[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Is it just me, or does it always seem like Republicans who blow off Global Warming? If so, why is this?

Just wondering why this seems to be a partisan issue.

More Republicans follow the old religions instead of the newly fashionable ones?
(and don't tell me that global warming isn't a religion to a lot of folks on the left)

Plus, of course, lefties have always sort of been car-haters. Cars mean personal freedom, lack of state control, less reliance on state transport, more private ownership. And the upgrade path towards that Ferrari is the very essence of capitalism, is it not?

[Sky Captain]

The SUV=success.
I can only imagine what they think of my fleet of aircraft...

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Is it just me, or does it always seem like Republicans who blow off Global Warming? If so, why is this?

Just wondering why this seems to be a partisan issue.

Because it seems cheaper to ignore a problem rather than fix it....plus..when it becomes obvious that its a problem that needs to be fixed...they can always call Halliburton

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I don't think there's any question that humans are increasing, beyond natural levels, the quantity of certain gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, in our atmosphere. Proving that "at no time in the last 650,000 years have levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane been as high as they are today" does not prove humans are responsible for global warming. It only proves that "at no time in the last 650,000 years have levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane been as high as they are today.

The question is, is the human contributed increase in these gases responsible for global warming? I think it's a little simplistic to say "yes". I suspect the answer is somewhere in between, that the planet is in a natural warming cycle and humans are contributing to that warming; perhaps accellerating it, perhaps accentuating it. I think it's also a bit simplistic to say humans have no affect on our planet's climate

agreed.

[tie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Is it just me, or does it always seem like Republicans who blow off Global Warming? If so, why is this?

Just wondering why this seems to be a partisan issue.

Is it mostly Republicans? I think it is mostly Bush. I think Republicans are realizing how conclusive the science is. And, after e.g. Katrina, how much cheaper prevention can be. But Bush himself doesn't seem to believe in any science, and is corrupt. Unfortunately, he still has a lot of influence.

Lugar-Biden Resolution Calls for U.S. Participation in International Climate Change Negotiations

You also have to realize that many people don't know a thing about the issue. Just see some of the assertions that I've replied to in this thread, from Spliffdaddy, Sky Captain and Millennium, for example. Eventually, people will learn the facts, but it takes some leadership at the top to set an agenda. There won't be any real progress until Bush is out of office, but I'm sure we'll see some action from the next president, whichever party he comes from.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by tie

This seems a bit nonsensical. First you claim that predictions can't be trusted. Then you make your own prediction. Why is your prediction more trustworthy than that of the scientists?

(Answer: It isn't.)

Where did he make a prediction? I just see an observation about historical trends...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie

I think Republicans are realizing how conclusive the science is.

No, republicans see that jumping on the Global Warming band-wagon is politically profitable.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Where did he make a prediction? I just see an observation about historical trends...

Yes, thank you.

Since there are FAR too many variables to determine the real outcome of all this you would think that the scientific community would give more credence to history. A little more sensibility and a little less sensationalism is needed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, republicans see that jumping on the Global Warming band-wagon is politically profitable.

How? Why? Why is it a partisan issue? Why does Bush not buy it? Do people still associate people who want to talk about Global Warming as liberal hippies? Does the hippie still exist?

To me, I hear a lot of pretty hardcore science being discussed that I don't understand - much more than emotionally charged "save the planet" pleas that I usually associate with hippies. Exactly what is the scientific basis for rejecting Global Warming, or is the rejection mostly based on knee-jerk reaction hippie associations?

I've heard people go on about how the Earth has natural cycles, but I also know that many really qualified scientists believe in this theory. I've yet to hear a really credible scientist blow off Global Warming the way I do Republicans in here.

What is going on here? Can somebody summarize the arguments both ways in layman's terms for me?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You people are really pissing me off, and I'm even in a good mood today.

Sensationalism? You, who just advocated global warming by pointing out it's been historically "productive," are accusing the scientific community of sensationalism?!?!

