NationStates Jolt Archive

Still another report that undermines the “man-made global warming” panic and supports the idea that the earth is undergoing natural climate shifts:

http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html


"The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."

The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.

Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

Dr. Tsonis’ home page with CV:

http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/

Global-warming true believers take note: Dr. Tsonis is a distinguished meteorologist.

He's not Al Gore, so forget it.

Tsonis has also done significant research in the area of global climate change. His major question has been, "How much of this change is natural variability and how much is man-made?"

Recently, his research team discovered a new mechanism in climate that can account for all the major temperature shifts in the 20th century. Based on this work, Tsonis's team has been able to make a calculation of the effects of human activities on global temperature.
http://www.graduateschool.uwm.edu/research/spectrum/distinguished-professors/anastasios-tsonis/

Its interesting, but I'd have to see further research by people as smart in the field to clarify/confirm. As with all research, one study does not a conclusion draw. And I am always skeptical when people claim to have found a new mechanism that can account for all of anything. Too convenient for my liking.

http://www.graduateschool.uwm.edu/research/spectrum/distinguished-professors/anastasios-tsonis/

Its interesting, but I'd have to see further research by people as smart in the field to clarify/confirm. As with all research, one study does not a conclusion draw. And I am always skeptical when people claim to have found a new mechanism that can account for all of anything. Too convenient for my liking.

Fair enough. Just remember that Tsonis' study isn't the only one to challenge the Algore scenario, only one of the most recent.

What if I want a warm globe? A nice warm damp globe with lots of mud.

*plots to release more CO2*

What if I want a warm globe? A nice warm damp globe with lots of mud.

*plots to release more CO2*

What if you want it warm enough so that I walk around naked all day long? :p

Fair enough. Just remember that Tsonis' study isn't the only one to challenge the Algore scenario, only one of the most recent.
I would say that I'd need Tsonis' study itself to judge, but obviously this level of climatology would go way above my head. I am under the impression that the study itself has not even been released yet, so I think Tsonis is tooting his own horn a little too much, which I understand (research grants and all that) but don't appreciate. His publicity-seeking behavior reminds me of a politician more than a scientist.

Once the study is released and other climatologists have interpreted it for me, I will call him the Messiah or a hack.

What if you want it warm enough so that I walk around naked all day long? :p

Public nudity really should be reserved for when nobody is expecting it. *nod*

Global-warming true believers take note: Dr. Tsonis is a distinguished meteorologist.
Distinguished might be pushing it.

Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126955.400-north-atlantic-is-worlds-climate-superpower.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=climate-change) is a related article which doesn't confuse climate and weather in the first sentence.

And is Dr. Tsonis' study even out yet?

EDIT: And what are you claiming here, Mittani? Because Tsonis doesn't seem to be denying that humans can have an effect on the environment, rather he seems to be suggesting that humans perhaps have less of an impact than the majority of the scientific community think.

Which doesn't support your (presumed) notion that all human-effected climate change is bunkum, and certainly doesn't support your further claim, if I remember correctly, that there is a conspiracy afoot, headed, somehow, by Al Gore.

true believers

I LOL'ed at this coming from you. :D

Fair enough. Just remember that Tsonis' study isn't the only one to challenge the Algore scenario, only one of the most recent.

Its the only one by someone actually in the field, however.

Conisder also the study hasnt been released yet, and the writer not knowing the difference between climate and weather.

Besides, the article doesnt say it isnt man made. Its just saying there is some stuff we dont understand. And there is apparently a lot you dont understand.

I'd rather the world believe in global warming so we can speed up the development of green technology (because it's cool).

seriously guys... does it really matter what the cause is? we are dirtying up where we are living... making it a hostile to human environment. who cares if climate change is natural or man made. we should be cutting back on pollution because it is slowly killing us.

I don't care what the cause is, I support green efforts because we are basically slobs at this point!

I always wonder...

A large group of people with...erm...a vested ideological interest were the ones a few years back screaming about how global climate change isnt happening.

They were proven wrong.

That same group is now howling about how it isnt man made.

You were wrong last time. Why should we believe you this time?

seriously guys... does it really matter what the cause is? we are dirtying up where we are living... making it a hostile to human environment. who cares if climate change is natural or man made. we should be cutting back on pollution because it is slowly killing us.

I don't care what the cause is, I support green efforts because we are basically slobs at this point!

Amen.

meh another one of these threads.

