or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 7

post #241 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post

Think small, Frank. Stay as you are. Otherwise look it up. Find the link yourself. You might find out who the fools will be a couple years from now.

Right, AH!

Ice age my ASS!

Tell that to the North Pole!

Oh, I see, the US postal service was ~33 YEARS LATE in delivering your Time magazine; Another Ice Age?

Nice to see you stay up on current events!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #242 of 440
Hey, it looks like it's time for another round of Global Warming Skeptic Bingo!

It's a convenient way to keep your bogus caveats straight (and there really seem to be just the same few, endlessly recycled by linking to the the site that links to the site that links to that guy that like totally refutes everything the global warming hysterics are saying!) while having some fun.

It also helps that each bingo square has a handy link to facts and shit, not that those old things will persuade any of our brave, iconoclastic, hippy hating science virgins with opinions.

You'll note that the Bingo square does a strangely thorough job of covering pretty much all the arguments against the science of global warming presented here in this very thread.

It's almost as if all the self-styled "skeptics" were drawing from the same limited check list of tortured misinterpretations, flat out lies, mangled science, and calculated mischaracterizations of what is actually being said and written by actual climate scientists. And then it's if they are obliged to go forth and make their case as best they can, armed with the talking points and pretty much no understanding whatsoever of the underlying science, leading to some amusingly convoluted threads on internet sites.

Nah, couldn't be.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #243 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So...you're basically agreeing.


Nope! The effects of the moon and the earth's rotation such yes.

I guess it's that reading comprehension again!

Get real!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #244 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

Do we know that for sure? Has it been studied enough to know if there can be short term spikes in changes?


Well I do know they have studied these effects on other planets. Venus has a very slow rotation and no magnetic field. This is part of the greenhouse effect on this planet but it takes millions of years to take effect. Where as pumping stuff into the air is a lot more direct.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #245 of 440
You just never know who you will agree with when you are not tied to a party or the wonderful left - right paradigm.

In this thread I am in agreement with the findings of MaxParrish and Frank777. It seems that many here are holding on to emotional and propaganda fed information that the media and "science" classes have fed them for years and years.

This being said I do not subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh hate language of "environmentalist whackos" or any kind of idea whereby it is "ok" to just consume huge amounts of fossil fuels without any respect given to the idea of energy conservation efforts.

I believe we need to conserve energy in a smart way.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #246 of 440
You are a hoot, Fellows.


General Trend in the world:
"Oh, dear, the scientists say something I don't like. They must be wrong wrong wrong."
*enter tantrum mode*
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #247 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

You are a hoot, Fellows.


General Trend in the world:
"Oh, dear, the scientists say something I don't like. They must be wrong wrong wrong."
*enter tantrum mode*

No you are flat wrong I just pay attention to which "scientists" are getting all the funding to "say" a certain thing.

I think it is easier to pull teeth than to try to suggest to so many here to simply watch a film.

It is clear you have not seen the film in the "other" thread I started.

Get back to me when you have a chance to see it. Then we can talk.

Cheers,

fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #248 of 440
Thinking outside the cherry-picked data:

Keeping in mind that the unit of measure is ppmv (parts per million by volume), it is clear that CO2 is a very small portion of the atmosphere. Among the so called greenhouse gases, it is a very distant second to H2O. And yet, some people portray CO2 as if it had almost mythical powers of dominating climate around the globe.

While the atmospheric parts per million of CO2 have continually increased during recent decades, atmospheric temperatures have risen, and fallen, uninfluenced by any notions that some people may have about the powers of CO2. Atmospheric temperatures respond to realities, not myths.
post #249 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

No you are flat wrong I just pay attention to which "scientists" are getting all the funding to "say" a certain thing.

I think it is easier to pull teeth than to try to suggest to so many here to simply watch a film.

It is clear you have not seen the film in the "other" thread I started.

Get back to me when you have a chance to see it. Then we can talk.

Cheers,

fellows

Again, Fellows. I READ the SCIENCE.

That's right. There are these things called journals. Scientists submit their research to journals where they are peer reviewed. This data then gets published. I read these published reports. You don't. You watch propaganda films from political entities set up around this science. So I won't be watching your film. I refuse to stoop to your level which is uninformed and biased so easily by political winds.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #250 of 440
You are either with us...

or you are against us
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #251 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Again, Fellows. I READ the SCIENCE.

