Bush covers up climate research

[LilacDragon]

Captain Ray wrote: No.. My argument is that there is no shortage of foliage.. the planet is alive and well.. for those of you unfortunate enough to live in Michigan, or a desert.. you know little or nothing about the environment.. so keep your nose out of it, or move so you can learn a little bit more..

Raymond


I have lived in Maryland, Hawaii, Maine, Idaho, Utah, Guam and Germany. How many more places do you think I should live in before I can get a clue?

[koan]

Captain Ray wrote: No.. My argument is that there is no shortage of foliage.. the planet is alive and well.. for those of you unfortunate enough to live in Michigan, or New York.. you know little or nothing about the environment.. so keep your nose out of it, or move so you can learn a little bit more..

Raymond


In other words, yes? You just stated exactly what I was asking. You say that anyone in the city knows nothing and that they can only know if they live where you do. Or someplace just like it.

[Captain Ray]

koan wrote: In other words, yes? You just stated exactly what I was asking. You say that anyone in the city knows nothing and that they can only know if they live where you do. Or someplace just like it.


No.. that is not what I am saying.. You can live wherever you want. I don't really care where you live. It's none of my business. Whether or not you know what you are talking about shows up when you say stupid things.

Raymond

[LilacDragon]

Captain Ray wrote: No.. that is not what I am saying.. You can live wherever you want. I don't really care where you live. It's none of my business. Whether or not you know what you are talking about shows up when you say stupid things.

Raymond


Well, since you and your neighbors have trees in your yard - I will bow to your superior intellect.

[Captain Ray]

Diuretic wrote: Raymond - we have el nino and la nina (can't do the little wiggly things) here like we've not known before. Our droughts are longer now and the interludes between droughts, which are a natural phenomenon in this part of the world, are shorter. Many parts of this country are now in permanent drought with water restrictions on city dwellers. All I know is what I'm experiencing and it tells me that our environment, the environment here, is stressed.


El Niño, La Niña, are weather events that have been going on for thousands of years... they are never worse or better than any other year.. they are just what they are.. weather... It changes from time to time. Sometimes it makes the fishing better, sometimes it makes the fishing worse..

The fish don't really care.

go figure...

Raymond

[Captain Ray]

LilacDragon wrote: Well, since you and your neighbors have trees in your yard - I will bow to your superior intellect.


Good choice.. and I hope the tomatoes in your window box fair well.

Raymond

[Captain Ray]

Diuretic wrote: No fish in our deserts, well there used to be when the deserts were the bottom of the ocean millions and millions of years ago. But because we're a big island the effects over the oceans spread to our continent and as I said, the cycles are shortening in interval but lengthening in duration and intensity.


Of course there are no fish in your desert.. but there are plenty of fish off the coast of Australia.. I looked it up real quick.. and your area of the southern hemisphere is having a very good year in the harvesting of fish..

Raymond

[Captain Ray]

Yummy!!

Right off your coast mate!! Go get em!!

Raymond

[Captain Ray]

If GOD didn't want us to eat fish.. he wouldn't have made them out of tasty meat!!

Raymond

[Captain Ray]

Can you remember the last year when the farmers weren't worried about enough water? I can't..

Here in Oregon we have the plight of the farmers in Kalamath who can't irrigate their fields.. not because there isn't enough water.. it's Oregon for petes sake.. it's the liberals.. trying to save the salmon... the salmon don't need saving, but these idiots who know nothing about fish, ecology, or farming are stopping the farmers from irrigating their fields.. never mind the hundreds of thousands of migratory birds that are dying..

Fuggin liberals.. I hate them!!

Raymond

[Rapunzel]

Captain Ray wrote: Here in Oregon we have the plight of the farmers in Kalamath who can't irrigate their fields.. not because there isn't enough water.. it's Oregon for petes sake.. it's the liberals.. trying to save the salmon... the salmon don't need saving, but these idiots who know nothing about fish, ecology, or farming are stopping the farmers from irrigating their fields.. never mind the hundreds of thousands of migratory birds that are dying..




Why don't they compromise with a modern irrigation system?

In the 'olden' days the method was to dig irrigation ditches and flood them with water - most of which seeped down through the ground and was lost.

Nowadays there is a 'hosepipe' system whereby a type of hosepipe runs along each row of plants and has a tiny hole pierced in the pipe next to each plant. When the water is turned on the water from each tiny hole gives each plant the exact amount of water they need and very little is lost to groundwater or through evaporation. It saves a huge amount of water and stops the ground becoming water-logged also.

The salmon, btw, DID need saving at one point. Too many rivers were dammed, which stopped the salmon from swimming upstream to their spawning grounds.

As for the migratory birds - do you not have wetlands for them to live in?

[Rapunzel]

Captain Ray wrote: Even in big cities.. people plant trees.. there are a lot of freakin' trees on the planet.. more now, than ever before.




In 1950, about 15 percent of the Earth's land surface was covered by rainforest. Today, more than half has already gone up in smoke. In fewer than fifty years, more than half of the world's tropical rainforests have fallen victim to fire and the chain saw, and the rate of destruction is still accelerating. Unbelievably, more than 200,000 acres of rainforest are burned every day. That is more than 150 acres lost every minute of every day, and 78 million acres lost every year! More than 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest is already gone, and much more is severely threatened as the destruction continues. It is estimated that the Amazon alone is vanishing at a rate of 20,000 square miles a year. If nothing is done to curb this trend, the entire Amazon could well be gone within fifty years.

Yet still the destruction continues. If deforestation continues at current rates, scientists estimate nearly 80 to 90 percent of tropical rainforest ecosystems will be destroyed by the year 2020. This destruction is the main force driving a species extinction rate unmatched in 65 million years.

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/ ... ction.html

http://www.korubo.com/

[Rapunzel]

Captain Ray wrote: If GOD didn't want us to eat fish.. he wouldn't have made them out of tasty meat!!

Raymond


The tastiest meat on the planet is US! But we don't eat each other because it's considered to be in "poor taste"! :p

[Rapunzel]

Diuretic wrote: Tastes like pork - apparently. But when you think about it - there are plenty of us to go around, at least we wouldn't starve :wah:


LOL! I think I'd taste like Chicken personally! :wah:

[gmc]

Captain Ray wrote: It's ridiculous. I don't see why that requires a great deal of explanation. If you are going to try and convince me that there is such a thing as global warming, and your best argument is: "because I said so!"... well.. that is just ridiculous.

Raymond


Actually I'm not saying that. You, however are the one that is saying global warming is not happening because you say so. I'm not so much trying to concvince you as find why why you think it isn't. On thre basis of what I know of the scientific evidence your conclusion does not make sense.

To get back to my point. Why do you think the polar ice caps are melting?

If you do not believe they are then say so because unless you do say so no one knows if you think they are or not.

If you don't think there has been climate change in the past then say so because telepathy doesn't work either.

Since you don't think that needs a great deal of explanation assume I'm thick and explain it, Becase to me it is self evident if ice is melting things are getting hotter.



Can you remember the last year when the farmers weren't worried about enough water? I can't..

Here in Oregon we have the plight of the farmers in Kalamath who can't irrigate their fields.. not because there isn't enough water.. it's Oregon for petes sake.. it's the liberals.. trying to save the salmon... the salmon don't need saving, but these idiots who know nothing about fish, ecology, or farming are stopping the farmers from irrigating their fields.. never mind the hundreds of thousands of migratory birds that are dying..

Fuggin liberals.. I hate them!!

Raymond


Round here the local farmers have their heads in their hands because thunderstorms have just flattened their about to be harvested crops. Meanwhile elsewhere there are warnings about a heat wave and hose pipe bans in the southeast of england. Also as they try to privatise our water supply the sides are squaring up for a good fight.

Cheer up though, maybe a caldera will go off somewhere and render the debate academic.

[cherandbuster]

gmc wrote: Cheer up though, maybe a caldera will go off somewhere and render the debate academic.


Maybe it'll go off right near the Captain's abode;)

[Captain Ray]

gmc wrote:

To get back to my point. Why do you think the polar ice caps are melting?

If you do not believe they are then say so because unless you do say so no one knows if you think they are or not.

