Climate change video

[IGBT]

..so many people are falling for this alarmist fraud.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..so many people are falling for this alarmist fraud.

Do you think there may be a correlation between America being the Western nation that most distrusts science (in favor of superstition) and the fact that it's the one in which the most people either don't believe in human created climate change or don't think it's bad?

If you look at Britain, you'll see people themselves noticing the effect of warming on their gardens and local wildlife. In general they are much better educated in science and history. To Americans, with the exception of a few regions, nothing is happening because it isn't visible on reality TV, or their preachers don't tell them it's so.

Where's Dug? He can tell you what Australians think.

 

[IGBT]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ?Greatest Scam in History?

By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET


It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.








Text

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ?Greatest Scam in History?

By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET


It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives <manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we <adhere to their radical agenda. Now their <ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.








Text

I'm offended by your combination of
a) A non-credible highly biased source with an agenda and
b) An opinion by someone who is not an authority of any kind and and whose field (presumably) is
c) WEATHER, which is not climate


I'll trust NASA, thank you very much.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/go...un/climate_change.html

And also NOAA.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

The Weather Channel's position statement:

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.

 

[maziwanka]

his argument is the same exact ones that all the pro-gcc people use

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

The Weather Channel's position statement:

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.

You know what bothers me about people like you? You spout off alarmist nonsense that global warming is going to cause mass extinctions, major disasters, blah blah blah, none of which is the scientific consensus, and then when called on the carpet, you fall back on the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and likely the result of human activities (but with no mention of your disaster predictions). Or, in small words you can understand, the fact that the earth is warming is the scientific consensus. Your disaster predictions are not.
What you are doing is abusing science for the sake of your own little agenda just as bad as those you consider to be "deniers." Get a fsckin clue, moron.


Oh yeah, and in response to your little factitious high school prick questions you posted earlier, the last ice age ended 0.0003% of the earth age's ago.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
5) A Creationist should not be arguing in a thread about science. Tellingly, it's usually creationists and other religious nutcases who argue against anthropogenic climate change. Anyway, you don't see me going to religion forums and arguing about whether Jesus was black or white, or Mormonism vs Protestantism.

Somebody with such a closed mind can't even know what science is.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

The Weather Channel's position statement:

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.

You know what bothers me about people like you? You spout off alarmist nonsense that global warming is going to cause mass extinctions, major disasters, blah blah blah, none of which is the scientific consensus, and then when called on the carpet, you fall back on the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and likely the result of human activities (but with no mention of your disaster predictions). Or, in small words you can understand, the fact that the earth is warming is the scientific consensus. Your disaster predictions are not.
What you are doing is abusing science for the sake of your own little agenda just as bad as those you consider to be "deniers." Get a fsckin clue, moron.


Oh yeah, and in response to your little factitious high school prick questions you posted earlier, the last ice age ended 0.0003% of the earth age's ago.

I was asking those questions to get HeroOfPellinor to admit that he's a creationist who is not science minded. They have nothing to do with the topic. High school prick?? I have a degree in geography with a minor in geology and I'm a professional geographer in the oil industry. What do you do?


I didn't say anything about disaster predictions. Increased heat may result in more powerful hurricanes, but the difference won't be significant IMO.

What are you talking about mass extinction not being scientific consensus? That's neither here nor there! There aren't many biologists and ecologists, so why would there be a consensus? That's like saying, "There's no consensus among scientists whether the number of dimensions is 9 or 7". Ask an ecologist what a 2 or 3 degree change over 100 years will do.

What do you think happens when range changes? When you consider that most natural habitats are drastically shrunk by deforestation and agriculture, it should be obvious to you that a lot of extinctions will occur. There was a paper last year about the level of extinction, which may be something like 50% of species. Have you taken a single ecology course or read a single book on vegetation ecology?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
5) A Creationist should not be arguing in a thread about science. Tellingly, it's usually creationists and other religious nutcases who argue against anthropogenic climate change. Anyway, you don't see me going to religion forums and arguing about whether Jesus was black or white, or Mormonism vs Protestantism.

