Fear / Loathing / Reality

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What evidence proves we are speeding it up? How much? If you hit the ground at terminal velocity or terminal velocity - 1 fps DOES it really matter?

Well what evidence we have does seem to show that The increased C02 in our atmosphere is heating it up at a greater rate, and we can show that it is us that is pumping this extra C02 into the atmosphere.

When you look at those charts(the same ones I have referenced twice) that show those 5 ice ages, pay attention to the scale at the bottom. 450K years compared to the Earths age is a small time span.

450k Years compared to the time we have had civilisation on Earth is incredibly small whcih is what we should be measuring it by there has only been 1 Ice Age in the whole of Human History, and also you seem to be assuming we are on the verge of a new Ice Age where is your evidence for this ?

On Wikipedia (which is where your chart comes) it says - "Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now"

You seem to be saying because we have Ice Ages which could happen in 50,000 years time then we shouldn't really care what we pump into the atmosphere now as it wont matter.

[dbasnett]

What I have said over, and over, and over, is that it is cyclical. Global warming, global cooling.

I have also said that it is my opinion that the chart says it happens no matter what we do, so having the political / technological community manipulate me out of fear is not happening. It is no wonder why they do it, look at the number of you that just keep ignoring the actual information they give you. Since when did the Earth care that we were on the face of the planet? Tell that to the volcanoes in the North Atlantic.

When I point out recent examples of science changing what it knows, or admitting it didn't fully understand the problem, that is just ignored.

Keep hoping that man can control nature, a joke only a fool believes. As I write this the Osage River is out of its banks, the Missouri River is on the rise, and the Earth is not listening to my pleas to stop. If it doesn't stop soon I'll have water in the house. Last night they were predicting clear and sunny today. Hmmm or should I believe what I felt when I walked out on the deck, or interpret the information they give me?
http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?r...101111&loop=no

If there is some point other than man can control nature, please make it, otherwise don't bother, I am a skeptic.

[FunkyDexter]

NOBODY HAS EVER SERIOUSLY BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT!!!! Sorry to shout but, honestly, this is a myth. The ancient Babylonians knew it was round and the ancient greeks (namely Pythagoras) even calculated it's circumference. Nobody thought it was flat in the dark or medievel ages either and by the renaissance we were happily sailing round it. And the church has never claimed it was flat either, although they did claim that the sun and planets revolved around us. The only people who've ever claimed it was flat are the flat earth society and they're just idiots who wish they had something useful to say. As an example of how science can be wrong it holds no more water than a sieve.

No scientist ever received a lucrative government grant for saying "everything is fine."

No, but plenty have recieved hefty pay-checks from vested interests. I've never seen any figures on it but I feel pretty confident in saying that, as a scientist, you would stand to make considerably more money denying global warming than you would by advocating it. Oil companies would be queueing up to give you grants.

Please site sources for your information. 90% ???

I used to see the 90% figure quoted on wikipoedia. It's not there any more because it's been replaced by this:-

With the release of the revised statement[88] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change

so that's 100% of creditable bodies then. OK, so Wikipoedia's not the best source but there's plenty of references you can check from there if you wish.

Also, a word on scientists. Scientists, in the main, do not consider themselves to be the authorities on anything. They don't tell us what to do, they don't set policy and they don't generally view themselves as Gods. Instead they just report the facts as they see them and leave the rest of that stuff to the politicans. Usually politics lags behind science as politicians have to sell change to their electorate and it's notable that politics is still lagging behind on climate change - scientists are recommending measures far more pronounced than those you'll hear advicated by politicians at present. Yes, scientists can, like everyone else, be susseptible to corruption and may tailor their results to fit the views of one interest or another but this is actually quite rare and also exists on both sides of the debate.

cyclical

Yes, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist on either side of the fence who disagreed with that. That's not, and never has been, the point of the debate though. What's at debate is whether man is significantly affecting that cycle. If we are (which I'm inclined to believe given the overwhelming scientific consencus) then it's a pretty safe bet that that's a bad thing. We can't be sure of that, no, but common sense should tell you that changing the enviroment in which we evolved and are therefore genetically suited to, is probably not going to turn out too well for us.

Does that mean that we shouldn't be preparing for a future where the natural cycle of temperatures impacts on us? No. We should be preparing flood defences, storm defences and all the like. But does it mean that we should blithely go on as we are, consuming energy and pumping out pollutants at a rate utterly unprecendented in all of human history? Equally, that's a big No, I'm afraid. The difference is that the sort of measures we should be preparing against an ice age future can be defered because those affects are going to be felt slowly. The measures we should be traking to minimise our impact on the environment, on the other hand, should be taken now because the damage is being done now.

[dbasnett]

Somewhere buried in the post was the point of contention: "Does that mean that we shouldn't be preparing for a future where the natural cycle of temperatures impacts on us? No. We should be preparing flood defenses, storm defenses and all the like. But does it mean that we should blithely go on as we are, consuming energy and pumping out pollutants at a rate utterly unprecedented in all of human history?"

So we agree, I think???, that the flood is coming regardless? Or are you holding out hope that man can control nature. If we agree then do we have a plan for what to do with all of the people living in coastal areas that are going to be flooded? No government I have heard of is saying it is going to happen no matter what we do, nor have I heard anything like that from the scientific community.

Could everyone please stop making it seem that I advocate pollution, CO2 emissions, dependency on carbon fuels, etc.

1 - I believe in global warming
2 - I don't think the overall, big picture, impact we have on the environment is going to make a dramatic difference. So the flood comes 100 years earlier, so what? One hundred years in human terms is huge, but in earth years it is the blink of an eye, hardly dramatic. What is important, and I am an expert in this, is knowing when. I am going to be a big polluter the next few days because I need things to help me prepare for the flood. And I will be making hourly observations, trying to predict how much stuff needs to be moved, and where does it need to go. Mo River, Osage River


I am deeply sorry that I used flat earth. The best, most pertinent, example was in post #1, we know, we fixed, we thought we knew but now it looks like we didn't know as much, and maybe the fix is contributing to global warming, but we will know tomorrow.

I don't know how any one that believes that the Earth is a chaotic system would profess a claim on man's impact on that system. 500K years of data in a 14B year system doesn't seem to me to be significant.

[Xanith]

No, but plenty have recieved hefty pay-checks from vested interests. I've never seen any figures on it but I feel pretty confident in saying that, as a scientist, you would stand to make considerably more money denying global warming than you would by advocating it. Oil companies would be queueing up to give you grants.

Not sure if you are aware that there are trillions of dollars on the line if climate change legislation passes? What will be set up is a global carbon exchange in which trillions of dollars of “air” are traded. Money will be siphoned from the so called “rich” countries and given to poor countries in a redistribution, share the wealth scheme. So there is a huge amount of money on the line if climate change restrictions are enacted. Big business is in climate change, Enron is the original company that wanted the carbon exchange set up, and companies like GE are pushing heavily for it because they have a lot of money to gain.

So I think you are incorrect in your assessment in thinking that you would make more money denying global warming, it could easily be argued that you have more to gain if you support it. After all if global warming is true you have to make global changes that affect the way we do business, if it isn’t true then you really don’t have to do anything. So climate change = global control and regulation, no climate change = status quo.

X