If you don't think there has been climate change in the past then say so because telepathy doesn't work either.

Since you don't think that needs a great deal of explanation assume I'm thick and explain it, Becase to me it is self evident if ice is melting things are getting hotter.



Cheer up though, maybe a caldera will go off somewhere and render the debate academic.


Polar ice caps are melting, because they are made of ice. That's what ice does. On the edges large chunks fall off.. they call those "Ice Bergs".. the melted ice that runs off the larger portions of the caps are called "water." It's perfectly normal, and has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years.



What the ice caps are not doing, is shrinking. OH... I know.. you are about to go punch in your search terms into google, and you will find a study of an antarctic peninsula that has been shrinking.. but if you look into it, you will find that that study only looks at 2% of the ice mass.. and that the rest of the continent actually increased in size.

Raymond

[gmc]

Captain Ray wrote: Polar ice caps are melting, because they are made of ice. That's what ice does. On the edges large chunks fall off.. they call those "Ice Bergs".. the melted ice that runs off the larger portions of the caps are called "water." It's perfectly normal, and has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years.



What the ice caps are not doing, is shrinking. OH... I know.. you are about to go punch in your search terms into google, and you will find a study of an antarctic peninsula that has been shrinking.. but if you look into it, you will find that that study only looks at 2% of the ice mass.. and that the rest of the continent actually increased in size.

Raymond


I'm not going to bother. I was just trying to work out where you were coming from.

I think we are facing some major climate changes for whatever reason. I don't need to look too far to see the damage caused by mankind and whether we are progressing things to a point where we will tip some kind of balance is a moot point. Turning a blind eye to the possibility is playing in to the hands of those who want to contuinue their business with no regard for anything but the bottom line. I don't mean I believe in some wild conspiracy theory I do mean we need to keep a close watch on industry to stop them causing irrepairable damage. From chemical factories dumping toxiv waste to changing the sex of fish in our rivers due to too much oestrogen getting in to the river system through the sewage system, or farmers wiping out all the wildlife through overuse of pesticides. I want to know what's in my food and where it's from.

In the future there will be a world wide energy shortage, it's when not if, and sooner rather than later would be the time to develop alternatives rather than pretending things will go on as they always have done.

I see little point in metaphorically clubbing you with google searches studded with scientific studies as it seems unlikely to change your viewpoint and I do have a life elsewhere, which while not half as much fun, needs tending to.

Many commentators in UK media make the observation that very little of the topic is discussed in US media whereas here and in europe freak weather and unseasonable heat waves and cold spells makes it a topic of discussion.

I started the thread out of curiosity. If the allegation made in the article is true then you have a serious problem on your hands. Here it's a bit of a given that govt and industry will lie when they think they can get away with it. Trusting them is not an option anyone with any sense would do imo.

[Galbally]

Oh well here we go again. Here are the facts.

1. The artic ice sheet is shrinking, melting, and breaking up, thats offical, it hasn't done so to the extend now being witnessed for at least 10,000 years.

2. The permafrost and ice sheet on greenland are also melting and shrinking, and the rate is accelerating.

3. All of the Glaciers on planet earth are melting at an unprecedented rate going back to the end of the last ice Age, the only exception is one glacier in Patagonia, this melting of glaciers co-incides with the onset of the industrial revolution and was first noticed in Europe in the 1850's, the process has increased ever since. Some of the major rivers in the world such as the Ganges are dependent upon glacial melt water and at current rates many of the major rivers in the world will cease to be able to supoort the hundreds of millions of people that depend upon them in turn to grow crops and access water supplies.

4. The ice shelf covering antartica is also melting and the process appears to be accelerating, though at present the rate is low and it does appear to be faring better than the artic, over the next 10 years it will become pretty clear what the situation with the antartic will be.

5. The 12 hottest years on record have occured during the last 20 years.

6. The average mean temperature of planet earth has increased by .5 of one degree (celcius) in the 20th century and correlates almost precisely with the average invcrease in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Current trends indicate that the average mean temperature will increase at least 1.5 degrees celcius in the next 100 years and that sea levels will rise (though again exactly how much is unknown, but recent evidence suggests that we might not be facing a best-case scenario. Changes in salinity levels of the upper levels of certain regions of the seas and oceans are also starting to be noted, and some changes in ocean patterns and current and disruption of whats left of marine life seem likey in this century.

7. It is certainly true that weather and climate do fluctuate, for instance in the middle ages Europe was much colder in winter in the 15 and 16th centruies than is the case now now. It also seems that the climate in Northern Lattitudes was also more clement in teh first millenium AD than now. But the current rates of warming are unprecedented and all teh evidence that we have supports this if it is looked at unambigiously.

8. The earth's climatic system would change over time (though generally we are talking millenia here) whether we cause it or not, however, this is not an excuse for us not to bother paying any attention to the changes that we are causing right now, that would be extremely unwise considering the fragility of our position.

9. Climate change linked to emissions from the use of fossil fuels, land use, and deforestation, is defentley occurring, where that change is bringing us is not yet fully determined. But there is a high probability that the climate of the planet will be significantly different by 2100 if current trends continue and may already be irreversible in the medium term.

10. In terms of fauna, we are also living at a time of mass extinction, and as the human population of earth continues to grow up to an estimated 10 billion by 2100 we will have probably destroyed the last remaining natural rainforests in Asia, South America, and Africa, and many of the animals on the endangered list will have gone, along with far more species that we havn't even gotten around to finding yet.

11. We will continue to remain dependent on fossil fuels for at least the next 2 deacades; however, if we don't start coming up with alternatives in the meantime and gradually move our energy supplies as coming from more sustainable and less ecologically damaging technologies we are facing a potentially catastropic situation.

12. There are many people with a huge invested interest in the current energy economy of the world, and it is they, and only they who claim that climate change is a hoax or a liberal conspiracy or something of that sort. But there are several energy companies that are actually developing new technolgies, for energy generation, transport, and supply.

15. At some point in the next 2 decades oil demand will finally outrun peak production capacities, though there are other sources of oil in tar sands and deep sea wells, which may prolong this for a couple more decades but this oil will be very expensive to extract and won't be cheap (so econmoics based on the rational of abundant cheap energy will be badly effected,) while still being polluting, and once thats gone it looks like thats it. As the supplies of oil become unable to meet demand it seems likely that very serious conflicts will arise between nations trying to protect supply to their economy. Its not like this isn;t already happening and its only gong to get worse, and more expensive and dangerous.

16. We do have a lot of coal, enough still for hundreds of years, unfortunatly coal is a much more polluting fuel than oil or gas, and unless some sort of radical breakthrough in how to scrub CO2 and effectively store it (again hugely expensive) coal is even worse than oil as a fuel source, though it will remain a very useful source of hydrocarbons for other purposes.

14. This is a huge and very complex problem, and we don't have the option of switching everything off, as that would also be catastrohic, but we do have to start paying serious attention to how our activities are affecting the global climate, and start developing an energy system for industrialized countries that is sustainable and secure, if we dont we are idiots at best.



In my opinion we have a window of about 25 years in which to start to change over our current energy systems to more sustainable ones, this means gradually replacing oil and gas as the prime sources of energy, revisiting the idea of Nuclear power, making efficiency the emphasis of the energy side of the economy interms of generate, suppy, and useage. And promote and even fund teh development of alternative and sustainable energy technologies. I know I'm going to miss petrol cars as love em, but I also know that they won't be around for much longer, its simply going to be too expensive to run them in the coming decades anyway, I'm afraid they will go the way of the stream train. Shame, but all in all its a small price to pay for a more benign climate.

The other alternative is to ignore it, continue on as we are going and hope that everything works out ok.

Sorry to get on my high horse about this one, but this does bug me, I studied environmental chemistry and I know that all reputable scientists, including the bush administrations own scientists are in no doubt about what is happening. I think the people in the bush administration and the energy companies (and its not all america's fault BTW, this is a global thing that we are all responsible for) also know this is ineviatble are just stalling for as much time as possible before they have to start making unpopular decisions and bring in policies that prehaps they don't like from an ideological standpoint, but they will do it eventually, they wont have many options.

