Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[Onkel Neal]

Speaking of "science" and how much faith we have in it (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) :haha:

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

Oh wait, I forgot, scientists are human too.

[Platapus]

Oh wait, I forgot, scientists are human too.

And there are good scientists and bad scientists too.

[Stealth Hunter]

And there are good scientists and bad scientists too.

And then there's Al Gore. Which reminds me, where exactly are their links to these "thousands of documents" the hackers posted on the Internet anyway? The Wall Street Journal certainly didn't take the liberty of providing any links to them... lol.

[baggygreen]

posted yesterday neal :03:

You've got the first example I've seen anywhere of the real 'mainstream' media though, other than just the bbc with a sob story about how poor Jones' emails were stolen and he's considering police charges

[Torplexed]

And then there's Al Gore.

And the dangers of Gore-bull warming.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/SbBoBjv--EI/AAAAAAAAAOM/IyIE9NQSLQM/s400/6a00d834516bb169e200e54f1b195e8834-500wi.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

posted yesterday neal :03:

You've got the first example I've seen anywhere of the real 'mainstream' media though, other than just the bbc with a sob story about how poor Jones' emails were stolen and he's considering police charges

Yes, I notice this yesterday. Then it only got to Fox news. Interesting that it has moved on to other news outfits. I wonder what will become of it?

[FIREWALL]

I'm not going to take sides in this but, the "hacked part" is disturbing to me. :nope:

Take a moment to think about it. :hmmm:

[DeerHunter UK]

"Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor"

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2939/rancor.jpg

If the climate is full of these then we need to act now people before it's too late!

[Dowly]

Awww... can I keep it?

[DeerHunter UK]

Awww... can I keep it?

No, that 1 is mine...I call him Cuddles.

[Schroeder]

As Firewall already said I too would be very careful with hacked emails. Who tells you that those are the original emails? The people hacking them have surely an agenda of their own to push so we should not take everything from them as the whole and only truth.

[August]

As Firewall already said I too would be very careful with hacked emails. Who tells you that those are the original emails? The people hacking them have surely an agenda of their own to push so we should not take everything from them as the whole and only truth.

Good point but I don't see anyone denying their validity yet.

[Blacklight]

I'm not going to take sides in this but, the "hacked part" is disturbing to me. :nope:

Take a moment to think about it. :hmmm:


Exactly.

[Onkel Neal]

posted yesterday neal :03:

You've got the first example I've seen anywhere of the real 'mainstream' media though, other than just the bbc with a sob story about how poor Jones' emails were stolen and he's considering police charges

What? Where? :cry:

[Torplexed]

What? Where? :cry:

I think he's referring to this thread about the hacked e-mails posted Friday.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158430

[AVGWarhawk]

Hacked emails? Be leery of them? Sort of like the Nixon tapes? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

One should not overestimate this cyber-attack regarding "global warming all a fake". As a NASA climate specialist put it (retranslated from the German translation). "Science does not work becasue we all are so nice guys. Newton may have been an ar##e, but his gravitation laws still function until today."

There is an agenda behind the plan to attack and hack these mails. It is further islluzstrated that the maisl have been posted on several climate sceptics websites. Some, maybe much - who knows - of the material may be misunderstood vby beeing communication that is not shown in the context of the discussion between the sender and the recipient.

and certainly it is that climate research sees the same ammount of prestige-hungry egos craving for fame and recognition,l not to mention posts and incomes, and thus being vulnerable to corruption, like oyu see it in any other scientific branch as well.

The point is: even although currently climate temperatures are in a plateau phase (a plateau is a temporary phase of variables no longer shpowing significant chnages), and these mails have been hacked, there is overwhelming evidence that temperatures have been climbed dramatically since the beginning of the industrial age, that this cannot be explained by natural fluctuations linked to sun activity as the decisive variable, and that the world we live in undergoes dramatic chnages now and in the forseeable future.

One must close both eyes when leaving the house not to see that.

That this coup is revealed short before the - already failed anyway - climate summit in Copenhagen also says something.

German: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,662673,00.html

[Onkel Neal]

I think he's referring to this thread about the hacked e-mails posted Friday.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158430

Yeah, I see. It would help if people would make posts with halfway relevant titles :damn:

What in the world....

[AngusJS]

Hacked emails? Be leery of them? Sort of like the Nixon tapes? :hmmm::06: The Nixon tapes were handed over voluntarily. These emails were stolen. Who knows what happened to them between the time they were hacked and their appearance on the web.

[Stealth Hunter]

Who exactly are these hackers, anyway? A lot of suspicious, unanswered questions about this whole deal...:-?

[baggygreen]

Yeah, I see. It would help if people would make posts with halfway relevant titles :damn:
guilty

i was somewhat shocked at the content, be it real or fake, so you'll hvae to forgive my terrible titleing!

[August]

:06: The Nixon tapes were handed over voluntarily. These emails were stolen. Who knows what happened to them between the time they were hacked and their appearance on the web.

Again, nobody, including the originators of the messages, are claiming they've been altered in any way.

[NeonSamurai]

Don't see why they would as the source is not legitimate. Also how would they prove otherwise? Best action frankly is to ignore it.

Anyhow needless to say given the source I am dubious of their validity and authenticity. Even if they are legit and unaltered which I doubt, they probably have been "cherry picked".

[OneToughHerring]

http://bushlolz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/lolbushsky.jpg

[August]

Don't see why they would as the source is not legitimate. Also how would they prove otherwise? Best action frankly is to ignore it.

Anyhow needless to say given the source I am dubious of their validity and authenticity. Even if they are legit and unaltered which I doubt, they probably have been "cherry picked".

They don't have to prove diddly. All they have to say is these emails have been altered, made up, conjured out of thin air. Let the hackers try to prove their authenticity.

Their ignoring it in this case tells me the messages are not only authentic but an accurate view of the situation.

[Fincuan]

Even if they are legit and unaltered which I doubt, they probably have been "cherry picked".

That was precisely what a couple of scientists here said when a paper asked them to take a look at the messages. They thought the messages were authentic, but that the quotes floating around are a small part of normal correspondance, which just looks suspicious when taken out of context.

[Skybird]

That was precisely what a couple of scientists here said when a paper asked them to take a look at the messages. They thought the messages were authentic, but that the quotes floating around are a small part of normal correspondance, which just looks suspicious when taken out of context.

Same here. For example the blown-up "big" story of somebody telling somebody else he found out the "trick". It is not a cheat, he meant, but it simply is jargon insiders of the profession often use. "Trick" means not how to manipulate and get a certain wanted result, it simply means: the solution to a technical or scientific problem.

Scepticists already have played extremely dirty before, have misquoted sources, distorted data, have simply lied, and have mislead established scientists with faked petitions and have founded fake pseudo-"science" institutions that just raised claims and sold them as scientific material wehre indeed they just were selling propaganda. And it seems they are turning desperate if needing stunts like this. But the truth probably is that it simply is what thois forum has seen a lot in the past two: quoting out of context, and wrongly translating insider'S slang.

Look at what happens in the world, that is all you need these days in order to know that very dramatic chnages are going on. many consequences of man's activity on Earth are already so very obvious, also in the climatic field, that you really do no longer need just another scientific research project, after having had hundreds and thousands of them. The business-as-usual-lobby just wants to buy time by claiming "more research" is needed". In quite some areas, research on specific details and problems is needed indeed - but not on the fact itself that Global Warming and climate change are a real trend, and that human'S are the major variable contributing to it, and that the oceans have warmed up and become more acid and that species follow shifting climate zones into new places they had not been lived in befdore where in other places they flee from changed conditions.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

Most sceptics are not really interested in more research. All they want is to stick to the same old ways and living styles that they never want to change, collecting more short-sighted immediate profits from the old business models and thinking it would ever be like this. A suicide's regressive hallucination about the garden Eden.

[AVGWarhawk]

Just for craps and giggles let's take the emails at face value. So the media dropped a few lines here and there from the emails. Makes the story valid to the media outlet using just a few sentences here and there. Looks to be a cherry pick to us in that respect. However, if the emails in full context state that this is all BS how are we to know until we see said emails?

Here is the biggest question...What if the emails are authentic, not cherry picked and really dispells the warming theory?

I'm guessing a lot of people are out of work.

[Skybird]

We base on that assumption of yours - once it has been demonstrated to be like you assume. Until then, it is just claims by "them" and assumptions by you, and we better base on the experience we have made with the scepticists' campaigns in the past.

In the end, the dogmatists will die out sooner or later. But with the consequences of global warming we will need to deal with no matter we "believe" in it or not. Global warming does not ask us for permission, it seems.

[AVGWarhawk]

We base on that assumption of yours - once it has been demonstrated to be like you assume. Until then, it is just claims by "them" and assumptions by you, and we better base on the experience we have made with the scepticists' campaigns in the past.

In the end, the dogmatists will die out sooner or later. But with the consequences of global warming we will need to deal with no matter we "believe" in it or not. Global warming does not ask us for permission, it seems.

What warming? I was told it was cooling. Just another big lie? Just a fabrication? Just a self fulfilling prophecy? I would venture to guess both you and I will never find out in your and my lifetime. Big money has been invested in global warming. People have staked their careers on this occurance, real or imagined. If anyone is known as a forward leading authority on global warming certianly will not like egg on the face if in fact this leading authority is WRONG! There perhaps is a motive to hide such emails as a result? Well, sure. Maybe Al Gore is the inconvienent truth! No no! It has been drilled into us for so long it all must be true. We are going to fry on our own planet! I know this because a retired VP for the US told me so.

[FIREWALL]

It's a no "Brainer". I don't believe what an admitted "THEIF" puts up on the internet.

The victims of the theft IMO don't have to defend themselves.

[Rockin Robbins]

There are agendas on both sides. The fact, however, is that one side is right in spite of their agenda. The parallel global warming on Mars and other planets suggests that we may be, as usual, claiming too much credit for "global warming." The fact that the tree huggers have switched the tag to "climate change" speaks louder than any stolen e-mails.

Wonder what the Vikings would have believed at the beginning of the little ice age, had they had the same resources and twisted egos that we do? "We TOLD you not to sack Lindisfarne! Now look what's happening to the climate!"

[Skybird]

What warming? I was told it was cooling.
then it must be true. For you have been told.

Just another big lie? Just a fabrication? Just a self fulfilling prophecy?
No, just a plateau phase. Something that in no way is strange or rare in natural metacycles and general trends. Like one rainy day in July does not end the summer.


I would venture to guess both you and I will never find out in your and my lifetime.
Well, I already do. But you maybe live in a covered box in a hospital, I do not know.

Changes that do not take place from one day to the other, ar hard to see, and often escape people'a awareness. Socalled landscape forgetfulness (translated from the German) is such an example. It means that people living in the mountains, for example, do not note the glacier becoming a little bit smaller in size every year. But when seeing a photo from 50 years ago, and compare it to the present, they suddenly realise and maybe remember from their childhood that what today is green and brown even in mid-winter, 50 years ago was white all year long.


Big money has been invested in global warming.

And established business still invests even more money per year in lobbying and campaigning to ridicule climate science, to deny global warming and to replace scientific research and existing data with manipulated data, data quoted out of context, fictional pseudo-data, faked consent of scientists who had been tricked by manipulative (blatantly lying) "petition" texts, etc. It all is about raising doubts that have no real point.

There perhaps is a motive to hide such emails as a result?
I do not publish my emails in a public blog as well. Do I "hide" them therefore?
And next, show those emails to be of any meaningful content regarding your accusations. I just explained somewehre above just one example in what way the sceptics' sensational conclusions about them could be misleading.

Well, sure. Maybe Al Gore is the inconvienent truth!
Ah, I knew that he would be mentioned sooner or later. Now that you just have relieved yourself from the pressure to mention him, can we move on, yes?!

Ooops - it's the end.


In the end, you will see the same world going down the drain that I see going down the drain. and when it is beyind a certain point it will mean nothing anymore that people like me saw it coming, while people like you still tried to deny it even while it already took place.

[August]

Wonder what the Vikings would have believed at the beginning of the little ice age, had they had the same resources and twisted egos that we do?

Actually we have a good idea what they thought. They named it "Greenland". Nobody would make this mistake now,.... but maybe in 50 years?

[AVGWarhawk]

In the end, you will see the same world going down the drain that I see going down the drain. and when it is beyind a certain point it will mean nothing anymore that people like me saw it coming, while people like you still tried to deny it even while it already took place.


I did not deny anything. I need more proof. You have taken what you have read and digested it as verse.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1207868#post1207868)
What warming? I was told it was cooling.

Skybird:
then it must be true. For you have been told.



You were told the world is heating up. So it must be true!?! :hmmm:

There is no denying man does create havoc in the natural course of order concerning the mud ball we call Earth. To what extent I do not think can be measurable. The Earth does go through her cycles. The Earths riches are not infinite. It is very finite and taking a look at the vast fruitless deserts on the raped continent of Africa would paint a very good picture of what will become of this world. Long before the Al Gore hailstorm of doom in the next decade. THis planet will become as barren as the moon. The world can warm all it likes....the resources will run out long before warming will do a thing mankind. Perhaps before that occurs one of the quacks that runs a country will push the big button because he is having a bad day. Good luck to us...global warming or not.

[Onkel Neal]

In the end, you will see the same world going down the drain that I see going down the drain. and when it is beyind a certain point it will mean nothing anymore that people like me saw it coming, while people like you still tried to deny it even while it already took place.

Are you serious? What makes you think the world is going down the drain?

