NationStates Jolt Archive

G_n_I did.

GNI mentioned "global freeze" and NM dismissed it, apparently on the grounds that that's what happened in The Day After Tomorrow.

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.
Not to be pedantic, but the things you mentioned in the first two sentences aren't part of the definition of neocon. I bring it up only because you rightly were upset by the spewing of buzzwords, but used one yourself in the same sentence.

Anyway the debate isnt the existance of global warming, the debate is the CAUSE of it.

That's what we're debating. Read the thread.

Northwest of Australia.
In Queensland, right?

Not to be pedantic, but the things you mentioned in the first two sentences aren't part of the definition of neocon. I bring it up only because you rightly were upset by the spewing of buzzwords, but used one yourself in the same sentence.


I thought Neocon meant the USAUSAYOURAREWITHUSORTHETERRORISTS conservatives.

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.

Gee, that week sure went by fast, didn't it?

In Queensland, right?

North EAST. Sorry.

I thought Neocon meant the USAUSAYOURAREWITHUSORTHETERRORISTS conservatives.
It's mostly conservatives who favor an active, if necessary militaristic role, in the rest of the world. Believing the literal truth of the Bible would be Christian fundamentalism, which is unrelated.

North EAST. Sorry.
No worries. Soundly inland, though...

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.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, to be obstructive...

This really isn't that hard.

The 'six degree swing' you're talking about is NOT a change from today's temperatures. It is a change from substantially COLDER temperatures that HAD caused extinctions.

We're talking about 2 degree changes from TODAY's temperature, which WOULD be a significant change.

GNI mentioned "global freeze" and NM dismissed it, apparently on the grounds that that's what happened in The Day After Tomorrow.

I don't think it's very likely. I think a long-term cooling trend and an eventual return of another Ice Age are more likely than some global disaster due to anthropogenic global warming.

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

Context, dear boy.

No worries. Soundly inland, though...

To the Northeast of Australia, if you must be pedantic.

Context, dear boy.

Context doesn't change the fact you contradicted yourself.

To the Northeast of Australia, if you must be pedantic.
Not in the... OCEAN!?!

To the Northeast of Australia, if you must be pedantic.

Wouldn't that put it in that thing... what do they call it... 'the ocean'?

Wouldn't that put it in that thing... what do they call it... 'the ocean'?

That's like saying Britain's located in the Ocean. It has Ocean around it, yes, but there are many islands and atolls, so I'd define it as tropical, and you said that there was no evidence of tropical warming.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, to be obstructive...

This really isn't that hard.

The 'six degree swing' you're talking about is NOT a change from today's temperatures. It is a change from substantially COLDER temperatures that HAD caused extinctions.

We're talking about 2 degree changes from TODAY's temperature, which WOULD be a significant change.

Nice recovery, but it won't wash.

There's nothing mystically significant about today's temperature level. And your statement made no reference to a 2 degree change from "today's" temperature.

There was a six degree increase in temperature from the level of 8700 years ago. That increase is greater than 2 degrees, yet no mass extinction resulted. Certainly some species went extinct, but such events did not rise to the level of a mass extinction.

The evidence would seem to indicate that life on earth, including human life, is robust enough to adapt to a six degree increase in temperature.

Context doesn't change the fact you contradicted yourself.

I didn't contradict myself.

A swing that took the temperatures far below what they are today, causing extinctions in the process, was reversed. During that reversal, the temperature raised several degrees. There's no contradiction there.

But we're not talking about making a two degree increase from Wurm temperatures TODAY. We're talking about ANOTHER two degres on top of an already increased temperature.

Still no contradiction.

And, as for my use of the word 'slight' - you keep peddling that, though I've corrected you already, so I have to assume you're either being obstructive, or just plain dishonest. You claimed the Holocene Maximum involved substantially higher temperatures than were actually involved - as I showed (providing sources) and expressed a two degree raise as 'slight' IN RELATION to the temperatures you'd claimed.

It's all there, in my post, which you decided to quote only half of.

That's like saying Britain's located in the Ocean. It has Ocean around it, yes, but there are many islands and atolls, so I'd define it as tropical, and you said that there was no evidence of tropical warming.
And do corals form where you live at..? In your driveway, perchance?

Nice recovery, but it won't wash.

There's nothing mystically significant about today's temperature level. And your statement made no reference to a 2 degree change from "today's" temperature.

There was a six degree increase in temperature from the level of 8700 years ago. That increase is greater than 2 degrees, yet no mass extinction resulted. Certainly some species went extinct, but such events did not rise to the level of a mass extinction.

The evidence would seem to indicate that life on earth, including human life, is robust enough to adapt to a six degree increase in temperature.

'Cuz if the frog isn't bothered when the water gets slowly warmer, we can conclude that it is safe to boil 'em. :(

You claimed the Holocene Maximum involved substantially higher temperatures than were actually involved

Involved globally, much less than in Russia and the Arctic.

'slight' IN RELATION to the temperatures you'd claimed.

Sorry, didn't notice that part.

'Cuz if the frog isn't bothered when the water gets slowly warmer, we can conclude that it is safe to boil 'em. :(

Frogs actually are bothered, they get out when it's too hot.

Frogs actually are bothered, they get out when it's too hot.

I think he was making a point, and not one to do with frogs.

That's like saying Britain's located in the Ocean. It has Ocean around it, yes, but there are many islands and atolls, so I'd define it as tropical, and you said that there was no evidence of tropical warming.

The Great Barrier Reef is not a landmass. Nor is it ON a landmass.

Do you know what 'tropical' means, by the way?

Frogs actually are bothered, they get out when it's too hot.
I'm building me a rocket.

The Great Barrier Reef is not a landmass. Nor is it ON a landmass.

But there are thousands of islands and atolls, therefore there are landmasses in it.

I'm building me a rocket.

I hear Pluto's nice and cool this time of year.

Involved globally, much less than in Russia and the Arctic.


The 'Artic' numbers you seem to be citing are actually Siberian numbers, so they would be your 'Russian' numbers.

And they're speculative.

The actual core evidence shows somewhere between .8 and 1.6 degrees in Arctic temperature... the other (speculative) numbers I cited are speculated because the evidence isn't CONCLUSIVE. The Arctic temperatures could have been much lower than the figures you cited.

The Siberian ones - not so sure - I've not looked at data for those, specifically.



Sorry, didn't notice that part.

Despite the fact that I already corrected you on it once?

I hear Pluto's nice and cool this time of year.

That's not a planet. If I'm gonna start a brave new world then I needs a real planet.

But there are thousands of islands and atolls, therefore there are landmasses in it.

On and in are two different words.

I hear Pluto's nice and cool this time of year.
Bah, it's not even a planet anymore. But I sure as hell ain't gunna be outsmarted by those frogs...

But there are thousands of islands and atolls, therefore there are landmasses in it.

I'm taking that as meaning you don't know what 'tropical' means.

Regardless - the Great Barrier Reef is a marine environment, and it's temperature is determined NOT by ambient tropical temperature... but by ambient oceaninc temperature.

That's not a planet. If I'm gonna start a brave new world then I needs a real planet.

I dunno, this planet didn't go so well. Maybe we should try a Plutoid instead.

I dunno, this planet didn't go so well. Maybe we should try a Plutoid instead.

But Plutoids are so small. We'd have like a week before we ruined it. We need a big planet like Jupiter, much more atmosphere, we could fuck around for years before we made a dent.

I say this because considering this thread, I don't thing even ruining our planet would convince some that things humanity does impact the world around us.

Nice recovery, but it won't wash.


How can it be a 'nice recovery', when it's what I've said all along?


There's nothing mystically significant about today's temperature level. And your statement made no reference to a 2 degree change from "today's" temperature.


A 2 degree change IS a big change.

But citing the Holocene Maximum is talking about a two degree change (which is STILL a big change) from a climate that WAS an extinction level event.

We are considerably warmer, now, than that two degree change, and if we get much hotter, we'll be experiencing the sort of conditions that can precipitate more mass extinctions.


There was a six degree increase in temperature from the level of 8700 years ago. That increase is greater than 2 degrees, yet no mass extinction resulted. Certainly some species went extinct, but such events did not rise to the level of a mass extinction.


Mas extinctions DID result. But, not when the temperature ROSE. They occured when the temperature dropped. You are asking why the return from extinction-level cold didn't cause mass extinctions.... why going BACK to the equilibrium temperature didn't upset the balance.