That's right. There are these things called journals. Scientists submit their research to journals where they are peer reviewed. This data then gets published. I read these published reports. You don't. You watch propaganda films from political entities set up around this science. So I won't be watching your film. I refuse to stoop to your level which is uninformed and biased so easily by political winds.


You are mistaken to call me uninformed. You refuse to to see another view and you are not scientific when you bash another who gives another scientific view.

You are narrow minded.

For those who do watch the film that contains the findings of actual scientists they will at least be informed.

You on the other hand can continue to be a know it all, ignorant and lazy and ridicule others who present another view.

Talk about a lazy way of life.


Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #252 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

You are mistaken to call me uninformed. You refuse to to see another view and you are not scientific when you bash another who gives another scientific view.

You are narrow minded.

For those who do watch the film that contains the findings of actual scientists they will at least be informed.

You on the other hand can continue to be a know it all, ignorant and lazy and ridicule others who present another view.

Talk about a lazy way of life.


Fellows

You are a fool, Fellows.

Just because I have read all of the scientific views and have decided based upon the pantheon of evidence for and against doesn't mean I have to agree with you. In fact, I probably have read more primary literature and know more about the field than you do just based upon the fact that I am not limited to two films on the subject.

It is laughable that you call me lazy, when you won't even go out of your way to read actual science, and decide to get your information based upon two documentaries...

So fuck off, you ignoramous....
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #253 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

You are a fool, Fellows.


So fuck off, you ignoramous....

You are such a polite person.

I suppose you are very happy in life.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #254 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

You are a fool, Fellows.

Just because I have read all of the scientific views and have decided based upon the pantheon of evidence for and against doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

I never asked for you to agree with me nor would I.

I asked you to look at some differing views but you are a know it all and have a fixed opinion.

You are very polite also so I will just let you be.

God Bless

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #255 of 440
Hey, my Global Warming Skeptic Bingo link stopped working! OK, which one of you neanderthals broke it?

Anyway, if you didn't get a chance to see it, it really is very educational. For instance, I just got to check the "water vapor is much more prevalent than CO2 so how about that, huh?" box, just in the last dozen posts.

I'll work on fixing the link, it seems to be down on the server end. Very suspicious, I say. Probably the work of anti-eco terrorists.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #256 of 440
OK, so it works, it's just slow (make that "glacial") to load. Here's the link again.

Let's all print this out so we can play along at home, OK?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #257 of 440
Doesn't CO2 absorb infrared radiation much better than water vapor? I'm faily sure I read that even miniscule increases in CO2 have much more of an effect on keeping in warmth than any increase in H2O.
post #258 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I never asked for you to agree with me nor would I.

I asked you to look at some differing views but you are a know it all and have a fixed opinion.

You are very polite also so I will just let you be.

God Bless

Fellows

You started by suggesting that I was ignorant and lazy.

Do unto others and all that jazz...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #259 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Doesn't CO2 absorb infrared radiation much better than water vapor? I'm faily sure I read that even miniscule increases in CO2 have much more of an effect on keeping in warmth than any increase in H2O.

No.

CO2 is actually a lesser warming gas than water*, but CO2 sinks (read trees) operate on a much slower time scale than water sinks (read clouds and oceans).

*CO2 is a linear molecule it has few asymetric bending modes which are required for absorption of infared light. H2O (water) is already asymetric, most of it's bending modes are asymetric.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #260 of 440
I think that it should also be pointed out that things like water vapor and methane are already accounted for in the analysis. They are present, they do what they do, and they form part of the base-line background against which climate change is calculated.

When skeptics triumphally declare that plants account for some percentage of the methane in the atmosphere, it takes no account of the fact that this has been going on for a long, long time and if plant generate methane were in fact a significant factor in what we are talking about then Earth would have long ago become Venus .
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #261 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

You started by suggesting that I was ignorant and lazy.

Do unto others and all that jazz...

That might be the best argument I've ever seen on the internets. Following it with a phrase signifying the exact opposite is probably the best part.
post #262 of 440
Thanks, I guess... thuh Freak...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #263 of 440
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/St...035667,00.html

Strangely oil prices still went up a lot even there is not as much heating necessary. Regular gas in LA $ 3.35
post #264 of 440
" We can't be that stupid. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889856/

Oh yes we can.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #265 of 440
Charlie Rose lets Michael Crichton have it on this issue...