[koan]

About time you stepped in, Galbally. Good luck with him.

[Captain Ray]

Gallybally, or whatever your name is..

points 1-4:

- 19 May 2005 - According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.



Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri , Columbia , measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered.

The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than 2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.

Ice bergs fall off of glaciers, water runs off of Ice caps, and this is all perfectly normal. The Ice sheets grow, and dissipate naturally, just like they always have.. nothing new here... and your facts are skewed.



Points 5-8:

Climate is cyclical... (this may come as a new revolution to you.. but most people already know this.) Weather satellites that have recorded the Earths average temperatures show that the mean temperature has remained unchanged.. but lets assume your liberal supposition is true.. in 100 years the earths temperature may increase 1.5 degrees... or not. In 200 years, it may change another 1.5 degrees.. But.. in the last 100 years.. if you are to believe the bullshit that you have put so much faith in.. the temperature has changed 1.5 degrees.. in the last 50 years the temperature has increased that much, in the last 20 years the temp has increased that much.. In other words.. the weather has fluctuated about 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years. Sometimes a little high, sometimes a little low.. but your quasi scientists have cherry picked their data so that you will believe that the end of the world is right around the corner.



Point 9:

There is no data that confirms any link between human activity and climate change. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.. there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.. nobody else has been able to prove this.

Point 10:

We are not living in an era of mass extinction. That is just a falsehood that is spread by leftists, and idiots. We discover more new species and genus of plant and animal every year than those that are presumed lost. We discover that species that we thought were lost, were not lost at all at an ever increasing rate.

Point 11-15:

That's just dumb.. that doesn't even make any sense? We will most likely depend on fossil fuels for much longer than 20 years.. and what catastrophic consequences do you see because of it? You have absolutely no proof of any catastrophic consequences, and I doubt you could find me any single piece of data that supports this claim. If you can't post the link.. (which conveniently you have yet to do in your labored list) at least point me to the study so that I can look at it's peer review.



Point 16:

We do have a lot of coal.. We have technologies to burn it very cleanly, we have technologies to mine it very ecologically friendly.. but liberals oppose every opportunity to use this huge natural resource.. based largely on ignorance by people who have been hoodwinked like you.

Point 14?: (you must have meant seventeen.. must have run out of fingers and toes eh?)



Entirely opinion. Not one statement in there is based on any fact.







Raymond

[nvalleyvee]

gmc wrote: Well do you think he is? I'm not given to conspiracy theories but I do claim to be cynical when it comes to big business and politicians.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 63,00.html


I call BS all over this crap.

[nvalleyvee]

Galbally wrote: Oh well here we go again. Here are the facts.

1. The artic ice sheet is shrinking, melting, and breaking up, thats offical, it hasn't done so to the extend now being witnessed for at least 10,000 years.

2. The permafrost and ice sheet on greenland are also melting and shrinking, and the rate is accelerating.

3. All of the Glaciers on planet earth are melting at an unprecedented rate going back to the end of the last ice Age, the only exception is one glacier in Patagonia, this melting of glaciers co-incides with the onset of the industrial revolution and was first noticed in Europe in the 1850's, the process has increased ever since. Some of the major rivers in the world such as the Ganges are dependent upon glacial melt water and at current rates many of the major rivers in the world will cease to be able to supoort the hundreds of millions of people that depend upon them in turn to grow crops and access water supplies.

4. The ice shelf covering antartica is also melting and the process appears to be accelerating, though at present the rate is low and it does appear to be faring better than the artic, over the next 10 years it will become pretty clear what the situation with the antartic will be.

5. The 12 hottest years on record have occured during the last 20 years.

6. The average mean temperature of planet earth has increased by .5 of one degree (celcius) in the 20th century and correlates almost precisely with the average invcrease in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Current trends indicate that the average mean temperature will increase at least 1.5 degrees celcius in the next 100 years and that sea levels will rise (though again exactly how much is unknown, but recent evidence suggests that we might not be facing a best-case scenario. Changes in salinity levels of the upper levels of certain regions of the seas and oceans are also starting to be noted, and some changes in ocean patterns and current and disruption of whats left of marine life seem likey in this century.

7. It is certainly true that weather and climate do fluctuate, for instance in the middle ages Europe was much colder in winter in the 15 and 16th centruies than is the case now now. It also seems that the climate in Northern Lattitudes was also more clement in teh first millenium AD than now. But the current rates of warming are unprecedented and all teh evidence that we have supports this if it is looked at unambigiously.

8. The earth's climatic system would change over time (though generally we are talking millenia here) whether we cause it or not, however, this is not an excuse for us not to bother paying any attention to the changes that we are causing right now, that would be extremely unwise considering the fragility of our position.

9. Climate change linked to emissions from the use of fossil fuels, land use, and deforestation, is defentley occurring, where that change is bringing us is not yet fully determined. But there is a high probability that the climate of the planet will be significantly different by 2100 if current trends continue and may already be irreversible in the medium term.

10. In terms of fauna, we are also living at a time of mass extinction, and as the human population of earth continues to grow up to an estimated 10 billion by 2100 we will have probably destroyed the last remaining natural rainforests in Asia, South America, and Africa, and many of the animals on the endangered list will have gone, along with far more species that we havn't even gotten around to finding yet.

11. We will continue to remain dependent on fossil fuels for at least the next 2 deacades; however, if we don't start coming up with alternatives in the meantime and gradually move our energy supplies as coming from more sustainable and less ecologically damaging technologies we are facing a potentially catastropic situation.

12. There are many people with a huge invested interest in the current energy economy of the world, and it is they, and only they who claim that climate change is a hoax or a liberal conspiracy or something of that sort. But there are several energy companies that are actually developing new technolgies, for energy generation, transport, and supply.

15. At some point in the next 2 decades oil demand will finally outrun peak production capacities, though there are other sources of oil in tar sands and deep sea wells, which may prolong this for a couple more decades but this oil will be very expensive to extract and won't be cheap (so econmoics based on the rational of abundant cheap energy will be badly effected,) while still being polluting, and once thats gone it looks like thats it. As the supplies of oil become unable to meet demand it seems likely that very serious conflicts will arise between nations trying to protect supply to their economy. Its not like this isn;t already happening and its only gong to get worse, and more expensive and dangerous.

16. We do have a lot of coal, enough still for hundreds of years, unfortunatly coal is a much more polluting fuel than oil or gas, and unless some sort of radical breakthrough in how to scrub CO2 and effectively store it (again hugely expensive) coal is even worse than oil as a fuel source, though it will remain a very useful source of hydrocarbons for other purposes.

14. This is a huge and very complex problem, and we don't have the option of switching everything off, as that would also be catastrohic, but we do have to start paying serious attention to how our activities are affecting the global climate, and start developing an energy system for industrialized countries that is sustainable and secure, if we dont we are idiots at best.



In my opinion we have a window of about 25 years in which to start to change over our current energy systems to more sustainable ones, this means gradually replacing oil and gas as the prime sources of energy, revisiting the idea of Nuclear power, making efficiency the emphasis of the energy side of the economy interms of generate, suppy, and useage. And promote and even fund teh development of alternative and sustainable energy technologies. I know I'm going to miss petrol cars as love em, but I also know that they won't be around for much longer, its simply going to be too expensive to run them in the coming decades anyway, I'm afraid they will go the way of the stream train. Shame, but all in all its a small price to pay for a more benign climate.

The other alternative is to ignore it, continue on as we are going and hope that everything works out ok.

Sorry to get on my high horse about this one, but this does bug me, I studied environmental chemistry and I know that all reputable scientists, including the bush administrations own scientists are in no doubt about what is happening. I think the people in the bush administration and the energy companies (and its not all america's fault BTW, this is a global thing that we are all responsible for) also know this is ineviatble are just stalling for as much time as possible before they have to start making unpopular decisions and bring in policies that prehaps they don't like from an ideological standpoint, but they will do it eventually, they wont have many options.


Can ANYONE SAY Earth's cycle here?

[Galbally]

Hi Captain Ray.

[QUOTE=Captain Ray]Gallybally, or whatever your name is..