And, to be accurate about it - mass extinctions DID occur in niches that had become adapted to the Ice Age temperatures - megaloceros, mammoths, etc.


The evidence would seem to indicate that life on earth, including human life, is robust enough to adapt to a six degree increase in temperature.

Life, collectively, will probably survive, in some form... whatever climate change comes. But 'human life' might not be in that figure... and since your estimate of our robustness is based on pre-human, and certainly pre-modern-human events, there's not a lot of reason to take it as relating to our current civilisations, at all.

Add to that your inability to understand (or is it just 'admit'?) how a six degree difference from glacial temperatures... could differ from a temperature increase from today's temperatures... and I'm no longer buying your claims to having an 'openable' mind.

But Plutoids are so small. We'd have like a week before we ruined it. We need a big planet like Jupiter, much more atmosphere, we could fuck around for years before we made a dent.

I say this because considering this thread, I don't thing even ruining our planet would convince some that things humanity does impact the world around us.

I figured since so many people are so insistent that global climate change isn't happening they'll stay here. Though if the survivors went to Jupiter we'd have an awful lot of space.......

How about we let other numbers speak?

Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance company considers global climate change a real problem. Founded in 1880, they have the numbers on record for more than a century that show an increase in frequency and impact of weather related catastrophes.

Torsten Jeworrek, member of Munich Re's Board of Management: "This continues the long-term trend we have been observing. Climate change has already started and is very probably contributing to increasingly frequent weather extremes and ensuing natural catastrophes. These, in turn, generate greater and greater losses because the concentration of values in exposed areas, like regions on the coast, is also increasing further throughout the world." Munich Re is a world leader in terms of investigating risks from natural hazards of all kinds. "2008 has again shown how important it is for us to analyse risks like climate change in all their facets and to manage the business accordingly," said Jeworrek.

According to provisional estimates published by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2008 was the tenth warmest year since the beginning of routine temperature recording and the eighth warmest in the northern hemisphere. This means that the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred in the last 12 years. "It is now very probable that the progressive warming of the atmosphere is due to the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. The logic is clear: when temperatures increase, there is more evaporation and the atmosphere has a greater capacity to absorb water vapour, with the result that its energy content is higher. The weather machine runs in top gear, bringing more intense severe weather events with corresponding effects in terms of losses. This relationship is already visible today in the increasing heavy precipitation events in many regions of the earth, the heat waves, and the hurricanes in the North Atlantic. The loss statistics for 2008 fit the pattern that the calculations of climate models lead us to expect," said Prof. Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research.


http://www.munichre.com/en/press/press_releases/2008/2008_12_29_press_release.aspx

So, even if you find some scientists who regard the matter as not yet settled - those who crunch the really big numbers have taken up side with those who regard global climate change not only as real, but as one of the greatest challenges the human race is facing now and has to face in the future.

and I'm no longer buying your claims to having an 'openable' mind.

I have a crowbar....

How about we let other numbers speak?

Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance company considers global climate change a real problem. Founded in 1880, they have the numbers on record for more than a century that show an increase in frequency and impact of weather related catastrophes.

Torsten Jeworrek, member of Munich Re's Board of Management: "This continues the long-term trend we have been observing. Climate change has already started and is very probably contributing to increasingly frequent weather extremes and ensuing natural catastrophes. These, in turn, generate greater and greater losses because the concentration of values in exposed areas, like regions on the coast, is also increasing further throughout the world." Munich Re is a world leader in terms of investigating risks from natural hazards of all kinds. "2008 has again shown how important it is for us to analyse risks like climate change in all their facets and to manage the business accordingly," said Jeworrek.

According to provisional estimates published by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2008 was the tenth warmest year since the beginning of routine temperature recording and the eighth warmest in the northern hemisphere. This means that the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred in the last 12 years. "It is now very probable that the progressive warming of the atmosphere is due to the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. The logic is clear: when temperatures increase, there is more evaporation and the atmosphere has a greater capacity to absorb water vapour, with the result that its energy content is higher. The weather machine runs in top gear, bringing more intense severe weather events with corresponding effects in terms of losses. This relationship is already visible today in the increasing heavy precipitation events in many regions of the earth, the heat waves, and the hurricanes in the North Atlantic. The loss statistics for 2008 fit the pattern that the calculations of climate models lead us to expect," said Prof. Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research.


http://www.munichre.com/en/press/press_releases/2008/2008_12_29_press_release.aspx

So, even if you find some scientists who regard the matter as not yet settled - those who crunch the really big numbers have taken up side with those who regard global climate change not only as real, but as one of the greatest challenges the human race is facing now and has to face in the future.

I'm sure that insurance company is just exaggerating the risks so it can get a grant!




Oh wait......

I'm sure that insurance company is just exaggerating the risks so it can get a grant!




Oh wait......
That's gotta be it! ;)

I don't think it's very likely. I think a long-term cooling trend and an eventual return of another Ice Age are more likely than some global disaster due to anthropogenic global warming.
What about a return to an Ice Age due to anthropogenic climate change?

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.

Warned for flaming.

'Cuz if the frog isn't bothered when the water gets slowly warmer, we can conclude that it is safe to boil 'em. :(

You got the frog example from Al Gore, didn't you?! :eek2:

You got the frog example from Al Gore, didn't you?! :eek2:
Nah, that's been around far longer than his flic.

I bet the French discovered that. (And why am I hungry now?)

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)

Ugh!

I read his book "The Seven Basic Plots" and can honestly say that it has done more than any other single source to enhance my appreciation of all forms of fiction, whether novels, movies or theater.

It was a bitter pill to realize that the guy who thinks that global warming is a sham, and that asbestos is chemically indistinguishable from talcum powder was the same guy who wrote parts one and two of Seven Basic Stories. Of course, it was difficult to reconcile parts one and two, which were largely scholarly deconstructions of various works of fiction appropriate for a first year literature student, with part three which was right wing lunatic propaganda which said that the US was in a period of decadent moral decline when it elected the weak effeminate JFK who did nothing less than save the world from WWIII but had realized true morality when it elected an actor who once played a cowboy and then invented homelessness.

I guess what I'm saying is the guy should stick to Lit class and leave science to the scientists.

You got the frog example from Al Gore, didn't you?! :eek2:

When Al Gore put it in his movie he was counting on the audience to know that the frog in the slowly boiling water would patiently boil to death. That's why the audience laughed when Gore's frog got rescued.

When Al Gore put it in his movie he was counting on the audience to know that the frog in the slowly boiling water would patiently boil to death. That's why the audience laughed when Gore's frog got rescued.
They laughed, because a mere frog was outsmarting Gore. You alone were laughing because of the reason you mentioned.

What about a return to an Ice Age due to anthropogenic climate change?

Properly speaking we're still in an ice age.

You got the frog example from Al Gore, didn't you?! :eek2:

Nope. Just tweaking the old saying to make a point, FWIW. :wink:

Nope. Just tweaking the old saying to make a point, FWIW. :wink:

Are you sure? I thought Al Gore invented frogs... :p

On and in are two different words.

A very important distinction, especially in the context of ejaculation.

A very important distinction, especially in the context of ejaculation.

This is "global warming", not "warm globuling".

Very funny chaps! Most of you northern hemisphere dwellers are probably feeling the cold and some of you are waiting for Spring to thaw your bones. That is an excellent time do do some Spring planting....yes this means you too "No Names", you naughty Welshman! So even if you may be a climate change sketic get out there and get your hands down and dirty by greening up this planet.
I live in "Orange Grove" but there were no orange trees in this Orange Grove! So I planted one this morning.
That's one small step for man and mankind. The earth wouldn't mind it if every person on this planet planted a plant. Think about it! Six and a half billion more plants!

Are you sure? I thought Al Gore invented frogs... :p

No. He invented the interfrog (http://www.interfrog.de/noflash.html).

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.

Pretty much what I was trying to say, just worded much better...

No. He invented the interfrog (http://www.interfrog.de/noflash.html).

As long as it isn't Crazyfrog. If so he'd have to stand trial for crimes against Humanity...

Well, the settled cities were. They farmed, rather than hunted. Also, they were near rivers or seas, they didn't flood.
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly:

In declaring that global climate change will not do significant harm to humans in general because it didn't last time, you are:

A) Comparing an ancient global population of millions to a current global population of billions, without making any reference to the difference such population size makes in demand for food, water, shelter, etc., and the pressures on systems to provide the same.