...here.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #266 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" We can't be that stupid. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889856/

Oh yes we can.

If you mean 'we can't be that stupid' to buy into fashonable 'green' hysteria ginned by much of the press, then yes we can - ergo, your link on an unpublished (and thus a speculative) characterization of a report.

Of course, these childish fears do have amusing aspects. At the same time as your link I was reading Yahoo News (Associated Press):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/...arctic_bonanza

============================

Riches await as Earth's icy north melts By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 24, 6:34 PM ET

"HAMMERFEST, Norway - Barren and uninhabited, Hans Island is very hard to find on a map. Yet these days the Frisbee-shaped rock in the Arctic is much in demand so much so that Canada and Denmark have both staked their claim to it with flags and warships.

The reason: an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes, accelerated by the impact of global warming on Earth's frozen north.

... It's a catastrophic scenario for the Arctic ecosystem, for polar bears and other wildlife, and for Inuit populations whose ancient cultures depend on frozen waters.

But some see a lucrative silver lining of riches waiting to be snatched from the deep, and the prospect of timesaving sea lanes that could transform the shipping industry the way the Suez Canal did in the 19th century.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Russia reportedly sees the potential of minerals in its slice of the Arctic sector approaching $2 trillion...."

Disaster from warming?
post #267 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

If you mean 'we can't be that stupid' to buy into fashonable 'green' hysteria ginned by much of the press, then yes we can - ergo, your link on an unpublished (and thus a speculative) characterization of a report.

Of course, these childish fears do have amusing aspects. At the same time as your link I was reading Yahoo News (Associated Press):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/...arctic_bonanza

============================

Riches await as Earth's icy north melts By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 24, 6:34 PM ET

"HAMMERFEST, Norway - Barren and uninhabited, Hans Island is very hard to find on a map. Yet these days the Frisbee-shaped rock in the Arctic is much in demand so much so that Canada and Denmark have both staked their claim to it with flags and warships.

The reason: an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes, accelerated by the impact of global warming on Earth's frozen north.

... It's a catastrophic scenario for the Arctic ecosystem, for polar bears and other wildlife, and for Inuit populations whose ancient cultures depend on frozen waters.

But some see a lucrative silver lining of riches waiting to be snatched from the deep, and the prospect of timesaving sea lanes that could transform the shipping industry the way the Suez Canal did in the 19th century.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Russia reportedly sees the potential of minerals in its slice of the Arctic sector approaching $2 trillion...."

Disaster from warming?

You realize of course by posting this you're admiting it's real?

Also what good will all that wealth be if we're starving to death?

Also the loss forever of several speices of plant and animal?

Gee thank you Dr. Parrish I feel so much better now!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #268 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

If you mean 'we can't be that stupid' to buy into fashonable 'green' hysteria ginned by much of the press, then yes we can - ergo, your link on an unpublished (and thus a speculative) characterization of a report.

Of course, these childish fears do have amusing aspects. At the same time as your link I was reading Yahoo News (Associated Press):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/...arctic_bonanza

============================

Riches await as Earth's icy north melts By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 24, 6:34 PM ET

"HAMMERFEST, Norway - Barren and uninhabited, Hans Island is very hard to find on a map. Yet these days the Frisbee-shaped rock in the Arctic is much in demand — so much so that Canada and Denmark have both staked their claim to it with flags and warships.

The reason: an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes, accelerated by the impact of global warming on Earth's frozen north.

... It's a catastrophic scenario for the Arctic ecosystem, for polar bears and other wildlife, and for Inuit populations whose ancient cultures depend on frozen waters.

But some see a lucrative silver lining of riches waiting to be snatched from the deep, and the prospect of timesaving sea lanes that could transform the shipping industry the way the Suez Canal did in the 19th century.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Russia reportedly sees the potential of minerals in its slice of the Arctic sector approaching $2 trillion...."

Disaster from warming?



The Sheep Albedo Feedback (2007) by Dr. Ewe Noh-Watt (AKA MaxParrish)
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #269 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Charlie Rose lets Michael Crichton have it on this issue...

...here.