Oh, right, these guys:

In one e-mail, according to news accounts, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."


Unless you are a physicist like goldorak, how do you know how accurate these climate scientists are? :hmmm: All we know is what we read on the internet and hear on TV.

[Platapus]

I can highly recommend the book

The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg

He spends a lot of his book just looking at where the data comes from, how it was recorded, and how accurately it has been measured.

This is an example of how a scientist approaches the problem. He investigates and evaluates the data and not just accepts it. A very interesting read. :up:

[Skybird]

Neal, I am adding together observations from many different fields, as far as I have had inout on them from media, reading books and essays on the matter, and getting some personal feedback as well. when I said the planet is going down the drain, then I mean the planetary conditions are detoriating that way that nations become ungovernable, conflict over ressources break out, natural desasters due to environmental changes, the self-dynamic of global processes already running and gotten started by man'S industrial impat and high number of population. In short I add scientific information and economic projection, culture-psychologic assessement and historic precedences, power-politics and ecologic facts together, and come to a planet that is exploited beyond what nature can repair, is intoxicated at gropwing levels, that is in a solid trend towards massive climatic change that will have - and already has - tremendous effects on weather, ocean, erosion, land and ocean environments as well as the lifeforms and ecosystems on this planet, and I see that more and more conflict between human tribes break out over shortening resources, with mankind being insane enoguh to still not think about enforcing strict birth control and limited population sizes in a long term project to achieve that. But reality will adress that - and we will not like it. It already is a horror picture show, we already have seen it becoming more brutal in the past 15-20 years, and it will become much, much, much worse int he future, due to local wars over questions of survival, and natural disasters.

I could sit down and look through my library and refer to details on this author and that scientific book,. but what I instead do, like all humans, is forming a general summary, a general conclusion of all the input, a sum of all my info and thought. And this sum of it all paints a grim picture for the future.

And many scientists have written about these themes, having come to similiar conclusions in their fields. And sometimes I happened to have read this or that book by them. I do not claim to be a speiclaist and insider, I am a generalist, and a man with wide interests in the fields of popular sciences. So why should I stay away from trying to form an opinion on these matters? To leave assessements and decisions to the established elites only who have contributed their share of respinsibility for the mess we are facing...?

I can understand, from a psychological point of view, that many people having families and children, tend to reject too grim scenarios for the future. Man needs hope to bear life, a future considered worth to live for. But I am not like that, I cannot help it. There are many, many precedence of societies that have decided intentionally, rationally to act and bezhave in ways that guaranteed their fall and extinction. We are not the first. We just repeat old patterns. We are just te first society falling that is truly global in size, where as all historic exmaple before have been local "only".

I again, for the x-th time, recommend the works of Jared Diamond: maybe I should have a thread with a summary of his work. I know no other scientist who has referred so compellingly to the importance of environmental factors in the fall of past societies, like he does. That does not mean environment is the only factor in the fall of socieities and civilisations, but it's importance until now has been dramatically underestimated. the patterns history teaches us in many examples - have been followed once again to a worrying degree in the present. Any many cultures fell for them, their people dying.

People are too obsessed with having a party and thinking since it is their life now, it must be good times. It's a variation of the old human hobby of assuming "all world revolves around me". Do they think they have a special deal with fate, or with the planet? If you hold a gun at your head and pull the trigger, you're dead - there is no cheat, no deal possible, no bribery to trick life.

We already see it happening right now, Neal. Just open your eyes, don't get dulled by creeping normality that hides the changes from your mind due to the slow pace at which they take pace. It's not about sometime in the future. It's now.

[NeonSamurai]

Unfortunately Sky's evaluation pretty much matches my own conclusions on the subjects involved. I have also thought extensively about this stuff and done plenty of my own research into it, and made my own observations.

I am also deeply concerned about the future, so much so that I am very reluctant to have kids, as I would not want them to experience what I fear is coming. I also suspect things will go really wrong during my own lifetime.

[Spoon 11th]

Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalyising” (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyisi ng/)


Andrew Bolt@HeraldSun November 24, 2009 wrote:

Even George Monbiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot), one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:


Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.



If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:


I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.



Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

[Skybird]

Excellent German comment:

http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Kommentar-Mit-der-Ungewissheit-leben-866331.html

[Rockin Robbins]

It's amazing that we live in a time where people live longer than dreamed of before and we talk about health and nutrition disasters. We are living longer because of our superior nutrition!

It's amazing that we talk about man-caused climate change in the face of past measured climate changes much quicker and much more severe where man could not have contributed!

It is amazing that we speak of societal degeneration into conflicts over resources, ungovernable masses, violent chaos, when we live in the most peaceful time in history. When's the last time some tinhorn French dictator attacked every country in sight, killing millions on the European continent and becoming some sort of perverted hero for doing so?

As David Gelernter said eloquently and with tremendous factual support in his book 1939: the Lost World of the Fair. in 1939, in spite of peering down the gullet of a certain war that would cost a hundred million lives, in spite of the fact that a Chicago worker with a good job would likely not make enough money to eat every day, in spite of the fact that life expectancy was 20 years less than today, these people living in hell were forward-thinking, optimistic, creative and resourceful. Today we have accomplished almost the totality of their vision for the future, and we are thoroughly disheartened, whipped puppy dogs, afraid to bring children into the paradise in which we live. Makes me ashamed to be human. Certainly they would rightly be ashamed of us. Quitters suck!

[AVGWarhawk]

Unfortunately Sky's evaluation pretty much matches my own conclusions on the subjects involved. I have also thought extensively about this stuff and done plenty of my own research into it, and made my own observations.

I am also deeply concerned about the future, so much so that I am very reluctant to have kids, as I would not want them to experience what I fear is coming. I also suspect things will go really wrong during my own lifetime.

Neon, do you carry a sign that shows, "The End Is Near" painted on it? I liken your comment on not having kids to Skybirds comment to me about being overly protective of my kids in a long lost thread months ago. I was point blank told I was way over protective of my girls. You're not wanting kids for the fear of something happening surpasses the borderline lunatic as I was portrayed by not only Skybird but serval others in the thread. Perhaps you should stop and think that it might be one of your children that becomes the person who develops the answers to all the questions concerning global warming! Think about past history and what if prominent figures of our time had parents that did not want a child because of what MIGHT happen. Sure, perhaps only one in a billion really make a difference. Could be your child as the one! You never know. I do not think I would deprive myself of child and all the wonderful things that child rearing entails over a possibility that something might happen.

[Onkel Neal]

It is amazing that we speak of societal degeneration into conflicts over resources, ungovernable masses, violent chaos, when we live in the most peaceful time in history. When's the last time some tinhorn French dictator attacked every country in sight, killing millions on the European continent and becoming some sort of perverted hero for doing so?



Exactly! I am somewhat baffled that bright people are so mired in pessimism about the future when the present is so fantastic, and full of potential.

And Sky, regardless of your library and sources of media, etc., it's still as I said, you are gathering some of your ideas and opinions from external sources, who may or may not be accurate. Yes, maybe the polar ice cap is melting, but who says that signals Step 1 in the end of the world? Every autumn the leaves die and fall off the trees, doesn't mean that's it, it's all over for nature. My eyes are open, that could be why I am more skeptical about man-made global warming. I have not signed on to the Al Gore express. I admit that I am not in a knowledgeable position to express an opinion one way or the other. And reading articles for and against won't really make me more knowledgable, just more opinionated.

[Skybird]

I'm poutting things togethe rin that way that to me it makes the most sense, takes single details best into account, and matches in the easiest way. This is common procedure in science. If you have several theories to explaind a set of observations and they have the same explaantory value, pick the one which is the less complicated.

Also, I take into account psychological habits of people, that for example is they resist chnage, and want to stay with the old and familiar, because that is known to them, and what is known is associated with security and safety. I also consider who profits most from making society not changing the old ways, and that is the establishment, the profiteers of the old familiar ways and the old fashioned economy game. Those who benefit the most from the status quo have the most to lose.

I already have observed climate changed in my very own life span. I must not wait to see it happening. Summer is not what it was 30 years ago, and winter the same. It is countable fact that the number of regions having to deal with numerous symptoms telling a change to the worse have seen steep increases in the past 20-30 years. weather phenomenons have undergone drastic changes as well. We know for sure that the ocean is changing too, is becoming warmer and of changing ph-indices. We already see a steep rise in natural desasters like landslides and floodings, we see the shifting of climate zones and species following the changing climate barriers, and we see unnormal ground water levels and erosion, loss of agricultural soil and annormal plancton and alga levels in the oceans which have undergone dramatic changes in the past 30 years or so.

But what you are telling us is that these phenomenons are questionable, their mere existence must be researched, and if they exist they mean nothing. sorry, but that is just not good enough.

We have more than enough data to draw parallels to past societies, the way they pumped up population levels, boosted productivity, consumed more ressources than their environment could maintain and replace, and finally collapsing. when there was room to pout aside reserves for future times of crisis, this usually was not done, but the surplus wa sused to grow population level even more, ifngoring that these additonal people have to be fed as well. We also could see parallels between the present and the sociological and political decision-makings of the past. the most stunning thing one could learn if investing time into these matters is: in the past, it were rational, reasonable decisions leading societies into their fall. It's not just some safety failing, one person giving a wrong command. It's something like a psychological double-blind-trap. Often, interests of poltical prestige, religious motives, and power in general went hand in hand in cementing the old ways and habits even when they had become suicidal already. Cultures have a tendency towards not wanting to chnage, to protect their feeling of identity. In this context here, this inner tendency works for our worst.

Just consider this: in classic economy and state theory, growth is assumed to be potentially unlimited, and the needed precondtion to foster society, and produce more common wealth (how I love this word shell). But this growth is what has led us to excessively overconsummate ressources, living beyond our means, destroying our envrionment, and boosting population more and more. We thought and still think that the future generation would fix things, so we party on. Those who habe the most profit at rsik, keep telling us that the debts we make will be dealt with "in the future", when "the ecojoym has become better", etc.etc. etc. I heared this already when being at elementary school. And today, more than thirty years later, they still say the same. Where we are aware of a resources being limited, we think: "okay, it should be saved, but if I do not take it, then somebody else will, so better I take it myself before the others do." Social psychology knows this as the "prisoiner's dilemma", politics knows it as the "dilemma of communal property", it all is variations of these two well-described problems (I even had to talk about it in one of my verbal exams, btw. :) ). We still argue for unlimited growth in the economy - although the insane Western production levels of material wealth and the creation of Western living standards in no way can be maintained on a global scale, for a population of over 7 billion. This is insanity, and it is potentially suicidal. But still we get preached that what we need is economical growth. As a matter of fact our communbal systems are designed to depend on the financial income this produces, yes. That does not mean their must be growth - it means that the design of our societies is flawed in a very fundamental, most vital basis: it's a flaw that makes sure socieities of our dewsign cannot survive in the long run, and their wealth only is a temporary affair. Those taking profit from this only are intersted in the situation being stable for the duration of their lives. And after them: the flood, who cares. And yes, it is reasonable weighing of options in decision-making, and reasonable thought causing this misery. You see the great danger? Being so rational and reasonable is what is spelling our doom and is ruining the planet. And how could one argue against being reasonable and rational? I tend to praise myself for trying to be rational and reasonable, don't I?

The point is - reasonability and rationality need altruism in the meaning of the old christian concept of "agape" to complement them . Else it is maximum egoism in action. And egoism is what eats us up, one by one, the weak ones first, the strong ones last. That the consequences of our actions unfold slowly and creepingly only, and thus are hard to recognise (like you also do not see the grass growing, but it does - just very slowly), doesn't make it easier.

Instead of trying to establish delays and more delays and make hesitation the rule of the game, we need to understand that the time to understand we are in trouble, is over. The data to understand that - we already do have, and since long. What we need is research not on this old joke, but on the question if and how we could adapt to the challenge - a challenge that we have set up ourselves: rationally and very reasonably, psychologically maybe inevitably, but when taking the problem for itself: unneeded. If we fail, the world will not be the same anymore, and will move on without a global human civilisation. If we succeed (I am pessimistic), the world also will be a very different one afterwards.

Message of that is: the world we know from the present, will no longer be what it was. Man will understand that, or will not - it does not matter. Whether he understands, is not important for the planet, but only for man himself. The situation is not revolving around us - the planet just moves on with it's history, with or without us playing a future role in it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird, I will make it even shorter than your dissertation on what needs to be done. The scientists need to get on the same page. One group says one thing and another group says another thing. Al Gore is wringing his hands. There will always be sceptics. For all we know this is how the dinosaurs became extinct. Theory after theory.


To have global warming stop Al Gore needs to park his Leer Jet. :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Article on world cooling 1975:


To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”


So this week we are warming. Next week we will be getting cold. Al Gore continues to wring his hands. Talk about mixed signals. :doh:

Then we have this:



A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.


So really, what is it? Warming? Cooling? Does it matter? Is Al Gore getting another prize?

Here is the best part:


Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.



http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

[Skybird]

Exactly! I am somewhat baffled that bright people are so mired in pessimism about the future when the present is so fantastic, and full of potential.

False analogy. You conclude on the future without knowing if the present is the valid basis for doing that regarding the details you focus on. Let me illustrate the problem.