I'd rather the world believe in global warming so we can speed up the development of green technology (because it's cool).I agree :)

And it doesn't really matter how much of the warming is man made. Fact is that we are throwing so much CO2 in the atmosphere that we are disbalancing the system, which is dangerous and not desirable.

seriously guys... does it really matter what the cause is? we are dirtying up where we are living... making it a hostile to human environment. who cares if climate change is natural or man made. we should be cutting back on pollution because it is slowly killing us.

I don't care what the cause is, I support green efforts because we are basically slobs at this point!
Sure, the best reason for doing something is that it's the smart thing to do. But common sense doesn't work on either side of the argument. I want renewable because it IS renewable. I want clean because I LIKE the way unspoiled nature looks and smells. I don't mind paying a little more for things like this, but I'll be damned if I want this rammed down my throat because a few scientists and politicians think it's a good idea.

...but I'll be damned if I want this rammed down my throat because a few scientists and politicians think it's a good idea.
Leaving politicians aside, it's more than "a few scientists" thinking it's "a good idea".

It's the vast majority of the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) arguing that it is a scientific fact.

As G&D says, we've been over this a billion times on here.

I'd rather the world believe in global warming so we can speed up the development of green technology (because it's cool).

And you sir, are a moron.

If only to reduce western dependence on oil, of which we have few natural reserves, I would advocate the development of "green" energy and fuel, however, it must be pursued for appropriate reasons; not because it's "cool".

On a tangential, and somewhat flippant note, there is the fact that in order to determine the validity of the man-made climate change thesis, an experiment is required; since the only suitable experiment would involve the earth, and the consequences would be deleterious, I suspect measures should be taken to counter fossil fuel use.

Conisder also the study hasnt been released yet, and the writer not knowing the difference between climate and weather.
NM mixed the two up, I doubt Dr. Tsonis would. Considering he is a rather renowned climatologist.

And you sir, are a moron.

If only to reduce western dependence on oil, of which we have few natural reserves, I would advocate the development of "green" energy and fuel, however, it must be pursued for appropriate reasons; not because it's "cool".

On a tangential, and somewhat flippant note, there is the fact that in order to determine the validity of the man-made climate change thesis, an experiment is required; since the only suitable experiment would involve the earth, and the consequences would be deleterious, I suspect measures should be taken to counter fossil fuel use.
^
I second this.

Why yes, let's stop making decisions, seeing as we're never 100% certain what the results will be.

That's probably the worst possible argument for anarchy.

He... he said that...

Oh, nevermind.

Why yes, let's stop making decisions, seeing as we're never 100% certain what the results will be.

That's probably the worst possible argument for anarchy.
Did you not read a word he said?

"Let's not run the experiments to find out what exactly is causing global warming, because in the long run, it's better, and, quite frankly, the experiment could end up killing us."

So you mean, if I posted something from a distinguished meteorologist who has evidence FOR man made global warming, you'll take it as fact? Or do we just pick and choose evidence?

Owkay.

:$

Sincere apologies.

I will shut up now.

Still another report that undermines the “man-made global warming” panic and supports the idea that the earth is undergoing natural climate shifts:

http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html

Dr. Tsonis’ home page with CV:

http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/

Global-warming true believers take note: Dr. Tsonis is a distinguished meteorologist.

What about his paper? A news blip is hardly damning. I recognize the name so I would be interested in his paper. Let's see if trusty google has it somewhere.....

NM you fool, can't you tell this guy has been paid billions of dollars by oil companies to lie? Just like thousands of other scientists.

Obviously the true culprit of Global Climate Change is the unholy fire that constantly radiates from the Eye of Sauron hovering over the White House:

http://www.hitokiri.com/blog/archives/images/eyeofsauron.jpg

What about his paper? A news blip is hardly damning. I recognize the name so I would be interested in his paper. Let's see if trusty google has it somewhere.....
Sure, but the statement, "But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there..." has a real ring of common sense to it.

The better question is what happens when the trend reverses again? If humans are contributing to GW, then we'll probably be quite uncomfortable because the effects of another 30-40 years' worth of emissions will have built up during the lull in the storm...we should see this as an opportunity to take preventative measures, not foolishly squander it out of myopia.

Sure, but the statement, "But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there..." has a real ring of common sense to it.

That was a wise place to snip. Unfortunately, what follows it:

""But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural"

...completey undoes any semblence of sensibility.

If we don't fully understand the mechanisms or the contributions to the variability, a claim like "changes...were all natural" is either pandering, or just stupid.