B) Comparing a few hundred cities with populations of a few thousand to many thousands of cities with populations in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, and some with populations of several millions, and pretending that they are the same kind of thing and indicative of similar social systems.

C) Comparing a world in which only a small portion of the population lived in relatively small, walled cities while the vast majority of humans were scattered widely, in small village groups, over open countryside, living fully self-sufficient agrarian lifestyles, to a world in which the vast majority of the population live in cities that are huge, sprawling, and hard to escape and are totally dependent on having their water and food shipped in from the outside while only a small portion of the population lives on the land in anything even approaching a self-sufficiency model -- and you pretend that climate change that affects food production and distribution will not have a significantly greater impact on the modern population than it may have on the ancient population.

D) Comparing a world in which the only source of power was human or animal muscle strength, the only means of transport werewalking, riding animals or small boats for very short distances, economies were based on barter, and the only means of communication was verbal, to a world powered by physically huge and complicated technological systems, where the economy is an even bigger and more complicated money system, where trade is conducted over vast distances within a period of hours due to high speed transportation technology, and all of government, business, military, and social activity is dependent on immediate-result telecommunications -- and you pretend that drastic weather events that cause infrastructure damage that interferes with all that will have no greater affect on the modern population than it may have on the ancient one.

E) Pretending that, in olden days, cities by rivers didn't flood, which is (1) ludicrous because all rivers and seas flood sometimes, regardless of whether the climate is changing or not, and flooding is not predictable, and (2) forgetting or ignoring the established fact that when ancient peoples put cities near rivers it was BECAUSE they flooded. They built for the express purpose of exploiting annual floods for early agricultural production. That is, after all, what made the Fertile Crescent fertile, you know, and it is why the various kingdoms and dynasties that comprised the history of ancient Egypt made them a recognizable cultural and social presence and power in the ancient world for several thousand years. I'll say it again: It was because the river flooded. The cities were built for flood seasons. Oh, and by the way, you weren't there, so you really don't know how those cities related to the waters, now do you? And you don't know how high the floods got, nor a lot of other things that happened back then. So that means your statement that "they didn't flood" is crap. They were designed to accommodate floods, and you don't know that the cities themselves did not flood and did not do so regularly.

F) You also seem to be assuming that living through climate changes of previous periods was a snap and a cakewalk, and that people didn't suffer from starvation, and from being forced to leave their lands and try to find new ones where there was water and they could grow enough food to maintain their families, and from engaging in war with people who also wanted those other lands, or who were already living on them. Like your bizarre remark about cities by rivers, this also belies a shocking ignorance of history liberally plastered over with sweeping imagination.

So, on the basis of that apparent ignorance filled in with fantasy plus the obvious invalidity of your comparisons, I am going to have to reject your entire argument -- that climate change is no biggie because we can handle it just like we did before -- as nonsense.

They laughed, because a mere frog was outsmarting Gore. You alone were laughing because of the reason you mentioned.

I've read this several times now, and it still makes me laugh. I can just imagine Al Gore giving a comic book villain monologue:
Fool! You thought that you, a mere frog, could outsmart the likes of Al Gore? Let's see your amazing brain in action as I slowly boil you...alive!!! Now, if you excuse me, I have a carbon emitter to nuke.
Something like that.

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.

I'm struggling to find the words to describe how nonsensical this is. You realize that it's almost always more difficult to predict specific instances that longterm instances.

I can tell you that flip a coin a million times the final number of heads will very likely be close to half a million. However, if I tried to predict each flip of the coin I'd be wrong about half the time. Does that mean I'm wrong about my one million prediction?

I'm struggling to find the words to describe how nonsensical this is. You realize that it's almost always more difficult to predict specific instances that longterm instances.

I can tell you that flip a coin a million times the final number of heads will very likely be close to half a million. However, if I tried to predict each flip of the coin I'd be wrong about half the time. Does that mean I'm wrong about my one million prediction?

I'm struggling to find the words to explain to you that there is a huge difference in complexity between accurately predicting coin tosses and accurately predicting anything to do with the weather...
Oh, wait, no I'm not...

I'll put it too real simply: With predicting coin tosses there are two possible options (heads or tails) when predicting weather there are more than two options, it is not just hot or cold. Simple enough for you?

what it is long overdue to re-evaluate, are the lies that technology depends on combustion, more is better, and hierarchy is inherently beneficial. well there's a couple of others too, such as that free markets equal personal freedom, and everything that isn't Machiavellianism has to be procustianism or worse, even that makiavellianism is sustainable for that matter.

I'm struggling to find the words to explain to you that there is a huge difference in complexity between accurately predicting coin tosses and accurately predicting anything to do with the weather...
Oh, wait, no I'm not...

I'll put it too real simply: With predicting coin tosses there are two possible options (heads or tails) when predicting weather there are more than two options, it is not just hot or cold. Simple enough for you?

In ALL predictions, it's more difficult to make specific predictions than generalized predictions. There are virtually no exceptions. You are comparing specific predictions in a related field to generalized predictions. The comparison is nonsensical for all the reasons stated. None of which have been disputed by you.

Worse, you point out that coin tosses are more simple but still predictable in general but not in specific circumstances. Why would something more complex be easier to predict in specific circumstances?

Like I said, it's nonsense. It's doesn't even pretend otherwise.

A) Comparing an ancient global population of millions to a current global population of billions, without making any reference to the difference such population size makes in demand for food, water, shelter, etc., and the pressures on systems to provide the same.

Depends on where and when you're talking about. At the height of the Roman Empire, when the latifundia (basically slave-based agribusiness) were capable of producing massive surpluses, up to 30-35% of the Empire's population was urbanized. No doubt similar numbers were the case in other societies at their height, especially in China. Of course, it is also theorized that climate change may have played a role in the collapse of the Western empire, so perhaps there are lessons to be learned.

That being said, I'm really interested in hearing about this drastic shift in the average global temperature; if it continues to break the trend, it's possible any man-made effects of climate change are going to be subverted by more powerful cooling trends. Of course, those cooling trends themselves are also a mystery...

what it is long overdue to re-evaluate, are the lies that technology depends on combustion, more is better, and hierarchy is inherently beneficial. well there's a couple of others too, such as that free markets equal personal freedom, and everything that isn't Machiavellianism has to be procustianism or worse, even that makiavellianism is sustainable for that matter.

Free markets do equal personal freedom and they are the only realistically sustainable economic system. In fact, the worst environmental disasters and greatest disregard for the natural environment have occurred in the countries that lack a free and open market; even the most egregious Superfund violation pales in comparison to the sheer devastation of places like Norisk, Magnitogorsk or Linfen.

In ALL predictions, it's more difficult to make specific predictions than generalized predictions. There are virtually no exceptions. You are comparing specific predictions in a related field to generalized predictions. The comparison is nonsensical for all the reasons stated. None of which have been disputed by you.

Worse, you point out that coin tosses are more simple but still predictable in general but not in specific circumstances. Why would something more complex be easier to predict in specific circumstances?

Like I said, it's nonsense. It's doesn't even pretend otherwise.

Let's rephrase and see if you get it...

Computer models which cannot make accurate predictions a week in advance are supposed to be able predict accurately 25 years in advance...

1 week in the future = less variables than 25 years in the future.

This, unlike coin tosses, isn't a matter of statistical probability, thus your comparison is idiotic. If you truly do not see that I pity you.

there are two ways to correct the problem, one is to reduce human fertility and stop using combustion to generate energy and propel transportation, the other is to let famine and disease, resulting from environmental thoughtlessness, do the job for us. the latter requires less effort, but is also somewhat likely to be a bit more painful.

Let's rephrase and see if you get it...

Computer models which cannot make accurate predictions a week in advance are supposed to be able predict accurately 25 years in advance...

1 week in the future = less variables than 25 years in the future.

This, unlike coin tosses, isn't a matter of statistical probability, thus your comparison is idiotic. If you truly do not see that I pity you.

Uh, yes, it is. The computer models are using mathematical probabilities based on current information. They should become more accurate as they become more general. Therefore looking at a particular week is going to be less accurate than looking at the trend. The outcome in 25 years is a trend. Next week is specific.

As much as you'd like to pretend I don't get it, to anyone with even a slight connection to scientific models, your statements are nonsensical to the extreme. You demonstrate clearly that you have not the slightest idea what a model is.