When the Norse came to Greenland, they saw a vegetation and landscape that at bfirst glance looked very similiar to their own in Scandinavia. So one really cannot blame them for thinking they could run farming and agriculture the same way they were used to do from Scandinavia - it was reasonable, it was rational to assume that, considerign their information and knowledge of that time. But with time passing by, they realised that the vegetation due to the different, harsher climate grew much, much slower than in Norway, and that therefore grass and trees, once consumed, would not be replaced for a longer, a much longer time, than in Norway. Which meant the soil was exposed to wind and storm, salient air flows and in general: erosion, for much longer time, beign carried away and being lost. Over the latter two tirds of their presence on Greenland, agriculture and farming became more and more difficult, and finally non-maintainable anymore. Even more, the soil in Greenland is much made of Volcanic ashes, like in Iceland (just not so extreme), making it very fertile, but also very light and easily carried away by the wind, while the soil in Norways is made of much greater shares of heavy clay that is more difficult to be eroded by winds. You know how the story ended, for these factors and others as well (europeans started to trade ivory with the Far East instead with the Vikings, making this most precious trading good less valuable for the Vikings on Greenland; the mini "ice age" interupting shipping lines to Greenland; the vikings sticking to inadequate customs and habits that prevented them to learn surviving techniques from the Inuit and made them staying with absolutely unappropriate cultural habits and dress codes in order to stay connected to their home in eurpoe and demonstrating the very same cultural behavior like in europe - at all costs: an identity thing much like you cling to the socalled American way of life). First they had to let go their cows, their pride they were, but also a natural desaster for Greenland like the sheep in australia, and very, very difficult and work-intensive to be kept alive over the winter, then agricultural soil that could be used for farming became rare within the reach of the two major settlements. Supremacist behavior against the Inuit had turned the natives into enemies, and one did not learn survival techniques from them (how to hunt seals, for example). First the Western settlement died, and then the larger, Eastern died as well. Neal, they did not return to Scandinavia, you know. They DIED miserably - due to isolation from europe, cultural stubborness, farming and agriculture collapsing, and finally: starvation.


And Sky, regardless of your library and sources of media, etc., it's still as I said, you are gathering some of your ideas and opinions from external sources, who may or may not be accurate. Yes, maybe the polar ice cap is melting, but who says that signals Step 1 in the end of the world? Every autumn the leaves die and fall off the trees, doesn't mean that's it, it's all over for nature. My eyes are open, that could be why I am more skeptical about man-made global warming. I have not signed on to the Al Gore express. I admit that I am not in a knowledgeable position to express an opinion one way or the other. And reading articles for and against won't really make me more knowledgable, just more opinionated.

Well, no matter if you try to edcuate yourself oin thigns or not, you do not have the freedom not to make decisions in your life. Deciding you must, whether you like that or not, and you do not have the omnipotential to become a poracticng superexpert in all fields you could imagine. You have to accept compromise, therefore, and must try to come to decisns on basis of ninfomation that you have the freedom to collect in a laissez-faire manner, not caring a bit about their quality, or by trying to bring them together in a way you think that makes best sense. The latter is what I try to do. And it is not as if I do not have support for my conclusions from more knowing and more clever minds than my own.

You just have illustrated the general problem of ours in your very first sentence of your post. You want a good life, the party going on, and nobody disturbing the good mood. But the american/Western way of life that is in formidable waste of material wealth and natural ressources, cannot be maintained forever. The American way of life is nothign special, it is no natural law engraved in stone. It is an excess, and that is true for the whole Western culture of the modern. And even with, far far more modest living standards I have very severe doubts that the panet could maintain a global population of 7 billion if all these people would share that already lowered way of life.

We are far too many, and the few of us live far beyond reasonable standards, causing consequences that mean disaster for all others - and in the end their own children as well.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird, a test for you:

http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=1


You just have illustrated the general problem of ours in your very first sentence of your post. You want a good life, the party going on, and nobody disturbing the good mood. But the american/Western way of life that is in formidable waste of material wealth and natural ressources, cannot be maintained forever. The American way of life is nothign special, it is no natural law engraved in stone. It is an excess, and that is true for the whole Western culture of the modern. And even with, far far more modest living standards I have very severe doubts that the panet could maintain a global population of 7 billion if all these people would share that already lowered way of life.



So, this is Americas fault? Neal did not illustrate your point of "who cares". He only said it forms an opinion after reading page after page on warming/cooling or whatever it might be this week. I can show you page after page for cooling but a blind eye is on these pages as you are buying into this warming, the end of mankind and the world as we know it diatribe. Have you looked at articles concerning cooling? Articles on earth cycles?

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird or anyone interested:

Report on the corruption with global warming. (click on the PDF file for report)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/climate_science_corrupted.html

[Skybird]

Skybird, a test for you:

http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=1



Warhawk, please...


So, this is Americas fault? Neal did not illustrate your point of "who cares". He only said it forms an opinion after reading page after page on warming/cooling or whatever it might be this week. I can show you page after page for cooling but a blind eye is on these pages as you are buying into this warming, the end of mankind and the world as we know it diatribe. Have you looked at articles concerning cooling? Articles on earth cycles?

Yes, I have. and I found it often
- serious data taken out of context or not given in completeness;
- pseudo-scientific claims;
- manipulative in narrowing timespan of awareness to such short leveols that longterm conseqeunces got ignored;
- sources being dubious, to put it mildy;
- ignoring existing, maybe even existing-since-long explanations for let's say paradoxical effects (like for exaple the partial, local forkming of new ice in one part of the antarctic - what already in the late 70s or early 80s have been predicted in case of ice caps melting.

For these and other reasons I refuse to debate on whether there is a man-made sifgnificant climate change taking place or not. I cannot take this discussion serious anymore, like I also do not take serious a debate on how to compare the reasonability of evolution and that of creationism - as if it has any, or to compare ratio and religion - as if there is anything that could be compared. This kind of debate to me is just distracting, trying to buy time, to delay action and to protect the status quo that is quite profitable for the current establishment that is catching the cream from leaving things as they are.

We can talk on how to adapt to the already happening changes, now and in the future. we can talk on details of - yes, incomplete - climate models and their prediction span.

But we cannot talk on the issue of these changes taking place when I do not only read about it, but experience it in my own lifespan, with my very own senses, and media input by trend just confirms what I see, read and feel. That debate is pointless, and since quite some time now. It is a historic regression.

Tip of the day: the socalled Copenhagen Diagnosis has just been released. Hint-hint. It let's even the corrected (worstened) IPCC report look pale.

[AVGWarhawk]

Before you close the book on it as verse concerning global warming read the link to the article that is very convincing on the fabrication of global warming and cover up.

Post #50. 27 pages.

[NeonSamurai]

Neon, do you carry a sign that shows, "The End Is Near" painted on it?

Only on weekends and usualy in a sad clown suit :D

You're not wanting kids for the fear of something happening surpasses the borderline lunatic as I was portrayed by not only Skybird but serval others in the thread.

Hmm yes I must be crazy, I don't want to bring more children into an already overpopulated world. I am quite convinced that we are heading towards a period of major conflict, strife, and trouble for many different reasons. I do not want to bring children into that world as I would not want my children to suffer for it. It is also not something I take lightly at all.

Perhaps you should stop and think that it might be one of your children that becomes the person who develops the answers to all the questions concerning global warming!

Global warming is only a part of the greater whole that greatly worries me. Also there is no miracle cure to the situation.

Think about past history and what if prominent figures of our time had parents that did not want a child because of what MIGHT happen. Sure, perhaps only one in a billion really make a difference. Could be your child as the one! You never know.

I doubt it works like that, also I suspect knowing human nature, that we have already passed the tipping point overall. That by the time most of the population sees the problems, that it will be far too late to recover.

I do not think I would deprive myself of child and all the wonderful things that child rearing entails over a possibility that something might happen.

Like I said its not a decision I make lightly. I would love children, and may even adopt some at some point if I do not have any. But my predictions as to what is coming are very grim. Bluntly I believe we are heading towards a period of mass extinction which will most likely take our species out with it. I wish it was not the case, but that is the picture I formed rationaly from all I have taken in.


Anyhow back on topic, people like to talk about all the money invested into the green movement. That these people have a stake in global warming and thus have reason to fake the data. Well what about the other side of the coin? If global warming is real and we are the ones resposible then its going to cost most corporations in the world massive sums of money to try to fix it. These money men have plenty of reason to try to suppress, distort, deny, and fabricate evidence for or against it. They also have far more resources available to counter it then the green movement, and will have plenty of scientists of their own to flood the scientific community with junk research.

I've read a lot of the stuff from both sides of the debate. The problem I have with a lot of the contrary material is much of it is pseudo scientific. Like as in the creation vs evolution thread here they are selectivly picking a few things which supports their argument and ignoring everything that disproves it. Good science takes everything into account, proof and disproof and weighs them together. There is also a ton of bad science floating around right now clouding and poluting the issue. Not because it disagrees with the widly held view in the scientific community, but because a lot of it is fraudulent, or pseudo/un scientific.


As for that article you posted AVG, I haven't read it in full yet, but from the quick skimming of it I wasn't too impressed so far. But I'll leave real comment on it until I have read it in full and checked the supporting documentation. I will say though that I do not trust that site one bit as they have a very obvious and strong bias and agenda of their own. I do wonder though what organization is behind that site, as it raised a lot of red flags automaticly for me.

[AVGWarhawk]

As for that article you posted AVG, I haven't read it in full yet, but from the quick skimming of it I wasn't too impressed so far. But I'll leave real comment on it until I have read it in full and checked the supporting documentation. I will say though that I do not trust that site one bit as they have a very obvious and strong bias and agenda of their own. I do wonder though what organization is behind that site, as it raised a lot of red flags automaticly for me.


Sadly we can say that most sites are strongly skewed to their views. There are plenty of sites that are obvious and have a strong bias. Read the 27 page report. There are some interesting things in there.

[NeonSamurai]

Sadly we can say that most sites are strongly skewed to their views. There are plenty of sites that are obvious and have a strong bias. Read the 27 page report. There are some interesting things in there.

That's why I avoid all of those sites and try to look at the research itself only. I may not fully comprehend it all, but I know enough about research methodology to try to spot flaws, problems, manipulation and deception in the research. I automatically discard opinion stuff as it is always biased, and would normally discard that article for just that reason.

A further comment I would like to make is, yes I believe we are heading into very troubled times. But I have no motivations to want to believe it, in fact I would argue the exact opposite, that I have far more to motivate me not to want to believe any of it. It is so much easier to believe that their isn't a problem. I am not biased towards believing it, I am actually biased towards not wanting to, as most people would be.

[Rockin Robbins]

There have been vast periods of time in Earth's history when the polar ice caps did not exist at all! The planet was much warmer than it is today. Life flourished.

For several instances, the last being about 12,000 years ago, severe and sudden global cooling caused the icecaps to reform and glaciers extend all the way down the Indiana and Ohio in the US, covering half of Europe. The planet was much colder than it is today. Life flourished.

Today's climate drift, if real (our database is pitifully short as human records date only back to the middle to late 19th century in metropolitan areas, later in others), is well within the normal parameters of Earth's temperature range and no cause for alarm. For every catastrophic effect receiving gleeful publicity and hand wringing, there will be one, perhaps more, beneficial effects which have no highly motivated press agents right now.

"Global warming," "climate change," whatever you want to call it is a political, not a scientific issue. Science is merely curious. That is good. Politicians will never let a crisis, real or imagined, go to waste in pursuit of their agendas.

It is entirely possible to assemble a library of books agreeing with your preconceived attitude toward the goodness of mankind, the dark possibilites for the future and the inherent evil of non-socialist thought. However, assembling such a library is no substitute for valid evaluation.

I could easily assemble a library of books seeking to prove NASA never reached the moon.

[AVGWarhawk]

A further comment I would like to make is, yes I believe we are heading into very troubled times. But I have no motivations to want to believe it, in fact I would argue the exact opposite, that I have far more to motivate me not to want to believe any of it. It is so much easier to believe that their isn't a problem. I am not biased towards believing it, I am actually biased towards not wanting to, as most people would be.

I often wonder what the world would be like if WW2 never occured. What if the millions that died lived? Where would the world be. I truly believe our resources (land to grow food) will be our undoing. You touched on overpopulation. We are getting there and in some countries they are there. I can respect your decision for not wanting children but I respect you more for considering adopting a child instead. I have a Korean adopted sister and a Korean adopted nephew. I could not imagine what my life would have been not growing up with my adopted sister. She is 4 months and 11 days younger than me.

[AVGWarhawk]

The mythical story spreads and does not to look to be so mythical after all:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

Wether these emails right, wrong, cherry picked or not, it sure does make some people wake up and start questioning.

[Onkel Neal]

False analogy. You conclude on the future without knowing if the present is the valid basis for doing that regarding the details you focus on. Let me illustrate the problem.

Wait, that wasn't an analogy at all! :timeout: What do you mean?