Here's what I don't get: why do all you people, who (as tie above me pointed out) obviously have no idea about the facts, research or data behind the scientific community's near-unanimous position on global climate change and the effects of warming, feel the need to post professional-sounding rejections of their conclusions in this thread?! I mean, you get the obligatory post on "global cooling," which was a rather small blip on the radar that was roundly ignored or scoffed by the majority of the environmental scientists. That one always comes up as some sort of "proof" that global warming doesn't exist. Then you've got someone talking about how pollutants in the atmosphere have been LOWERING for a hundred years, and someone else yammering on about how "it's just a natural cycle" or it's only "political nonsense." I don't go into your car threads, or your computer threads, or whatever else where you guys may be more knowledgeable than myself, and start talking bullshi† and making baseless claims as if what I'm saying is actually true.

I've spent the last 4 years of my life doing a biology undergrad university degree focused on ecology and environmental science, and I hope to be spending a few years at law school studying environmental law. I spend my time reading and studying and learning about the environment, and lots of that is of course focused on human pollution (I took a whole course on it last year). After all this, why do you people feel the need to come in here and make pompous statements invalidating an entire generation of scientific data on the subject?!?!? Is it some sort of knee-jerk reaction because you hate the natural environment?? Do you only like cities?? Do you just not want to see any inhibitions whatsoever placed on industry?

I'm just curious. It seems very weird to me.

greg

[Sky Captain]

The sun goes through cycles also.
I just read a piece on this. There were no sunspots observed in the 1700. Thus colder climate.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What is going on here? Can somebody summarize the arguments both ways in layman's terms for me?

It's reasonably simple.
The planet is warming up, for sure. So is Mars. So is Venus. Not a whole lot we can do about it.

The left either doesn't realise that there's a whole lot we can do about it or goes with it anyway in order to advance their political ideals. Gas guzzling Ferrari = rich man = teh evil. Frugal public bus service = everyone is equal = good, mmm k.

The right realises that there's not a whole lot we can do about it other than to innovate and ride the wave. In the meantime, it'd quite prefer to remain in its Ferrari rather than ride the short bus with the hippies.

And that's about it.

[Sky Captain]

Because hippies smell.

And lets see them send a bus to MY neighborhood.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You people are really pissing me off, and I'm even in a good mood today.

After all this, why do you people feel the need to come in here and make pompous statements invalidating an entire generation of scientific data on the subject?!?!? Is it some sort of knee-jerk reaction because you hate the natural environment?? Do you only like cities?? Do you just not want to see any inhibitions whatsoever placed on industry?

I'm just curious. It seems very weird to me.

Well... ...it's this easy for me:

1) I drive a 4x4.

2) I need to drive a 4x4 because I live in a rural area and can't really use a normal car to get to my house. Well, technically I can but it doesn't do the car any good - I broke a brand new Merc SL (old model, built like a tank) in only about 6 months of going up my drive/lane/road. There's also the issue of carting required farm materials about and dragging dead cows (rescued pets) off fields.

3) The global warming industry is fuelling hatred of my chosen vehicle. I get hippies whining at me left right and centre every time I need to go into town for anything. I get insurance companies raising premiums simply because my chosen vehicle has a few extra inches ground clearance and an extra diff. I get reasonably mainstream political parties saying that if they get into power they're going to ban 4x4s or charge people through the nose for them.

4) Those same people whining about my chosen vehicle make no attempt to curtail their CO2/methane output and continue to eat meat. Because they like the taste.


So here's my take: Anyone who bangs on about global warming and isn't at least a veggie is a complete hypocrite.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's reasonably simple.
The planet is warming up, for sure. So is Mars. So is Venus. Not a whole lot we can do about it.

The left either doesn't realise that there's a whole lot we can do about it or goes with it anyway in order to advance their political ideals. Gas guzzling Ferrari = rich man = teh evil. Frugal public bus service = everyone is equal = good, mmm k.

The right realises that there's not a whole lot we can do about it other than to innovate and ride the wave. In the meantime, it'd quite prefer to remain in its Ferrari rather than ride the short bus with the hippies.

And that's about it.

What is your basis for claiming that there is nothing that we can do about it? There are many very simple and not incredibly expensive ways for us (businesses, consumers, etc.) to improve things a great deal. Not all of this is behavioral, but simply replacing old industrial practices with new ones. Many experts seem to agree that this will help a great deal.

