastly different then than they are now, thus rendering any comparison useless?!

Didn't you see Lord of the Rings? Minas Tirith sure does look "vastly different". ;)

I thought you said that cities were formed during the 'warming' period? They were. During the most recent major one.

Now you're saying they already existed during the Wurm glacial period?

No, because that was 35,000 years ago.

Didn't you see Lord of the Rings? Minas Tirith sure does look "vastly different". ;)

I dunno, Berlin kinda looks like Minas Tirith if you tilt your head and squint your eyes.

We weren't an industrialized civilization utterly dependent on infrastructure, agriculture and urbanization then.

Well, the settled cities were. They farmed, rather than hunted. Also, they were near rivers or seas, they didn't flood.

More than slightly.


I notice you totally ignored the part about Southern European temperatures being lower.

Is that because you don't think it important (in your claim of a global increase), or because you simply didn't know?

"The most prominent event in both records occurred about 8,200 years BP (Alley et al., 1997; von Grafenstein et al., 1998; Barber et al., 1999) when annual mean temperatures dropped by as much as 2°C in mid-Europe and the European alpine timberline fell by about 200 m"

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/073.htm

As for 'slightly' the temperature of the Alps region seems to have been about 2 degrees higher - which is fairly slight (in comparison to the increased temperature at the pole) which is born out throughout Northern Europe:

"Relatively invariable tree-ring widths and the structure of varved lake-sediments attest to this period of environmental stability, which allowed thermophilous plants to move northwards and upwards. Calibrated proxies suggest average summer temperatures up to 2°C higher than today. Several lines of evidence indicate that this period of stability was terminated by a sudden cooling at 5800 cal BP

http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/h/i/82.htm

(Emphasis mine)


Except for the Great Barrier Reef, which was a degree warmer.


I already said the oceanic temperature increased by as much as a degree. Are you joining the 'repeat it back to me' club?


I haven't seen any evidence for that. Everything I've seen shows it to be warmer.

It amuses me that you'd even start the debate without having done this most basic homework:

"When the Holocene began as the Earth was coming out of the last ice age, around 8700 B.C., the average global temperature was about 6° F cooler than it is today. By 7500 B.C., the climate had warmed to 60° F, 1° F warmer than the current average temperature. However, the temperature fell again by nearly 2° F over the next one thousand years, settling at an average of 1° F cooler than the current climate."

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article.html?articleid=13841

Except for a brief spike, the temperature was somewhere between one degree, and six degrees cooler. The average global temperature being cooler than today, the peak being very slightly warmer.

The overwhelming emphasis has been on global warming, not global cooling. "Climate change" is just a way to avoid admitting that global warming may not be the big threat it's been portrayed as.


No, its more accurate, since again a global climate change does not necessitate that it's always "warmer" everywhere.

And I think the name might have also been changed because "skeptics" such as yourself kept going, "LOL ITS SNOWING HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING LOL IM FUNNY AND CLEVER AND NOT AT ALL OBNOXIOUSLY SOPHOMORIC."

No, because that was 35,000 years ago.

The Wurm glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago... about a thousand years AFTER you're claiming cities formed.

No, its more accurate, since again a global climate change does not necessitate that it's always "warmer" everywhere.

And I think the name might have also been changed because "skeptics" such as yourself kept going, "LOL ITS SNOWING HOW CAN THERE BE GLOBAL WARMING LOL IM FUNNY AND CLEVER AND NOT AT ALL OBNOXIOUSLY SOPHOMORIC."

I thought "global warming" was an older term from when scientists first discovered man-made carbon emissions were significant enough to add to the greenhouse effect, and as it was studied further meteorologists realized that this spike in temperatures could in the long run lead to cooling as well as warming. That was a ungainly sentence, sorry.

or because you simply didn't know?

I had no idea.

As for 'slightly' the temperature of the Alps region seems to have been about 2 degrees higher - which is fairly slight

So 2 degrees changes from causing a mass extinction to being slight?

I already said the oceanic temperature increased by as much as a degree. Are you joining the 'repeat it back to me' club?

Ocean =/= Great Barrier Reef.

Except for a brief spike, the temperature was somewhere between one degree, and six degrees cooler. The average global temperature being cooler than today, the peak being very slightly warmer.

Switching from Celsius to Fahrenheit. Interesting. Possibly because a change of 1 degree F isn't as significant as a change of one degree C.

The Wurm glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago... about a thousand years AFTER you're claiming cities formed.

Funny, I always thought it was 35,000 - 25,000 years ago.

Oh fuck, yeah you're right. I meant interglacial, sorry.

Funny, I always thought it was 35,000 - 25,000 years ago.

What are you, the Semantics Nazi?

What are you, the Semantics Nazi?

Oh joy, you're back. Do you know what semantics means?

The overwhelming emphasis has been on global warming, not global cooling. "Climate change" is just a way to avoid admitting that global warming may not be the big threat it's been portrayed as.


No, 'climate change' is used because it is more appropriate to the matter. Our overall temperature is increasing (hence the euphemistic 'global warming') but that's not the problem - it's the climate effects that acocompany and/or could follow that temperature change - which could even include a drastic reduction on average ambient temperatures. Hence, 'global warming' is not only an inappropriate term, really... but also, both misleading and - possibly - inaccurate.