When the Norse came to Greenland, they saw a vegetation and landscape that at bfirst glance looked very similiar to their own in Scandinavia. So one really cannot blame them for thinking they could run farming and agriculture the same way they were used to do from Scandinavia - it was reasonable, it was rational to assume that, considerign their information and knowledge of that time. But with time passing by, they realised that the vegetation due to the different, harsher climate grew much, much slower than in Norway, and that therefore grass and trees, once consumed, would not be replaced for a longer, a much longer time, than in Norway. Which meant the soil was exposed to wind and storm, salient air flows and in general: erosion, for much longer time, beign carried away and being lost. Over the latter two tirds of their presence on Greenland, agriculture and farming became more and more difficult, and finally non-maintainable anymore. Even more, the soil in Greenland is much made of Volcanic ashes, like in Iceland (just not so extreme), making it very fertile, but also very light and easily carried away by the wind, while the soil in Norways is made of much greater shares of heavy clay that is more difficult to be eroded by winds. You know how the story ended, for these factors and others as well (europeans started to trade ivory with the Far East instead with the Vikings, making this most precious trading good less valuable for the Vikings on Greenland; the mini "ice age" interupting shipping lines to Greenland; the vikings sticking to inadequate customs and habits that prevented them to learn surviving techniques from the Inuit and made them staying with absolutely unappropriate cultural habits and dress codes in order to stay connected to their home in eurpoe and demonstrating the very same cultural behavior like in europe - at all costs: an identity thing much like you cling to the socalled American way of life). First they had to let go their cows, their pride they were, but also a natural desaster for Greenland like the sheep in australia, and very, very difficult and work-intensive to be kept alive over the winter, then agricultural soil that could be used for farming became rare within the reach of the two major settlements. Supremacist behavior against the Inuit had turned the natives into enemies, and one did not learn survival techniques from them (how to hunt seals, for example). First the Western settlement died, and then the larger, Eastern died as well. Neal, they did not return to Scandinavia, you know. They DIED miserably - due to isolation from europe, cultural stubborness, farming and agriculture collapsing, and finally: starvation.

....??? I don't know what to say... Ok, I guess.

Well, no matter if you try to edcuate yourself oin thigns or not, you do not have the freedom not to make decisions in your life.


Hmm... is this a test or something? :hmmm:




You just have illustrated the general problem of ours in your very first sentence of your post. You want a good life, the party going on, and nobody disturbing the good mood. But the american/Western way of life that is in formidable waste of material wealth and natural ressources, cannot be maintained forever. The American way of life is nothign special, it is no natural law engraved in stone. It is an excess, and that is true for the whole Western culture of the modern. And even with, far far more modest living standards I have very severe doubts that the panet could maintain a global population of 7 billion if all these people would share that already lowered way of life.

We are far too many, and the few of us live far beyond reasonable standards, causing consequences that mean disaster for all others - and in the end their own children as well.


Ok, that's your opinion. I disagree. What do I care about "the party going on" as resources are concerned? I'm willing to bet you and I are in the same range of resources used. I have nothing against making cut backs if needed. But I am not convinced they are needed.

On another note, have you studied the phenomenon where people get a trend of thinking going and before you know it, everyone's saying something they really know nothing about, but they truly believe it's validity?

[Rockin Robbins]

....??? I don't know what to say... Ok, I guess.

Actually the Norsemen called the land Greenland because it was green. The much warmer climate of 1000 AD meant that there was much less ice and milder climate in Greenland than there is today. Life, including the Norsemen who are ridiculed by ignorant people for misnaming the land, flourished until the climate changed with the coming of the Little Ice Age, which shut them down.

Now we think that if those times return it would be a global catastrophe!:har::har::har::har: Then we call the catastrophizing science.:har::har::har:

You know, the prime function of science is to attract grant money. This grant money must be obtained from politicians and bureaucrats. The best way to attract their attention and resulting cash is to make outlandish and ominous claims. There was this team of renegade wanna-be hurricane forcasters camped out in the UK, of all places.

Wanting to make a living out of forecasting hurricanes, they settled on a strategy: let's predict the most harmful path for every hurricane we can. Well, they looked silly until the inevitable storm (a stopped analog clock is right twice a day!) fulfilled their prediction. UKMET GOT IT RIGHT!!!!!! The cash rolled in. Today they are less inclined to follow that strategy, but just watch the forecast plots of computer simulations for UKMET. Hehehehehe! Predicting disaster is good business. It certainly pays for Al Gore's bizjets and allows his company to blackmail businesses worldwide in a carbon voucher fraud of epic proportions. His last trip to Australia had a bigger carbon footprint than my entire life! Damned hypocrite. He can fly his bizjet anywhere he wants. Just don't tell me it would be necessary for me to trade my Astro van for a golf cart. I'm not going to do it anyway.:down:

[Skybird]

Actually the Norsemen called the land Greenland because it was green. The much warmer climate of 1000 AD meant that there was much less ice and milder climate in Greenland than there is today. Life, including the Norsemen who are ridiculed by ignorant people for misnaming the land, flourished until the climate changed with the coming of the Little Ice Age, which shut them down.

You do not get the point. The Viking settlements blossomed for the first decades, yes. But then the growing erosion of the land within their reach, the slow growth rate of vegetation that did not help to prevent erosion, the ongoing hostility towards theInuit from which they refsued to learn, and the cooling climate all came together to strangle their agricultural autarcy more and more. The inuit demonstrated that one still could survive in Greenland, and how, and they were capable to hunt animals like seals the Norseman refused to hunt for cultural pride in their damn cows. the agricultural desaster was caused my lacking understanding of the diffrences between Greenland and Scandinavia, they looked the same, but were anything but the same. The non-existing efficient use of replacable ressources, mainly meat/animals, led to the paradox that the Vikings suffered starvation altho9ugh being surrounded by a country that was capable to give them the meat to eat ansd the fur to dress that they needed when things became cool. Only the colling climate is the one factor that was beyond the Norse'S reach. The rest was self-made mistakes, some due to lacking knowledge, some due to arrogance. consider that the contact with eurpe was sparse and thin, biut they wanted to stick to their identity - by dressing the way they used to do in Scandinavia. The women on Greenland wore thin dresses with deep decoltees and a scarf-like thin textile around the shoulder at a time when the Inuit alraeyd were dressed in full fur! the male vikings again wore textiles tzhat cppied european and scandinavian models, but were absolutely inadequate for the cooling climate in the place. They wanted to live at least as scandianvian as the Scandinavians themselves in Scnadinavia lived - to reassure themselves of their cultural idetity. you see the same ohenomeneon with the British in Australiua - and later, Australian citizens behaving more British than the British in Europe themselves.

Now we think that if those times return it would be a global catastrophe!:har::har::har::har: Then we call the catastrophizing science.:har::har::har:

It was the complete failure of the Norse culture in that place, and it died an anything but peaceful death. For that society, it was a worst case outcome indeed. Really funny, eh...? There are indications that in the end some of the last survivors became cannibals (something that was found in other falling cultures as well when they were in the last minutes of their lives), and small groups died by starvation, others froze to death. weakened as they have been, diseases also must have played a role.

It was not exactly the idyll you used to know from adventure movies about the vikings.

[Skybird]

Wait, that wasn't an analogy at all! :timeout: What do you mean?

Possible I messed up translation/language. What I meant was a false "Analogschluß". Your analogy was that since life is good at the present, it must be good in the future, too, at least it cannot be understood why it should be so much worse. I answered with the Vikings drawing false "Analogschlüsse" from their Scandinavian home when they saw the apparent visual similiarity between the landscapes in Scandiniavia, and Greenland.

Hmm... is this a test or something? :hmmm:

Depends on your outlook on life in general. I simply meant that whether you care for trying to widen your perspective or not, you must make deicisons for which you must accept moral and often practical respinsibility. Since you argued a bit accporidng to "as long as you are no academic expert you must not care that much for trying to learn some things in that branch of science", I simply wanted to imply that when we cannot evade decisions and responsibility, maybe it is a good idea to gain some knowledge even if we do not become experts in a given field. you see, what I try to do in my own life is to gain that level of generla information on many different things that is suffcient to see how the many single things seem to fall in their places and form one great picture. Maybe I cannot reveal the picture in all small detail that way, but I can get an educated guess on what it'S motive is, and how it is generally arranged and composed.

Unfortunately the more pieces I have inserted the less pleasant a motive it seems to become.


Ok, that's your opinion. I disagree. What do I care about "the party going on" as resources are concerned?

Not much, it seems. Many in the West think like that. They simply do not care. Some for egoism, some for simple thoughtlessness. but I take it as solid fact that the way we consume nature's ressources in the West like crazy and give it back toxines to pollute our living spohere and our food and the resources we need in the future, would spell rightout disaster throughout the globe if all the 6 billion beyond the 1 billion in the first world would share the same living standards of ours. We simply are too many, and the the Western consummation model simply is beyond good and evil in itself. I think it would not even allow a maintained future for generations coming after us even if we would be only 1 billion people on the globe. Which is an obvious conclusion only, based on the fact that the industrialised world already had started to shrink the health of the planet when he still was the only industrial big player on the globe.

I'm willing to bet you and I are in the same range of resources used. I have nothing against making cut backs if needed. But I am not convinced they are needed.

Live long enough, and you will change your mind - if you allow yourself some openmindedness and do not deny reality to reach your senses.

On another note, have you studied the phenomenon where people get a trend of thinking going and before you know it, everyone's saying something they really know nothing about, but they truly believe it's validity?

Well, I often get reminded of it when reading the forums here - especially on religious issues and climate things. and I think much of the details I just listed today are anything but the trend of general thinking, currently. Historic lessons on the effects of collapsing environments on falling societies I read first mentioned in the work of classic Arnold Toynbee, which was a long time ago for me, but Toynbee only mentioned it in order to minimise it instantly. And Joseph Tainter, who has become popular with some thinkers in the 90s, rightout denies it completely and argued that societies realising they are in trouble would act rational and adress the problem. But all too often the opposite is true, history shows, and often it is exactly a rational, reasonable thinking, a rational calculation of options and chances, of investement-profit-calculations, that paradoxically seal the road to doom. Happened often in history. And I fear it is happening again in the present. I just need to listen to the slogans in the media in the aftermath of the finance crisis, the hope for "economic growth", and the claim to balance economic interests against environmental needs and limited resources. we have not learned much. If anything at all. We do not want reasons to chnage. We want excuses not to change. what it almost always comes down to, is this: "more of the same, please, proceed by the same standards and methods". And my assessement on this is: it guarantees global suicide of our civilisation in whole, since today we are the first truly globally interlinked, mutually dependant society in history ever. I would need to rape my brain in order to conclude different when reading the signs of the times.



NeonSamurai,

I understand what you said on children. I am beyond the point in my life where the possibility to found a family still plays a role, I am 42 and my soulmate I have met, but she had to leave early, so I know for sure there will be no family and children for me. Sometimes I feel sad and truly regret that, but most times I feel relief for the same reasons you described.

Man's world is long beyond it's climax, and the sun is setting on our civilisation. But do not let that be a reason for despair. Despair comes to me when I allow my mind to get narrowed to few perspectives and interests only. If I allow that to go on for too long, I even become depressive, so I know that I must interrupt the automatism whenever I become aware it has started again and I still have the power left to stop it before I fall into the abyss. Living alone and as a single has it's costs in life, especially at higher age, but it also has its merits. And what our life is worth to us, does not get decided by the going of the world, or by our family "success" or regular job career, but by our attitude of wanting to add meaning to it, and by the way we spend our life's time so that in the hour of our death we must not feel ashamed - or must. the shame is not called for by others, but by our own inner standards, in good and bad. Eternity is in the present moment, and the gates to heaven or hell we open ourselves every moment we make a decision, and act, and become responsible for the consequences. What we do every day is what decides whether we are good people or not, and are free in mind, or not. Outer freedom can be taken away from us, and shattered, by bad intention of man or unlucky events or our own thoughtlessness or nature showing us the other side of life that we often tend to refuse. but freedom we manage to realise inside of us, cannot be taken away, and this is where we may win our peace.

[Rockin Robbins]

You do not get the point. The Viking settlements blossomed for the first decades, yes. But then the growing erosion of the land within their reach, the slow growth rate of vegetation that did not help to prevent erosion, the ongoing hostility towards theInuit from which they refsued to learn, and the cooling climate all came together to strangle their agricultural autarcy more and more. The inuit demonstrated that one still could survive in Greenland, and how, and they were capable to hunt animals like seals the Norseman refused to hunt for cultural pride in their damn cows. the agricultural desaster was caused my lacking understanding of the diffrences between Greenland and Scandinavia, they looked the same, but were anything but the same. The non-existing efficient use of replacable ressources, mainly meat/animals, led to the paradox that the Vikings suffered starvation altho9ugh being surrounded by a country that was capable to give them the meat to eat ansd the fur to dress that they needed when things became cool. Only the colling climate is the one factor that was beyond the Norse'S reach. The rest was self-made mistakes, some due to lacking knowledge, some due to arrogance. consider that the contact with eurpe was sparse and thin, biut they wanted to stick to their identity - by dressing the way they used to do in Scandinavia. The women on Greenland wore thin dresses with deep decoltees and a scarf-like thin textile around the shoulder at a time when the Inuit alraeyd were dressed in full fur! the male vikings again wore textiles tzhat cppied european and scandinavian models, but were absolutely inadequate for the cooling climate in the place. They wanted to live at least as scandianvian as the Scandinavians themselves in Scnadinavia lived - to reassure themselves of their cultural idetity. you see the same ohenomeneon with the British in Australiua - and later, Australian citizens behaving more British than the British in Europe themselves.



It was the complete failure of the Norse culture in that place, and it died an anything but peaceful death. For that society, it was a worst case outcome indeed. Really funny, eh...? There are indications that in the end some of the last survivors became cannibals (something that was found in other falling cultures as well when they were in the last minutes of their lives), and small groups died by starvation, others froze to death. weakened as they have been, diseases also must have played a role.

It was not exactly the idyll you used to know from adventure movies about the vikings.
Skybird, you are not communicating. You are carrying on a parallel monologue. The phenomenon is called cross-talk.

I am making the point that when the Norsemen settled Greenland, properly naming it because of its then present characteristics in a world much warmer than our own, they were able to live and flourish there due to a climate much warmer than our own.