EDIT: For example, I can predict with no worry of inaccuracy a decrease in bone and muscle density in my body in fifty years time. If I had collected information about my specific body I could likely predict it within a percentage point or two with no worry of inaccuracy.

I can't however predict next week even though I can actually control it to some degree. The reason is obvious.

Uh, yes, it is. The computer models are using mathematical probabilities based on current information. They should become more accurate as they become more general. Therefore looking at a particular week is going to be less accurate than looking at the trend. The outcome in 25 years is a trend. Next week is specific.

Based on that predictions for a week away should be more accurate than predictions for the next day... They're not, you fail.

Free markets do equal personal freedom and they are the only realistically sustainable economic system. In fact, the worst environmental disasters and greatest disregard for the natural environment have occurred in the countries that lack a free and open market; even the most egregious Superfund violation pales in comparison to the sheer devastation of places like Norisk, Magnitogorsk or Linfen.
the devil is in the details. one would do well not to substitute familiar assumptions for reading the WHOLE statement.

the shortcomings of procustianism do NOT make free markets equal personal freedom. nor, as already mentioned in it, is it even remotely the only possible alternative to Machiavellianism. (and thus of no actual pertinence)

Based on that predictions for a week away should be more accurate than predictions for the next day... They're not, you fail.

Again, you're missing the point and demonstrating you don't understand models. Both of those are specific examples. And you're correct that specific predictions can be more difficult as you move further in time. This isn't the same using a model to get an accurate idea of a trend.

They (climate change modelers) are predicting a trend, a generality, like my above body example. They aren't saying "if you check the weather fifty years from now to the week, you'll see a hurricane of epic proportions" or anything like it. They are saying over the next fifty years you should expect a trend like X and a degree of Y. Again, this is fairly obvious to anyone who understands the vary basics of a what a model is. They are not particularly accurate at any specific time. It's in the very nature of what they are.

However, I did notice that you dropped all that ridiculous comments about mathematical probabilities. That shows that you recognize you're over your head at least.

Based on that predictions for a week away should be more accurate than predictions for the next day... They're not, you fail.

actually, and perhapse somewhat ironically, those from between about four months away and nine, are.

i seem to remember, i was living on donner summit when they first became available, at a price of about four grand a printout, back in the late 60s, that they were about two weeks off ahead at the beginning of the period, and about two weeks behind at the end of it. making that minor correction for scale, they turned out to be bang on!

which was really the first time ever, for anything even close in that environment, where previously it had been sooth, that only fools and newcomers predicted the weather.

Again, you're missing the point and demonstrating you don't understand models. Both of those are specific examples. THey are predicting a trend, a generality, like my above body example. They aren't saying "if you check the weather fifty years from now to the week, you'll see a hurricane of epic proportions" or anything like it. They are saying over the next fifty years you should expect a trend like X and a degree of Y. Again, this is fairly obvious to anyone who understands the vary basics of a what a model is. They are not particularly accurate at any specific time. It's in the very nature of what they are.

However, I did notice that you dropped all that ridiculous comments about mathematical probabilities. That shows that you recognize you're over your head at least.

No, I'm not over my head, you're inability to see the flaws is not my problem.

A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

Full article here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm)

Again, you fail.

Tell me again about how accurate these models are.

All of this however is pointless though, since as I've already said whether the predictions are accurate or not and whether we are actually to blame (even partially) for Global Climate Change, we should be trying to stop it since even if it does not have any effect on global climate these changes have many other benefits.

Based on that predictions for a week away should be more accurate than predictions for the next day... They're not, you fail.

No, based on that trends are easier to guess than specific events. For example, I know that around election type in the Canada the number of threads about Canada will increase. This is easier to guess then if I had to guess exactly how many threads about Canada will be made in the next month.

the devil is in the details. one would do well not to substitute familiar assumptions for reading the WHOLE statement.

the shortcomings of procustianism do NOT make free markets equal personal freedom. nor, as already mentioned in it, is it even remotely the only possible alternative to Machiavellianism. (and thus of no actual pertinence)

I don't believe for a second that the free market has anything to do with Machiavelli. In the free market, means and ends are intertwined, and competition and cooperation both play equally vital roles; the very nature of the corporation or any business is one of internal cooperation with a goal of external cooperation. Manipulative and cruel behavior is punished and socially conscious behavior rewarded, especially when there is no government providing subsidies that allow ethically dubious firms to get away with bad practices.

Socialism simply takes property away from those who actually produce it and put it in to the hands of a bureaucratic gentry who have done nothing to produce it, giving them the right to disburse it to everyone on the basis of what they feel is the optimal allocation. The system has far more in common with archaic feudalism than anything progressive or beneficial to mankind.

No, I'm not over my head, you're inability to see the flaws is not my problem.



Full article here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm)

Again, you fail.

Tell me again about how accurate these models are.

All of this however is pointless though, since as I've already said whether the predictions are accurate or not and whether we are actually to blame (even partially) for Global Climate Change, we should be trying to stop it since even if it does not have any effect on global climate these changes have many other benefits.

Now you're completely avoiding the point. I'm not attesting to the accuracy of global climate models. I'm explaining how models work. Models are not designed to be specifically accurate. You're comparing accurately predicting specific outcomes to accurately predicting a trend. When I proved how stupid that particular comparison is you've not so surprisingly attempting to change the subject.

I take it you're not going to continue to claim that models don't rely on mathematical probabilities.

I take it you're not going to continue to claim that specific predictions are the same as general predictions.

Because neither of those have anything to do with the claims you're now trying to support and everything to do with how little you understand scientific models.

EDIT: Now, addressing the claim of the article, it is talking about the trend and whether the current trend supports the model. It's a different argument.

Your original statement that I objected to "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?" is not supported by the article you quoted. It's not talking about predicting the weather at all. It's talking about the same trend I'm discussing, rather than specific events like meteorologists predict a week from now.

But, hey, why not try to change the subject? Your original claim has been laid to rest, so you might as well try to save face by quoting an article talking about something different and acting as if that was your claim all along.

No, I'm not over my head, you're inability to see the flaws is not my problem.



Full article here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm)

Again, you fail.

Tell me again about how accurate these models are.

All of this however is pointless though, since as I've already said whether the predictions are accurate or not and whether we are actually to blame (even partially) for Global Climate Change, we should be trying to stop it since even if it does not have any effect on global climate these changes have many other benefits.

Models need to be refined, they aren't perfect but they can predict general trends, we want to be able to do it more specifically. That doesn't mean that your inability to differentiate between general trends and specific events have aided your argument at all. Furthermore in the article they aren't suggesting that the models are worthless, they are discussing ways to improve them and that in the meantime scientists should use them with caution until we study the differences between surface and atmospheric temperature more. That doesn't mean that they're wrong all together.

Now you're completely avoiding the point. I'm not attesting to the accuracy of global climate models. I'm explaining how models work. Models are not designed to be specifically accurate. You're comparing accurately predicting specific outcomes to accurately predicting a trend. When I proved how stupid that particular comparison is you've not so surprisingly attempting to change the subject.

I take it you're not going to continue to claim that models don't rely on mathematical probabilities.

I take it you're not going to continue to claim that specific predictions are the same as general predictions.

Because neither of those have anything to do with the claims you're now trying to support and everything to do with how little you understand scientific models.

lol
I haven't changed what I claimed / am claiming. My complaint was lack of accuracy. Could I have stated it better? Obviously the answer to that is yes. As I recall though, you were defending their accuracy.

Furthermore in the article they aren't suggesting that the models are worthless

And neither did I

Models need to be refined, they aren't perfect but they can predict general trends, we want to be able to do it more specifically. That doesn't mean that your inability to differentiate between general trends and specific events have aided your argument at all. Furthermore in the article they aren't suggesting that the models are worthless, they are discussing ways to improve them and that in the meantime scientists should use them with caution until we study the differences between surface and atmospheric temperature more. That doesn't mean that they're wrong all together.

Notice also that he's now being utterly dishonest. His original claim was about predicting the weather. He's now pretending as if it was really the same as the claim in the article which is about disputing the trending in the models with trending data.

lol
I haven't changed what I claimed / am claiming. My complaint was lack of accuracy. Could I have stated it better? Obviously the answer to that is yes. As I recall though, you were defending their accuracy.