Based on the quotes being attributed to Tsonis, in this article, my hopes aren't high for the actual paper.

NM you fool, can't you tell this guy has been paid billions of dollars by oil companies to lie? Just like thousands of other scientists.

Thousands of other scientists? What thousands?


Besides, even if your 100% pure bullshit claim were true, its not that hard to believe. The tobacco companies employ thousands of scientists to peddle their agenda as well.

Or are they legit now too?

Thousands of other scientists? What thousands?


Besides, even if your 100% pure bullshit claim were true, its not that hard to believe. The tobacco companies employ thousands of scientists to peddle their agenda as well.

Or are they legit now too?

The funny thing is - whenever these threads come up (or the same discussion comes up on Fox 'News' or something), there's a certain 'conspiracy theory' about how the science community is somehow conspiring about, and making some kind of profit out of, the whole 'global climate change agenda'.

NSG seems to have a higher-than-average ratio of scientists per capita, even some of us within environmental fields, and yet none of us seem to have been informed about this secret cabal we're supposed to be allied to... and we certainly don't seem to be party to this alleged stream of cold hard lucre.

Obviously the true culprit of Global Climate Change is the unholy fire that constantly radiates from the Eye of Sauron hovering over the White House:

you sure it's not all the HOT AIR that being Generated by each nation's government?

you sure it's not all the HOT AIR that being Generated by each nation's government?

Bureaucracy is the only system that naturally loses no energy through processes.

Bureaucracy is the only system that naturally loses no energy through processes.

perpetual energy... to bad it's in a form that we cannot use. :(

I have no stance on this either way, so I'll just throw in this semi-amusing picture.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-global-warming-polar-bear.jpg

Key Messages from the Congress

12 March 2009

Copenhagen, Denmark: Following a successful International Scientific Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, preliminary messages from the findings were delivered by the Congress' Scientific Writing Team. The conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009. The conclusions were handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. The Danish Government will host the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 and will hand over the conclusions to the decision makers ahead of the Conference.

The six preliminary key messages are:

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

Key Message 2: Social disruption

The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on "dangerous climate change". Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2C will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy

Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid "dangerous climate change" regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions

Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable

There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, management ? to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge

To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

About the congress

The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change is taking place in Copenhagen 10 - 12 March. More than 2,000 participants are registered. The congress has received almost 1,600 scientific contributions from researchers from more than 70 countries. The preliminary conclusions from the congress will be presented Thursday 12 March at the closing session of the congress and will be developed in a synthesis report to be published in June this year. The synthesis report will be handed over to all participants at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in December in Copenhagen by the Danish Government. It is organized by International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU):

* Australian National University
* ETH Zürich
* National University of Singapore
* Peking University
* University of California, Berkeley
* University of Cambridge
* University of Copenhagen
* University of Oxford
* University of Tokyo
* Yale University

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/

New data was presented in Copenhagen on sea level rise, which indicated that the best estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made two years ago were woefully out of date.

Scientists heard that waters could rise by over a metre across the world with huge impacts for hundreds of millions of people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7940532.stm

The risk of Earth's climate hitting a dangerous inflection point in the next two centuries is about as likely as a coin flipping on heads, according to a survey of 52 climate experts from around the world.

Elmar Kriegler of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a team of researchers conducted the poll to assess how concerned climate scientists were about the likelihood that human-induced climate change will lead to five 'tipping point' scenarios. From the melting of Greenland's ice sheet to permanently warm El Nino conditions in the Pacific Ocean, any of the five holds potentially devastating consequences for human civilization.

"These events are really massive changes to components of the Earth system," Kreigler said. "But what we found is scientists do not consider them to be low-probability events."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/16/climate-tipping-point.html


I'm wondering if it's the Copenhagen Congress that prompted the making of this thread, somehow...

The funny thing is - whenever these threads come up (or the same discussion comes up on Fox 'News' or something), there's a certain 'conspiracy theory' about how the science community is somehow conspiring about, and making some kind of profit out of, the whole 'global climate change agenda'.

NSG seems to have a higher-than-average ratio of scientists per capita, even some of us within environmental fields, and yet none of us seem to have been informed about this secret cabal we're supposed to be allied to... and we certainly don't seem to be party to this alleged stream of cold hard lucre.

Wait wait wait. I might have one!