What exactly is the gripe with this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well... ...it's this easy for me:

1) I drive a 4x4.

2) I need to drive a 4x4 because I live in a rural area and can't really use a normal car to get to my house. Well, technically I can but it doesn't do the car any good - I broke a brand new Merc SL (old model, built like a tank) in only about 6 months of going up my drive/lane/road. There's also the issue of carting required farm materials about and dragging dead cows (rescued pets) off fields.

3) The global warming industry is fuelling hatred of my chosen vehicle. I get hippies whining at me left right and centre every time I need to go into town for anything. I get insurance companies raising premiums simply because my chosen vehicle has a few extra inches ground clearance and an extra diff. I get reasonably mainstream political parties saying that if they get into power they're going to ban 4x4s or charge people through the nose for them.

4) Those same people whining about my chosen vehicle make no attempt to curtail their CO2/methane output and continue to eat meat. Because they like the taste.


So here's my take: Anyone who bangs on about global warming and isn't at least a veggie is a complete hypocrite.

You're ranting all about the behavior of some people, your experiences, etc. Fine.

What does this have to do with the science being discussed here?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What is your basis for claiming that there is nothing that we can do about it?

Originally Posted by Doofy

The planet is warming up, for sure. So is Mars. So is Venus.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What does this have to do with the Science being discussed here?

The science, which nobody has basically got a clue about*, is detrimental to my life experience.

* None of your scientists can even tell me if it's going to snow on Christmas Day or not. What makes you think they can predict the next 100 years? The Sun might decide to have a quiet time from tomorrow for all they know.

What will come will come. We're humans. We're inventive. We'll survive.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Could you share your source where you found that Mars and Venus are warming up like the Earth is? I don't necessarily disbelieve you, I would just like to further my own understanding of this argument.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The science, which nobody has basically got a clue about*, is detrimental to my life experience.

* None of your scientists can even tell me if it's going to snow on Christmas Day or not. What makes you think they can predict the next 100 years? The Sun might decide to have a quiet time from tomorrow for all they know.

What will come will come. We're humans. We're inventive. We'll survive.

I happen to know a few people either teaching or studying this sort of stuff, so let me attempt to answer this.

Any scientist worth their salt will not claim that they can *predict* what will happen. However, scientists agree upon global climate *change*. I think that, as a start, they would simply like to engage in discussion about this reality rather than having the discussion shot down.

A reasonable ideal, I think.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The planet is warming up, for sure. So is Mars. So is Venus.

It's been pointed out before that the climates of other planets can in no way affect the climate of Earth. So unless you can prove that the cause of warming on Venus and Mars is something in common with Earth it's completely ludicrous to point to them as proof that warming on Earth is natural or in any way similar.

The only way there could be a link between the climates of the three planets is if the cause of the change was external and common to all three. That would require either a change in the sun, a perturbation in the orbits of all three planets, or the arrival of a totally new and heretofore unseen radiant body in the solar system, in all cases that change would almost definitely be detected by ongoing astrological observation and we'd know about it.

Unless, of course, there's been some major cover up by the global warming zealots...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The science, which nobody has basically got a clue about*

* None of your scientists can even tell me if it's going to snow on Christmas Day or not. What makes you think they can predict the next 100 years?

Thank you for making my point. Thank you.

You're clueless. Absolutely, 100% clueless, and yet you still stay firmly planted in the middle of the debate circle.


It's a wonderful example of the resilience of the human spirit, I say.



greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Could you share your source where you found that Mars and Venus are warming up like the Earth is? I don't necessarily disbelieve you, I would just like to further my own understanding of this argument.

It's everywhere - there's even data from NASA's latest Mars probe. I have no specific links, so Googling would be a good idea.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Thank you for making my point. Thank you.

You're clueless. Absolutely, 100% clueless, and yet you still stay firmly planted in the middle of the debate circle.

Perhaps you'd like to give us the benefit of your education then.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

It's been pointed out before that the climates of other planets can in no way affect the climate of Earth.