My name is Galbally, I don't think its that hard to spell. Okay this is going to be a long post, but I think that the points I made need to be made a little more expicitly. I find it depressing that you immeadiatly jump to the conclusion that I have a poltical agenda in this area, I don't because its not a poltical issue. And although your terms of Liberal and Left-Wing are being used by you in an American politcal argument, which is what your really arguing about, as this debate in the states like many others has become some kind of football game between the 2 major parties, which frankly don't concern me as I'm not american, but I will say that I'm not particularly liberal or left-wing in the context of my own country, what I am is scientifically trained, I hold degrees in Industrial and Environmental Chemistry, and I have worked in both fields, I suspect that you have not and are just up on your soap box with what you percieve to be an attack on your "value system2 or something, which i find irritating and arrogant. Put simply, this is not an American political issue, this is a global issue, in which all the major industrial countries and the emerging economies (particurly China) have a responsibility to deal with. If it isn't addressed in some way we shall most certainly all lose, so if you would refrain from labelling me as a hippie peacenic, communist, because I am taking a position on this different from your own I would appreciate it. Anyway in terms of the substantive issues, the literature is exhasutive, but I will provide good examples of recent, peer reveiwed, non-partizan scientific studies.

In terms of Antartica and your "points" 1-4:

I will provide you with some extracts and facts taken from an official source, the British Antartic Survey, which is a wholly scientifc and non-political survey that has been in operation in Antartica since the 1950s along with many other countries includung the U.S. And I quote.

Climate Change Position Statement

An updated Climate Change Position Statement from the British Antarctic Survey answers some key questions in relation to the Antarctic and the study of Climate Change.

Published: 18 Jul 2006

How has Antarctic climate varied over the past 50 years?

Few continuous observations of Antarctic climate are available before the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since this time, surface temperatures have remained fairly stable over much of Antarctica, although individual station records show a high level of year-to-year variability, which could mask any underlying long term-trend. The majority of stations in East Antarctica, including the two long-term records from the high plateau of East Antarctica (South Pole and Vostok) show no statistically-significant warming or cooling trends1. By contrast, large and statistically-significant warming trends are seen at stations in the Antarctic Peninsula. Over the past 50 years, the west coast of the Peninsula has been one of the most rapidly-warming parts of the planet, with annual mean temperatures rising by nearly 3°C and the largest warming occurring in the winter season1,2,3. This is approximately 10 times the mean rate of global warming, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Upper ocean temperatures to the west of the Peninsula have also increased by over 1°C since 19554. The east coast of the Peninsula has warmed more slowly and here the largest warming has taken place in summer and autumn.

Has human activity caused the recent changes?

Climate can vary as a result of changes in forcing factors that affect the way energy is exchanged between the sun, the earth and space. These forcings can be of natural origin (e.g. volcanic dust in the atmosphere, variations in solar output and variations in the Earth's orbit about the sun) or a result of human activity (e.g. increases in "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide). Additionally, complex interactions between atmosphere, oceans and sea ice can cause climate variability, particularly on a regional scale, over a timescale of years to decades. Attributing observed changes in climate to particular changes in forcing (or to natural variability) is a difficult process that can only be accomplished by bringing together reliable observations of past and present climate with the results of experiments carried out with sophisticated models of the climate system. Attribution of Antarctic climate change is particularly difficult because of the relatively small number of instrumental climate records available from this region and the short length of the records.

As part of the work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC13, about 20 different climate models were run to simulate the climate of the 20th century, with specified changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors. The simulated changes in Antarctic surface temperatures over the second half of the 20th century vary greatly from model to model (and even between experiments run with the same model but with slightly different starting conditions), with no single model reproducing exactly the observed pattern of change. This lack of a clear and consistent model response to changed imposed forcing suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability rather than changes in natural or anthropogenic forcing. However, some caution is called for as the models used may not adequately represent all of the complex processes that determine temperatures in the polar regions. Most of the model experiments do simulate the observed strengthening of the circumpolar westerly winds, suggesting that this phenomenon is a robust response to changed climate forcing. Further experiments have indicated that changes in anthropogenic forcings, particularly stratospheric ozone depletion and increases in greenhouse gases, have made the largest contribution to the strengthening of the westerlies14,15. Recent climate observations show that changes in the strength of the westerlies strongly influence temperature variations on the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula16. Taken together, these two results suggest that human activity has contributed to the recent observed changes in climate in this part of the Antarctic.

Further support for this view comes from analysis of marine sediment records which enable us to examine how the extent of Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves has varied over time. While some of the smaller ice shelves in this region have periodically grown and decayed over the past 10,000 years 17, the Larsen-B ice shelf appears to have been stable throughout this period until it collapsed suddenly in March 200218. This suggests that recent warm temperatures are exceptional within the context of the last 10000 years, making it unlikely that they can be explained by natural variability alone."

These are not isolated findings, in fact the conclusions reached by the British survey are the same conclusions reached by all the major scientific studies being conducted in the region, you will not that they mention the recent increase in the ice shelf in the eastern antartic, no one would suggest that there are not variabilities within the climate over any given period, or that climatic variations are also caused by natural processes, after all thats what drive the climate. What is pertinent is the accumulated mass of results obtained on average over a relatively long (in our terms period of time) and the fact that the trends being noted in the Antartic are also being mirrored by events in the northern hemisphere at the polar regions and across the globe. When you actually look at the evidence in this manner in a detahed manner it is compelling.



Points 5-8:

Climate is cyclical... (this may come as a new revolution to you.. but most people already know this.) Weather satellites that have recorded the Earths average temperatures show that the mean temperature has remained unchanged.. but lets assume your liberal supposition is true.. in 100 years the earths temperature may increase 1.5 degrees... or not. In 200 years, it may change another 1.5 degrees.. But.. in the last 100 years.. if you are to believe the bullshit that you have put so much faith in.. the temperature has changed 1.5 degrees.. in the last 50 years the temperature has increased that much, in the last 20 years the temp has increased that much.. In other words.. the weather has fluctuated about 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years. Sometimes a little high, sometimes a little low.. but your quasi scientists have cherry picked their data so that you will believe that the end of the world is right around the corner.

Again, using the tried (and testing) "throw mud and hope it will stick" and the reliable "shoot the messenger tactic" you label me and the scientific community as pseudo scientists, so who are the real scientists then? Scientists can often be wrong, but unlike other spheres of human intellectual endeavour they tend to look at the evidence before coming to assumptions, and alway the pressure is to accept the evidence of the facts, rather than what we would wish things to be.

In terms of your argument on variability, obviously the earths climate has been different at different times, and quite recent in terms of geology, in the Cambrian period for example the earth was much warmer than it is today, in the current epoch the climate is cold and actually the time we are living in now (an interglaicial is the exception rather than the rule in earths current climate, which ice ages being much longer in duration than interglaicals. However, in terms of the last 10,000 years (which is roughly the beginnings of civilization etc,) mean (or average) global temperatures over the entire planet have not fluctuated to the extent in the way that you are suggesting. In fact they only fluctuate rapidly during a period of involving a large climate-change event such as the onset of an ice age, or the beginning of new warmer epoch, all such climatic events are also periods of extreme distruption to speicies of life on earth. For example, the end of the Cambrian period was marked by a significant climate change and the extinction of approximately 95 percent of all species of life that are beleieved to have been living at that time.

However, In our own short era, the simple fact of the matter is that the earths mean temperture has remained more or less the same since the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago, but in the last 150 years it has started to rise and the rate of change in that rise is accelerating, which if you understand what significant rates of change to large, closed dynamic systems in equillibrium (which is what the earths climate is), it is obvious that this is of the uptmost seriousness. For example the mean average temperature of the planet during the last ice age was only 6 degrees celcius lower than it is now, yet that was enough to have most of Europe and north america (down to about Chicago) covered in an ice sheet 3 km thick, some of the upper forecasts on where the climate is going put the change in mean global temperatures as increaseing by 3 or 4 degrees by 2100, that is certainly unprecenented in this current interglaical period in which we are living and is very alarming to people who understand the implications.



Point 9:

There is no data that confirms any link between human activity and climate change. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.. there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.. nobody else has been able to prove this.