Nice 2 month layoff, dmz.
post #270 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Nice 2 month layoff, dmz.

I know -- I recommend a good couple-month hiatus for everyone. I actually got my kitchen remodeled.

Here is a debate -- "Is Global Warming a Crisis?" -- that NPR covered; Crichton was one of the combatants.

Linkie.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #271 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You realize of course by posting this you're admitting it's real?

Hardly, I am pointing out that three governments in control of Arctic resources believe thawing is real and that warming will provide the world with vast new resources. The link you provided was just biased and hysterical axe-grinding, underscoring the thread's title.

Quote:
Also what good will all that wealth be if we're starving to death?

We won't be starving to death - we will be dead, as will our children and grandchildren. These dire predictions are about what will happen by 2100, based on a single speculative factor.

Rest assured, an estimate made by experts in 1907 on the World's projected population, farm employment, productivity, human wealth, and the world state of human food production by 2000 would likey have been just as amusingly short-sighted as your source's 2007 gloomy prediction on 2100.

Consider that in 1907 American farmers used iron plows pulled by horses and mules, dry farming was new, and gang plowing was an "innovation". Genetics, cross-breeding, etc. was a primitive science. 33 percent of the American population made a living in agriculture - and it took 1 farmer to support 2 others.

In 2000 only 3 percent of the population is in agriculture. Each farmer now grows enough food for 100 others. Scores of new hybrids, strains, and species of plant are in production - along with new variants in animal livestock. Giant combines and tractors, combined with plant science and new land uses have revolutionized agricultural production. And biotech crops are emerging while farmers use satellite technology to track and plan their farming.

So is there any reason to suppose the agricultural (and industrial) revolution that started in the 1700's won't continue to raise rates of productivity? Farm production in the year 2100 is likely to be as superior to current farming and production as 2000 farming is from the farming practices of 1907. Whatever differences a few degrees will make in impact is nothing compared to the prior challenges presented by the conquest of the great plains (the American Desert of extreme drought, cold, heat, and storms) and development of many fold productivity rates.

Quote:
Also the loss forever of several species of plant and animal?

Many times more plant and animal species have been lost in the last 3 centuries due to man's activities than will ever be attributed to the northern climate growing milder. Land use has forever transformed the world environmental ecology into a shadow of its former self: Europe has no virgin forests and is either farmland or urban centers. The U.S. has only a few percent of virgin forests, the great hardwood forest that once extended unbroken from the east coast to the great plains is gone. The great plains prairie has been plowed under. Non-native species around the world have also destroyed habitats for flora and fauna. Africa's great rain-forests are mainly gone, and the Amazon is dying from development.

If I step out my door and look beyond the burbs I see nearly 100 percent of the perennial native grasslands of California eradicated by European annuals - gone is the California grizzly, American elms, American Chestnuts, wolves and passenger pigeons.

Global warming will a very late stage and minor factor to the world-wise demise of flora and fauna ...already well-underway.
post #272 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Hardly, I am pointing out that three governments in control of Arctic resources believe thawing is real and that warming will provide the world with vast new resources. The link you provided was just biased and hysterical axe-grinding, underscoring the thread's title.

We won't be starving to death - we will be dead, as will our children and grandchildren. These dire predictions are about what will happen by 2100, based on a single speculative factor.

Rest assured, an estimate made by experts in 1907 on the World's projected population, farm employment, productivity, human wealth, and the world state of human food production by 2000 would likey have been just as amusingly short-sighted as your source's 2007 gloomy prediction on 2100.

Consider that in 1907 American farmers used iron plows pulled by horses and mules, dry farming was new, and gang plowing was an "innovation". Genetics, cross-breeding, etc. was a primitive science. 33 percent of the American population made a living in agriculture - and it took 1 farmer to support 2 others.

In 2000 only 3 percent of the population is in agriculture. Each farmer now grows enough food for 100 others. Scores of new hybrids, strains, and species of plant are in production - along with new variants in animal livestock. Giant combines and tractors, combined with plant science and new land uses have revolutionized agricultural production. And biotech crops are emerging while farmers use satellite technology to track and plan their farming.