So, the opposite would be true. The climate of Earth could in no way affect the climates of the other planets. Since all three are undergoing global warming, that's man-made causes ruled out, right there.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

The only way there could be a link between the climates of the three planets is if the cause of the change was external and common to all three. That would require either a change in the sun

Bingo. The Sun. That big yellow thing in the sky.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I've spent the last 4 years of my life doing a biology undergrad university degree focused on ecology and environmental science, and I hope to be spending a few years at law school studying environmental law.

So... ...your career is going to be based entirely around the premise that global warming is caused by man-made pollution and your meal ticket will be taking those who create that pollution to court.

Good to know that you haven't got a vested interest in your side of this argument. Shall I go ask the nearest barber if he thinks I need a haircut?

[black bear theory]

as far as mars is concerned, i have heard that temperatures on mars have both risen and fallen. the former argument was made (earlier in another _very_similiar_ thread) that ice-caps in the southern hemisphere were melting right now, though that behaviour is normal behaviour corresponding with the martian seasons. the latter argument was made by comparing the 1970's viking data with the current data. i've looked but haven't found anything definitive for either case.

i also haven't found anything about venus's temperature rising either, though it's pretty tricky since the atmosphere is so hot, toxic and crushing that any probe that goes into the atmosphere dies a quick, nasty death.

the two things that mars and venus share in common is a disproportionately high CO2 level compared to earth, respectively 96% and 64% iirc. the earth has 0.04% - an amount that pales in comparison. but take into account, the atmospheres these planets have, mars-negligible, venus - very thick, and earth - well, normal, and no comparisons can or should be made at wholesale temp increases, if they, in fact, do exist on the other two planets.

[Spliffdaddy]

A lot of you folks are suckers. Seriously.

The day Dubya buys into the global warming myth is the day most of the left dismisses it as BS.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, the opposite would be true. The climate of Earth could in no way affect the climates of the other planets. Since all three are undergoing global warming, that's man-made causes ruled out, right there.

Um, no... That just rules out man-made causes for Venus and Mars. Until you can prove that the climate changes on all three planets share the same cause then it doesn't disprove man-made causes on Earth.

Bingo. The Sun. That big yellow thing in the sky.

So there's been some change in the sun? Funny, I haven't heard about it. Where have you seen papers describing changes in the sun that are responsible for altering the climates of Venus, Earth, and Mars? What about Mercury? Jupiter?

We have literally constant observations of the sun going on. If it changed enough to cause significant changes in Earth's environment we'd almost definitely know about it.

Show me evidence of these supposed changes in the Sun and then I'll take you seriously. But I haven't seen a thing to support your claims.

[Spliffdaddy]

Every generation embraces a doomsday theory.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bingo. The Sun. That big yellow thing in the sky.

the sunspot cycle explains small-scale short-term temperature variations. it doesn't explain why the earth's temp was decreasing until 1850 then suddenly shoots up at that point and has continued to do so since.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

So there's been some change in the sun? Funny, I haven't heard about it. Where have you seen papers describing changes in the sun that are responsible for altering the climates of Venus, Earth, and Mars? What about Mercury? Jupiter?

We have literally constant observations of the sun going on. If it changed enough to cause significant changes in Earth's environment we'd almost definitely know about it.

Show me evidence of these supposed changes in the Sun and then I'll take you seriously. But I haven't seen a thing to support your claims.

I guess you've missed the multitudes of repeat threads on that very subject.

Here's one

Here's the graph I posted:



Here's a link

I like this part:

Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists do not have a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or reflects sunlight.

Scientists don't have a good grasp of how much the earth absorbs or reflects sunlight yet they KNOW that GW is man-caused, how much it will heat up and the disastrous consequences of it all. You would think that maybe they should have a good grasp of how things actually work before sensationalizing the issue. The problem with science is that too often it is like looking at a grain of sand through a microscope. You can see in detail what is in front of you but you lose your peripheral vision.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

the sunspot cycle explains small-scale short-term temperature variations. it doesn't explain why the earth's temp was decreasing until 1850 then suddenly shoots up at that point and has continued to do so since.

All of the huge factories and millions of automobiles that popped up in the mid 1800's are clearly to blame.

[Spliffdaddy]

The Earth is how many million years old?

