Global Warming?

[rama putri]

Before these people were civilized and educated they were nomads....You know followed the rain so they could eat

I love simpleton ... I mean simplicity like this. Look people, in simple English - we're fucking up our planet. Period. We can argue what to call it all we want, but we're fucking up the planet. Let's try and stop fucking up the planet. How's that?

 

[cypherpunk]

Notwithstanding that with the term "Climate Change", the scientists don't have to worry about, you know, facts.

Last year was warmer than the year before? Climate change is accelerating. This year is cooler than last year? Climate change affects different regions differently. Temperatures go up and down? Climate change can only be discussed over longer intervals and can't be measured by day-to-day or year-to-year fluctuations.

If you get everything from press releases and mainstream media, how can you possibly expect to see real, hard facts? Go to your local library and read the journals or STFU.

 

[papasmerf]

I love simpleton ... I mean simplicity like this. Look people, in simple English - we're fucking up our planet. Period. We can argue what to call it all we want, but we're fucking up the planet. Let's try and stop fucking up the planet. How's that?

hmmmmmmm

The sky is not falling. Sorry but now you need step off your soapbox and move along.

the problem with complex answers is they tend to overlook the simple ones that actually have proven them self to work. Nomadic life was the life of many people for centuries. Moving them into cities just placed them in areas where drought would lead to food supply problems.

People should have never fucked around with civilizations that survived for centuries by the simplest of means.

 

[landscaper]

I think it is the exact opposite of an oxymoron. I believe the word for that is a pleonasm.

I bow to the master you sir are correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[landscaper]

You keep on believing that petroleum industry-fueled disinformation...

I was just wondering if the soldier guarding the rice in Manilla in the star today was on the petrolium industry payrole ....... wondering minds and all

 

[landscaper]

Thank you Red I did not have time to dig up his C.V.

My point about this is he is not a climatologist, the climate is possible the single most complex system humans have ever seen. I will listen to Dr Suzuki with an open mind but I really disagree with the prospect of being thrown in jail if I disagree with him.

 

[Herodotus]

I was just wondering if the soldier guarding the rice in Manilla in the star today was on the petrolium industry payrole ....... wondering minds and all

But what does that have to do with you claiming that climate change is a myth? Mixed logic?

Food shortages are based on poor economic models that the World Bank and IMF have foisted upon third-world countries along with a changing climate that does not allow for the perpetuation of crops in that region.

The climate change phrasing came about when some of the global warming mantras started to fall apart . The global warming became climate change when temperatures id not rise as expected, the hockey stick temperature graph could not be replicated and several others were brought into question.

The phrase 90% of the worlds scientists believe in climate change is a misnomer .

There is about a 50-50 split in the serious scientists who study the climate. Dr Suzuki is not one of them his discipline is I believe botony although I could by wrong with the specialty.

The climatologist who started the weather network vehimently derides climate change and the latest ocean studies by the Argus Buoys shows a net drop in ocean temperature.

Serious scientists? Are you kidding me? I doubt you could find 50 "serious scientists", let alone 50% of the world's scientific climatological community that would agree with your rhetoric. Most of the climate change naysayers are bought-and-paid-for by the petroleum industry - the only problem is that less than 10% are given an equal voice to the other 90%. There is a near consensus that climate change is very real. What is in question is exactly what and how it will affect and what the root cause is. And even that is based more on specialization than dissention.

Cooling oceans are a part of climate change. You keep missing that part. Global warming = old misnomer. Climate change = the reality that we face - hot spots, cold spots, changing weather patterns, drought, etc., depending on the location.

What i believe all this says is why don't we find out what is really going on before we jump up to correct the problem. We want to get the correct problem.

That said not dumping large amounts of theings into our environment is a good thing to do regardless of the climate change implications.

And then the petroleum industry (and others) will fund new studies that oppose what the scientific community-at-large has found, and we'll be back at square one again. By then things will be worse and government and industry will throw their hands in the air and say "well it's too late now, what can we do?" Sticking one's head in the sand is no way to deal with environmental degradation.

I love the add-on caveat that we shouldn't pollute. Nice touch. Thanks for the news. Most greenhouse gases are co-products of other forms of pollutants - SO2, NOx, SOx, etc., so preventing climate change is in effect a good thing because it will also eliminate pollutants.

But you're also the guy who was against the legislation banning the cosmetic use of pesticides, right? And anyone who thinks about the environment, no matter how logically or scientifically, is a "tree hugger" to you. There really is no debating with people like you - business-as-usual is good enough.

 

[Herodotus]

the problem with complex answers is they tend to overlook the simple ones that actually have proven them self to work. Nomadic life was the life of many people for centuries. Moving them into cities just placed them in areas where drought would lead to food supply problems.

People should have never fucked around with civilizations that survived for centuries by the simplest of means.

We're well beyond being able to lead a nomadic lifestyle. Let's try and deal with reality!

 

[papasmerf]

We're well beyond being able to lead a nomadic lifestyle. Let's try and deal with reality!

then you are begining to see the problem

Ride a horse to work.

 

[Anynym]

If you get everything from press releases and mainstream media, how can you possibly expect to see real, hard facts? Go to your local library and read the journals or STFU.

I have read the IPCC reports cover to cover. And they raise more questions than they answer. Little questions, like the fact that none of the data are normalized for secondary factors such as proximity to urban effects, equinocital variation, terragenic sources of heat energy, or even orbital variance.

But those questions don't get you published, because many members of the review boards are scared of being labelled by their peers if they publish articles questioning the modern mantra.