*Opens letter*

Nope just a subscription renew

seriously guys... does it really matter what the cause is? we are dirtying up where we are living... making it a hostile to human environment. who cares if climate change is natural or man made. we should be cutting back on pollution because it is slowly killing us.

I don't care what the cause is, I support green efforts because we are basically slobs at this point!

causes tell us what does what. if we don't know the causes of some problem, it isn't clear to me that we can do better than guess about what to do in the face of it.

Wait wait wait. I might have one!

*Opens letter*

Nope just a subscription renew

I know! I'm waiting for my cut of this devious mastermind conspiracy, but all I keep getting is bills.

The "Secret Science Conspiracy For Maliciously Making Things More Environmentally Friendly" really sucks when it comes to coming across with the goods. And creating acronyms.

NSG seems to have a higher-than-average ratio of scientists per capita, even some of us within environmental fields, and yet none of us seem to have been informed about this secret cabal we're supposed to be allied to... and we certainly don't seem to be party to this alleged stream of cold hard lucre.

Or maybe that's just what you want us to think. ;)

Or maybe that's just what you want us to think. ;)

True. It could be a conspiracy within a conspiracy... but then, if you're not going to be able to spend the money, to preserve your image as the poor, un-conspiratorial honest scientist... what good is that money doing you exactly?

Since when is global warming ok if it is natural? It is still bad.

What about his paper? A news blip is hardly damning. I recognize the name so I would be interested in his paper. Let's see if trusty google has it somewhere.....
it would seem to be this one...

http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf

note that it is a PDF

but if it is, this paper is 2 years old so i dont see why it would be in the news now.

Since when is global warming ok if it is natural? It is still bad.

I believe the agenda is to dislocate the connection with any kind of anthropogenic production, and then use THAT as the thin end of a wedge to try to suggest that ANY climate change must be flawed - by association.

Sure, the best reason for doing something is that it's the smart thing to do. But common sense doesn't work on either side of the argument. I want renewable because it IS renewable. I want clean because I LIKE the way unspoiled nature looks and smells.

Listening to some of the deniers though, it sounds like green technology is toxic to them and they breathe from the chimney stacks of 19th century coal plants daily.

I believe the agenda is to dislocate the connection with any kind of anthropogenic production, and then use THAT as the thin end of a wedge to try to suggest that ANY climate change must be flawed - by association.

Id say the goal is more to make it seem like humans dont impact the environment at all (which is a fucking insane arguement) and to use that as a wedge to remove all environmental regulations and thus let corporations dump in oceans in order to save them money, thus increasing profit.

What if I want a warm globe? A nice warm damp globe with lots of mud.

*plots to release more CO2*

*shares tacos and baked beans to promote the production of other greenhouse gasses*

y'know, this would be interesting if NM actually had, y'know, a point which he was willing to debate.
As it is, all he does is take something out of context, reads into it what he wants to see, posts in on here trumpeting that it 'proves' Global Warming is a myth and then scurries off without bothering to feebly attempt to argue the rebuttals or even read them.

tbh, all these NM threads should be immediately consigned to the spam folder where they belong. He has no interest (or ability, as he is so close-minded to views contrary to his own) in debate or discussion. A thread without a point to discuss (or in this case - and every one of NM's GW threads, a thread where the poster refuses to discuss and disappears minutes after creating it) surely makes said thread spam, does it not?

I believe the agenda is to dislocate the connection with any kind of anthropogenic production, and then use THAT as the thin end of a wedge to try to suggest that ANY climate change must be flawed - by association.

It's more to avoid any responsibility to try to correct it. After all, if we try to combat climate change every man, woman and child will go bankrupt. Every single man, woman and child.

MILWAUKEE -- The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.
I cannot comprehend the idiocy required to see record setting weather and then question if the climate is changing.


OF COURSE IT'S CHANGING! THE WEATHER JUST SET A NEW FUCKING RECORD!
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj196/Paintblock/cupofrage.jpg

causes tell us what does what. if we don't know the causes of some problem, it isn't clear to me that we can do better than guess about what to do in the face of it.

ok, so tell me this.

we know automobiles produce a noxious gas, this includes coal and other fossil fuels used for powering our cities and homes, do we really need to know that those gasses may be/may not be contributing to Global warming to find alternative fuel sources?

we know that plastic and other garbage are slowly taking up too much land. land that could be used for other purposes, Should we find ways to recycle and reduce our garbage only if it's proven that it's contributing to Global warming?

Wait wait wait. I might have one!