I am calling to attention the silly predictions of global catastrophe if such warming were to happen now. In fact, the warming of the year 1000 was way beyond the most dire predictions of global warming doom enthusiasts.

I am also calling attention to the indisputable fact that during the past thousand years, a blink of an eye, the earth has both been considerably warmer and considerably cooler than it is now. Life flourished, as it will, no matter what silly doomsayers proclaim, no matter how many books cry wolf.

I also call attention to even more severe fluctuations in temperature in the more distant past, with half of Europe under a mile-thick layer of ice, at another time when there were no polar icecaps at all. What happened? What always happens? Life flourished, just as it will in the future.

The global warming/climate change silliness is just the latest example of the superb arrogance of man, taking credit for all that he actually is only privileged to witness. We inject cause and effect relationships where there are none and make ourselves look very small. Heck, we ARE small!:D

You responded to something else altogether. Your attempt to portray me of making light of the demise of the Greenland Scandanavian settlement is so far off the mark it merits no reply at all, except to say that you did not read and comprehend what I wrote. The shouts of your own thought drown out any ideas trying to get in.

[Onkel Neal]

Possible I messed up translation/language. What I meant was a false "Analogschluß". Your analogy was that since life is good at the present, it must be good in the future, too, at least it cannot be understood why it should be so much worse. I answered with the Vikings drawing false "Analogschlüsse" from their Scandinavian home when they saw the apparent visual similiarity between the landscapes in Scandiniavia, and Greenland.




Ah, ok, I see now. thanks:DL

[Sailor Steve]

Actually the Norsemen called the land Greenland because it was green. The much warmer climate of 1000 AD meant that there was much less ice and milder climate in Greenland than there is today. Life, including the Norsemen who are ridiculed by ignorant people for misnaming the land, flourished until the climate changed with the coming of the Little Ice Age, which shut them down.
I've always read that Eirik Raude called it Greenland as a sales pitch, to attract new colonists. Now I finally read a translation of The Saga of Erik the Red, and what do I find? No mention of how it got the name at all. They call it Greenland, but talk about the hardships of the place. You may be right, and you may be wrong.

[Schroeder]

I've always read that Eirik Raude called it Greenland as a sales pitch, to attract new colonists.
That's what I heard too. :hmm2:

[FIREWALL]

Will the last person leaving planet Earth please....

turn off the light.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.efluxmedia.com/content/news/news_6878.jpg
Ever wondered why the biggest island on Earth is called Greenland although it is covered in think, multi-millennial layer of ice? It’s because it was actually green, as new findings suggest.

Sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago the largest island on our planet had a territory where life thrived much like in today’s Scandinavian areas, according to scientists from University of Copenhagen, led by Eske Willerslev.

A boreal forest similar to the Canadian and Tunguska taiga covered the southernmost part of the island, hosting a handful of butterfly and beetle species. From the genetic material of the organisms found under the perennial ice researchers were able to deduce that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter, providing conditions for a temperate climate which trees love.

“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland...was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader (http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Greenland_Got_Its_Name_from_Its_Warmer_Past_0 6878.html#) Eske Willerslev.

Besides the extraordinary advancement registered by the science of ancient DNA (which was able to “extract” detailed information about complex environments from more than 450,000 years ago), the study published in the latest issue of prestigious Science Magazine also evidences that in order to have such mild whether in the southern part of Greenland planetary ocean’s levels had to be between three and six feet higher compared to current levels.

“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.

[Skybird]

Skybird, you are not communicating. You are carrying on a parallel monologue. The phenomenon is called cross-talk.

I am making the point that when the Norsemen settled Greenland, properly naming it because of its then present characteristics in a world much warmer than our own, they were able to live and flourish there due to a climate much warmer than our own.

I am calling to attention the silly predictions of global catastrophe if such warming were to happen now. In fact, the warming of the year 1000 was way beyond the most dire predictions of global warming doom enthusiasts.

I am also calling attention to the indisputable fact that during the past thousand years, a blink of an eye, the earth has both been considerably warmer and considerably cooler than it is now. Life flourished, as it will, no matter what silly doomsayers proclaim, no matter how many books cry wolf.

I also call attention to even more severe fluctuations in temperature in the more distant past, with half of Europe under a mile-thick layer of ice, at another time when there were no polar icecaps at all. What happened? What always happens? Life flourished, just as it will in the future.

The global warming/climate change silliness is just the latest example of the superb arrogance of man, taking credit for all that he actually is only privileged to witness. We inject cause and effect relationships where there are none and make ourselves look very small. Heck, we ARE small!:D

You responded to something else altogether. Your attempt to portray me of making light of the demise of the Greenland Scandanavian settlement is so far off the mark it merits no reply at all, except to say that you did not read and comprehend what I wrote. The shouts of your own thought drown out any ideas trying to get in.

After all the noise, I just can conclude that you make a point on Greenland having been an easy place to live, green, warm, friendly to farming and agriculture. Obviously you have not read most what I said. That point of yours simply is wrong. I made some notes on why it is wrong: it has to do with the slow growth rate of the vegetation, especially woods, but also meadows and grass, the different type of soil on Greenöland being more prone to erosion. You see the same problem in Australia and Iceland, where farmers have to fight with these issues as well because they stick to a form of agriculture and farming that is not matching the different realities in these places. The outcome is the same: a constant, ridiculously expansive fight against erosion, ground water shortages, salienation of soil. Even without the cooling that took place during the medieval, the Vikings on Greenland sooner or later would have run into troubles, becasue their living style and farming philosophy was not adequate for the place. they used the natural ressources att he same speed they used them in Scandinavia, but they did not know that for various reasons they would not be replaced by nature as quickly as in Scandinavia, so sooner or later they reached the point when they were running low of said ressources. The initial impresson of the place beeing "green" - was misleading, and due to a lack of knowledge about the different ecosystem they had to deal with. Running an agricultural community there like they were used to run them in Scandinavia was doomed to fail in the long run from the beginning on - because vegetation does not regenerate as fast there as it does in Scandinavia. The intiial enthusiasm that made them calling the place Greenland, which is your argument, was not as much justified as it first appeared. The green took MUCH longer to grow. And without it, the fertile grounds disappeared by erosion.

You may not like it, but this is no fantasy by me, but solid results from according resaearch they do since 20 years or so. In Iceland for example the state is incredibly willing to pay and massively support such research, because understanding these factors after the immense damages they had done to the fertile grounds on Iceland for comparable reasons the ikings did the same kind of damage in Greenöland, decides on the survivability of their now heavily regulated agriculture there. You cannot run it by the same rules and knowledge base you run agriculture on continental europe.

I just want to hint, that there are many other examples than just the vikings that show how societies for various reasons made decisions that made them running out of resswources, food, and left their envrionemnt exposed to erosion, killing said societies in the end. Before setting up more tunnel-viewed posts like your last one, you may want to get some information, therefore. Becasue the rest of your lament must indeed be understood as just the usual tricks to negate man'S influence on climate so that no concerns must be taken serious and business can run on as usual without caring for what it does to the future. The regular arrangement of Global Warming Scepticism it is, I mean. you are in chosen ignorrance of a whole lot of data from many different fields of research, all of which contribute to our knowledge and understanding of the social models, political conditons and economies of past societies that had chosen ways and made decisions that led to their fall by running out of food, natural resources, and eroding fertile soil by overexploiting the land and destroying more vegetation than nature could replace. the Vikings on Greenland - are just one of many examples for such man-made failure. and your posting give me the strong impression that your understanding of the Norse in Greenland, is basing on clichés, and is anything but complete.

[August]

Will somebody please tell Skybird that once again he misses the point? (I personally suspect he does it deliberately).

The fact that Greenland was once green enough to be called "green land" ought to make it obvious to anyone that it was once greener than it is today. The viability of the Viking colonies over the long term has absolutely nothing to do with it except to allow Skybird to turn what should be a one paragraph post into a several page exercise in misdirection.

Or am I just making "noise"?

[SteamWake]

Hey guys what happened to the original thread?

I cant seem to find it. I had some insightfull stuff there but cant find the damn thread and I'm too lazy (and sick) to re-type it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Will somebody please tell Skybird that once again he misses the point? (I personally suspect he does it deliberately).

The fact that Greenland was once green enough to be called "green land" ought to make it obvious to anyone that it was once greener than it is today. The viability of the Viking colonies over the long term has absolutely nothing to do with it except to allow Skybird to turn what should be a one paragraph post into a several page exercise in misdirection.

Or am I just making "noise"?

Nope, I'm voting on the misdirection. Some tangent about resources and the Vikings did not know crap about conserving resources and farming. Then again the internet was not available to the Vikings at that time as a tool for getting informed so the continent lanquished into ice cream. There was no government mandated reform on resource conservation. Not until Viking Gore started his rant on warming resources when in fact the resources were cooling thus forming the ice cream. Or something like that. :hmmm: :shifty:

[Sea Demon]

Check out the big environmentalist Ed Begley lose his cool over this isssue. :DL He's panicked. I don't think he understand that "peer-reviewed" by this community has suddenly lost an immense amount of credibility. This cracked me up.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/11/24/ed-begley-jr-loses-it-on-fox-news/

[Skybird]

Regarding the once green land of Greenland, some people here do not get the real point. the point is that the place back then when the vikings arrived looked as green and fertile as their Scandinavian homes - yes.

But the point you people do not get is that beyond the superficial visual impression the place was very very different to Scandinavia and in no way was to be compared to Scandinavia.

It is like living in finland with all it's lakes, then going to the middle East and one day finding the Dead Sea. It looks like a lake, it feels like a lake, and has liquid in it like a lake - so it compares to Finish lakes, yes?

The vegetation on Greenland at that time grew much, much slower than in Scandinavia or anywhere in Europe, nevertheless it was consummed at the same pace like in europe by the vikings, like chopping the few trees, and having cows on the meadow. Result: the Norse met a shortening on these resources, and had to meet that shortage sooner or later (in the last third of their stay they even imported wood from Europe, which then was almost as important as was iron), they took more ressources than the natural growing rates in that place could replace. By living the way they did in Scandinvia, now they lived beyond what nature could maintain in Greenland. The grass that was eaten, took much longer to grow, the trees chopped, were not replaced. The soil that lost it's green skin was exposed to erosion much longer, and since the ground was made of lighter material than the heavier soil in Scandinavia, it was taken away much faster. Agriculture therefore became even more difficult, already suffering from trying to have cows, and the meadows not producing as much as grass as the Norse were used to. Followiung the erosion, ground that could be used now even started to become rare. In the end, this all meant a destruction of their envrionment in reach of their two settlements that sealed their fate and made them suffering hunger, and finally death by starvation. First died the smaller Western settlement, then the single farms scattered in the neighbourhood, and finally the maor settlement in the East. As far as we know, no one escaped. Hunger killed them all.

I do not know how to explain it any easier or clearer. Either you understand it now, or you don't. Greenland looked green, but the Green took much longer time to grow, so losses in that green took longer time to be replaced - time in which precious fertile ground got lost by erosion. Is that clear enough now?

Hell, sometimes GT's ignorance is killing me, really. This is no difficult nor any exotic matter. It is widely agreed consensus amongst researchers on the Norse history regarding Greenland, any fool could underatand it if reading it, and I am even not a specialist for the matter and still understand it. Greenland was no agricultural paradise just because it looked green. The parallel the Vikings draw between Scandinavia and Greenland by the similiar looks of both places, was misleading, and wrong. Their status had already turned critical due to the erosion they had created themselves. when the cooling of the climate had effects to be felt, it was fighting for their lives soon, even more since they refused to hunt seals, to learn from the Inuit they had turned into enemies, and refused to give up keeping cows (cows were a thing vikings took pride in, and a symbol of prestige) although that bound hilarious working efforts and harvest ressources especially over the winters. Like sheep, foxes and rabbits never should have gone to Australia, the Vikings should not have brought cows to Greenland.

If you look at iceland, you see that there are incredibly tight and close regulations on sheep-keeping there. The Icelanders have had the same problems like the Greenlanders in their past, and their island has suffered miserably from that. Most of the forests they once had, are lost, and most of the green skin too. They are rebuilding it now, very very slowly. the project has national priority. They have learned their lesson and try to not have higher levels of farming and stock breeding than the highly sensitive landscape can maintain. If the meadows get used by cattle and sheep too much, they most likely get lost to erosion, because like on Greenland the grass does not grow fast enough to protect the soil from erosion. It grows much slower there than in europe with its milder climate and different soils. That that Iceland meadow may look like the meadow in Ireland, does not mean anything - it is a completely different ecosystem.

Mysterious, eh? Buh!

[August]

Sigh. I'll let someone that's still on speaking terms with him explain.

[Thomen]

Regarding the once green land of Greenland, some people here do not get the real point. the point is that the place back then when the vikings arrived looked as green and fertile as their Scandinavian homes - yes.

But the point you people do not get is that beyond the superficial visual impression the place was very very different to Scandinavia and in no way was to be compared to Scandinavia.

It is like living in finland with all it's lakes, then going to the middle East and one day finding the Dead Sea. It looks like a lake, it feels like a lake, and has liquid in it like a lake - so it compares to Finish lakes, yes?