And since the global climate has changed throughout geological history, it seems presumptuous to think that it should somehow be stabilized at any given point, or that we can, or should, carry out such a stabilization.

To your last point: I saw "The Day After Tomorrow" too. I don't give it too much credence.

"The Day After Tomorrow" is fiction, but it's based on sound science - if you ignore the fact that climate change - even RAPID climate change - probably isn't done and dusted in days.

The fact that you don't give it much credence is either good or bad. If you mean, you realise that a reduction of surface ice-cover could cause the same effects - i.e. increasing cloud cover, followed by rapid temperature drops... but you don't think it would happen in DAYS.... then, good.

If you mean, you don't think reducing a planet's albedo could have an effect on climate... well, not so good.

"The Day After Tomorrow" is fiction, but it's based on sound science - if you ignore the fact that climate change - even RAPID climate change - probably isn't done and dusted in days.

Right.

And Çatalhöyük is a thriving metropolis to this day!
I'm going there next summer :)
The overwhelming emphasis has been on global warming, not global cooling. "Climate change" is just a way to avoid admitting that global warming may not be the big threat it's been portrayed as.
No, climate change is a more accurate term, since some places will get colder.

And since the global climate has changed throughout geological history, it seems presumptuous to think that it should somehow be stabilized at any given point, or that we can, or should, carry out such a stabilization.
Which is no reason not to try. Fortune favours the bold, and all.

To your last point: I saw "The Day After Tomorrow" too. I don't give it too much credence.
Nor should you. Nobody mentioned it though.

Nor should you. Nobody mentioned it though.

G_n_I did.

Big climate swings (and 2 degrees WOULD be a BIG climate swing) cause mass extinctions. And this time - we're here... which means we'll be on that 'mass extinction' list.


"When the Holocene began as the Earth was coming out of the last ice age, around 8700 B.C., the average global temperature was about 6° F cooler than it is today. By 7500 B.C., the climate had warmed to 60° F, 1° F warmer than the current average temperature. However, the temperature fell again by nearly 2° F over the next one thousand years, settling at an average of 1°F cooler than the current climate"’


Since, according to the data you cite, there has been an increase of 6 degrees F since 8700 BC, there has been a “big climate swing” since that time. Therefore, according to your reasoning, there should have been a “mass extinction” due to this “big climate swing.”

So, why are we still here? Did we somehow avoid the “mass extinction list” that otherwise wiped out 50, 60, 70% of life on earth?

Or, more likely, was your original reasoning faulty? Because I don’t see any “mass extinction”, as that term is normally understood, taking place in the years since 8700 BC.

So 2 degrees changes from causing a mass extinction to being slight?


I notice you cut off the rest of the sentence, where it said what the 'slight' was in comparison to. Deliberate?

In comparison to the figures you started out suggesting, 2 degrees is slight.

Also - 2 degrees in Europe, versus 2 degrees globally... big difference.


Ocean =/= Great Barrier Reef.


Where do you think the Great Barrier Reef is?


Switching from Celsius to Fahrenheit. Interesting. Possibly because a change of 1 degree F isn't as significant as a change of one degree C.

The collision of degrees farenheit and celsius is unfortunate.

The source where I would ideally have liked to pull all the data from, is a pay-to-read journal, and I could post the link, but it would cost you thirty dollars to subscribe.

Consequently, I've had to find parallel data from various sources. Not all of which are (apparently) concerned about maintaining the same units of measure.

Since, according to the data you cite, there has been an increase of 6 degrees F since 8700 BC, there has been a “big climate swing” since that time. Therefore, according to your reasoning, there should have been a “mass extinction” due to this “big climate swing.”

So, why are we still here? Did we somehow avoid the “mass extinction list” that otherwise wiped out 50, 60, 70% of life on earth?

Or, more likely, was your original reasoning faulty? Because I don’t see any “mass extinction”, as that term is normally understood, taking place in the years since 8700 BC.

He went from saying 2 degrees C would cause a mass extinction that would include us, to saying it was a slight increase.

G_n_I did.

No, I didn't. I responded to someone else talking about it - New Mittani, I think.

It seems that Dr. Hansen has changed his mind since 1971, and now thinks that global warming is the threat, not global cooling.

The overwhelming emphasis has been on global warming, not global cooling. "Climate change" is just a way to avoid admitting that global warming may not be the big threat it's been portrayed as.

You yourself demonstrate above why the term "global climate change" is more accurate than global warming.

Don't be afraid, it's not a PC term that will bite you, nor is it a part of any conspiracy. It's just more correct.

Also - 2 degrees in Europe

But it's not -2 in Europe. You posted a link saying it increased 2 degrees in parts of Europe.

Where do you think the Great Barrier Reef is?

Northeast of Australia.

Oh God, he thinks global warming is a myth too? I suppose New Mitanni also hates gays and thinks the bible is literally true. For once I'd like to see a neocon who isnt just a buzzword spewing drone. Anyway the debate isnt the existance of global warming, the debate is the CAUSE of it.