*Opens letter*

Nope just a subscription renew

a subscription to... what exactly?

ok, so tell me this.

we know automobiles produce a noxious gas, this includes coal and other fossil fuels used for powering our cities and homes, do we really need to know that those gasses may be/may not be contributing to Global warming to find alternative fuel sources?

not necessarily - the price alone will drive it eventually, even without pricing the climate change externality. but we've already more-or-less fixed the air quality issues associated with those things. the ways you stop smog just do not actually address climate change.

we know that plastic and other garbage are slowly taking up too much land. land that could be used for other purposes, Should we find ways to recycle and reduce our garbage only if it's proven that it's contributing to Global warming?

climate change isn't the only environmental issue. the fact that we have to address it does not in any way imply that we must do so to the exclusion of all other concerns.

not necessarily - the price alone will drive it eventually, even without pricing the climate change externality. but we've already more-or-less fixed the air quality issues associated with those things. the ways you stop smog just do not actually address climate change. yet alot of cities still have overpolluted air. and as oil prices go down, so does support for alternative fuels.

climate change isn't the only environmental issue. the fact that we have to address it does not in any way imply that we must do so to the exclusion of all other concerns.
exactly. that's my point. why the bickering about 'see, global warming is/is not caused by humans' shouldn't be the focus.

yet alot of cities still have overpolluted air. and as oil prices go down, so does support for alternative fuels.

without the link between climate change and CO2 emissions, we could have factories that did nothing but pump out CO2 all day every day and nobody would ever notice the air as being 'over-polluted'. that's the problem. it's odorless, colorless, and has no effect on our respiration as long as there is still enough O2 around. it isn't a pollutant at all without the climate change aspect.

exactly. that's my point. why the bickering about 'see, global warming is/is not caused by humans' shouldn't be the focus.

because climate change is one of the biggies*, so figuring out what is causing it is sorta important.

* its all a big interrelated package of the big 5 in the environmental crisis - climate change, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and general over-exploitation

without the link between climate change and CO2 emissions, we could have factories that did nothing but pump out CO2 all day every day and nobody would ever notice the air as being 'over-polluted'. that's the problem. it's odorless, colorless, and has no effect on our respiration as long as there is still enough O2 around. it isn't a pollutant at all without the climate change aspect.



because climate change is one of the biggies*, so figuring out what is causing it is sorta important.

* its all a big interrelated package of the big 5 in the environmental crisis - climate change, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and general over-exploitation

then continue to argue who's fault it is. we can now that they are close to finding the causes of Global Warming... NOT!

People arguing that it's not humanity's fault, are not trying to find the cause of global warming, they are trying to out shout the other side who is saying nothing else but 'it's Humans that are causing it'.

what's being argued are not Causes, but who's to blame for it.

if the cause is natural, should we then halt all research into alternative and cleaner sources of energy? does it really matter who's to blame?

realize, I'm focusing on the argument about blame, not causes.

seriously guys... does it really matter what the cause is? we are dirtying up where we are living... making it a hostile to human environment. who cares if climate change is natural or man made. we should be cutting back on pollution because it is slowly killing us.

I don't care what the cause is, I support green efforts because we are basically slobs at this point!
Silly JuNii. Don't you know that everyone has a right to shit where they eat? And more than that! They have the right to shit where YOU eat!! Why do you hate freedom? :rolleyes:

Seriously, I am so sick of this "global warming is all a plot!!!" BS. Who cares one way or the other? There are a plenty of reasons that affect humans immediately and directly for reducing pollution. If doing so just happens to also have lasting good effects on the climate, all well and good -- just as you say.

then continue to argue who's fault it is. we can now that they are close to finding the causes of Global Warming... NOT!

People arguing that it's not humanity's fault, are not trying to find the cause of global warming, they are trying to out shout the other side who is saying nothing else but 'it's Humans that are causing it'.

no one yet knows what's causing it (other than greenhouse gasses) except what's being argued are not Causes, but who's to blame for it.

if the cause is natural, should we then halt all research into alternative and cleaner sources of energy? does it really matter who's to blame?

realize, I'm focusing on the argument about blame, not causes.

if our activities are the cause (and we know they are), then we are to blame. but if its all a mystery, blame doesn't fucking matter because you couldn't do anything about it anyway. that's the point. the reason why denialists are denialists is that they want to muddy the waters so we don't actually do anything.