Somebody with such a closed mind can't even know what science is.

If open-mindedness means being open to acupuncture as medicine, UFO encounters, bigfoot sightings, magic, creationism, or whatever else, I'm proud to be closed minded and politically incorrect. Boohoo! I know what science is and I know what politics and religion are.

If you don't know how evolution works, you literally cannot have a scientifically valid view on ecology and extinctions. It's just like how I don't have enough knowledge about physics to say whether time travel or faster than light flight are possible.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

The Weather Channel's position statement:

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.

You know what bothers me about people like you? You spout off alarmist nonsense that global warming is going to cause mass extinctions, major disasters, blah blah blah, none of which is the scientific consensus, and then when called on the carpet, you fall back on the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and likely the result of human activities (but with no mention of your disaster predictions). Or, in small words you can understand, the fact that the earth is warming is the scientific consensus. Your disaster predictions are not.
What you are doing is abusing science for the sake of your own little agenda just as bad as those you consider to be "deniers." Get a fsckin clue, moron.


Oh yeah, and in response to your little factitious high school prick questions you posted earlier, the last ice age ended 0.0003% of the earth age's ago.

I was asking those questions to get HeroOfPellinor to admit that he's a creationist who is not science minded. They have nothing to do with the topic. High school prick?? I have a degree in geography with a minor in geology and I'm a professional geographer in the oil industry. What do you do?


I didn't say anything about disaster predictions. Increased heat may result in more powerful hurricanes, but the difference won't be significant IMO.

What are you talking about mass extinction not being scientific consensus? That's neither here nor there! There aren't many biologists and ecologists, so why would there be a consensus? That's like saying, "There's no consensus among scientists whether the number of dimensions is 9 or 7". Ask an ecologist what a 2 or 3 degree change over 100 years will do.

What do you think happens when range changes? When you consider that most natural habitats are drastically shrunk by deforestation and agriculture, it should be obvious to you that a lot of extinctions will occur. There was a paper last year about the level of extinction, which may be something like 50% of species. Have you taken a single ecology course or read a single book on vegetation ecology?

Have you? :roll:

A lot of extinctions are occurring and have ALWAYS BEEN occurring. 99.9% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.
Change is inevitable. It is the nature of our universe (much less our planet) that nothing is static. The problem with you alarmists is that you're acting out against nature and science by trying to preserve a status quo that doesn't exist. But hey, you can always just point to the Creationists to pretend that science is on your side, right?

Wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
5) A Creationist should not be arguing in a thread about science. Tellingly, it's usually creationists and other religious nutcases who argue against anthropogenic climate change. Anyway, you don't see me going to religion forums and arguing about whether Jesus was black or white, or Mormonism vs Protestantism.

Somebody with such a closed mind can't even know what science is.

If open-mindedness means being open to acupuncture as medicine, UFO encounters, bigfoot sightings, magic, creationism, or whatever else, I'm proud to be closed minded and politically incorrect. Boohoo! I know what science is and I know what politics and religion are.

If you don't know how evolution works, you literally cannot have a scientifically valid view on ecology and extinctions. It's just like how I don't have enough knowledge about physics to say whether time travel or faster than light flight are possible.

How can you yourself claim to know how evolution works when you have clearly taken a stance against the change that makes it possible?

I'm not defending the Creationist here, I'm just saying that he sure make a great red herring for your own unscientific views, now doesn't he?

 

[0roo0roo]

figure out what level of existence is actually "sustainable" if all the population of the world adopted said lifestyle
adopt it yourself first if you want to yap
its probably an existence you probably wouldn't enjoy

just be happy the next ice age isn't coming anytime soon.
mother nature by default isn't kind

fundamentally it doesn't matter what the debate is on or whether it is going on or if it is over.
fundamentally those who scream about it really don't want to acknowledge they have no real non feel good solution.

 

[Fritzo]

Yeah, I actually think there are pros and cons to global warming. Plus the changes will be so gradual that we'll compensate for them as they're happening. The only big problems may be the coastal cities.. we might be getting "New Orleans" situations happening a lot more often.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

The Weather Channel's position statement:

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.