And, OMG, the average temperature has been increasing for the last 100 years.

Isn't that something like .0001% of the Earth's age?

How in the hell can you suggest there's any sort of trend when you only observed .0001% of the Earth's temperature variation?

If you were to plot this on a bar graph, the last 100 years would be the size of a pixel - and the remainder of the line representing the entire Earth's existence would stretch around the globe six times.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Sensationalism? You, who just advocated global warming by pointing out it's been historically "productive," are accusing the scientific community of sensationalism?!?!

I never advocated any such thing. I merely was trying to make the point that the doom-and-gloom view of GW is over played.

And yes I accuse them of sensationalism. Scientific research isn't something that is real popular for people to throw TONS of money at…sensationalism is one way to get that funding. It seems to have worked.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So... ...your career is going to be based entirely around the premise that global warming is caused by man-made pollution and your meal ticket will be taking those who create that pollution to court.

As has been said here by myself and others, "global warming" seems to be not necessarily caused solely by the man-made pollution you mention. Temperatures have fluctuated for years, either up or down.

The issue is the severity and acceleration/accentuation of global climate change because of human emissions, and what effect these will have on our current way of life. It's not a "doomsday" theory – it's an attempt to correct a problem that many scientists have been increasingly recording over the the past few years. I don't see your logic – even in the "natural cycles" of warming recorded previously, levels of greenhouse gases (methane, CO2, etc.) always rose in proportion. At this time the human population is producing levels of these gases that are showing up in the atmosphere at unprecedented recorded rates.

"That's fine," you say, "the earth survived before, humans always survive, what's the big deal?" Well, we've been around a few tens of thousands of years, and only grouped in larger civilizations for probably the past 5000 years at best. There was no FEAR of climate change the last time something like this probably happened – organisms died, survived, and that was it. What happened, happened. Now, we have massive populations, established routes, often close contact with shores and oceans, etc. etc. etc. As far as I'm concerned, what you're saying is "Don't bother with tsunami warning systems, we'll survive whatever happens and whoever doesn't just got unlucky." It boggles my mind.

How in the hell can you suggest there's any sort of trend when you only observed .0001% of the Earth's temperature variation?

They haven't! They have temperature variations for hundreds of thousands of years. You're being ignorant again and clearly ignoring information already presented in the thread. They can look at previous data on warming, go "hmmmmm, that's interesting..." and then look at our current data and notice that the same thing is happening, except an order of magnitude faster.

In any case, it's quite obvious it's like talking to a brick wall. I'm quite puzzled. I know scientists who are brilliant men, and who have studied the environment and all their lives. The amount of knowledge they have astounds me, and despite my last 4 years of school I wouldn't even bother opening my mouth when they're around. That you guys feel that you have the "answers" to refute an entire scientific community's collected knowledge says a lot, I suppose...mostly that this is the intarweb, and straw men are hard to knock down in text.

Go to a science department and run your mouth off. Talk to the people who spend their lives on this. Bring up "global cooling" for a laugh, even. Your tail would be between your legs pretty fast.

greg

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The Earth is how many million years old?

And, OMG, the average temperature has been increasing for the last 100 years.

Isn't that something like .0001% of the Earth's age?

How in the hell can you suggest there's any sort of trend when you only observed .0001% of the Earth's temperature variation?

If you were to plot this on a bar graph, the last 100 years would be the size of a pixel - and the remainder of the line representing the entire Earth's existence would stretch around the globe six times.

about 4570.

the global warming debate has hinged on temps and atmospheric conditions over the past several thousand years. the cooling and warming trend i talked about dealt with correlating temperatures with the sun-spot cycles which go back to the 16th century. i thought that was obvious.

it deserves noting that the earth will experience many further cycles between cold and hot spells over it's lifetime. civilization won't be around for them though.

i'm not worried about the earth. only for it's climate and our civilization.

[Spliffdaddy]

The same brilliant scientists came to exactly the opposite conclusion back in the 1970's.

Furthermore, there is no way to accurately determine the temperature fluctuation of the planet much past 1,000 years ago. It could be quite common for the temperature to increase far more in any 150 year timespan than what's been experienced in the last 150 years.