to hammer on the point a bit more, we could literally clean up everything else we do, but without acknowledging the link between anthropogenic carbon emissions and climate change, we'd still fuck everything up. because we would keep pumping out carbon - it's 'clean', after all, so why stop? you fix problems. if carbon emissions are not recognized as problems, they will not be treated like problems.

if our activities are the cause (and we know they are), then we are to blame. but if its all a mystery, blame doesn't fucking matter because you couldn't do anything about it anyway. that's the point. the reason why denialists are denialists is that they want to muddy the waters so we don't actually do anything.

to hammer on the point a bit more, we could literally clean up everything else we do, but without acknowledging the link between anthropogenic carbon emissions and climate change, we'd still fuck everything up. because we would keep pumping out carbon - it's 'clean', after all, so why stop? you fix problems. if carbon emissions are not recognized as problems, they will not be treated like problems.
FS, do you understand that JuNii is pointing out that climate change is not the ONLY problem associated with carbon emissions that should motivate us to reduce them?

You yourself agreed to as much in an earlier post. Yes, obviously, climate change is a serious problem and anything we can do that could possibly have a positive effect on it should be done. But there are also significant public health issues -- involving cancers, birth defects, expensive chronic illnesses, etc -- that should also motivate us to do all the things that are also listed as good for reducing global warming.

Considering that the denialist arguments are not aimed merely at questioning whether humans cause climate change or not, but rather at blocking any and all environmental regulation on industry, I think there is a valid argument to be made that climate change maybe shouldn't be the core of the environmental debate. Yes, it is big and dramatic, what with the floods and droughts and storms and all. But it is unproven, whereas we know for a fact that the same industrial pollution that might drive warming most certainly does cause cancer, lung disease, heart disease, birth defects, etc.

Do I think denialists are full of crap? Certainly. But because there are so many variables to argue over, they can hang up action on environmental law/regulations for decades with their quibbles. Let's see them try this shit on babies with brain tumors.

FS, do you understand that JuNii is pointing out that climate change is not the ONLY problem associated with carbon emissions that should motivate us to reduce them?

You yourself agreed to as much in an earlier post. Yes, obviously, climate change is a serious problem and anything we can do that could possibly have a positive effect on it should be done. But there are also significant public health issues -- involving cancers, birth defects, expensive chronic illnesses, etc -- that should also motivate us to do all the things that are also listed as good for reducing global warming.

none of those are related to CO2. that's the point. carbon dioxide emissions are only a problem in light of climate change. that is literally all that is wrong with them. they don't make smog, they don't cause cancer, they don't cause birth defects. unless you are in a place where the concentration of CO2 is displacing the oxygen, you don't get any significant lasting effects at all.

edit: i guess you might get some mildly more acidic rain out of it at high enough concentration. but that's really stretching it - the climate shift would have gone catastrophic already by that point. the other thing is acidification of the ocean, but that also isn't exactly a clear and present danger to human health.

As G&D says, we've been over this a billion times on here.Yeah, but THIS time it'll be different.
A single blade of grass, 'n such.

Still another report that undermines the “man-made global warming” panic and supports the idea that the earth is undergoing natural climate shifts:


Yay! It's natural, so let's add more heat and more pollution!
:rolleyes:

whereas we know for a fact that the same industrial pollution that might drive warming most certainly does cause cancer, lung disease, heart disease, birth defects, etc.


Deniers usually try to deny this too. And then dump more of the same in the environment in pursuit of the great god Money. Remember that blurb some time back about Bush lowering all sorts of environmental standards like acceptable amounts of lead in water just before he got kicked out of office?

Do I think denialists are full of crap? Certainly. But because there are so many variables to argue over, they can hang up action on environmental law/regulations for decades with their quibbles. Let's see them try this shit on babies with brain tumors.

Been there, done that.

I know! I'm waiting for my cut of this devious mastermind conspiracy, but all I keep getting is bills.

The "Secret Science Conspiracy For Maliciously Making Things More Environmentally Friendly" really sucks when it comes to coming across with the goods. And creating acronyms.

Secret Conspiracy Intensifying Environmentalism and Non-Christian Evolution

Though seriously do people think that evidence for natural climate change somehow means that there cannot be climate change caused by us as well?

Been there, done that.

more importantly, we're still there and they're still doing it.

Secret Conspiracy Intensifying Environmentalism and Non-Christian Evolution

Though seriously do people think that evidence for natural climate change somehow means that there cannot be climate change caused by us as well?