You know what bothers me about people like you? You spout off alarmist nonsense that global warming is going to cause mass extinctions, major disasters, blah blah blah, none of which is the scientific consensus, and then when called on the carpet, you fall back on the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and likely the result of human activities (but with no mention of your disaster predictions). Or, in small words you can understand, the fact that the earth is warming is the scientific consensus. Your disaster predictions are not.
What you are doing is abusing science for the sake of your own little agenda just as bad as those you consider to be "deniers." Get a fsckin clue, moron.


Oh yeah, and in response to your little factitious high school prick questions you posted earlier, the last ice age ended 0.0003% of the earth age's ago.

I was asking those questions to get HeroOfPellinor to admit that he's a creationist who is not science minded. They have nothing to do with the topic. High school prick?? I have a degree in geography with a minor in geology and I'm a professional geographer in the oil industry. What do you do?


I didn't say anything about disaster predictions. Increased heat may result in more powerful hurricanes, but the difference won't be significant IMO.

What are you talking about mass extinction not being scientific consensus? That's neither here nor there! There aren't many biologists and ecologists, so why would there be a consensus? That's like saying, "There's no consensus among scientists whether the number of dimensions is 9 or 7". Ask an ecologist what a 2 or 3 degree change over 100 years will do.

What do you think happens when range changes? When you consider that most natural habitats are drastically shrunk by deforestation and agriculture, it should be obvious to you that a lot of extinctions will occur. There was a paper last year about the level of extinction, which may be something like 50% of species. Have you taken a single ecology course or read a single book on vegetation ecology?

Have you? :roll:

A lot of extinctions are occurring and have ALWAYS BEEN occurring. 99.9% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.
Change is inevitable. It is the nature of our universe (much less our planet) that nothing is static. The problem with you alarmists is that you're acting out against nature and science by trying to preserve a status quo that doesn't exist. But hey, you can always just point to the Creationists to pretend that science is on your side, right?

Wrong.

Vic, climate change normally occurs slowly. There have been events of rapid climate change, but it's rare. When it does happen, a lot of extinctions occur, but it's going to be much worse with the drastically reduced habitats we have created. Change does occur continually, but can you not see that accelerated change is not the norm? How are you acting against nature to try and get back to the natural cycle rather than creating warming when we are supposed to be in a cooling stage? You don't seem to realize that we have a really really good understanding of the Milankovitch cycle and other processes that cause climate change. This is what deep sea and ice coring is all about.

It baffles me that people can't comprehend that a drastically increased rate of change is going to have different effects from a normal rate of change!! Stop parroting "climate change is natural" if you don't understand what that really means.
I repeat, the current rate of change is NOT normal, and is absolutely certainly anthropogenic.

Yeah, the vast majority of species that have existed have gone extinct, but THAT is the red herring. That is part of evolution, but what is important is biodiversity. Biodiversity has been maintained on earth, except during mass extinction events like the one that killed most of the dinosaurs, and an earlier one that obliterated something like 98% of the species on the planet. Life hung on by a thread and recovered, and it may or may not do that in 100,000 years when humans are gone... but we can't in good conscience wantonly destroy the biodiversity that exists now.

 

[Throckmorton]

Your girlfriend/wife/whoever gets cranky about once a month. Does that mean you aren't going to be worried if she freaks out and threatens to stab you at the wrong time of the month? Anyone who says that because climate change happens naturally that there's such thing as man-made and dangerous climate change is saying that they would ignore the crazy woman.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, climate change normally occurs slowly. There have been events of rapid climate change, but it's rare. When it does happen, a lot of extinctions occur, but it's going to be much worse with the drastically reduced habitats we have created. Change does occur continually, but can you not see that accelerated change is not the norm? How are you acting against nature to try and get back to the natural cycle rather than creating warming when we are supposed to be in a cooling stage? You don't seem to realize that we have a really really good understanding of the Milankovitch cycle and other processes that cause climate change. This is what deep sea and ice coring is all about.