So what was the average temperature of the Earth 26,813 years ago? And what was the temperature 26, 663 years ago? There's a 150 year span of time. If the answer is unknown, then how do you know it wasn't far worse than it is today?

Folks, a couple hundred years is *nothing*. It's so insignificant that if it never happened it wouldn't be missed. It's like losing a Canadian dollar.

Our time here on this planet is exceedingly brief.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I guess you've missed the multitudes of repeat threads on that very subject.

Here's one

Here's the graph I posted:



Here's a link

I like this part:


Scientists don't have a good grasp of how much the earth absorbs or reflects sunlight yet they KNOW that GW is man-caused, how much it will heat up and the disastrous consequences of it all. You would think that maybe they should have a good grasp of how things actually work before sensationalizing the issue. The problem with science is that too often it is like looking at a grain of sand through a microscope. You can see in detail what is in front of you but you lose your peripheral vision.

You're right, I hadn't seen that.

However your article says this:

"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming,"

Which means that Doofy's Mars and Venus data actually are useful. If the temperature rise on Mars and Venus has been approximately 10-30% of that on Earth then clearly it's likely the Sun is to blame. Otherwise it would seem there's some other factors involved (which may or may not be human-caused pollution on Earth).

[CanadaRAM]

> Are protein supplements vegetarian?
Soy protein and Textured vegetable protein and hemp protein -- yes

>Number two the warmer periods in the past were times of greater prosperity world wide.

There will be winners and losers worldwide from warming. Cool temperate zones with abundant natural water supply will generally win, zones that are already dry will lose, coral reef ecosystems will lose, zones that rely on snowpack will lose, the arctic and antarctic ecosystems will be changed dramatically (causing a corresponding change in worldwide marine ecosystems).

But the statement about things in the past being good when in a warm cycle is misleading on one critical point. Never in the past has there been so many people, so much deforestation, so much existing pressure on water supply. It will not be the same as the past. The environmental impact of the last 100 years in particular will amplify the effects greatly.

> Islamic terrorists are ...
Stop to consider what happens when a 2 degree rise in mean temperatures means to much of Africa, Asia and India, where several billion people will lose drinking water, pasture and agricultural land on a larger scale than they already have. Every other group you can think of will have 100's of millions of people with nothing left to lose.

(and incidentally more of the North American chapparal and plains will become untenable for agriculture as well when the glaciers and permanent snowpack melt and don't come back, and groundwater is exhausted. Glacier National Park will be No More Glaciers national park within a few decades. But most US citizens won't starve, they'll move to the urban centres. Rwandans and Pakistanis and others will starve, having nowhere to go)

What's 2 degrees, you say? In the last full fledged ice age, mean world temperatures were only 5 degrees lower than normal. Only difference being the place where I (and a lot of you) live was under 1000 feet of ice.

Recommended reading: Collapse by Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs and Steel) - he maps out what actually happened to civilizations in the past who stressed their environment and then were faced with climate change (Mayan, Polynesian, Iceland and Greenland Norse, Anasazi) plus outlines in detail modern examples.

>we've been around a few tens of thousands of years, and only grouped in larger civilizations for probably the past 5000 years at best. There was no FEAR of climate change the last time something like this probably happened – organisms died, survived, and that was it.

AND entire complex civilizations died when their deforestation of their environment lead ever more challenging irrigation technological problems growing sufficient crops, ehich a small change in climate (a couple of extra drought years) tipped the balance to mass starvation and breakdown of the society.

It's like a poker game. If you have a good grubstake, if you bet within your means, you can survive an extended period of losing hands, and average out. But the higher you raise the stakes (the lower you keep in reserve), the more the chance that one or two setbacks will wipe you out.

> China and India exempt from emissions agreements
Western nations would like to develop India and China's populations as markets to sell to, and at the same time keep them as low cost producers for import goods. Can't do both if industry there has to adhere to strict pollution guidelines, or if 1 billion automobiles can't be produced and sold because to the emissions impacts they would have.