Your complaint was a lack of accuracy of specific predictions and the article is complaining about a lack of accuracy of the trends. They are not the same.

So either your claim has changed or you don't understand the article. Either way, you've demonstrated quite well that you're without clue when it comes to scientific models.

I was explaining the function of models. I was explaining their purpose and how sadly you misunderstand what they do and the relevance of specific accuracy to general trending. You remember quite inaccurately both your claims and mine, but if you think you can support your claims about what I was defending please offer some quotes.

Notice also that he's now being utterly dishonest. His original claim was about predicting the weather. He's now pretending as if it was really the same as the claim in the article which is about disputing the trending in the models with trending data.
Or it could be that I stated things poorly, but you've made it a habit lately to ignore my explanations because that doesn't fill your need to feel superior.
Your complaint was a lack of accuracy of specific predictions and the article is complaining about a lack of accuracy of the trends. They are not the same.

So either your claim has changed or you don't understand the article. Either way, you've demonstrated quite well that you're without clue when it comes to scientific models.

I was explaining the function of models.
My claim hasn't changed and I did understand the article, see above and reread the post you quoted.

one is to reduce human fertility

Says who?

"Estimates of the carrying capacity of Earth range between 1 billion and 1,000 billion people, depending on the values used in calculations. The variability of estimates has grown larger since 1950, compared to earlier estimates.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Maybe the planet cant support a developed country standart for everyone NOW but by the time other countries catch up, there will prolly be huge technological changes.

Or it could be that I stated things poorly, but you've made it a habit lately to ignore my explanations because that doesn't fill your need to feel superior.

You didn't state things poorly. You said something completely idiotic and then defended it with explanations that demonstrate that your original statment was not a misstatement as you now claim and that you really were unaware of the basic flaws in your original statement. Pretending that you simply worded it badly rather than didn't know what you were talking about is a bold-faced lie and completely misaligned with the evidence in the thread from your own posts.

As far as feeling superior, I don't base my value on my understanding of scientific models. I certainly hope you don't.

My claim hasn't changed and I did understand the article, see above and reread the post you quoted.

Oh, I did. I know the difference between meteorologists predicting the weather and looking at climate trends over a period of time. Do you?

You demonstrated a very common misunderstanding of global climate modeling and you defended that same misunderstanding. There is no way to consolidate your explanations, your original statement and what your now claiming without either a complete misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate or a tacit admission you were originally wrong. You may feel the need to now save face but I find myself under no obligation to help you do so.

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?

they aren't suggesting that the models are worthless

And neither did I
You decided that we weren't able to predict climate change because we can't predict weather with 100% accuracy, you dismissed the models and essentially deemed them worthless because you didn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

You didn't state things poorly. You said something completely idiotic and then defended it with explanations that demonstrate that your original statment was not a misstatement as you now claim and that you really were unaware of the basic flaws in your original statement. Pretending that you simply worded it badly rather than didn't know what you were talking about is a bold-faced lie and completely misaligned with the evidence in the thread from your own posts.

As far as feeling superior, I don't base my value on my understanding of scientific models. I certainly hope you don't.
As I've said to you before, think what you like if that's what gets you through your day. Obviously I made a mistake in removing you from my ignore list.
Oh, I did. I know the difference between meteorologists predicting the weather and looking at climate trends over a period of time. Do you?
Yes, I do.

As I've said to you before, think what you like if that's what gets you through your day. Obviously I made a mistake in removing you from my ignore list.

Yes, I do.

Not according to your posts, you don't. You compared weather prediction with climate trend analysis and then defended that comparison until I'd demonstrated just how stupid that comparison is. If your next post would have simply said it was a misstatement, we'd be done. It didn't. Instead it suggested I don't understand models and continued along the same vein for several more posts.

Now, instead of admitting you were wrong, you're blaming me and claiming you should ignore me simply because I didn't let your ignorant statements slide. Now, instead of either defending your original statements or admitting you were wrong, you've decided to attack me personally and then suggest that YOU should ignore ME. I'll give you this much, if having blatantly ignorant statements challenged is going to cause you to get personal, then you may as well ignore me, because I'm NEVER going to let statements the likes of your original claim slide and the personal statements are going to get you in trouble.

You decided that we weren't able to predict climate change because we can't predict weather with 100% accuracy, you dismissed the models and essentially deemed them worthless because you didn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

You notice how he's ignoring that you're saying the exact same thing that I am. Apparently, you're just bringing this up to feel superior, too.

It couldn't be that confusing predicting the weather with predicting climate trends is a common misunderstanding that causes people to believe the bullshit theories that dispute clmate change. Yeah, it can't be that. Why propose a perfectly rational reason for disputing a claim when you can just wholesale make up a personal attack in order to avoid addressing how inaccurate the original claim was?

Let's rephrase and see if you get it...

Computer models which cannot make accurate predictions a week in advance are supposed to be able predict accurately 25 years in advance...

1 week in the future = less variables than 25 years in the future.

This, unlike coin tosses, isn't a matter of statistical probability, thus your comparison is idiotic. If you truly do not see that I pity you.

Whoa, predicting the weather based on recorded data to generate computer models ISN'T based on statistical probabilities?

What is it based on, then? Magic? Pixie dust perhaps. Do tell, because it's obvious that you have more profound and intimate familiarity with the computer models in question than anyone else in the world!

Depends on where and when you're talking about. At the height of the Roman Empire, when the latifundia (basically slave-based agribusiness) were capable of producing massive surpluses, up to 30-35% of the Empire's population was urbanized. No doubt similar numbers were the case in other societies at their height, especially in China. Of course, it is also theorized that climate change may have played a role in the collapse of the Western empire, so perhaps there are lessons to be learned.

That being said, I'm really interested in hearing about this drastic shift in the average global temperature; if it continues to break the trend, it's possible any man-made effects of climate change are going to be subverted by more powerful cooling trends. Of course, those cooling trends themselves are also a mystery...
Sigh. I'm talking about what the poster I was responding to was talking about. Read the thread, for fuck's sake (tone of frustration intentional).

He specified a time period of approximately 10,000 years ago and compared that to the 20th/21st century. The Roman Empire did not exist 10,000 years ago, so for the purpose of this conversation, the Romans can go to hell.

Says who?

"Estimates of the carrying capacity of Earth range between 1 billion and 1,000 billion people, depending on the values used in calculations. The variability of estimates has grown larger since 1950, compared to earlier estimates.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Maybe the planet cant support a developed country standart for everyone NOW but by the time other countries catch up, there will prolly be huge technological changes.
The more people there are in the world, the harder it is to avoid hearing idiots talk because they're just everywhere. The fewer people there are, the more sweet, silent space one can find. For the pupose of avoiding the chatter of idiots except when one wants to hear them, I say population reduction is vitally necessary, regardless of the capacity of the planet.

No, I'm not over my head, you're inability to see the flaws is not my problem.



Full article here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm)

Again, you fail.

Tell me again about how accurate these models are.

All of this however is pointless though, since as I've already said whether the predictions are accurate or not and whether we are actually to blame (even partially) for Global Climate Change, we should be trying to stop it since even if it does not have any effect on global climate these changes have many other benefits.

Did you read the whole article or just the headline?

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

"The question was, what would the models 'forecast' for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?" said Christy. "To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

"As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

"Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend," Christy said. "Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

"We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results."

Pretty much what I was trying to say, just worded much better...

*bows*

;)

E) Pretending that, in olden days, cities by rivers didn't flood, which is (1) ludicrous because all rivers and seas flood sometimes, regardless of whether the climate is changing or not, and flooding is not predictable, and (2) forgetting or ignoring the established fact that when ancient peoples put cities near rivers it was BECAUSE they flooded.

That's the one that stopped me...

Knowing, as we do, that cities were specifically built on floodplains, because that's where the environment favoured sustained agriculture, it seems blindingly naive... or deliberately blinkered... for someone to suggest that rivers don't/didn't flood.

Especially in light of that person actually raising the topic of cities in the environs of the fertile crescent...

This seems to be one of those topics that most people feel better ignoring.

All the better for the slavering jaws of entropy.

Free markets do equal personal freedom...


Propaganda and bullshit.


... and they are the only realistically sustainable economic system.


Propaganda and bullshit. And worse... entirely wrong, to the extent that's it's exactly the inverse of true.

That's the one that stopped me...