It baffles me that people can't comprehend that a drastically increased rate of change is going to have different effects from a normal rate of change!! Stop parroting "climate change is natural" if you don't understand what that really means.
I repeat, the current rate of change is NOT normal, and is absolutely certainly anthropogenic.

Yeah, the vast majority of species that have existed have gone extinct, but THAT is the red herring. That is part of evolution, but what is important is biodiversity. Biodiversity has been maintained on earth, except during mass extinction events like the one that killed most of the dinosaurs, and an earlier one that obliterated something like 98% of the species on the planet. Life hung on by a thread and recovered, and it may or may not do that in 100,000 years when humans are gone... but we can't in good conscience wantonly destroy the biodiversity that exists now.

Are you saying that 1 to 2 degrees in a century constitutes unusually rapid change?

I'm not arguing against global warming, nor even man-made global warming. I'm arguing against your unscientific chicken little bullshit.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Your girlfriend/wife/whoever gets cranky about once a month. Does that mean you aren't going to be worried if she freaks out and threatens to stab you at the wrong time of the month? Anyone who says that because climate change happens naturally that there's such thing as man-made and dangerous climate change is saying that they would ignore the crazy woman.

Case in point with this ridiculous analogy. No one is really even sure if global warming means she's gonna get cranky, much less start stabbing. It could be a good thing (it certainly beats the alternative by a long shot!). The last warming cycle, which lasted a few hundred years and ended ~1300 AD, and temps were warmer than they are now, was documented as a time of relative prosperity during the otherwise terrible "Dark Ages."

What baffles ME is that you can't understand what trying to tell you. No one is arguing the issue nor trying to "wantonly destroy the biodiversity that exists now." What I'm saying is that you're unhelpful towards finding a solution. You don't walk your own talk, and you expect others to solve it for you. That makes you just as guilty as the rest of us.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Yeah, I actually think there are pros and cons to global warming. Plus the changes will be so gradual that we'll compensate for them as they're happening. The only big problems may be the coastal cities.. we might be getting "New Orleans" situations happening a lot more often.

New Orleans has been happening for more than 100 years, and the actual cause of its woes has little to do with global warming, and much more to do with the levees and dikes that keep the Mississippi River from depositing silt in its delta and from changing its course as it does naturally (in particular to jump course entirely to the Atchafalaya River, which would leave the current channel through New Orleans high and dry). The result is that New Orleans is steadily sinking below sea level.

This actually makes for a great example of what happens when humans interfere in their environment to resist natural change.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
First of all, I'm going to assume you have never taken a course on ecology or college level biology. Extinction is currently occurring due to shifting habitats, and will accelerate along with climate change. Why do you think environmentalists care about global warming??

You assumed incorrectly. Not surprising in light of your other bad assumptions and your fear of challenging my argument without personally attacking my educational credibility.

As a college graduate I took plenty of science courses......including Environmental Studies before it was fad science. Therefore I'm an expert in the field and you're going to have to take my word as law. Thanks.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Vic, climate change normally occurs slowly. There have been events of rapid climate change, but it's rare. When it does happen, a lot of extinctions occur, but it's going to be much worse with the drastically reduced habitats we have created. Change does occur continually, but can you not see that accelerated change is not the norm? How are you acting against nature to try and get back to the natural cycle rather than creating warming when we are supposed to be in a cooling stage? You don't seem to realize that we have a really really good understanding of the Milankovitch cycle and other processes that cause climate change. This is what deep sea and ice coring is all about.

It baffles me that people can't comprehend that a drastically increased rate of change is going to have different effects from a normal rate of change!! Stop parroting "climate change is natural" if you don't understand what that really means.
I repeat, the current rate of change is NOT normal, and is absolutely certainly anthropogenic.