 

[Herodotus]

I have read the IPCC reports cover to cover. And they raise more questions than they answer. Little questions, like the fact that none of the data are normalized for secondary factors such as proximity to urban effects, equinocital variation, terragenic sources of heat energy, or even orbital variance.

But those questions don't get you published, because many members of the review boards are scared of being labelled by their peers if they publish articles questioning the modern mantra.

Not entirely true.

They may not publish them all in the IPCC report, but the individual scientists do bring these, and many other, questions to light in their own peer-reviewed research.

 

[landscaper]

But what does that have to do with you claiming that climate change is a myth? Mixed logic?

Food shortages are based on poor economic models that the World Bank and IMF have foisted upon third-world countries along with a changing climate that does not allow for the perpetuation of crops in that region.


Serious scientists? Are you kidding me? I doubt you could find 50 "serious scientists", let alone 50% of the world's scientific climatological community that would agree with your rhetoric. Most of the climate change naysayers are bought-and-paid-for by the petroleum industry - the only problem is that less than 10% are given an equal voice to the other 90%. There is a near consensus that climate change is very real. What is in question is exactly what and how it will affect and what the root cause is. And even that is based more on specialization than dissention.

Cooling oceans are a part of climate change. You keep missing that part. Global warming = old misnomer. Climate change = the reality that we face - hot spots, cold spots, changing weather patterns, drought, etc., depending on the location.

And then the petroleum industry (and others) will fund new studies that oppose what the scientific community-at-large has found, and we'll be back at square one again. By then things will be worse and government and industry will throw their hands in the air and say "well it's too late now, what can we do?" Sticking one's head in the sand is no way to deal with environmental degradation.

I love the add-on caveat that we shouldn't pollute. Nice touch. Thanks for the news. Most greenhouse gases are co-products of other forms of pollutants - SO2, NOx, SOx, etc., so preventing climate change is in effect a good thing because it will also eliminate pollutants.

But you're also the guy who was against the legislation banning the cosmetic use of pesticides, right? And anyone who thinks about the environment, no matter how logically or scientifically, is a "tree hugger" to you. There really is no debating with people like you - business-as-usual is good enough.

This is part of the problem . Anyone who dares to argue the question or the research is labeled a denier ( the similarity to holocast denier is intentional)

ny research that does not agree with the conclusion that there is indeed global warming is dismissed out of hand as being funded/directed/influenced etc by the global oil industry or others of their ilk.

What we need is a rational debate about the issue what we are getting is an hysterical screeming match that is intended to ensure that the actual question


What is actually happening is never asked.

As to the IPPC report large numbers of people whose research was included in the report have been trying to distance themselves from it. The consensus on global warming is anything but a consensus.

 

[landscaper]

As for being business as usual yes I am , but get some real research and I will lead the parade ,

Just out of curiosity does anybody know what the green house gas that has the largest effect on the climate is?

 

[markvee]

Serious scientists? Are you kidding me? I doubt you could find 50 "serious scientists", let alone 50% of the world's scientific climatological community that would agree with your rhetoric. Most of the climate change naysayers are bought-and-paid-for by the petroleum industry - the only problem is that less than 10% are given an equal voice to the other 90%. There is a near consensus that climate change is very real. What is in question is exactly what and how it will affect and what the root cause is. And even that is based more on specialization than dissention.

Herodotus shows how to appeal to authority.

I have read the IPCC reports cover to cover. And they raise more questions than they answer. Little questions, like the fact that none of the data are normalized for secondary factors such as proximity to urban effects, equinocital variation, terragenic sources of heat energy, or even orbital variance.

Anynym shows how to make up your own mind.

And then the petroleum industry (and others) will fund new studies that oppose what the scientific community-at-large has found, and we'll be back at square one again. By then things will be worse and government and industry will throw their hands in the air and say "well it's too late now, what can we do?" Sticking one's head in the sand is no way to deal with environmental degradation.

And then the carbon-tax-my-ass industry will make a Powerpoint presentation into a slick movie and award a Nobel Prize based on it, so that we can all appeal to the Nobel Prize authority and stop thinking for ourselves.

But those questions don't get you published, because many members of the review boards are scared of being labelled by their peers if they publish articles questioning the modern mantra.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the scientific grant collecting industry. Both sides of the global warming/climate change argument can have a vested interest.

 

[basketcase]

Come on landscaper, with your handle, you should be hoping for a couple extra months of summer.

 

[rama putri]

The sky is not falling. Sorry but now you need step off your soapbox and move along.

the problem with complex answers is they tend to overlook the simple ones that actually have proven them self to work. Nomadic life was the life of many people for centuries. Moving them into cities just placed them in areas where drought would lead to food supply problems.

People should have never fucked around with civilizations that survived for centuries by the simplest of means.

Hmmm .. I see we have an oil exec ... err ... nevermind. No need to deal with either apathy, denial or evil.

 

[rama putri]

Forgot stupidity too.

 

[onthebottom]

Thank god for those higher gas prices then......

OTB

 

[markvee]

I'll make believe that the debate is over regarding global warming/climate change if the proposed solution is

removing oil subsidies

rather than

adding carbon taxes.

 

[cypherpunk]

I have read the IPCC reports cover to cover. And they raise more questions than they answer. Little questions, like the fact that none of the data are normalized for secondary factors such as proximity to urban effects, equinocital variation, terragenic sources of heat energy, or even orbital variance.

But those questions don't get you published, because many members of the review boards are scared of being labelled by their peers if they publish articles questioning the modern mantra.

I was advising you to do your own secondary research. Reading IPCC reports isn't quite the same. Also, I don't believe anyone who read the IPCC reports (plural) would say what you said about scientists and facts.