Okay, this is nuts, there is masses of data directly linking human acticity and global climate change, masses. I think you are basing you opinons possibly on polemical editorials in certain american politial T.V. shows?

I think we all accept that the earth's atmosphere contains CO2, and that this CO, which is there naturally, is responsible for creating a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the earths climate warm, which is an environment which is (on the whole) one in which life thrives. It is also unquestionable I presume that since the industrialisation of Europe and America (and now the Far east), human activities have caused the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, during this period monitoring of the earths climate (particularly in the last 50 years has also shown a significant rise in temperatures and its associated effects, which is a trend that current evidence shows to be accelerating as are CO2 emissions (yearly). What is hard to understand here?, its simple cause and effect, it may be a co-inciendence, but frankly that is unlikely.

Point 10:

We are not living in an era of mass extinction. That is just a falsehood that is spread by leftists, and idiots. We discover more new species and genus of plant and animal every year than those that are presumed lost. We discover that species that we thought were lost, were not lost at all at an ever increasing rate.

What are you talking about? What lost species are being rediscovered at an ever increasing rate? I do remember they found a colecanith (a fish though extinct for 200 million years in the south China sea) and there is believed to be a large land mammal possible in tropical Australia, but I don't see very much evidence of large numbers of extinct species being discovered. What is happening is that large amounts of undiscovered species are still being discovered, unfortunatly the areas that they are being discovered in tend to be the ones that are under the most pressure from human activities.

Anyway, why would the extinction of species be a leftist agenda? I'm not overtly left-wing as I mentioned (though compared to yourself perhaps I could be one of the polit-buro), I don't think most large mammals are communists, or tree shrubs, or amphibians are rampant socialists are they? We are experiencing an ongoing mass extinction, its been going on since the start of civilization, its a measure of the sucess of our species that we have out competed all other large mammals and all (except the ones that we use as pets or livestock or who can live in a farmed environment) are in decline, thats irrefutable. How much virgin habitat do you think is left in the world? Europe has become a completely articfical landscape, though its nice, but there are very few bears, large cats, wolves, large birds of prey left here, this happened long ago, human beings didn't conciously set out to decimate other speicies but just out-competed them. I mean why (for instance) do we have nature reserves unless there was a need for them, why do our governments provide for species protection in Africa and Asia, and South America unless it was an issue, your being nonsensical?

In terms of the diversity of species on earth, most are small, most are insects and most of the biodiversity is contained in the toprics, I'm not a zoo-ologist but I do know that. Most of tropical africa and south america will be gone in 50 to 75 years, indonesia, new guinea, India, China, all are undergoing huge deforestation and the replacement of wilderness by farmland or even scrub, and it is precisely those areas contain far and away most of the individual speicies that live on the planet, do you think thats a good thing? I don't. I don't know what to do about it, but I don't think its something we should ignore or ongratualte ourselves on. I'm not suggesting that we can turn the clock back, or that we sould revert to being hunter gatherers (we'd mostly starve). Or that we should dictate like Roman Particians to do as we say and now as we do. I like civiliaztion, its great, I want it to continue, but if we don't make progress in a more sustainable manner we are courting disaster in lots of ways. The Earth is a closed biosphere and we are utterly depedent upon it, I don't think (short of nuclear armageddon) that we are going to destroy the earth, its far older than us and self-regulating, but we could certainly make the climate a lot less clement than it is now, we would survive such changes but certainly not unscathed, and perhaps not find outrselves in the lucky position we now are in. As you have already noted, the climate can change, and very dramatically, thats historical fact, should that not serve as a saluatory lesson in what hubris and arrogance brings? We should be doing as much as we can to ensure that we do not inadvertently cause our climate to deteriorate (from our own civilizational perspective) purely on selfish grounds, it is in our direct interest to do so.

Point 11-15:

That's just dumb.. that doesn't even make any sense? We will most likely depend on fossil fuels for much longer than 20 years.. and what catastrophic consequences do you see because of it? You have absolutely no proof of any catastrophic consequences, and I doubt you could find me any single piece of data that supports this claim. If you can't post the link.. (which conveniently you have yet to do in your labored list) at least point me to the study so that I can look at it's peer review.

What I said was that at current estimates (and it is widely believed that certain countries such as Saudi Arabia are not telling the whole truth about their reserves) that world demand will outstrip peak suppy capacity in the next 20 years, thats not saying that the oil will run out, what it means is that as our economies continue to increase in size and consumption of oil, the oil producing countries won't be able to meet demands, based on their own estmates of reserves and production. Once that point is reached, then its everyone for themselves, and whoever is first to the table will get the milk, that is to say the least a recipie for more political instability and conflict. I have other things to do this weekend, but I will get the numbers for you. There are other possible supplies of oil and gas such as the tar sands in venuzela and canada, and also perhaps russia, but how they are going to be tapped in an economically viable way has not been worked out yet (and that is ignoring the effects of emissions). Also there are quite possibly more deep sea reserves also. But these supplies will also (if tapped) reach a limit, and we are not talking hundreds of years we are talking decades. We are going to be facing an oil crunch one way or another, its more about how we prepare (or don't) for it. At the present time the western countries are almost completely dependent upon oil for power, transport, their military capabilities, aviation, etc etc. Europe has hardly any oil, it has to import most of it from Russia and the Middle East, America is also dependent (though less so) on imported oil, any reduction in the supply of this oil or long term disruption would cause havoc, so (sensibly) we attempt to make sure that our supplies are secure. So far we have, though at a cost, but this situation is not sustainable, we need more and more each year, and the supply is finite, as Asia develops it wants more and more oil as well, we are all drinking from the same well and there is only so much water in it.

What we do have is some time to create a situation where we can make our use of fossil fuels more efficient for a start, and over a period of decades develop different sources of energy supply, who cares how the car works or the oven cooks as long as it works, why the emotional attachment to oil, as if its some sort of inalienable right to use as much as possible and to hell with the consequences? Whats left wing about wanting to develop indepedent secure, energy supplies that we can control and rely on and that don't degrade the environement or cause us to get involved in the endless conflicts in the middle east? I see it as entirely a situation where we are faced with a problem and that we should tend to it pracically and in a way that suits our interests, in our cases Europe's and America's interests. Finding cheap alternatives to oil and gas are very difficult problems granted, but certainly not beyond us, and its much more prudent to start now while we still have adequate supplies of oil until waiting till it goes belly up and then grasp for straws? This is putting the environment to one side, but that issue wont go away either and its one for all people on the planet not just the developed countries, we are all at the mercy of environment and we need to have some sort of co-operative framework to deal with the problems we face their, or it won't work. I'm not suggesting that we are going to have an outbreak of peace and understanding, but I think that the gravity of the situation will eventually make all responsible governemnts at least attemt some solution.

Point 16:

We do have a lot of coal.. We have technologies to burn it very cleanly, we have technologies to mine it very ecologically friendly.. but liberals oppose every opportunity to use this huge natural resource.. based largely on ignorance by people who have been hoodwinked like you.

Yes there is lots of coal, and its very useful, but stating that coal is ecologically friendly is nonsense, it is a far less efficient fuel than either oil or gas, and produces far more CO2 burned per tonne than either of its relatives. The scrubbers used in such power stations reduce sulfur-based emissions, but the problem with Carbon emission is that they have to be "fixed", which means trapped and then stored, and we are talking about millions upon millions of tonnes evey year world wide, no one has come up with a viable way of dealing with that problem. I hope someone does, if they do they will be very rich. An example of where coal is leading us China alone is proposing to build 220 new coal fired power plants over the next 25 year to meet its economic growth, if you don't believe me, read their ecomonic target forecasts. These power stations by themselves will cause a further significant increase in atmospheric CO2 and thats only one country. It seems that the Chinese realize that oil is not going to be cheap in 2020 and also they seem as blind to the realities of climate change as you are, but they are commies aren't they? Russia is a major polluter too, theyre kinda pseudo commies as well, whats going on I though you said the ecological sustainability was a left wing agenda?).

Point 14?: (you must have meant seventeen.. must have run out of fingers and toes eh?)

No still got the 20, all there.