There seem to be quite a few people nowadays who don't believe that natural climate change is possible at all, despite 4 billion years of evidence to the contrary. To them, all climate change is man-made.

There seem to be quite a few people nowadays who don't believe that natural climate change is possible at all, despite 4 billion years of evidence to the contrary. To them, all climate change is man-made.

names, links, publications, reasons why we should care?

There seem to be quite a few people nowadays who don't believe that natural climate change is possible at all, despite 4 billion years of evidence to the contrary. To them, all climate change is man-made.

I don't think I have ever seen someone saying there is no natural climate change at all.

I don't think I have ever seen someone saying there is no natural climate change at all.

well, there are still people who think it is impossible for humans to change the environment. there presumably must be some at the opposite extreme. but then again, there are people that are convinced their ham sandwich is telling them to kill everyone wearing yellow.

I don't think I have ever seen someone saying there is no natural climate change at all.

Typically, if you're arguing about climate change, and mention that sometimes climate change is natural, you get one of several responses from the lay person.

1. "You don't understand the difference between climate and weather".
2. "All climate change is man-made."

Note that I'm talking about lay people, not researchers.

Even if a person is stubborn enough to deny the effect that fossil fuels are having a warming effect climate, what possible reason could anyone have to oppose measures to reduce their usage? Do people actually prefer the current and more obvious problems that fossil fuels cause?

Even if a person is stubborn enough to deny the effect that fossil fuels are having a warming effect climate, what possible reason could anyone have to oppose measures to reduce their usage? Do people actually prefer the current and more obvious problems that fossil fuels cause?

they're cheap and easy, and their non-climate change problems can be solved via comparatively minor technical fixes. inertia is its own reason.

also, they make some people lots and lots of money.

they're cheap and easy, and their non-climate change problems can be solved via comparatively minor technical fixes. inertia is its own reason.

also, they make some people lots and lots of money.

Well, I wouldn't describe the global security problems that fossil fuel use encourages as being solvable with a minor technical fix...

EDIT: also, NM doesn't strike me as the sort of person with a personal stake in the continued use of fossil fuels or someone particularly concerned with a cheap source of fuel. There are many more like him. Whats their motive?

Well, I wouldn't describe the global security problems that fossil fuel use encourages as being solvable with a minor technical fix...

everything has issues with 'global security'. resources aren't distributed evenly and almost everything we use is made with stuff from elsewhere.

also, NM doesn't strike me as the sort of person with a personal stake in the continued use of fossil fuels or someone particularly concerned with a cheap source of fuel. There are many more like him. Whats their motive?

could be any of a number of things. some people are genuinely ignorant, some are willfully ignorant for personal or political reasons, some people are stupid, and some people just get off on licking the boots of the powerful.

everything has issues 'global security'. resources aren't distributed evenly and almost everything we use is made with stuff from elsewhere.

Of course, but I am referring to the present security issues that the current use of fossil fuels causes. I would say that at present the trade and control of fossil fuels leads to more disputes than any other resource in the world. Would we experience problems on this level if locally generated renewable enrgy was used, or fissile materials were purchased from countries like Canada and Australia?

could be any of a number of things. some people are genuinely ignorant, some are willfully ignorant for personal or political reasons, some people are stupid, and some people just get off on licking the boots of the powerful.

Maybe I should spend less time looking for a good reason for people's actions.

Secret Conspiracy Intensifying Environmentalism and Non-Christian Evolution

Though seriously do people think that evidence for natural climate change somehow means that there cannot be climate change caused by us as well?

Some people certainly seem to want OTHERS to believe it.

There seem to be quite a few people nowadays who don't believe that natural climate change is possible at all, despite 4 billion years of evidence to the contrary. To them, all climate change is man-made.

I have never encountered anyone, ever, claiming that all climate change is man-made.

Typically, if you're arguing about climate change, and mention that sometimes climate change is natural, you get one of several responses from the lay person.

1. "You don't understand the difference between climate and weather".
2. "All climate change is man-made."

Note that I'm talking about lay people, not researchers.

I've encountered that first response (which is often true), and have never encountered the second - in professionals, OR in lay-persons.

Even if a person is stubborn enough to deny the effect that fossil fuels are having a warming effect climate, what possible reason could anyone have to oppose measures to reduce their usage? Do people actually prefer the current and more obvious problems that fossil fuels cause?

Those who are financed by the extraction, processing, (etc) of fossil fuels, probably do.