China has done more than any other country to limit population growth. But here's the thing. Even if China were to go to zero population growth today, AND were to advance their population to the minimum standard of living of the First World, the world's consumption of resources (oil, water, consumer goods, cars, garbage and all the emissions that go with these) would double. Without one single extra person. Now add India. And every other country who wants to be a member of the consumer economy and allow all of their population to enjoy a First World personal standard of living. Now add population growth on top of that, and rapid depletion of forest lost to timber paper and fuel, and arable land lost to erosion.

[black bear theory]

^^^

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Which means that Doofy's Mars and Venus data actually are useful.

???

Originally Posted by nonhuman

If the temperature rise on Mars and Venus has been approximately 10-30% of that on Earth then clearly it's likely the Sun is to blame. Otherwise it would seem there's some other factors involved (which may or may not be human-caused pollution on Earth).

from
Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth (brought to you be GE)

Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.

also found this from RealClimate

...Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

...

Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Um, no... That just rules out man-made causes for Venus and Mars. Until you can prove that the climate changes on all three planets share the same cause then it doesn't disprove man-made causes on Earth.

Show me evidence of these supposed changes in the Sun and then I'll take you seriously. But I haven't seen a thing to support your claims.

This took about 30 seconds with Google.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

"That's fine," you say, "the earth survived before, humans always survive, what's the big deal?" Well, we've been around a few tens of thousands of years, and only grouped in larger civilizations for probably the past 5000 years at best. There was no FEAR of climate change the last time something like this probably happened – organisms died, survived, and that was it. What happened, happened. Now, we have massive populations, established routes, often close contact with shores and oceans, etc. etc. etc. As far as I'm concerned, what you're saying is "Don't bother with tsunami warning systems, we'll survive whatever happens and whoever doesn't just got unlucky." It boggles my mind.

Now this brings about an interesting question.

Let's assume that global warming is man made. What would be the cause of this? No, I'm not talking cars and factories - they're the easy target (and strangely, getting rid of cars and factories would suit the political left's aims).
No, we're talking overpopulation. So what do we do about that? Is it not strange that lefties who're so supportive of man-made global warming when it comes to removing SUV driver from the roads aren't quite so supportive of population reduction via natural means? In fact, they're positively working against population control when they advocate the welfare state. Co-incidentally, this is also a strange thing from a religious perspective - those who believe in Darwin's theories are those most likely to be working against them, again with the support of a welfare state.
You yourself mention tsunami warning systems with a suggestion that we should work towards a point where nobody should be "unlucky". What if the only way of getting rid of this global warming thing is for nature to make a large bunch of us "unlucky"?

[Doofy]

If folks are still insisting on going down the "man made" route... ...why aren't you doing anything about it other than going after cars and industry?

You know they're chopping down huge quantities of rain forest as I type in order to provide grazing land for your burgers, right? But, you like the taste so I guess it's easier to point the finger at motorists and industry.

Why aren't you out there campaigning for an economic system which doesn't rely on growth (including population growth) to support itself. Or an economic system which adheres to the Darwinist principles and allows the population to regulate itself naturally?

Easier to sit in your lab and point the finger at motorists and industry, I guess.

[CanadaRAM]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If folks are still insisting on going down the "man made" route... ...why aren't you doing anything about it other than going after cars and industry?

You know they're chopping down huge quantities of rain forest as I type in order to provide grazing land for your burgers, right? But, you like the taste so I guess it's easier to point the finger at motorists and industry.

Why aren't you out there campaigning for an economic system which doesn't rely on growth (including population growth) to support itself. Or an economic system which adheres to the Darwinist principles and allows the population to regulate itself naturally?

Easier to sit in your lab and point the finger at motorists and industry, I guess.

Obviously -- it's not an either/or answer, it's an ALL.

Demonizing those who object to increasing levels of pollution because they eat meat, as a way to invalidate their argument, is just childish.

Greenhouse gas production is one of the more reversible human impacts; it'll take about 70 years for atmospheric levels to start decreasing after a reduction in production, but they will. And you ARE right - large scale cattle operations cause a huge amount of methane, a greenhouse gas. Western levels of consumption are unsustainable -- when it takes 10 acres of forest to be destroyed to produce 1600 pounds of vegetable material to produce 10 pounds of beef to make 40 Macdonalds hamburgers, that's enormously destructive. But should we give up one baby step towards correcting the situation just because overthrowing the North American consumer/industrial system is too much to contemplate? No.