So is there any reason to suppose the agricultural (and industrial) revolution that started in the 1700's won't continue to raise rates of productivity? Farm production in the year 2100 is likely to be as superior to current farming and production as 2000 farming is from the farming practices of 1907. Whatever differences a few degrees will make in impact is nothing compared to the prior challenges presented by the conquest of the great plains (the American Desert of extreme drought, cold, heat, and storms) and development of many fold productivity rates.

Many times more plant and animal species have been lost in the last 3 centuries due to man's activities than will ever be attributed to the northern climate growing milder. Land use has forever transformed the world environmental ecology into a shadow of its former self: Europe has no virgin forests and is either farmland or urban centers. The U.S. has only a few percent of virgin forests, the great hardwood forest that once extended unbroken from the east coast to the great plains is gone. The great plains prairie has been plowed under. Non-native species around the world have also destroyed habitats for flora and fauna. Africa's great rain-forests are mainly gone, and the Amazon is dying from development.

If I step out my door and look beyond the burbs I see nearly 100 percent of the perennial native grasslands of California eradicated by European annuals - gone is the California grizzly, American elms, American Chestnuts, wolves and passenger pigeons.

Global warming will a very late stage and minor factor to the world-wise demise of flora and fauna ...already well-underway.


Well once again Dr. Parrish! You'll forgive me if I favor the word of a professional over yours of course?

Besides it sounds like you're saying give up now and do whatever you want because it's already over so why worry.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #273 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well once again Dr. Parrish! You'll forgive me if I favor the word of a professional over yours of course?

Besides it sounds like you're saying give up now and do whatever you want because it's already over so why worry.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Your perverting his statement. He's saying the dire predictions of our future are highly speculative and based on flimsy evidence.

Everyone wants to reduce pollution, me included. Getting off gasoline? Great. Breaking our addiction to oil? Wonderful! Let's do that. But the evidence that we're warming the globe is not rock-solid. We're not even sure that we can accurately measure "global temperature" to begin with. Even if we take the concept of global temperature for granted, there is not a single soul on this board that can answer the question WRT to the normal variations in the Earth's temperature over the last several million years (by as much as 20 degrees).

By the way, did you know that the air quality in the US is now better than it was in 1990?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872695.html

All but one city shows a reduction in pollutants as measured by AQI. Some, like LA, show dramatic reductions between 1990 and 2000, by as much as 300%. So while you're running around screaming The World is Going to Hell, it's clearly not.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #274 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Your perverting his statement. He's saying the dire predictions of our future are highly speculative and based on flimsy evidence.

Everyone wants to reduce pollution, me included. Getting off gasoline? Great. Breaking our addiction to oil? Wonderful! Let's do that. But the evidence that we're warming the globe is not rock-solid. We're not even sure that we can accurately measure "global temperature" to begin with. Even if we take the concept of global temperature for granted, there is not a single soul on this board that can answer the question WRT to the normal variations in the Earth's temperature over the last several million years (by as much as 20 degrees).

By the way, did you know that the air quality in the US is now better than it was in 1990?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872695.html

All but one city shows a reduction in pollutants as measured by AQI. Some, like LA, show dramatic reductions between 1990 and 2000, by as much as 300%. So while you're running around screaming The World is Going to Hell, it's clearly not.

And how do you suppose that all came about? Private industry acting of its own "free will" or federal EPA emission standards? Hmm, I wonder.

As to AGW, this is all the evidence I need WRT the polar regions;

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #275 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Your perverting his statement. He's saying the dire predictions of our future are highly speculative and based on flimsy evidence.

I don't believe that the climate change that we see is itself speculative. While you can debate that the root cause of current change is human based I don't think that it is as significant as figuring out how to deal with rapid climate change. Historical evidence suggests that you can see dramatic temperature shifts in a decade that last a "short" 1000 years (example: Younger Dryas).

Arguing that the specific stimulus was or was not caused by human emissions is well...potentially rearranging deck chairs...

Data is scant so the predictions are speculative. Personally I feel its a tossup that if significant climate change occurs in our lifetime whether we end up with a long term warming shift or if the warming triggers an ice age by stopping north atlantic deep water formation. But that opinion is largely uninformed layman speculation. However, the finding that NADW formation slows or halt after injection of fresh waters from ice melts seems to indicate that it could be a precursor or trigger event...

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=10136&page=1

Vinea
post #276 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Your perverting his statement. He's saying the dire predictions of our future are highly speculative and based on flimsy evidence.