Entirely opinion. Not one statement in there is based on any fact.

Okay, so let me get this straight, your argument is that, there is no global warming, that CO2 levels are not rising, that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, that there are no changes being observed such as retreating glaciers, artic thawing, reduction in the greenland ice shelf, that the change in the mean temperature over the planet during the last 100 years was just co-incidence. That actually the whole thing is a conspiracy being made up by kooky scientists, lefties, tree huggers, and assorted, who are all conspiring to take over the world (somehow) and make al gore the king or something and that we all have to eat tofu and live in houses made out of dung. That the mass extinction of species has not or is not happening, that we actually live in a pristine wilderness that has not been polluted or degraded in any way, that everything is fine, that there is enough oil for all comers, that anyway coal an ecologically sound alternative to oil and natural gas, and that this is all about whingeing Americans in that country's democratic party trying to get one over on you?

And you call me an idiot?

[Captain Ray]

I didn't come right out and call you an idiot.. I meant too. but after reading what I had posted, I neglected to make that point.

Let's get right to the meat of the subject.. I will just set aside your mission statement.. you might want to save that bit for your next job interview, or application for a grant.. I wasn't terribly impressed...

Your first rebuttal to points 1-4:

You mention the British Antarctic Study.. (You could have just gave me the link.. but no matter.. I looked it up. More of the same...

Here is what the scientists had to say on this:

Changes in global climate can have impacts on the Antarctic environment. The Southern Ocean supports a unique ecosystem that is well adapted to present climate conditions. Changes in ocean temperatures, currents and sea ice will impact on this ecosystem, possibly changing the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. Warming of the atmosphere and ocean around Antarctica may lead to increased loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheets and hence a rise in global sea level. In order to make soundly-based predictions of how the global environment may change over the coming decades and centuries, we need to understand the role played by the Antarctic in the Earth system.


I suppose I can get on board with that.. It may happen.. it could happen.. it might.. I dunno.. apparently your scientist don't have a very good idea either...

the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since this time, surface temperatures have remained fairly stable over much of Antarctica, although individual station records show a high level of year-to-year variability, which could mask any underlying long term-trend.


and more from the same study you cited...

The majority of stations in East Antarctica, including the two long-term records from the high plateau of East Antarctica (South Pole and Vostok) show no statistically-significant warming or cooling trends!.


What the "study" doesn't go on to indicate.. that this is a conclusion based on a study.. not a study at all. It does not tell you that it's most dramatic conclusions were based on a study that involved only 2% of the land mass, and ignored all other data... but even so.. the "study" does not make the dramatic conclusions that you do.

Read it for yourself.



Points 5-8:

Yes.. it is true that scientists often get it wrong.. in fact.. they get it wrong an awful lot! The difference between scientists who propose a theory, and systematically prove their theory by attempting to disprove it is lost on the "global warming" myth. It seems that quite a game has become of cherry picking data, and embellishing the work of others by making outlandish statements, referencing the conclusions of others, who themselves did not collect the data.. has been quite a money making venture for the scientific community.



The fact is.. that since temperature data has been collected.... (about 150 years or so..) The temperature has varied +or- 1.5 degrees.. Now if you take into account that the majority of the data is not "global" at all.. it is largely data provided from Europe.. It's hardly a measure of what will happen in the deepest darkist regions of Africa, or NY city 200 years from now..

A study was done to measure the accuracy of meteorologists, compared to goats... the goats would go to the top of the hill before the rains came, and to the bottom if the weather was going to be cheerful.. The goats were right about 80% of the time.. the meteorologists barely made 60%.. (I'll put my money on the goats!!)

Point 9:

I note.. that as obvious as you think it is that everyone "just knows" that mankind has been able to change the weather patterns of the earth.. you didn't bother to site a study.. or provide a link to evidence that even pretends to factually suggests such a thing! How convenient.. this is the reason I stopped posting to this thread when GMC made his "I just know it's happening" statement.. It's like explaining to a child that there is no easter bunny.. I don't want to break the kids heart... But there is not one single study, that proves in any measure... by that I mean even "kinda-sorta" data.. that links any effect on global temperature that could possibly have been caused by mankind.

To make my point.. how do you explain that a single volcanic eruption produces more CO2 than all of industrialized man has ever produced? There were an awful lot of Volcanoes that blew magma into the sky before man learned to smelt metal!?!?

Point 10:

Yeah.. they find species that some scientist thought was extinct all the time.. you just gave a couple of examples. New species.. that were never even considered are brought out periodically.. and some species do indeed die off.. natural selection, the will of God.. you pick.. It doesn't matter much to me.

The fact is that this planet produces the food, oxygen.. and Carbon Dioxide incidentally, to provide a bountiful life for millions of animals, plants, insects, and whatever the hell other kinds of life that the planet wants to support. Preserving "endangered" species has been a complete waste of money.. Ask any American in the Pacific North West about the "Salmon Habitat Recovery" act.. and you will find out that a bunch of scientists who can't distinguish between a native Salmon and a farmed one.. there is no difference.. It just means that catching a nice fish means you have to throw 50% of them back because some leftist convinced some quasi scientist to tell somebody that the world will be a better place because I don't eat that particular fish..

Thanx!



Points 11-15:

So you agree with me, your original post was silly. Thank you.

Point 14: (seventeen.. whatever you want to call it.)

My point is, that Global Warming is an entirely political concept. It has nothing to do with science. Science has not proven any single facet of the concept. Global Warming is not even defined. Can you tell me what "Global Warming" is?

If the earth worm loving, nature before man, "a rat is a cat is a dog is a boy" crowd really wanted to get anything done.. they would just state the obvious.. and quit it with this Global Warming crap... not one of their theories have proven true.. not one!! Not one of their claims has ever been proven!! NOT ONE!! The year 2000 came and went, and the ultra violet rays have not burned my lips and eye lids off!! GO FIGURE!! I spent that much of my youth worrying about this crap!?!?!

It's a pack of lies..

Raymond

[Galbally]

Captain ray again.

Hello again, your reply was expected, but t is still depressing. In terms of scientific ambiguity, yes, scientists will always present outcomes in terms of probabilities instead of certainties as of course in our universe nothing is certain. Many people don't like this as they crave certainty in an uncertain world, thats for charismatic leaders and politicians to provide not scientists. In terms of presenting evidence I suspect it is pointless as you have declared that you "believe" that this entire idea (as I suggested) is a political hoax and I suspect that you wouldn' accept any evidence other than that which fitted with your own beleif system, and of course in this instance it is you who are cherry picking results to fit the argument, but that debate will be a sterile one I am sure. Arguably you could say that I and others who hold the same conclusions about global warming etc do the same thing, but I would say in my own defence that my conclusions are not based on sporadic findings but on the general "mass" of evidence collected over the last few decades, and I am in good company in terms of my conlcusions as again I repeat most of the worlds scientific community propound exactly the veiw that I am putting forth. There are parts of the global warming ecological argument that are complex and subtle, there are other parts which are not, CO2 emissions are not one of the more difficult areas. I assure you that correlations between global warming and CO2 levels are direct and unambiguous, but it is your choice to avoid the implications as they are unpalatable. Anyway, in general terms I am quite sure that you do not believe me or anyone else, and that is your right and choice, I'm not looking for your vote so I have no interest in telling you what you want to hear. However, in spite of the tediousness of the argument I will post more evidence, data, or links etc when I get more time to do so.

Good Day.

[Captain Ray]

Yes.. please do post some evidence. That would make the arguments more fun.. in fact.. if you can actually post some evidence, then you may have a convert. But you don't.. at least you don't have evidence that will show any proof that their is such a thing as global warming..

And if you expected my response.. why did you post it with no plan to rebut? That makes no sense. I usually don't ask questions that I don't know what the answer will be.

If you.. like so many.. just believe for the sheer personal enjoyment of believing.. that is fine by me. But it is really unfair of you.. presumably a professional in the field, to mislead people by making outrageous claims based on science that does not support your claim.



Why don't you guys who are trying to shove this myth down peoples throats just quit it with all the fantastic/wild conclusions based on half truths and misrepresentations.. just say: "Pollution is bad..M'kay..." See.. that is a true statement. Pollution is bad, and we ought to try to avoid polluting if at all possible. Any reasonable person could support you in that mission.

