Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIf you're going to rely on that article to back up your story, it seems you are the helpless one. It is yet another one-sided account of climate matters containing half-truths and conclusions based on poor science. Some salient points (out of many):
You know what? You're pretty helpless: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
You claimed yourself that scientists disagree. At a time when research and climate modelling was infinitely inferior to that of the present, this statement by an un-named scientist (do we even know he/she was a climate scientist?) cannot be claimed to be the widely-held view of the time. Nor was it backed up by the latest computer models that uphold current predictions of global warming.
Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.
Predictions of large-scale, long-term climate scenarios are significantly different to those of small-scale, synoptic weather patterns, but of course your journalist doesn't want the truth to get in the way of a good story.
I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers. Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.
Maybe the journalist should go and visit every glacier on the Earth before deciding whether 'global' conditions are determining glacier behaviour around the world.
There is a lot of rubbish in that article, and I'll happily point out more specifics if you want. Unfortunately this poor journalism is just symptomatic of the entire global warming debate in the global media. There was an article in the Daily Mail the other day with some journalist stating he didn't believe in rising sea-levels as a consequence of global warming because when the ice in his drink melted, the level of the water in the glass did not rise. You will not find a single scientific reference by someone with a background in climatology who will make the claim that sea levels will rise due to the melting of ocean-based ice. The global media consist of scientific morons, and should never be quoted in a scientific debate.
Unfortunately what's been lost in this debate is one salient fact. Humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels in the earth's history.
What the impact of that will be is a very difficult one to pinpoint with a high degree of certainty but one thing for SURE is that Global Cooling will not occur..(that's almost laughable)
What is certain however, is that there WILL BE AN IMPACT. The precautionary principle used in most fields (engineering for example) is to build in a safety margin, whereby you overbuild something to ensure it won't fall apart. We're not even doing that.
One scientist can say one thing and another scientist can say the exact opposite and both can provide data to justify their position. Forget all that. Just ask yourself one thing....the earth for centuries maintained its own cycle. Now we are changing that cycle. Should we do something about it or just stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterApparently, you think climate change is rubbish. I'll argue it with you. I have numberous qualification in biology and used to tutor students on climate change. Where would you like to start?
That would be telling.
[edit; how about naturally occurring cycle? Pray tell, which cycle are you referring to?]
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterExcept that this is not an ad hominem attack at all. These web sites have been proven to be paid for by Exxon-mobil to spread lies about global warming.
You sure are addicted to ad nauseam ad hominem attacks. I’ll gladly argue the science, but I’m not going to engage in defense against your name calling. If you don’t have any facts to dispute, then I consider this exercise over.
You are both reiterating these lies and pointing to the discredited web sites to back up your claims.
Do you understand the futility of your actions and the flaw within your case?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIt's a legitimate challenge, but I've already responded to this a few posts above yours.
Dial down the hyperbole? Like: "To hell with the economy. What use is an economy going to be when most of the planet is dead?"
If you think signing on to the Kyoto agreement will only affect a few people in that they won't be able to have a big-screen TV or be able to drive a Hummer, then you should read some of the studies on the economic damage caused by Kyoto.
Pick your poison:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=economics
Originally posted by uzlessRecommended. The precautionary principle is exactly what this is about.
Unfortunately what's been lost in this debate is one salient fact. Humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels in the earth's history.
What the impact of that will be is a very difficult one to pinpoint with a high degree of certainty but one thing for SURE is that Global Cooling will not occur..(that's almost laughab ...[text shortened]... Should we do something about it or just stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best?
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
The point as I understand it is...
1) The trend is cyclical but that we are both increasing the speed of that trend and the size of its impact by our current carbon based activity. I tend to see it like old age we all know it is going to happen, but we can take precuations to live a healthy life into our 80's or we can eat crap and do no exercise and have a unpleant early death.
2) Some places will get hotter, some places will get colder. These are symptoms of the same thing, climate change is about a few more things than a warmer winter. You are going to see the likes of rising sea levels, chaninging sea currents, different weather patterns.
3) Trees turn carbon into oxygen, we are cutting down more trees than we plant and making more carbon emmissons year on year. The sums seem quite simple - more carbon in the atmposhere. There is a proven link between carbon and greenhouse gases.
4) This is a global issue - there is no point blaming the other guy. If Europe and America do not lead by example then there is no way the developing world is going to consider cutting down on carbon.
5) It is cheaper economically to find new solutions now than wait 20 to 50 years when it starts to hit the fan.
6) America provides 2% of the worlds oil and uses around 25% of it. That is just not sustainable, and it is unsound for any economy to be so dependent on any rapidly decreasing resourse it can not produce or control. You would think the US would be leading the way in finding new sustainable forms of energy.
7) This is all going to come at a cost.
Andrew
Originally posted by howardgees'funny how you have posted in other threads and ignored all the questions for you in this one, Black Schitter.
Except that this is not an ad hominem attack at all. These web sites have been proven to be paid for by Exxon-mobil to spread lies about global warming.
You are both reiterating these lies and pointing to the discredited web sites to back up your claims.
Do you understand the futility of your actions and the flaw within your case?
Realised the game is up eh?
Originally posted by howardgeePffft. Like you've never abandoned a thread for a long time?
s'funny how you have posted in other threads and ignored all the questions for you in this one, Black Schitter.
Realised the game is up eh?
I'm on your side on this topic, but this kind of goading is silly. No-one has an obligation to check all the threads they're involved in every time they log in.
Originally posted by howardgees'funny how you have posted in other threads and ignored all the questions for you in this one, Black Schitter.
Except that this is not an ad hominem attack at all. These web sites have been proven to be paid for by Exxon-mobil to spread lies about global warming.
You are both reiterating these lies and pointing to the discredited web sites to back up your claims.
Do you understand the futility of your actions and the flaw within your case?
Realised the game is up eh?
Another chance for you here.
Originally posted by slimjimThe thing is that we can all enjoy our lives on the earth AND preserve it for more than a couple of hundred years after our deaths.
We aew all going to die Howee. Just enjoy the time you have here on Earth.
After all, forcing the petroleum refiners to put expensive filters on their polluting chimneys in the USofA is not going to affect my enjoyment on this planet. Is it yours?
Unfortunately it will affect the pleasure of Bush and his friends as it will mean a few less million dollars for them to fritter away on cocaine (probably)
Originally posted by howardgeeIndeed, forcing companies to have better environmental policies can have very beneficial effects. When McDonalds got hit with films like "Fast Food Nation" and "Supersize me!" they suddenly started sponsoring sport! Having a healthy, clean environment, with drinkable water and breathable air; having a lack of extreme climate variation and the droughts, hunger and death that they bring, could only increase my enjoyment of life. Perhaps SlimJim enjoys watching African children starve to death though....
The thing is that we can all enjoy our lives on the earth AND preserve it for more than a couple of hundred years after our deaths.
After all, forcing the petroleum refiners to put expensive filters on their polluting chimneys in the USofA is not going to affect my enjoyment on this planet. Is it yours?
Unfortunately it will affect the pleasure of Bush ...[text shortened]... riends as it will mean a few less million dollars for them to fritter away on cocaine (probably)