Yeah, the vast majority of species that have existed have gone extinct, but THAT is the red herring. That is part of evolution, but what is important is biodiversity. Biodiversity has been maintained on earth, except during mass extinction events like the one that killed most of the dinosaurs, and an earlier one that obliterated something like 98% of the species on the planet. Life hung on by a thread and recovered, and it may or may not do that in 100,000 years when humans are gone... but we can't in good conscience wantonly destroy the biodiversity that exists now.

Are you saying that 1 to 2 degrees in a century constitutes unusually rapid change?

I'm not arguing against global warming, nor even man-made global warming. I'm arguing against your unscientific chicken little bullshit.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Your girlfriend/wife/whoever gets cranky about once a month. Does that mean you aren't going to be worried if she freaks out and threatens to stab you at the wrong time of the month? Anyone who says that because climate change happens naturally that there's such thing as man-made and dangerous climate change is saying that they would ignore the crazy woman.

Case in point with this ridiculous analogy. No one is really even sure if global warming means she's gonna get cranky, much less start stabbing. It could be a good thing (it certainly beats the alternative by a long shot!). The last warming cycle, which lasted a few hundred years and ended ~1300 AD, and temps were warmer than they are now, was documented as a time of relative prosperity during the otherwise terrible "Dark Ages."

What baffles ME is that you can't understand what trying to tell you. No one is arguing the issue nor trying to "wantonly destroy the biodiversity that exists now." What I'm saying is that you're unhelpful towards finding a solution. You don't walk your own talk, and you expect others to solve it for you. That makes you just as guilty as the rest of us.

Yes, 1 or 2 degrees in a century is a rapid change. Remember, that's GLOBAL AVERAGE. The medieval warm period that you are talking about until 1300AD was a LOCAL variation.
That many degrees of change usually occurs over millennia, not decades. So far we are not doing too bad, but we know what will happen if the current rate of CO2 increase keeps up. That's what the models are for.

Here is an article that specifically debunks what you are claiming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...lwarming/medieval.html

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
First of all, I'm going to assume you have never taken a course on ecology or college level biology. Extinction is currently occurring due to shifting habitats, and will accelerate along with climate change. Why do you think environmentalists care about global warming??

You assumed incorrectly. Not surprising in light of your other bad assumptions and your fear of challenging my argument without personally attacking my educational credibility.

As a college graduate I took plenty of science courses......including Environmental Studies before it was fad science. Therefore I'm an expert in the field and you're going to have to take my word as law. Thanks.

You took ecology courses yet do not believe in the basic processes of biogeography like speciation? How can you not recognize that mass extinction will occur with current small habitats and shifting ranges?

Edit: We can't just go back to pre-industrial CO2 by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere with big selective machines. What you said about returning to pre-industrial and creating an imbalance is crazy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Yes, 1 or 2 degrees in a century is a rapid change. Remember, that's GLOBAL AVERAGE. The medieval warm period that you are talking about until 1300AD was a LOCAL variation.
That many degrees of change usually occurs over millennia, not decades. So far we are not doing too bad, but we know what will happen if the current rate of CO2 increase keeps up. That's what the models are for.

Here is an article that specifically debunks what you are claiming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...lwarming/medieval.html

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

I'm sorry, but you're full of sh!t and just keep changing the subject.
First, you have not yet established how global warming would be disastrous. You just keep saying like we're supposed to take you on faith.
Second, you have ignored all the recent evidence that global warming itself will impact different latitudes differently (polar latitudes will warm more than equatorial latitudes). That pretty much debunks the point you were trying to make with your hastily googled link there.
Third, CO2 levels do not necessarily point to higher temperatures. Quite the opposite, ice cores and other evidence show that CO2 levels usually rise at the end of a warming period and right before the next cooling cycle.
Finally, and most importantly, you continually fail to address your hypocrisy and lack of positive solution that you bring to this issue. You act as those your beliefs alone will solve this -- an attitude I find better suited to religion that to internet poseur scientists.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Yeah, I actually think there are pros and cons to global warming. Plus the changes will be so gradual that we'll compensate for them as they're happening. The only big problems may be the coastal cities.. we might be getting "New Orleans" situations happening a lot more often.