Knowing, as we do, that cities were specifically built on floodplains, because that's where the environment favoured sustained agriculture, it seems blindingly naive... or deliberately blinkered... for someone to suggest that rivers don't/didn't flood.

Especially in light of that person actually raising the topic of cities in the environs of the fertile crescent...
After reading it several times, I decided that what he meant to say was that the cities didn't get flooded, which is still BS because:

(A) How the hell would he know?

(B) Flooding is only a disaster if you don't want it to happen and aren't prepared for it. So if those ancient cities were not destroyed by floods, that does not mean they were not subjected to flooding.

(C) Whatever may or may not have happened to ancient cities that were designed around flooding has nothing whatsoever to do wtih modern cities that put in the same kinds of places but for different reasons and without that kind of planning (see, i.e. NOLA).

Propaganda and bullshit.



Propaganda and bullshit. And worse... entirely wrong, to the extent that's it's exactly the inverse of true.
As I (we) stand here in the burning wreckage of the "free market" (misnomer) system, that one also struck me as pretty egregious, but I decided not to enable a hijack. But my jaw did drop.

After reading it several times, I decided that what he meant to say was that the cities didn't get flooded, which is still BS because:

(A) How the hell would he know?

(B) Flooding is only a disaster if you don't want it to happen and aren't prepared for it. So if those ancient cities were not destroyed by floods, that does not mean they were not subjected to flooding.

(C) Whatever may or may not have happened to ancient cities that were designed around flooding has nothing whatsoever to do wtih modern cities that put in the same kinds of places but for different reasons and without that kind of planning (see, i.e. NOLA).

The crazy thing is - we KNOW that cities have been built either to directly capitalise on flooding, or to specifically cope with it. The Taj Mahal displays common architecture of it's time and location that specifically buttress and elevate to a flood-level, well above usual river level. (It's also a remarkably well maintained snapshot). The same TYPE of architecture can be seen in Egyptian settlements on the Nile. And it's no accident that Egyptians built on fertile floodplains.

We also have good evidence of seasonal flooding of Egypt, not as a disaster, but as part of the cycle of agriculture. As you say, it's not a disaster if you build for it.

But, you're totally right - historical Nile cities share few characteristics with modern urbanisation. We have records of Mesopotamian evacuations and resettlement... and while that may have been some work, the same situation in a modern city (like New Orleans) is a disaster.

The other poster made bad assertions, based on either really little information, no information, or actively wrong information. And even worse... the assertions were worse than useless as paradigms for modern-day situations.

Whether or not global climate change is caused by humans, I don't have any problem with searching for greener chemistry and green engineering techniques. After all, we're still running out of easily accessible natural resources.

I leave re-evaluation of global warming to the experts.

As I (we) stand here in the burning wreckage of the "free market" (misnomer) system, that one also struck me as pretty egregious, but I decided not to enable a hijack. But my jaw did drop.

Hell, even if you want to argue that this doesn't qualify as a free market because there's still a tiny bit of government regulation, you've still got the Gilded Age.

And yet more evidence for cooling, not warming:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712


As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October.

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the sun has been eerily quiet.

The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913.

According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).

The Little Ice Age has been a problem for global warmers because it serves as a reminder of how the earth warms and cools naturally over time. It had to be ignored in the calculations that produced the infamous and since-discredited hockey stick graph that showed a sharp rise in warming alleged to be caused by man.

(Emphasis added.)

No it isn't time. Something is wrong, if one wants to argue "But it's not warming! But it's not cooling!" and use that as an excuse to go "See we don't have to do anything" then they are dodging the central issue.

And yet more evidence for cooling, not warming:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712
How did warming stop in 1998 if 2005 was the warmest year on record?

Further, global warming is a bit of a misnomer. While the overall global temperature increases, the temperature variations are expected to become more extreme (i.e. cold seasons become colder, hot seasons become hotter).

The Little Ice Age has been a problem for global warmers because it serves as a reminder of how the earth warms and cools naturally over time. It had to be ignored in the calculations that produced the infamous and since-discredited hockey stick graph that showed a sharp rise in warming alleged to be caused by man.

My, that sounds very objective and credible.

While many people question the role humans have played in global climate change, far fewer question whether climate change has occurred at all. I am especially leery of those that write it off entirely.

And yet more evidence for cooling, not warming:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712

I realise you have a special point you want to make, and thus you post anything you think backs it... but pointing out that there has been ONE anomoly in an ongoing trend probably isn't making the point - to everyone else - that you think it is.

I realise you have a special point you want to make, and thus you post anything you think backs it... but pointing out that there has been ONE anomoly in an ongoing trend probably isn't making the point - to everyone else - that you think it is.

My favorite bit is that he uses that tired "if it's cooling then climate change is disproven" garbage and at the same time explains away the cooling as a completely seperate issue that when equalized for will show a steady rise. It actively contradicts itself in a fairly obvious way.

I wonder if he actually read the data and not the fairly obvious editorial he linked to. (Just kidding. I don't actually wonder.)

My favorite bit is that he uses that tired "if it's cooling then climate change is disproven" garbage and at the same time explains away the cooling as a completely seperate issue that when equalized for will show a steady rise. It actively contradicts itself in a fairly obvious way.

I wonder if he actually read the data and not the fairly obvious editorial he linked to. (Just kidding. I don't actually wonder.)

It's selective posting... I see the same thing a lot when the creationism debate comes wandering around. I'll readily admit it confuses me. I'm not sure if I have any issues where I have a similar blindspot, but this 'oh look! One piece of evidence that might look good for my argument, in this mountain of contradictory data!' just... breaks my brain.

If you KNOW that the wealth of data opposes you... how do you convince yourself that the statistical blip is significant? Indeed, MORE significant than the rest of the data?

Humm. The other thing that leaps out at me... that idea that a temporary cooling trend, in an overall warming trend, in any way assails the model. Even with overall warming, the system is not closed - you can expect abberant data... temperatures that drop locally while the trend is upward.... temperatures that drop globally in the short-term, while the long-term trend is up. I honestly can't 'get it'.

If you KNOW that the wealth of data opposes you... how do you convince yourself that the statistical blip is significant? Indeed, MORE significant than the rest of the data?

And thus, the conspiracy theory is born.

And thus, the conspiracy theory is born.
it has to be a conspiracy. why else would so many scientists agree?

And yet more evidence for cooling, not warming:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712

The Investors Business Daily. A group dedicated to preserving the fossil-fueled status quo. Neat.

And yet more evidence for cooling, not warming:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712
That's why the term "Global Climate Change" is more appropriate.

Besides, higher average temperatures increase the overall moisture in the air - and when that air moves over cold landmasses, increased snowfall is one result.

And yet more evidence for cooling, not warming:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712

Not evidence. Opinion.

And yet more evidence for cooling, not warming:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712
As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/ann08.html
The year 2008 is on track to be one of the ten warmest years on record for the globe, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For November alone, the month is fourth warmest all-time globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature.

On october 20th of 2006 this report was put out http://ecoworld.com/blog/2006/10/20/...elting-slowly/

In this artical it states that greenland was haveing a net lose of 27 cubic miles per year.

On December 25 of 2008 this report was put out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122402174.html

In this artical it states that Greenland and the antarctic are haveing a net lose of 48 cubic miles per year.

I dont know about your investers link, but if these 2 articals are accurate then the melting is slowing dispite the washington post's undue alarmism makeing your NCDC link incorrect.

It sure dont feel like the hottest year where i live and nether did last year, but thats might just be my area.

Estimated Chances of Mitanni conceding on this point, either: 0%

On october 20th of 2006 this report was put out http://ecoworld.com/blog/2006/10/20/...elting-slowly/

In this artical it states that greenland was haveing a net lose of 27 cubic miles per year.

On December 25 of 2008 this report was put out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122402174.html

In this artical it states that Greenland and the antarctic are haveing a net lose of 48 cubic miles per year.

I dont know about your investers link, but if these 2 articals are accurate then the melting is slowing dispite the washington post's undue alarmism makeing your NCDC link incorrect.

It sure dont feel like the hottest year where i live and nether did last year, but thats might just be my area.

your links are bad and i'm not sure i follow the reasoning of your post

Make no mistake about it. Despite the recent snowy cold winters, global warming is taking place and being well documented. Some of the causes are the result of natural events which are being further exaggerated by both human and certain animal populations. Its not really shocking that it is happening as it is shocking how quickly it is happening. In the past, climate changes took place overs over hundreds or thousands of years not within a century. If the world sticks its head in the sand on this, it will surely get its ass burned!