You don't like cars? Well.. be a good scientist, and give me something else that I can use to get to and from work. You don't like asphalt? Come up with an alternative to asphalt. You don't like fossil fuel? Give me something else I can buy at the gas station to fill up my personal transportation device.

You see.. the real problem.. and what makes the global warming myth such a joke.. is not that reasonable people can agree that pollution is bad.. it's the underlying anti industry, anti capitalist, anti human agenda of those who espouse it. Scientists do not agree that global warming is occurring.. left wing radicals are the only ones who agree on this subject.. and their goal is not scientific, it is political.

Raymond

[Galbally]

Captain Ray wrote: Yes.. please do post some evidence. That would make the arguments more fun.. in fact.. if you can actually post some evidence, then you may have a convert. But you don't.. at least you don't have evidence that will show any proof that their is such a thing as global warming..

And if you expected my response.. why did you post it with no plan to rebut? That makes no sense. I usually don't ask questions that I don't know what the answer will be.

If you.. like so many.. just believe for the sheer personal enjoyment of believing.. that is fine by me. But it is really unfair of you.. presumably a professional in the field, to mislead people by making outrageous claims based on science that does not support your claim.



Why don't you guys who are trying to shove this myth down peoples throats just quit it with all the fantastic/wild conclusions based on half truths and misrepresentations.. just say: "Pollution is bad..M'kay..." See.. that is a true statement. Pollution is bad, and we ought to try to avoid polluting if at all possible. Any reasonable person could support you in that mission.

You don't like cars? Well.. be a good scientist, and give me something else that I can use to get to and from work. You don't like asphalt? Come up with an alternative to asphalt. You don't like fossil fuel? Give me something else I can buy at the gas station to fill up my personal transportation device.

You see.. the real problem.. and what makes the global warming myth such a joke.. is not that reasonable people can agree that pollution is bad.. it's the underlying anti industry, anti capitalist, anti human agenda of those who espouse it. Scientists do not agree that global warming is occurring.. left wing radicals are the only ones who agree on this subject.. and their goal is not scientific, it is political.

Raymond


Okay, requiring evidence is fair enough, but I'm doing work this weekend that is involving a various boring search through the literature and statistics on something, (not climate change don't worry) so sorry If I don't feel much like plowing through more stuff. But, for any argument to be valid evidence is vital with as little editorializing as possible.

But just to get to the rub of the philosophical thing. I am a trained scientist yes, but I'm not a leading one or a world authority, and even if I was it woudn't mean anything if I was just spouting off and making it up, as thats hardly science. Obviously I have my opinions on this, and I suppose there are a bit more informed than most people, but thats not to say that non-scientific people shouldn't have to the right to whatever opinions they wish on this issue, thats freedom of expression and ideas, and I'm all for that or I wouldn't be interested in science in the first place, (anyway its what we all do collectively as societies that will actually bring about any change so its important that people do have an opinion and are informed on this).

What I will say is that every time I have looked at this issue and all the stuff that I have learned over the past 10 years or so has convinced me at least that this thing known as global warming is a real phenomena and that human acivities are the major factor in whats happening. There are other plasusible and natural reasons why the climate might change, but none of the possibilities has the compeling nature of the anthropromorphic argument (which is the one that claims our emission of CO2 from whatever the source, has increased the CO2 in atmoshpere, (which is definetly at a higher level than it has been over the past 10,000 years) and that this is a direct cause of increased energy levels in the atmosphere and its associated consequences.

Historical CO2 levels are determined by measuring sedimentary records, ice cores, biological samples etc etc, we can get into the technical and methodology sie of the science involved in how these claims are being made.

What I will say is that I have absolutley no anti-humanist, anti-industry or anti-capitalist agenda. I quite like modern western civilization, and being a scientist I am also very much of the view that there is no problem with us manipulating the environment for our own advantage, and using resources to make human life on this planet somewhat bearable. There is no moral argument from me, its not a moral issue, its an issue of practicality and prudence. If perfectly possible for us to continue to progress our material well-being in more sustainable way without having to ditch capitalism, or humanism, or industry, in fact we need all three very badly if we are going to make things better.

In terms of the economics of changing from a fossil fuel to a more sustainable energy economy, capitalism is by far the best way to achieve this, as its by far the best economic system, and is far more adaptive and dynamic than any other system I know of, after all it was a capitalist economy and society (Britain) that changed from horse, man, and water power to the use of coal and steam and kick started the modern world, and I am quite sure that Europe and America and other western nations will be the major drivers of technolgies and systems that will power our economies in the future. Partly out of necesity, partly out of enlightened self-interest, but mostly because it will be economically lucrative and people will make a lot of money out of it, and why not? To be fair to the energy companies they are already seriously developing strategies and looking at possible technologies and fuel sources that can be used to replace gas and oil. Car companies are also obviuosly developing new hybrid, electric, and fuel-cell cars, (and I love cars BYW, and convience, and I'm not exactly the most comitted eco-warrior in the world, but i accept that change is inevitable, and that some of the things we kinda take for granted we shouldn't). Also, electricty generators are looking at ways at making tranmission more efficient, consumer manufacturers also are factoring in power efficiency into what they are doing, and consumers are becoming aware of the benefits of not wasting energy and all that, its a slow process, but even small changes will have beneficial effects over the long term.

I will also say that of course in the past certain scientists have made predictions about impending disasters that never happened, and blunt-edged scientific solutions to problems have often worked out worse than the original problem (DDT is one good example). But also they have worked out things that are real problems and do need to be fixed such as the over-use of antibiotics, the harmful effects of smoking, the role of CFCs in creating the ozone problems in the polar regions, the problems involved in dumping waste into the sea and pollution in general etc etc.

And it is particularly noticable that on the climate change issue, almost the entire world scientific community are in agreement that its happening, (with exceptions who are notable precisely because they are exceptions), and that CO2 emitted by us is the cause. What they are not sure about is the exact consequences of what is happening, there is no denying that the earths biosphere is an extremely complicated system that we do not fully understand, which should not be taken as meaning that we can't make some predictions about general trends, just that we do not have the capability of modelling the entire biospehere and its exact workings, which is a reason for us to be very cautious anyway in our activities as basically none of us are fully sure of what the consequences are, so being lasseiz Faire about it is not really an option) Neither are they sure on what precisely we are all going to do about it individually and collectively. Anyway, they can only advise as scientists are not leaders, and they don't have the authority to tell people what to do (thank god), but they can recommend different courses of action to deal with things. It is apparent that oil and gas reserves are finite anyway, and that other sources of power and energy are going to have to be developed in the medium term (next 50 years), what the climate change agenda is telling us is that this problem is even more acute than we may have once assumed, and that more urgency is required to develop sustainable, secure energy resources.

Its certainly not an easy or quickly solved problem, but neither is it an impossible one, it will just take intelligence, resources, and the political will to get things moving. Unfortunatly, whatever we do, climate change is going to be a reality for the coming decades as the life cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in decades, and emission are inevitable going up in the next 20 or thirty years, and we don't have much choice in this. Hopefully the problems caused by this will be at a level we can cope with, and that new realistic technologies will be developed sooner rather than later that will allow us to drastcially reduce emissions without destroying our economies in the process. One way or another we are in for interesting times.

[Captain Ray]

Hmm.. well. your response is entirely reasonable. If you can agree with me, that we just don't know, and that the science is just plain unclear at this point.. then I think we have found a common ground to work from.

It's frustrating to me to have this discussion with people who's belief system is based soley on the "global warming ferry" coming to drop a few pennies on their pillow.. People who never even bothered to look into it when they make outrageous claims.



I am a person who looks into this kind of thing.. because it concerns me very much. I, like you, and most people want to have a clean, vibrant, healthy environment to live in. I want very much for my little girl to inherit a world that can provide a nice life, and a healthy planet to live on.

These enviro-nazis that make these ridiculous claims are so easily shot down... it just boggles my mind that they get away with any level of credibility!!