The vegetation on Greenland at that time grew much, much slower than in Scandinavia or anywhere in Europe, nevertheless it was consummed at the same pace like in europe by the vikings, like chopping the few trees, and having cows on the meadow. Result: the Norse met a shortening on these resources, and had to meet that shortage sooner or later (in the last third of their stay they even imported wood from Europe, which then was almost as important as was iron), they took more ressources than the natural growing rates in that place could replace. By living the way they did like in Scandinvia, they lived beyiond what nature could maintain in Greenland. The grass that weas eaten, took much longer to grow. The soil was exposeed to erosion much longer, and since the ground was made of lighter material than the heavier soil in Scandinavia, it was taken away much faster. Agriculture therefore became even more difficult, already suffering from trying to have cows, and the meadows not priuducing as much as grass as the Norse were used to. In the end, this all meant a detruction of their envrionment in reach of their two settlements that sealed their fate and made them suffering hunger, and finally death by starvation.

I do not know how to explain it any easier or clearer. Either you understand it now, or you don't. Greenland looked green, but the Green took much longer time to grow, so losses in that green took longer time to be replaced - time in which precious fertile ground got lost by erosion. Is that clear enough now?

Hell, sometimes GT's ignorance is killing me, really. This is no diffiocult nor any exotic matter. It is widely agreed consensus amongst researchers on the Norse history regarding Greenland. Greenland was no agricultural paradise just becaue it looked green. The parallel the Vikings draw between Scandinavia to Greenland by the similiar looks of both places, was misleading, and wrong. Their status had already turned critical due to the erosio0n they had created themselves. wen the coling of the climate had effects to be felt, it was fighting for their lives soon, even more since they refused to hunt seals, learn from the Inuit, giving up keeping cows (cows were a thing vikings took pride in) although that bound hilarious working efforts and harvest ressources espoecially over the winters. Like sheep, foxes and rabbits never should have gone to Australia, the Vikings should not have brought cows to Greenland. If you look at iceland, you see that there are incredibly tight and close regulations on sheek-keeping there. The Icelanders have ahd the same probems like the Greenlanders in their past, ansd their island has suffered miserably from that. They have learned their lesson and try to not maintain higher levels of farming and stock breeding than the highly sensitive landscape can maintain. If the meadows get used by cattle and sheep too much, they most likely get lost to erosion, because like on Greenland the grass does not grow fast enough to protect the soil from erosion. It grows much slower there than in europe with its milder climate and different soils. That that Iceland meadow may look like the meadow in Ireland, does not mean anything - it is a completely different ecosystem.

Mysterious, eh? Buh!

You know, more and more of the stuff you write reminds me of the old joke from School where someone has to write a paper about elephants and instead starts writing about worms because the trunk reminds him of these.

:03:

[Skybird]

Warhawk believes he must run jokes on the Viking'S lack of knowledge.

Maybe that is only becasue he does not see the other major point here. The vikings decided very reasonable and rational and logical when they cam to Greenland and saw the green country. It was their farming competence, their assessment as experts in the field of colonizing, discovering, farming 8experts by the standards of theirt time), that made the choosing a path that in the end led to their doom. Admitted, that they thought they must look down on the inuits and even kill them on accasion, and that they must not learn and adapt, is a sign of stupidity, but that stupidity is casued by cultural self-identity, and a desire to stay in touch with the hoimeland by not chnaging the homeland's custom'S and rites. you can see the same principle at work in the attitude of the Australians who for long tried to be more British than the Britsh in europe (their follow-the-(British)-leader attitude somebody noted in another thread short time ago also comes from that).

You can be reasonable, and decide by rational and reasonable principles and to the best knowledge available to you - and right by doujng so decide your own longterm failure and extinction.

Still wanting to mock the Norse, Warhawk? the way they behaved is no different to the ways we behave in our modern present. we stick to old habits for cultural reasons only, even if we damage ourselves by doing so, we refuse solutions and chnages by referring to our self-identity and way of life. We weigh options rationally and reasonably decide for what destroys us and kills our ressources. Mock the Norse, and you need to mock us people now, and yourself, too.

We repeat old patterns.

Like the Vikings concluded on the fertility of Greenland by thinking about farming in Scandinavia, we conclude Global Warming is meaning nothing because the present feels nice. We base on old knowledge, but do not see or do not test wehther the old knowledge is still actual, or relevant for the new we have to face. The Norse have an excuse - they could not have known it better, their biologic understanding on vegetation and growth rates was limited. but considering global warming and climate chnage, we azhve the data to see the difference to the past . So, what is our excuse? The conclusions in both cases were and are wrong. It is frightening to see how unable we are to overcome old psychologic mechanisms even when we are seeing the evidence that they have already costed us dearly in the past, and often so.

[Skybird]

You know, more and more of the stuff you write reminds me of the old joke from School where someone has to write a paper about elephants and instead starts writing about worms because the trunk reminds him of these.

:03:

I appreciate your good will to contribute to the talking with all what you are capable of. You really fulfilled all my expectations and did not disappoint me there. Now lean back and relax and get some rest. The effort to go to your limits that closely must have been very exhausting, and we do not want you to become ill from all that stress.

[Thomen]

I appreciate your good will to contribute to the talking with all what you are capable of. You really fulfilled all my expectations and did not disappoint me there. Now lean back and relax and get some rest. The effort to go to your limits that closely must have been very exhausting, and we do not want you to become ill from all that stress.

Now.. now.. didn't your mom tell you: "Du sollst nicht von Dir auf andere schliessen"?

Just because you are having a hard time to express yourself and stay focused, does not mean you need to, what you might consider, belittle others. Quite the opposite actualy. You are, once again showing your ignorance and arrogance. Good Job, SB! :yeah:

[Skybird]

You introduced a dirty banknote. I gave you the change in the currency you have chosen.

[Thomen]

You introduced a dirty banknote. I gave you the change in the currency you have chosen.

Good one, but unfortunately not quite true. But nice try. :up:

[VipertheSniper]

Well I think your reply wasn't in any way helpful either with comparing his intellectual level to someone who writes an essay about worms when it should be about elephants just because of their trunks. I think that you didn't mean to be rude, but I can also understand SB reacting the way he does, I think he explained more then once that he knew how the name Greenland came to be and he acknowledged also that as long as the weather was all fine and dandy that the Vikings could make do with the conditions and their customs from home (Question is: For how long, even if the climate didn't change back then?).

It was warmer back then in Greenland and they could survive (eventhough their settlements went down the drain in the end)? Is that the point? Does that take away anything from the fact that once it got colder they couldn't, because of their clinging to the old ways of their home country. And who's to say that a change in climate, whether it'd be cooling or warming, wouldn't spell doom for us if we just try to resist changes that are forced on us by nature?

[Thomen]

Well I think your reply wasn't in any way helpful either with comparing his intellectual level to someone who writes an essay about worms when it should be about elephants just because of their trunks. I think that you didn't mean to be rude, but I can also understand SB reacting the way he does,

Oh, I did not mean to demean his intellectual capabilities with this. He does this all by himself by calling people that disagree with him ignorant and calling them, through other, words intellectually challenged.

As I have known the story, it was more about someone who can't stay focused and that is what he is, or rather is not.

He chose to take it however he took it. It does not really matter, any how.

[August]

...if we just try to resist changes that are forced on us by nature?

When you think about it aren't we doing exactly that when we heat our homes, water our lawns or even just wear insulated clothing?

[VipertheSniper]

When you think about it aren't we doing exactly that when we heat our homes, water our lawns or even just wear insulated clothing?

Sure thing, but when the climate doesn't allow to grow crops or raise cattle, we can heat our homes as much as we want, we'll still starve.

[August]

Sure thing, but when the climate doesn't allow to grow crops or raise cattle, we can heat our homes as much as we want, we'll still starve.

We're long used our technology to support far more people than could exist in a "natural" environment.

[Onkel Neal]

You know, more and more of the stuff you write reminds me of the old joke from School where someone has to write a paper about elephants and instead starts writing about worms because the trunk reminds him of these.

:03:


Yeah, I was puzzled by the interjection of the Viking's history myself but I wasn't going to comment on it. I guess I do have one question, did the Vikings kill Greenland's ecosystem? It sounds like they applied the wrong farming techniques. But did they make the temperatures change?


at all costs: an identity thing much like you cling to the socalled American way of life


Brother, I think you should look around you. Far as I can tell from my times in Germany, it's the way of life for many people.


Oh, I did not mean to demean his intellectual capabilities with this. He does this all by himself by calling people that disagree with him ignorant and calling them, through other, words intellectually challenged.

As I have known the story, it was more about someone who can't stay focused and that is what he is, or rather is not.

He chose to take it however he took it. It does not really matter, any how.

Yes, that's fair, when Skybird claims "Hell, sometimes GT's ignorance is killing me, really." I suppose it is common for someone to take the position that others who don't agree are ignorant. But I think of it more as different perspective.

[Torplexed]

Looking at these posts it looks like a Racial Issue to me :DL
Are Subsim forum members Racist?
Are Subsim forums only for Americans here?
I wonder :hmmm:
Sad to see this topic blown out of the water,
oooops :/\\chop :D

HuH? Not unless talking about Vikings behind their backs is racist. In which case Green Bay is in a lot of trouble....:D

[Sailor Steve]

I guess I do have one question, did the Vikings kill Greenland's ecosystem? It sounds like they applied thw wrong farming techniques. But did they make the temperatures change?
No, but they were adversely affected by it.

My original disagreement was based on what I read from historians from the mid-twentieth century, especially Samuel Eliot Morison, who saw Erik's naming of the land as a sales pitch. But just today I was talking to a friend who studies both archeology and anthropology, and he said that those historians suffered from the same lack of knowledge that their early 13th-century sources did - a belief that climate is static.

My friend pointed to the recent discovery of whole farms, with buildings and fences, under the Greenland icecap. Apparently what AVG said was true - the evidence is that the Vikings settled a truly green land, and their colony later died out as the Greenland climate grew colder and the current icecap formed.

It looks like the weather changes really are an ongoing cycle, and current (or recent) warming trends are just a part of that cycle.

[Skybird]

Yeah, I was puzzled by the interjection of the Viking's history myself but I wasn't going to comment on it. I guess I do have one question, did the Vikings kill Greenland's ecosystem? It sounds like they applied thw wrong farming techniques. But did they make the temperatures change?

They used their existing knowledge to the best understanding of theirs, and they could not know the differences between Greenland and Scandinavia - they had to learn them by experiencing Greenland over a longer time. Greenland was not just like Scandinavia -Greenland was NEW, althigz it looked inviting and green and very much the same - but it wasn't the same. They used experiences from Scandinavia, but these were inadequate - but they could not know that when arriving. Indeed, they killed those parts of the ecosystem within the reach of their settlements, those parts of the ecosystem that were in the main vital to their own survival and formed the basis of any form of agriculture and farming. Many societies of the past did that, and by that terminated themselves. Mind you, there were only two settlements at the southern tips, and only around 5-6 thousand vikings - we talk of the vikings on Greenland, but indeed they did not settle on the whole island, but lived in a very small, tiny region only. Climate change, you asked. The differences in the vegetation growth rates existed from the beginning on, so the Vikings already had met more difficult living conditions after roughly the first third of their total stay on Greenland, and then the climate cooling added to their problems, accelerating them. but they would have failed to survive anyway even without the climate chnage, because they refused to adapt to the needs of this different world the lived in even when the problems became life-threatening. Mind you, they died by hunger and at some places we even found signs for cannibalism - with seals and fish in the ocean aplenty! They refused to learn how to hunt seals in tiny, fast boots the Inuit use, because the looked down on the Inuits, killed them for fun, and called them dwarfs. It was their own arrogance preventing them to learn, for supremacist self-definitions. So even without the climate changing, the vikings stood in their own way by sticking to their cultural identity and self-definition - without willing to change these, although survival demanded this. Even at the height of the cooling they still dressed in the latest fahsion styles that they learned of from europe. Contributij gto the problems that they had no iron ore on Gereenland, only so-called grass-iron, which was of minor qulaity, and the tress they had chopped did not grow again in time. they had to important iron all the time, and wood in the past third of their stay. But what to pay with? Their most precious trading good was ivory, but europe won new markets and trading routes to the East, so this potential trading ace lost in importance.

another reason was that the scandianvian king, who finally claimed possession of Greenland, was not overly interested in Greenland and thus regular shipping was rare, and died down to zero when the shipping lines got shut by sea ice. Also take into account that the desire of wanting to remain a part of european/Nordic culture made the Norse on Greenland invest tremendous efforts and ressources in establishing churches and contributing to the social life as demanded by the churche's rites, which send bishops to greenland (a position that was not popular, becausue the Norse were known for their notorious fights and trouble-making). For maintaining this sacral network, they pend much time and effort and ressources that were not free anymore for mainting their survival. To an even greater extreme you can see this kind of pro-religious anti-survival behavior in the example of the Easter Island. Much of what I said on the greenlanders, you see even more exemplarically (?) demonstrated in the culture of the Easter Island.

So, cooling climate accelerated the viking's fall on Greenland. But it did not initially cause it. They would have failed even without changing climate.


Brother, I think you should look around you. Far as I can tell from my times in Germany, it's the way of life for many people.
Americanism, jeans, Macdonalds and Rock'n Roll is spread around the globe, yes. So what? That is not the point I was after. The point is that people being isolated from their home culture, like the British moving to Australia or the Norse moving to Greenland, often try to stick to their cultural roots by living the home customs and rites very exemplary and trying to be at least as British/as Nordic as the people of the home culture they left behind. The British did not like the vegetation in Australia, it looked so unpleasant and alien, so until just years ago the government punished farmers that bought land but did not kill a certain ammount of bushes and trees every year. If you bought farming land in australia, you were under an obligation of removing so and so much of bushland and forest from it (now tell Australians about erosion...) The Australian sheep keeping only functions by stellar subsidies, and the australin agriculture in general is probably the most expensively running system world-wide - compared to that the artifical watering of giant monoculturess in the US or in Israel, is cheap. They export huge ammounts of corn, but by can do that only by enormous subsidies. Left to themselves, their farmers would not be competitive.