These are the facts on global Warming, yes it exists, but if its caused by humanity is still completely uncertain. The simple truth is that wastes from Human life and food cycles comprises of a very very tiny % of the worlds naturally occurring greenhouse gases. So the question is, is this tiny % of increase really making any difference at all? Or is this simply part of the natural cooling and heating cycles of our planet?

Some people argue that even if Humanity devoted every ounce of resources it could possibly muster, even that would be such an insignificant addition to the atmosphere that you couldnt artificially raise the temp of the planet a degree no matter how hard you tried.

In the 1970s scientists said there would be no oil by the year 2000. Those scientists had studies, measurements the whole 9 yards. Remember Y2K? There was all sorts of factual information by experts for that world disaster as well. And look how much was spent for nothing. Just take whatever predictions that humans who really dont understand whats really going on with a giant grain of salt on all sides. Keep in mind, that the "Greenies" stand to make Hundreds of billions if people drink thier brand of Koolaid..

These are the facts on global Warming, yes it exists, but if its caused by humanity is still completely uncertain. The simple truth is that wastes from Human life and food cycles comprises of a very very tiny % of the worlds naturally occurring greenhouse gases. So the question is, is this tiny % of increase really making any difference at all? Or is this simply part of the natural cooling and heating cycles of our planet?

Do you have a link? What do they include? It's not just what we eat and poo and throw away... It's what we cut down, burn, breed etc.

Some people argue that even if Humanity devoted every ounce of resources it could possibly muster, even that would be such an insignificant addition to the atmosphere that you couldnt artificially raise the temp of the planet a degree no matter how hard you tried.

Who? I'm genuinely interested to see the data behind this assertion.

In the 1970s scientists said there would be no oil by the year 2000. Those scientists had studies, measurements the whole 9 yards. Remember Y2K? There was all sorts of factual information by experts for that world disaster as well. And look how much was spent for nothing. Just take whatever predictions that humans who really dont understand whats really going on with a giant grain of salt on all sides. Keep in mind, that the "Greenies" stand to make Hundreds of billions if people drink thier brand of Koolaid..

It's all a conspiracy to make some people rich? That's rather cynical isn't it? Also, there are always gaps in predictive models, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention. Especially if the consequences are potentially catastrophic - it's better to be safe than sorry, surely?

Especially if the consequences are potentially catastrophic - it's better to be safe than sorry, surely?

Except in case of Y2k where your choices wernt safe or sorry they were poor and stupid.

Doom and gloom has been predicted all thru human history in countless various forms and methods. And its all been bullshit. Im just saying dont be overly shocked if global warming isnt bullshit too.

Anyone else remember the Ozone Hole Of Death? Same story different scarey adjectives. Humans are naturally drama freaks.

Except in case of Y2k where your choices wernt safe or sorry they were poor and stupid.

Doom and gloom has been predicted all thru human history in countless various forms and methods. And its all been bullshit. Im just saying dont be overly shocked if global warming isnt bullshit too.

Anyone remember the Ozone threat from hell?

I bloody hope it's bullshit! But I would rather do something, rather than just HOPE.

It's very easy to say a disaster didn't happen, not so easy to say it would never have happened and what measures were taken had no effect either way.

Regards ozone, it's truly screwing people near the hole, it's lucky that it isn't somewhere more populated. But the fact it hasn't been a worldwide disaster could either be 1) because it was rubbish or 2) because the action taken to combat it worked. How do you know which?

Did you have any info, or were they just your own assertions in the last post btw?

I bloody hope it's bullshit! But I would rather do something, rather than just HOPE.

It's very easy to say a disaster didn't happen, not so easy to say it would never have happened and what measures were taken had no effect either way.

Regards ozone, it's truly screwing people near the hole, it's lucky that it isn't somewhere more populated. But the fact it hasn't been a worldwide disaster could either be 1) because it was rubbish or 2) because the action taken to combat it worked. How do you know which?

Did you have any info, or were they just your own assertions in the last post btw?

Well i could get into it but to stay on point that particular example isnt the focus, there are certianly no shortage of good examples to prove how easily humans buy into doom and gloom and world destruction stories. I was reading in the NYTimes how humans only have the ability to perceive when someone is lying to them 54% of the time, and it was suggested that if it was a skill necessary for survival, we would evolutionarily be better at it and in fact it may show in some way that humans like to be lied to. Hence the humans interest in storytellers (and television) thru history. Humans are drama freaks and will drink the grape koolaid repeatedly.

Some people argue that even if Humanity devoted every ounce of resources it could possibly muster, even that would be such an insignificant addition to the atmosphere that you couldnt artificially raise the temp of the planet a degree no matter how hard you tried.

but such people are obviously too dumb to listen to, and should just be laughed at

Anyone else remember the Ozone Hole Of Death? Same story different scarey adjectives. Humans are naturally drama freaks.

yeah, 'cause it's not like there was an international treaty that has stopped making things worse by getting rid of the bulk of the cause of the problem or anything.

yeah, 'cause it's not like there was an international treaty that has stopped making things worse by getting rid of the bulk of the cause of the problem or anything.

With still no direct scientific proof that one had a thing to do with the other. A causal relationship is not proof.

With still no direct scientific proof that one had a thing to do with the other. A causal relationship is not proof.

how, exactly, is a causal relation between one thing and another not 'scientific proof' that the one had something to do with the other?

how, exactly, is a causal relation between one thing and another not 'scientific proof' that the one had something to do with the other?

I learned to tie my shoe the first day the ozone hole got smaller. Therefore my learning to tie my shoe solved the ozone problem.

I learned to tie my shoe the first day the ozone hole got smaller. Therefore my learning to tie my shoe solved the ozone problem.

except that there is no causal relationship between those two things. perhaps you didn't mean to say 'causal' before?

also, which part(s) do you dispute?
a) the interactions between CFCs and ozone
b) the quantity and sources of CFCs in the atmosphere
c) the relationship between ozone and UV
d) the biological effects of UV radiation

e) that the amounts of CFCs released were capable of affecting the ozone in any real way period.

These are the facts on global Warming, yes it exists, but if its caused by humanity is still completely uncertain.


Oh really?

"The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."

"In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

"We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."

"The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”


Some people argue that even if Humanity devoted every ounce of resources it could possibly muster, even that would be such an insignificant addition to the atmosphere that you couldnt artificially raise the temp of the planet a degree no matter how hard you tried.

Climate change is happening. It's the consensus of the scientific community.

Hell, even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists says they are divided... and there are vested interests aplenty... and even they only really question the extent...

e) that the amounts of CFCs released were capable of affecting the ozone in any real way period.

so a and b then. on what grounds? just how much ozone do you think there is and what amount of CFCs would be needed to impact it?

so a and b then. on what grounds? just how much ozone do you think there is and what amount of CFCs would be needed to impact it?

Its not what i think, its does anyone know? The answer is no. And if you find someone who thinks they know id love to see thier data.

Remember,the 1970s scientists had all sorts of projections and data that said no more oil by 2000. I require fairly conclusive proofs as i try not to be a sucker to fear mongering.

Its not what i think, its does anyone know? The answer is no.

given that i know how the reaction works and can do the math that shows that we ought expect pretty much the effect we see, i think this may be a problem on your end

e) that the amounts of CFCs released were capable of affecting the ozone in any real way period.

Wow. When you pick a lost cause you really commit, don't you?

High volumes of ambient CFC's were confirmed in the early 70's... and though the correlation wasn't immediately identified, it WAS identified by the mid-to-late 70's.

That puts you 30 years behind the rest of the world.

If this proof exists then thats fine by me. I dont know everything.

Well i could get into it but to stay on point that particular example isnt the focus, there are certianly no shortage of good examples to prove how easily humans buy into doom and gloom and world destruction stories. I was reading in the NYTimes how humans only have the ability to perceive when someone is lying to them 54% of the time, and it was suggested that if it was a skill necessary for survival, we would evolutionarily be better at it and in fact it may show in some way that humans like to be lied to. Hence the humans interest in storytellers (and television) thru history. Humans are drama freaks and will drink the grape koolaid repeatedly.

Cute, but nonsensical - since the scientific community isn't subject to the same kind of koolaid as the lay public.

You want to appeal to scientists, look at the evidence.