That you could sit back for a moment, and consider my objections tells me that you are not one of the enviro-nazi's that I have made my life's mission to defeat. You may actually be a reasonable person with a scientific background that could actually do some good in the world.. rather than just scare the self-imposed ignorant masses.

People seem to like you.. they don't like me because I am always in the unfortunate position of telling them they are wrong.. nobody likes to be told they are wrong.. but somebody has to do it... Hopefully you will do a better job of educating the masses than I have been.

Raymond

[Bill Sikes]

What about that fellow, whatshisface's recent campaign? Gore or someone?

This turned up on the BBC when I looked at the news just now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5344208.stm

[Captain Ray]

Oh geez!! Al Gore is an idiot. He was christened a professor of Journalism at Cornell University, although he does not hold a degree in Journalism. He ran and lost a campaign for POTUS, and is not a climatologist, or even a scientist, by anyones measure.

We have already covered the flawed study that you linked too.. Go back a few pages and read it.

Raymond

[Bored_Wombat]

Captain Ray wrote: Scientists do not agree that global warming is occurring. That's not quite true.

Amongst scientists there is a consensus.

(Peer reviewed papers published between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "global climate change". Were analysed by their abstracts. They "were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." (emphasis mine).

[Bored_Wombat]

Plus this really is a no-brainer. The effect of high greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is quite well understood.

The resulting feedback mechanisms require futher study, but the basic radiative forcing that you bung into the system is going up in a way that has been available for study since Arrhenius' paper 110 years ago.

We know from that fact that we are dragging fossil fuels out of the ground that we are introducing into the atmosphere CO2 and CH4 that haven't been in the atmosphere since the carboniferous.

And so, is this increasing the amtospheric CO2 concentration?

Let's go and ask some ice:







Why so it is!

That'll be what's making it warmer.

[Captain Ray]

You are an idiot and a moonbat.. I could spend some time proving that your an idiot and a moonbat.. but anyone who has bothered to read the thread already knows you are an idiot and a moonbat.

Good day.



Raymond

[gmc]

Captain Ray wrote: You are an idiot and a moonbat.. I could spend some time proving that your an idiot and a moonbat.. but anyone who has bothered to read the thread already knows you are an idiot and a moonbat.

Good day.



Raymond


:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Actually anyone reading the thread would realise that the only idiot and moonbat is yourself. All have replied to your feeble attempts at insult with courtesy and patience. Calling someone an idiot because you are unable to come up with a reasonable answer is sad and pathetic but that's your problem.

Clearly your mind is so open that new ideas just pass straight through it.

[Bill Sikes]

Captain Ray wrote: You are an idiot and a moonbat.. I could spend some time proving that your an idiot and a moonbat.. but anyone who has bothered to read the thread already knows you are an idiot and a moonbat.

Good day.



Raymond


Perhaps you will come up with something apart from idle rhetoric to support

your position? Actually stating your position in the first place would be a

good idea!

[Captain Ray]

There is no such thing as global warming. You are a moonbat. The climate changes, naturally. Cherry picking data may be a lucrative enterprise for your ilk, but it has no foundation in empirical science.

Raymond

[Bill Sikes]

Captain Ray wrote: There is no such thing as global warming. You are a moonbat. The climate changes, naturally. Cherry picking data may be a lucrative enterprise for your ilk, but it has no foundation in empirical science.

Raymond


Who are you replying to? Please quote something relevant when you reply, it's

easier to understand your posts. Can you come up with at least *some* info.

to support whatever your ideas are?

Edit: Ah! I switched to the (frightful) "threaded mode". You were replying to me!

Well! C'mon then, let's 'ave you.... post some on-line resource, or reference to a

well-known source....

[Bored_Wombat]

Captain Ray wrote: You are an idiot and a moonbat.. I could spend some time proving that your an idiot and a moonbat.. but anyone who has bothered to read the thread already knows you are an idiot and a moonbat.

Good day.



Raymond
Why, Mr Ray, mate - is it me to whom you speak?

CO2 levels are now much higher than they have been at any time in the holocene. Ice core data don't go back much further than about 650 000 years, but any idoit and moonbat can see that the increase is anthropogenic.

And the physics of releasing heat to space through greenhouse gasses is very well understood. If you reeally haven't heard about the greenhouse effect, wiki has a pretty good primer.

[Captain Ray]

No... CO2 levels are not at there highest... that is a lie. In fact they are at an all time low. and even so.. you act as if CO2 levels being high is a bad thing?! There are an awful lot of plants that think CO2 is a good thing.

While Greenhouse gasses.. a made up term.. may or may not exhist.. the Greenhouse "effect" is a phenonama that can only be reproduced on a very small scale. That big hole in the ozone.. the one that you ignorant enviro-nazis have been telling me was going to burn my eylids off since I was 12 year old alows gasses to be released.

I have been listening to you liberals lie about this stuff under the guise of scientific fact all my life.. I am finally old enough, and wise enough to call "bullshit." You are a liar. And if you are really a scientist.. then you know you are a liar. If you are just a dumb liberal.. then I forgive you.. because you are just dumb..but if you are a scientist.. shame on you.. liar...

Raymond

[Bored_Wombat]

Thanks for your obviously heartfelt reply, Ray. But since there's no part of it that doesn't beggar belief, we'll go through some of it shall we?

Captain Ray wrote: No... CO2 levels are not at there highest... that is a lie. In fact they are at an all time low. I'm not sure what to say. I think you are using some new meaning of "low", but it might be that you're using some new meaning of "In fact". Certainly I am not familiar with this usage of "lie":

Have a glance at the atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 400 000 years, measured from Ice cores.


Notice that as Ice ages come and go the CO2 concentration ranges from about 180 to about 300 ppm. Also notice that now it stands at over 380ppm. This is not an all time high, but it is certainly a 600 000 year high, and is probably a few million year high.

Captain Ray wrote: you act as if CO2 levels being high is a bad thing?!
Why, Ray, yes I do. It appears that this causes global warming.

Captain Ray wrote: There are an awful lot of plants that think CO2 is a good thing.
Well, in a hydroponic situation you can get better growth out of many plants with a high CO2 atmosphere. However, it turns out that in a normal farming (or forest) situation the limiting factor generally becomes the nutrition available in the soil, and little increase in growth occurs. We should expect to see that a high CO2 atmosphere reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change.

However vines to better than trees, and poison ivy in particular also becomes dramatically more toxic. Alas, "Increased vine abundance inhibits tree regeneration by killing young trees[.]"

Note also that the effect of high CO2 concentrations on the oceans is to acidify them with carbonic acid, which is very bad news for corals and other ocean calcifiers. This should have a dramatic effect on the oceanic food web. 25% of all ocean species spend at least some of their life cycle on coral reefs.

I would go as far as to say that it's devastatingly bad, especially since seafood was going to have to feed a whole lot more people, because crops grown a high CO2 atmosphere have a reduced nutritional value.

Captain Ray wrote: While Greenhouse gasses.. a made up term.. may or may not exhist
Now Ray, I'm pretty sure that Carbon Dioxide and Methane exist.

Captain Ray wrote: ... the Greenhouse "effect" is a phenonama that can only be reproduced on a very small scale.
It is quite measurable on a global level. This is how the effect was originally proposed by fourier: to explain why the whole globe as anominously warm. Without greenhouse gasses, the surface of the earth should be 30 °C cooler.

Captain Ray wrote: That big hole in the ozone.. the one that you ignorant enviro-nazis have been telling me was going to burn my eylids off since I was 12 year old alows gasses to be released.
I hadn't heard that one yet, Ray: What have you been reading? Do you think that CO2 is pouring out of the hole in the atmosphere, and into space, then sailing off in the solar wind to Mars?

Captain Ray wrote: And if you are really a scientist.. then you know you are a liar.
One more time: there have been no peer reviewed scientific papers published between 1993 and 2003 that argue against the consensus that "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

Not one.

We could go through some more recent ones just using google scholar if you like.

Just looking at the first page full, I have to say that none of them seem to be arguing about the the existence of global warming anymore. They are discussing the economic and environmental consequences, as well as amelioration measures.

This is probably because in the scientific community the consensus is universally accepted.

Wombat.