This counterproductive habit derives from the colonisation era, though! This has done insane ammonts of damage by erosion to the farming soil in Australia, and it has skyrocketted problems with water supply, and salienation. Agriculture and sheep in Australia - that would be a book in itself. The British wanted to replace the local vegetation with the kind of vegetation they knew from home (Britain). They wanted fox hunts, so they brought in foxes. I must not tell you about the problem of rabbits and foxes in Australia, the story is widely known, yes? Rabbits are a natural disaster of top rank in Australia. But they had been brought there.

Introduction of foreign species is one of the worst man-made ecological disasters there are. It often changes the face of whole countries - or even a whole continent. No matter if it is voluntary (foxes+rabbits ->AUS) or unvoluntary (unwanted animal passengers of shipping traffic).



Yes, that's fair, when Skybird claims "Hell, sometimes GT's ignorance is killing me, really." I suppose it is common for someone to take the position that others who don't agree are ignorant. But I think of it more as different perspective.
that is somewhat unfair. My comment you quote was due to people time and again replying in complete and total ignorrance of what I just said and already had repeated several times. If you spend time repeatedly to give an explanation and then immediately see people behaving as if the explanation has not been given even a single time, by that implying you are ignorrant yourself by not agreeing to a different view that by your explanation you nevertheless have already adressed and demonstrated to be wrong, then this is very frustrating and can cause anger. This is the only context in which you see my quoted comment, please.

Oh, and you asked why I brought up the Vikings. You made assumptions about the future by describing the present, you remember. I wanted to demonstrate that that may not be a valid argument, and that exactly this has led past societies to their doom. The Norse also made assumptions about the future (in Greenland), by refering to their past and present they knew (from Scandinavia). You said if the present is so well as it is right now (in your opinion), how could somebody be so pessimistic about the future. And the Vikings thought if their keeping of cows was managable and their farming methods worked so nice in Scandinavia (actually, there was plenty of hunger in Scandianvia, but they got along, all in all), why shouldn't all this work here in Greenland as well when the place looks so very much the same like we use to know if from back home? They saw Greenland analogously to Scandinvia, which was a mistake, like you see the future analogously to the present, which I think also is a mistake. This I wanted to demonstrate, and if my initial explanation on the Vikings would not have met so much repeated ignorance for what I just said, it would have been all much shorter.

[August]

I think this entire Viking tangent can be summed up thusly:

"Natural Climate Change. Sneaky enough to fool the Vikings."

or perhaps:

"Natural Climate Change pwns 14th century technology"

[baggygreen]

I'd just like to make a point, sky mentions that the more recent decade of cooling is the result of a plateauing of manmade nasty CO2 emissions.

Fact remains though, that there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, other than... what?

computer models, for which there is evidence of tampering?

the fact that CO2 emissions have risen while temperatures have dropped? oh, wait, that doesn't help does it... whoops

It is important to remember that yes, there are thousands of peer reviewed papers out there saying warming is our fault and CO2 is to blame. However, also remember that the scientists implicated by these emails are the source of many of these reports. Not to mention the data that was cited by countless other papers, data for which there is evidence of tampering... Also remember the IPCC uses lots of data from the CRU and they are cited as an authority. if their data is flawed, how authoritative are they?

remember, not one prediction by computer models have come to pass. I thought the ice sheet should have melted by now... http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/adjust_your_predictions/

[Skybird]

I'd just like to make a point, sky mentions that the more recent decade of cooling is the result of a plateauing of manmade nasty CO2 emissions.

It's not really a cooling, but a pause in further raising temperature - a (temporary) stagnation. But even a slight fluctuation in ups and downs would only be natural and not really meaning a reversing of the general trend.

Also, you quote me wrong. No scientist as far as I know ever said there is a "plateauing in CO2 emissions by man", nor did I. There is a plateauing of global mean temperature - a pause in further rising, with micro fluctuations that so far nobody can conclude to indicate a changing trend. One sunny day does not make a summer, one rainy day does not end the summer. Just some years of stabile global temperatures, even small declines in temperature means, do not indicate a reversing of the trend of warming.

I thought the ice sheet should have melted by now...

On ice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8357537.stm
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/index.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081016_arcticreport.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html

Glacier ice around the world has continued to shrink , too. A prominent ammount of once known glaciers already has disappeared over the past 100 years. The trend of shrinking glaciers continued in 2009.

If glaciers do not bother you, then open the picture search of Google, enter "glacier comparison", and check the resulting images which compare the same perspetive on the named regions in two pictures, one taken in the past ten years, and one taken usually around 1900-1940. If the differences you can see with many glaciers do not shock you, then nothing ever will. Note that these chnages are not just temproary or saeasonal, but that huge forest may have grown where just decades ago 20 m and more of thick ice was present all year long.

You could also take this link for a start:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Glacier_Gallery
Some of those photos are so impressive that they speak for themselves.

I think I have posted a picture thread on this some years ago, haven't I?!

Finally, note that many scientists having published their findings about temperature mean values currently plateauing and sun activity having changed, explicitly warn of taking this as an argument that global warming is mainly depending on sun acivity, is a fiction , and not real. These scientists often explicitly point out that they do not want to be understood that way, and that there findings about sun activity should not be taken as an argument to question man's influence on warming climate, sicne their findings do not support such a far-leading claim. That is some detail that GW sceptics often do not quote when referring to them, they just pick what they like and rip it out of context, ignoring the rest that puts it into relation.


People really have to differ between a general trend, and micro-cycles and natural fluctuations that take place inside that trend. You cannot conclude on trends by referring to micro-cycles and natural fluctuations. that would be like commenting on one year's seasonl weather developements by taking the weather statistics of just one day.

[August]

The essential point is that human caused global warming, if it exists, is not going to be addressed, let alone solved, by setting unobtainable carbon limits or creating international wealth redistribution schemes. The only true way to limit the human effect on the planet is to limit the numbers of humans on the planet.

Folks will say this is unacceptable and or impossible but we cannot keep increasing our numbers and expect that any conservation scheme will be successful.

[NeonSamurai]

The essential point is that human caused global warming, if it exists, is not going to be addressed, let alone solved, by setting unobtainable carbon limits or creating international wealth redistribution schemes. The only true way to limit the human effect on the planet is to limit the numbers of humans on the planet.

Folks will say this is unacceptable and or impossible but we cannot keep increasing our numbers and expect that any conservation scheme will be successful.

Unfortunately I tend to agree. We keep stretching our environment/ecosystem, sooner or later its going to break and snap in our face.

[Skybird]

For once I must agree with August. Population numbers are a top priority variable. And I do not see any humane, civilised solution there. It is not only about emmissions, but ressouce consummation as well. And in the finance system, it is about liviong beyond our means, too.

Intersting and very true German comment on the latter point just released this evening:
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article5361094/Angst-vor-der-Mittelschicht-laehmt-Bundesregierung.html?print=yes#reqdrucken

[SteamWake]

Since as usual the topic at hand is being avoided and some other bizzare tanget is being discussed I will introduce yet another odd tangent.

Why arent the enviromentilist and climatilogist expressing dismay over this ?


CARACAS, Venezuela — Hugo Chavez says he is starting to "bombard" clouds now that Cuba has provided Venezuela with cloud-seeding help in an effort to produce rain and alleviate the effects of a severe drought.


Now thats man made climate change ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577592,00.html?test=latestnews

[SteamWake]

Climate change data 'dumped'

In what amounts to destroying of evidence...


SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

[nikimcbee]

Wow, the news on this gets more interesting by the minute.:hmmm:

Just follow the money:D. ...or should I say funding and potential tax revenue:hmmm:

[G.K.]

Just one brief reaction...
In our country (former Czechoslovakia) in the times of communist regime (1948-89) the communist propaganda used one quite an interesting slogan:

,,We will command the rain and wind..."

Our generation (post-communist) used to laugh to it. It's a stupidity, isn't it?
Then we found out that certain politicians want to command not the weather, but the climate... :nope:
And why, beacuse of never proven relation of CO2 - Global temperatures?
Or the ,,scientific" dates as seen above?

[Skybird]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

[AVGWarhawk]

Interesting Skybird. These emails seemed to have tarnished the scientific community. At the very least raised some questions from folks who might not have asked anything at all.

[SteamWake]

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Photograph: Jay Directo/AFP/Getty Images
There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

ps;

Pachauri was educated at La Martiniere College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Martiniere_Lucknow) in Lucknow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucknow)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri#cite_note-1) and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railways_Institute_of_Mechanical_and_Electr ical_Engineering) in Jamalpur, Bihar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamalpur,_Bihar).
HEC Paris appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in October 2009.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri#cite_note-2)
He served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 - May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business at NC State.
Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_State_University), Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri#cite_note-3)
He began his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Locomotive_Works) in Varanasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varanasi).

I dont see alot of climatological centered study there.

[AVGWarhawk]

About the same as Al Gore but Al got a prize for his study at the local library. :03:

[SteamWake]

About the same as Al Gore but Al got a prize for his study at the local library. :03:

Hey Speaking of Al...


"Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen." The official announcement from this fair Danish city says it all. The former vice president is getting star treatment when he arrives with an entire swarm of green-minded gadflies for the United Nations' global warming extravaganza, which begins on Dec. 7.
.
.
"Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack."

Wait, what? How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion says it all, too: 5,999 Danish kroners is equivalent to $1,209.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/01/inside-the-beltway-41029681/

[Skybird]

Interesting Skybird. These emails seemed to have tarnished the scientific community. At the very least raised some questions from folks who might not have asked anything at all.
The ideal of scientific methodology and the reality of academic everyday routine should not be mistaken with each other. much pressure to produce publications in order to prevent your university from firing you, and the temptation of raising personal prestige, interfere with the ideal. But I agree with the author of that essay that the damage done by the intentional lying by sceptics, is much more serious than the damage created by a in party corrupted academic routine. If this "scandal" means one thing indeed, than that sicnece business has to sort out some bad pracices again that have sneaked in over the past x years/decades. I had one professor at university who when being asked for the general quality of reasearch publications in the field of psychophysiology just rolled his eyes. and when it came to the understanding of proper methodology and statistics in medical science, he really turned into a fury.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hey Speaking of Al...



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/01/inside-the-beltway-41029681/

Not to mention his personal jet that he used to get to the grip and grin conference about global warm, cooling, climate change, it is raining men whatever he is peddling this week. :shifty: What is another few tons of carbon, no wait, he bought a carbon credit that offsets his tons of carbor and electrical usage. Carbon credit my eye. What a stupid idea. :down:

[AVGWarhawk]

The ideal of scientific methodology and the reality of academic everyday routine should not be mistaken with each other. much pressure to produce publications in order to prevent your university from firing you, and the temptation of raising personal prestige, interfere with the ideal. But I agree with the author of that essay that the damage done by the intentional lying by sceptics, is much more serious than the damage created by a in party corrupted academic routine. If this "scandal" means one thing indeed, than that sicnece business has to sort out some bad pracices again that have sneaked in over the past x years/decades. I had one professor at university who when being asked for the general quality of reasearch publications in the field of psychophysiology just rolled his eyes. and when it came to the understanding of proper methodology and statistics in medical science, he really turned into a fury.


To the common layman, like me, the credibility has been lost. I'm just one of the millions of common layman that are sceptical now if not more so.

[SteamWake]

Not to mention his personal jet that he used to get to the grip and grin conference about global warm, cooling, climate change, it is raining men whatever he is peddling this week. :shifty: What is another few tons of carbon, no wait, he bought a carbon credit that offsets his tons of carbor and electrical usage. Carbon credit my eye. What a stupid idea. :down:

The real funny part is that he basically buys the 'carbon offset credits' from himself :rotfl2:

[Skybird]

To the common layman, like me, the credibility has been lost. I'm just one of the millions of common layman that are sceptical now if not more so.

But then yo are a heavily biased common layman, really. The lack of credible methodology in the pseduo-science of sceptics who let themselves getting payed for claiming "scepticism", is much, much more damaging and blatant, really. These emails to no small degree probably only illustrate the slang used by scientists among themselves, and others is being taken out of context. If you claim you are even more sceptical now, then you cannot allow yourself to be a layman only, because a sceptic knows what and why he is sceptical about. An attitude of "I just don't believe it", is no scepticsim.

Regarding the millions of layman you claim have lost trust now, let them speak for themselves. Where you talk of millions having done this or that, in fact you mean - yourself. And doing so intentionally to raise a generalised impression - is bad methodology, too! ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

The real funny part is that he basically buys the 'carbon offset credits' from himself :rotfl2:


Yeah, incredible.

[AVGWarhawk]

But then yo are a heavily biased common layman, really. The lack of credible methodology in the pseduo-science of sceptics who let themselves getting payed for claiming "scepticism", is much, much more damaging and blatant, really. These emails to no small degree probably only illustrate the slang used by scientists among themselves, and others is being taken out of context. If you claim you are even more sceptical now, then you cannot allow yourself to be a layman only, because a sceptic knows what and why he is sceptical about. An attitude of "I just don't believe it", is no scepticsim.