Deforestation and the subsequent land loss due to erosion and desertification is much more permanent - I agree that stopping deforestation and remediating damaged areas is even more important longterm than getting greenhouse gases under control. But it's all linked: cheap consumer goods from China = small industry production = deforestation to burn wood for charcoal to smelt the metal or use of dirty coal = greenhouse gas production + accelerated deforestation = rise in temperature + loss of moisture and topsoil retention = permanent loss of forestable and agricultural land = more greenhouse gases = .. it's a positive feedback loop

Salination of arable land due to loss of natural groundcover, over-working and irrigation is also much much longer in effect.

Also permanent is loss of coral reef ecosystems to ocean warming and to dragging/dynamite/cyanide fishing methods (used by desperate populations who have lost adequate food supply due to overgrazing/salination/erosion/loss of irrigation of their farmland)

PS: You really, really don't want Darwinian (or more likely you mean Malthusian) control of population levels. Natural control of populations requires crisis, mass starvation, plague diseases and warfare -- since there is no known natural control of reproduction rates.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CanadaRAM

Demonizing those who object to increasing levels of pollution because they eat meat, as a way to invalidate their argument, is just childish.

I think not. Non-veggies whining about man made global warming is like cocaine users saying "don't take heroin because drug use is bad". As the old saying goes: if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Look to fully sorting your own contribution before you start whining at others.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I think not. Non-veggies whining about man made global warming is like cocaine users saying "don't take heroin because drug use is bad".

That's a pretty twisted view. You are likening me (I eat meat) to a drug addict? Why must vegetarians have such a twisted, activist mindset?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy

This took about 30 seconds with Google.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Ok then, sounds like the Sun most likely is playing a role in global warming. (Thanks for finding the link. )

However I'd still advocate working towards a reduction of greenhouse gases and any other potential man-made contributors to global warming. If anything we're doing is contributing to global warming we should stop. Just because it may be a natural process doesn't mean we should just accept it as good and learn to live with it.

Global warming, whether man-made or not, does and will cause problems for us. As such we should work to counter it as much as we can. If a .2° rise in temperatures has caused as disastrous a hurricane season as this (assuming global warming is the culprit, of course) shouldn't we do everything we can to prevent the temperature from rising more and, if possible, bring it back down?

Why shouldn't we attempt to alter the climate of our planet to better suit our needs?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

That's a pretty twisted view. You are likening me (I eat meat) to a drug addict? Why must vegetarians have such a twisted, activist mindset?

I'm saying don't be whining about folk driving SUVs if you yourself are contributing to the problem in other easily avoidable ways. Since you, smacintush, don't appear to have whined about folks in SUVs then this doesn't apply to you.

I don't have an activist mindset. I'd prefer folks left me alone to do my own thing (including driving an SUV) and I'll leave them alone to do theirs. That's how I like it. Unfortunately the activists in the global warming religion aren't allowing me that. So, if someone starts whining at me for what I'm doing then I suggest they take a good hard look at what they're doing.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Global warming, whether man-made or not, does and will cause problems for us. As such we should work to counter it as much as we can. If a .2° rise in temperatures has caused as disastrous a hurricane season as this (assuming global warming is the culprit, of course) shouldn't we do everything we can to prevent the temperature from rising more and, if possible, bring it back down?

Exactly. If you're going to take action, don't just limit it to pointing at SUV drivers. Do everything you can. How's that tofu burger going down?

Here's an interesting thing. The UK government is considering the introduction of domestic tradable carbon allowances (link to discussion). I'm betting that despite my food sources not creating CO2 or methane my allowance will be exactly the same as someone whose food generates plenty of CO2 and methane and that the food related difference won't be taken into account at all. How is that fair? Answer: It's not.

[saab95]

Science has been manipulated to suit political agendas.

Political agendas and science are far too often a very bad mix.

Global Warming is a case in point.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=15

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=27

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=2004

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=292

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=976

These asshats who claim global warming won't stop until human beings are obliterated from the face of the earth.

Let them prove that the Ice Age was man-made, then I'll pay attention.