If this proof exists then thats fine by me.

Then why are you arguing about it?

Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina showed the connection in 1974. You are braying on about confirmed chemistry.

Doesn't that actually make you want to rethink your position on all these issues? Since you are kind of admitting to being way out of your depth here...

If this proof exists then thats fine by me. I dont know everything.

so was this whole thing just an argument from personal ignorance - "i don't know, therefore nobody does"?

some light reading (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Stratospheric_Ozone_Depletion_by_Chlorofluorocarbons_(Nobel_Lecture))

Then why are you arguing about it?

Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina showed the connection in 1974. You are braying on about confirmed chemistry.

Doesn't that actually make you want to rethink your position on all these issues? Since you are kind of admitting to being way out of your depth here...

No it means im a rational person who when he sees evidence he is wrong he believes it. Sorry my bad.

No it means im a rational person who when he sees evidence he is wrong he believes it. Sorry my bad.

And that's not the point. The point isn't that you were wrong on CFCs. The point is that SEEING that you were wrong, what does that do to your position on the collective concept of environmental science?

Am I expecting to see you denying global climate change?

And that's not the point. The point isn't that you were wrong on CFCs. The point is that SEEING that you were wrong, what does that do to your position on the collective concept of environmental science?

Am I expecting to see you denying global climate change?

Climate change seems apparent, the cause does not.

Climate change seems apparent, the cause does not.

Casting back just a page, (on my browser), the consensus of the scientific community (hence - not talking about 'koolaid', but talking about people who deal in data) is pretty clearly contrary to that argument.

What (immediately?) happened to your 'rational person' character?

Casting back just a page, (on my browser), the consensus of the scientific community (hence - not talking about 'koolaid', but talking about people who deal in data) is pretty clearly contrary to that argument.

What (immediately?) happened to your 'rational person' character?

And if i quoted you computer scientist after computer scientist who all agreed as a scientific community citing how there will be a great big expensive computer collapse at midnight on Jan 1st 2000?

And if i quoted you computer scientist after computer scientist who all agreed as a scientific community citing how there will be a great big expensive computer collapse at midnight on Jan 1st 2000?

The problem with that little anecdote... there was a Y2k bug. More to the point - the exact same fault that caused Y2k problems... just crashed thousands of Zunes. Real problem.

You're comparing a real, confirmed problem which had real, confirmed causes... to something you're denying. How do you reconcile that?

(Also, worth mentioning - the big fuss about Y2K was not over whether the bug existed. The excitement was over the RISK that clocks wouldn't turn over... and when you're dealing with complex iterations, delicate data, and big money, you HAVE TO mitigate the risks.

No it means im a rational person who when he sees evidence he is wrong he believes it. Sorry my bad.

The problem here is that you didn't actually see any evidence. When presented with an argument you backed down admitting you don't actually have the first clue what you're talking about.

The problem isn't that the evidence doesn't exist. The problem is that you don't appear to have the necessary background to understand it.

I mean, you just compared the situation to a very real problem that was only averted because people took real steps to correct it. The Y2K would have cost TRILLIONS of dollars had companies not paid a lot of programmers to fix their code. There was certainly some The Day After Tomorrow level dramatizing of that bug, but the exitence of the bug and the benefit of the coordinated reaction the world over is well-documented and pretty much universally accepted.

In 06 the United Nation completed a very long and extensive study. They used scientist from all around the world and had checks and balances to make sure nothing got out of hand and it was a near 50-50 vote. Half the climate specialists said it is human wrong doing and the other 50 percent said it is a cycle and humans have no effect.

In 06 the United Nation completed a very long and extensive study. They used scientist from all around the world and had checks and balances to make sure nothing got out of hand and it was a near 50-50 vote. Half the climate specialists said it is human wrong doing and the other 50 percent said it is a cycle and humans have no effect.

It was not nearly as close as you make it seem.

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

Evolution has only proved that things evolve. It has no more evidence than religions do about the start.

Evolution has only proved that things evolve. It has no more evidence than religions do about the start.

The purpose of the theory of evolution is not to determine such a thing.

It was not nearly as close as you make it seem.

It was very close. They all agreed that it is warming, but they had a huge divide in why. Especially when you consider that climate change like Al Gore preaches is being taught like fact in academia.

It was very close. They all agreed that it is warming, but they had a huge divide in why. Especially when you consider that climate change like Al Gore preaches is being taught like fact in academia.

Taught by who and to whom?

I mean, you just compared the situation to a very real problem that was only averted because people took real steps to correct it. The Y2K would have cost TRILLIONS of dollars had companies not paid a lot of programmers to fix their code. There was certainly some The Day After Tomorrow level dramatizing of that bug, but the exitence of the bug and the benefit of the coordinated reaction the world over is well-documented and pretty much universally accepted.

First: They did spend trillions of dollars INCASE there was one. There ended up being no problem. Many things on personal computers were not updated and they had no effect.

Second: I challenge you, (since you have the deep understanding of things) to read the study http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm. I am not saying that I agree with it, but I do not have the background to say wether it is true or not. In my opinion they make a much more compelling case that Gore does in his movie or book. Beings that you do understand at the deep levels please break it down for me.

Taught by who and to whom?

There are entire courses in college now dedicated to the human effect on climate change. Most science teachers and their students adamantly believe in the Gore version of climate change.

I was a college recruiter for campaigns and I got to meet many of those people all over.

The purpose of the theory of evolution is not to determine such a thing.

Agreed it was not. But, it has been turned into that.

Agreed it was not. But, it has been turned into that.
I've never seen anyone try to use it [the theory of evolution] that way [to explain the origins or beginning of life] except IDers/creationists.

Also, a course on human impact on climate does not necessarily guarantee a conclusion as to human impact on climate. If, as you say, the issue is not settled, then why wouldn't there be whole courses about it? And if Al Gore's position is the most famous, why would that not make for a good course title and starting point for study?

First: They did spend trillions of dollars INCASE there was one.

Well. 300 billion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/586938.stm), but what's an order of magnitude here or there?

In 06 the United Nation completed a very long and extensive study. They used scientist from all around the world and had checks and balances to make sure nothing got out of hand and it was a near 50-50 vote. Half the climate specialists said it is human wrong doing and the other 50 percent said it is a cycle and humans have no effect.

I'd rather like to see a link to a source for this claim.

Purdy please?

There are entire courses in college now dedicated to the human effect on climate change. Most science teachers and their students adamantly believe in the Gore version of climate change.

I was a college recruiter for campaigns and I got to meet many of those people all over.

I'd rather like to see a source for this, also.

(I know, when I was at college, climate change didn't even get a credit hour of coverage).

First: They did spend trillions of dollars INCASE there was one. There ended up being no problem. Many things on personal computers were not updated and they had no effect.

Bullshit. There was an effect. You clearly don't understand how data works.

So you're telling me thta if you had your code set up to presume that if you encounter a year that the first two digits are 19, that you'd not have an issue when the first two digits aren't? Are you under the impression that it wouldn't be a regulatory problem if you pulled up data that said it was collect in 1901 when it was collected in 2001? If you are, you'd be wrong.

EDIT: For the record, this is just meant to be a simple example. The Y2K bug was due to improper assumptions in data storage, data processing algorithms, user interfaces and reporting. There are a million little examples and several huge examples of how it was a problem, but I chose to demonstrate a rather obvious and simple one since it's pretty clear that a person who thought there was "no problem" got their information from headlines and movies.

Second: I challenge you, (since you have the deep understanding of things) to read the study http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm. I am not saying that I agree with it, but I do not have the background to say wether it is true or not. In my opinion they make a much more compelling case that Gore does in his movie or book. Beings that you do understand at the deep levels please break it down for me.

So, wait, you want me to read a study you don't agree with or understand? And this study you don't agree with or understand is more compelling than a movie meant to draw attention to the issue in an entertaining way? You realize you shouldn't compare a study to a lecture, right?

Agreed it was not. But, it has been turned into that.

Only by people who don't have the first clue what they're talking about.

I call bullshit on your entire persona. Seriously, you can't be intimately familiar with any one of these topics and think any of the things you've said are true. In fact, you can't even be passingly familiar.

I'd rather like to see a source for this, also.

(I know, when I was at college, climate change didn't even get a credit hour of coverage).

There are classes on GCC. They touch upon the human effect. And in such classes, he facts are presented, opinions are given, and ones own mind can be made up.