Everyone wants to reduce pollution, me included. Getting off gasoline? Great. Breaking our addiction to oil? Wonderful! Let's do that. But the evidence that we're warming the globe is not rock-solid. We're not even sure that we can accurately measure "global temperature" to begin with. Even if we take the concept of global temperature for granted, there is not a single soul on this board that can answer the question WRT to the normal variations in the Earth's temperature over the last several million years (by as much as 20 degrees).

By the way, did you know that the air quality in the US is now better than it was in 1990?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872695.html

All but one city shows a reduction in pollutants as measured by AQI. Some, like LA, show dramatic reductions between 1990 and 2000, by as much as 300%. So while you're running around screaming The World is Going to Hell, it's clearly not.

Driest year in 130 years in SoCal. (2" of rain sofar, normal 13")
Water reserves extremely low. Lowest snow pack ever measured, Colorado river very low as well. LA running out of water will make a nuclear attack from Iran look like good news.

Reason for LA's improved air quality:
1) GM closed down Van Nuys manufacturing plant in 1993. (Emissions displaced to Florida and Nevada not eliminated)
2) Classic US cars finally died away.
3) The strongest emission standards in the US. (But you are against any such standards)
4) Clinton removed 55 mile speed limit because newer cars were built to get better mpg at higher speed.
5) Widening of several Freeways allowed for better traffic flow.
6) Tax code and labor laws caused several big manufacturers and polluters to move to AZ and other neighbor states.
post #277 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well once again Dr. Parrish! You'll forgive me if I favor the word of a professional over yours of course?

Besides it sounds like you're saying give up now and do whatever you want because it's already over so why worry.

And I hope you forgive me for using commonly understood knowledge about agriculture, ecology, and the sensationalist slant of popular journalism to make three points:

1) Professional opinion varies and often does not claim what axe-grinders say they claim.
2) The Press reports and then distorts one kind of professional opinion, hyping and distorting unpublished conclusions.
3) A lay reader not need be a professional to note the dubious conclusions and hubris of a community with a vested interest in making their profession authoritative rather than speculative.

Perhaps you might appreciate that I was once a GEW (global earth warmer) until I started reading professional opinions on the science, as well as a bit of the science itself. While I would not go so far as to claim there is no un-natural warming, I have found the science highly speculative, often dubious, and politically saturated.

In the meantime there are lots of real problems that need solved: health care, retirement security, housing, and education. Why add what may be a 100 year bogeyman to our agenda of massive social costs without real proof of it's reality AND its impact AND its curability?
post #278 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I don't believe that the climate change that we see is itself speculative. While you can debate that the root cause of current change is human based I don't think that it is as significant as figuring out how to deal with rapid climate change. Historical evidence suggests that you can see dramatic temperature shifts in a decade that last a "short" 1000 years (example: Younger Dryas).

Arguing that the specific stimulus was or was not caused by human emissions is well...potentially rearranging deck chairs...

True. However, given that human beings have adapted to climate change in the past (and routinely modify environments to suit their purpose) I suggest we do what we always do...adapt. Markets and state projects can continue - newer arid areas need water, newer wetter areas will need less water. Irrigation districts change, water use policy changes, and optimal land use practices change. We don't need a 'Goricle' movement of faith to do the routine.

Quote:
Data is scant so the predictions are speculative. Personally I feel its a tossup that if significant climate change occurs in our lifetime whether we end up with a long term warming shift or if the warming triggers an ice age by stopping north atlantic deep water formation. But that opinion is largely uninformed layman speculation.

Even the IPCC now concludes that a trigger event is not likely, not for at least for several hundred years. That particular concern was hyped by the Goricle.
post #279 of 440
Sammi jo I liked your post re: You're either with us, or against us. I think that sums it up. If there is a risk that global warming or any other environmental problem may affect us, we need to take proactive action. It should be risk-based. In other words if there are more pressing issues, which I believe there are, they should be addressed first. However I believe there is certainly enough risk of negative effect to warrant action, beginning now, on curbing global warming. Hopefully we can find a way that will be beneficial to nearly everyone, even in business. After all, it's just one big externality we will all end up paying for, within our lifetimes. And our kids, boy they're really going to hate us.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #280 of 440
Max you're a water resources engineer: What do we do?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building