New Orleans has been happening for more than 100 years, and the actual cause of its woes has little to do with global warming, and much more to do with the levees and dikes that keep the Mississippi River from depositing silt in its delta and from changing its course as it does naturally (in particular to jump course entirely to the Atchafalaya River, which would leave the current channel through New Orleans high and dry). The result is that New Orleans is steadily sinking below sea level.

This actually makes for a great example of what happens when humans interfere in their environment to resist natural change.

I'm talking situations like this in coastal cities like New York, Miami, etc...

 

[Jeff7]

I think part of the point of the global warming stuff is that bad things might happen. Humans tend to fear the unknown, and unpredictability is by nature unknown. The devil you know vs the devil you don't know. Things might destabilize and make life a little bit more difficult. Note, I'm not saying that it'll kill everyone, I'm saying that it'll be a little bit more difficult - inconvenient, even. That's about it though.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Yes, 1 or 2 degrees in a century is a rapid change. Remember, that's GLOBAL AVERAGE. The medieval warm period that you are talking about until 1300AD was a LOCAL variation.
That many degrees of change usually occurs over millennia, not decades. So far we are not doing too bad, but we know what will happen if the current rate of CO2 increase keeps up. That's what the models are for.

Here is an article that specifically debunks what you are claiming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...lwarming/medieval.html

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

I'm sorry, but you're full of sh!t and just keep changing the subject.
First, you have not yet established how global warming would be disastrous. You just keep saying like we're supposed to take you on faith.

You said that the medieval warm period was a global warming, which is a common talking point that is false, and you say I'm full of shit? I'm not changing the subject. I'm responding to what you say.

Second, you have ignored all the recent evidence that global warming itself will impact different latitudes differently (polar latitudes will warm more than equatorial latitudes). That pretty much debunks the point you were trying to make with your hastily googled link there.

What? I did not even say that everywhere would warm, but that climate will change everywhere. It already IS changing everywhere, in different ways. Some regions are much drier, some are much wetter, some warmer, and some colder. I said that mass extinctions would occur because of the shifting of ranges into places that don't exist as habitat because of human development. That's self evident! Since you won't take my word for it, here you go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889856/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

Some species will no longer have any climatically suitable habitat left, and others may be unable to migrate far enough to reach hospitable surroundings.

The authors say: "Many of the most severe impacts of climate change are likely to stem from interactions between threats, factors not taken into account in our calculations, rather than from climate acting in isolation."

They single out as examples habitat fragmentation and loss, and competition from new invasive species.

Third, CO2 levels do not necessarily point to higher temperatures. Quite the opposite, ice cores and other evidence show that CO2 levels usually rise at the end of a warming period and right before the next cooling cycle.

If you are right and a CO2 spike leads to cooling, does that mean that an unprecendented spike caused by the release of carbon from fossil fuels is somehow normal and honkey dory? Are you saying that an untimely and accelerated transition to an ice age will be fun? The skiing will be great?

Finally, and most importantly, you continually fail to address your hypocrisy and lack of positive solution that you bring to this issue. You act as those your beliefs alone will solve this -- an attitude I find better suited to religion that to internet poseur scientists.

What hypocrisy? Everything I've posted is consistent with my beliefs and actions. The truth doesn't necessarily have anything do with solutions, except that the more people are convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and will have negative effects on nature and humans, the more likely we are to try to fix the problem. Look at Europe. They are moving forward, we are thinking of excuses not to. And it's been great for them.
The best thing we can do now is to TRY to reduce the creation of greenhouse gases and try to shift our energy economy to nuclear, solar, wind, and wave power... not ethanol or hydrogen or any other political "solutions" that don't solve any problems.

I don't get the self defeating attitude. When it comes to liberating Iraqis, going to Mars, or creating stealth air superiority fighters, "WE CAN DO IT", but when it comes to reducing our environmental impact it's "WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT DESTROYING THE WORLD ECONOMY".

Edit: Vic can you provide some data showing that the current CO2 increase and warming is natural even though it coincides exactly with the industrial revolution? Or do you want me to take YOUR word?