Regarding the millions of layman you claim have lost trust now, let them speak for themselves. Where you talk of millions having done this or that, in fact you mean - yourself. And doing so intentionally to raise a generalised impression - is bad methodology, too! ;)

Skepticism, pseudo science, damaging , blantant...this is what the common layman (person) sees and reads. Slang for scientists is "hide this". "do not print that" and "how can we explain the cooling?" Interesting. These will PROBABLY illustrate scientific jargon? Laughable at best Skybird. These emails have been out for quite sometime now and no one in the scientific community has addressed them. Not that I have seen at any rate. Is silence golden? Not in this instance. Perhaps the resounding silence is our answers to what the emails really mean.

BTW, were did I write that 'I have done this or that' or "millions have done this or that" thus creating a general impression being raised? Well, this thread would lead me to believe the impression is skeptical in nature more so ground work for what the general membership at SS think about these emails and global warming in general. Skepticism will grow methodology or not.

[Skybird]

Skepticism, pseudo science, damaging , blantant...this is what the common layman (person) sees and reads. Slang for scientists is "hide this". "do not print that" and "how can we explain the cooling?" Interesting. These will PROBABLY illustrate scientific jargon? Laughable at best Skybird. These emails have been out for quite sometime now and no one in the scientific community has addressed them. Not that I have seen at any rate. Is silence golden? Not in this instance. Perhaps the resounding silence is our answers to what the emails really mean.

At university I listened a bit into a group of mdeical students from a neighbouring town visiting us. "Shreddering" meant to conduct surgery, "hiding your diletantism" meant to have such a clean healing of a scar that it became almost unvisible, a "tit job" was a female breast examination, "robbing their families" was writing a report for the health insurrance who payed for the treatement, and a "poison attack" was slang for anaesthesia.

You better never go to hospital! ;)

there already was much comment in media on the guy saying he found the "trick" how to do it. such things imo really illustrate only slang meaning at that he found a solution for a problem. Other examples have been commented on by scientists to give most likely false impression because the context of the talk is not known.


BTW, were did I write that 'I have done this or that' or "millions have done this or that" thus creating a general impression being raised?

You wrote: "To the common layman, like me, [a generalisation: its not just you] the credibility has been lost. I'm just one of the millions of common layman [another generalisation by which you claim you are just one voice representing millions of voices] that are sceptical now if ..."

[AVGWarhawk]

At university I listened a bit into a group of mdeical students from a neighbouring town visiting us. "Shreddering" meant to conduct surgery, "hiding your diletantism" meant to have such a clean healing of a scar that it became almost unvisible, a "tit job" was a female breast examination, "robbing their families" was writing a report for the health insurrance who payed for the treatement, and a "poison attack" was slang for anaesthesia.

You better never go to hospital! ;)

there already was much comment in media on the guy saying he found the "trick" how to do it. such things imo really illustrate only slang meaning at that he found a solution for a problem. Other examples have been commented on by scientists to give most likely false impression because the context of the talk is not known.



You wrote: "To the common layman, like me, [a generalisation: its not just you] the credibility has been lost. I'm just one of the millions of common layman [another generalisation by which you claim you are just one voice representing millions of voices] that are sceptical now if ..."

I have been to the hospital 4 times for collapsed lungs. I lived with a ER physician. I called him dad because he was my dad. I have not heard slang like you describe at all in my 44 years. To be honest, what you wrote there from the 'university' is funny at best. I believe you have taken this climate change hook, line and sinker. I do not believe it is quite as critical as believed but it makes good PR, great ratings and most importantly, profits. You keep on believing! :03: Maybe if you ignore the emails it will all go away and you can continue your fear and loathing. :O:

[SteamWake]

LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia (http://topics.breitbart.com/East+Anglia/) says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit (http://get.lingospot.com/link/?@li2=5953&is_lhid=0&key=SVKEJENJ&ps_id=1njlX77rgV&q=QQ:lqOTqjptCQAH@UAAU{HORJJOBPOBGIVOqptJ:pnCDOqmj _J:pnCSO4aJm8CPAARA:GSSBKVV&site_id=breitbart.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftopics.breitbart.com%2FClimatic%2 BResearch%2BUnit%2F&url_key=_TaCSO0CGB7SSG{ADK&v=1&~boot=1259697147474) is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change. (http://topics.breitbart.com/climate+change/)

The university says Phil Jones (http://topics.breitbart.com/Phil+Jones/) will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1


No man...it was all slang talk. You know, 'how do we explain global cooling' really meant, 'what do you want for lunch?':doh:

[NeonSamurai]

You know I really wish the general populace actually understood scientific methodology and principles. Everyone thinks they know what science is and how it works, and almost everyone doesn't actually have a clue how it works.

There is a good reason why entire courses in university are dedicated solely to teaching scientific method. Unfortunately I think only a handful of us here have any training in it, or a solid understanding of it.

Pseudo-science are claims, theories, etc that do not have a scientific basis (they often claim to have a scientific base, but it is in fact false as they did not follow scientific methodology). A lot of the counter claims to global warming are pseudo-scientific in nature and are not properly backed up, or broke the rules of science. The creationist thread here is also rife with a lot of pseudoscience (which is why I won't even touch it).

Skepticism is a healthy part of science. One should always be skeptical of everything, even well established scientific theory. As science is imperfect and changeable. One should question everything, to check the foundation of our views, to not assume that others are correct, etc. One cannot be a good scientist, with out first being a skeptic.

Anyhow wiki has a decent article on scientific method (its light though of course), and on pseudo-science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

The key rule that is almost always broken in pseudo-scientific 'research', is that they selectively choose results which supports their theory, and ignore everything else that goes against the theory. They are cherry picking. This is a huge problem if there is more evidence against the theory, then supporting it. Good science does not ignore valid counter evidence, as it can suggest that the theory has a flaw (assuming the counter evidence is actually valid).

Problem is, your average person can't tell the difference between real science and pseudo-science, and can be easily convinced to believe the pseudo-science.


As for slang, you usually don't use slang in front of people who do not understand it, or who would misread the meaning if the slang uses common language. Work related slang is only used between people who understand it. Nearly every field has its own internal slang or language to quickly communicate something between people in the field. Even lower skill jobs like working in a kitchen (something I've done) have their own slang. I for example have a background in computers, psychology, and professional cooking, and I can tell you all 3 have their slang and words, which mean completely different things to outsiders (or just confuse them).

[AVGWarhawk]

The creationist thread here is also rife with a lot of pseudoscience (which is why I won't even touch it).



You said it Neon. I ran from that thread! But I'm in this one and continue on with Skybird. This seems to be status quo with Skybird and me. :up: That's ok, I like to exchange with Skybird.


Skepticism is a healthy part of science. One should always be skeptical of everything, even well established scientific theory. As science is imperfect and changeable. One should question everything, to check the foundation of our views, to not assume that others are correct, etc. One cannot be a good scientist, with out first being a skeptic.



Excellent Neon. Splendid!



Problem is, your average person can't tell the difference between real science and pseudo-science, and can be easily convinced to believe the pseudo-science.



You can drop me in this group for a reality that I do not have the time to practice the methodology for real science. I depend on the scientific minds of our time to do that but these emails have created a black spot on their findings. Pseudo or not!


As for slang, you usually don't use slang in front of people who do not understand it, or who would misread the meaning if the slang uses common language. Work related slang is only used between people who understand it. Nearly every field has its own internal slang or language to quickly communicate something between people in the field. Even lower skill jobs like working in a kitchen (something I've done) have their own slang. I for example have a background in computers, psychology, and professional cooking, and I can tell you all 3 have their slang and words, which mean completely different things to outsiders (or just confuse them).


I understand slang in the given industries or professions but some of these emails are not slang but point blank state some interesting findings. I believe it is more than that when people are stepping down from their positions when it concerns these emails. I worked as a bus boy and dish cleaner for 3 days... that is all I could handle with that job. It just sucked. :down: I found a job restoring an old Dupont Plantation home on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. That was a great job as I was in college and made my own hours.

[SteamWake]

The earth is flat I tell you ! :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

The earth is flat I tell you ! :haha:

Yes, the Flat Earth Society

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

What's the problem? :hmmm:

Disclaimer:


The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.

[VipertheSniper]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars

Thought that might be interesting.

[Skybird]

I have been to the hospital 4 times for collapsed lungs. I lived with a ER physician. I called him dad because he was my dad. I have not heard slang like you describe at all in my 44 years.
Patiensts of course do not get told that. And whether it is like that in families, may depend on the families, maybe? My dad and me use to exchnage friendly offences and names that are anything but friendly if taking them literally. Some guests occaisonally said they felt "bewildered".

I was for limited times working in a hospital and a psychiatry, too. And from that I know that sometimes our nicknames for patients also were anything but polite - if no patient was around to listen. :)

For more medical slang and examples of how to behave polite, ask Dr. House. :D

Any profession has it's ingroup slang, I assume. And the more familiar colleagues are, the more relaxed the conversation rules are - and the language. Have you ever realsied how drastic and sudden the change in language and behavior amongst male soldiers is once a female entered the tent - even more so if she carries a star on the shoulder pads? ;) :salute:

I believe you have taken this climate change hook, line and sinker. I do not believe it is quite as critical as believed but it makes good PR, great ratings and most importantly, profits. You keep on believing! :03: Maybe if you ignore the emails it will all go away and you can continue your fear and loathing. :O:
And this says someone who completely ignores the enormous, much more serious deficits in the propaganda show on the sceptics side. So many projects there have been who meanwhile are known to have been completely faked, fake institutes have been "founded" just to create fake reaserach results and get faked petitions signed by honest scientists doing so in good belief. So much there is that is not even bad methodology, but lack of it completely, and does not even show indepednat research, just claims to have done that: simply lies invented to discredit results from scientific research the sceptics-lobby needs to fight against to fulfill it's orders: to secure that chnages get minimised and delayed and business runs on as usual and the same people can catch the cream from the coffee while leaving anything as it is.

Yes, the email issue is welcomed fodder in the propaganda war. But the failings and misdeeds in the scpetics camp are far, far, far more serious and damaging. Add to that the reasonable doubt one has to have with regard to at least parts of those emails: ingroup slang, uncomplete communication, quotes out of context.

yes, hook line and sinker taken and successfully assimilated - on your side, Warhawk. ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

And this says someone who completely ignores the enormous, much more serious deficits in the propaganda show on the sceptics side.


Can you spot anywhere that I have ignored the enormous? You can find where I have stated man has contributed to global warming or lets call it climate change as is being coined these days. I have stated that in this very thread. I refuse to take it all hook, line and sinker because there are things the earth is doing that completely befuddles the scientists. This is not an exact science. For years factories have been told to clean up the emissions. Automobile manufactures are told to clean up the emissions. Freon is gone. Aerosal propellent is not widely used as before yet the earth still warms according to the world leading authorities (Gore :shifty:) who apparently have some disenchanting emails that have come to light. So what gives? Anyone got tired of dumping billions into cleaning up our act, buying carbon credits (wth crap is that?) and looking to frowned on because I used one more square of toilet paper to take care of my business? It is getting to be a bit much with the end is near when the science is not exact.

[Skybird]

You ignore the enormous deficits in the sceptics camp very much, and instead say the email "scandal" (if it is that) belittles the pro GW science camp much more and is a reason why it must not be taken serious and data on GW must be collected again. You overestimate the one, and underestimate the other.

It is not reasonable to assume that just stopping emitting this agent and that aerosol (and since when do we talk on full stops on emissions?) within three years or five would create effects going reverse. Not when considering the enormous inner self-dynmaic of the chaotic system climate is. Not when considering that while some developed nations limited emissions, other nations nullified that by exploding emission levels and thus increased global levels of emissions. Not when considering that the half-life values for substances and agents can be many years, even decades.

Even if the fairy queen would come and make all critical emissions stop and falling to zero from one day to the other, I am very sure the detoriating trends we see would continue to move at that direction for many, many more years to come, and probbaly would speed up too for the forseeable future as if no emission stop had taken place.

And now consider the feedback from the climate and ecologic system that is created from the already effective changes in conditions right now. It could very well be that the changes already done have pushed the self dynamic of the transformation process beyond the point were it could be stopped and reversed again. In fact I am very sure of that.

Much of that transformation we may not even know of, when it is being out of our sight. The speed of melting ice and arctic glaciers for example has surprised scientists this year, because it did not meet the speed predictions, but by far exceeded them. They had not seen that the ice is not only melting oin the surface, but that the water created deep "drilling" holes that let the melting effect penetrate deep into the core of the ice as well, and creating a water sledge under the ice on which the glacier ice started to move faster, that way braking and fragmentising faster, and exposing a greater surface and more of it's core to the warm air.

for comparing reasons, several speed assessement from just two or three years ago had to be corrected in the past 12 months or so, pushing speed estimates and effect levels always upwards. The global process is not so much linear and unicausal, but exponential and multicausal, it seems. This year has seen several scientific teams warning that they think it is possible that the process we have seen only runs that way until a certain treshhold value or criterion, and when reaching that, sends climate and ecology changing in a chaotic phase of extremely rapid, explosive change that summarises effects expected to develope over the next let's say 100 years within just ten years or even less.

However. This debate in various forms has taken place many times already.

[August]

Interesting article by one of the people mentioned in the emails: Dogulas Keenan

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-fraud-is-everywhere-suny-albany-and-queens-university-belfast-join-climategate-pjm-exclusive/

A tidbit:

Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important. In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

[Fish]

This is not going to change your minds, but worth to read:

A few lines from the article:


This month, thousands of people from all over the world, including many heads of state, will gather in Copenhagen to try to forge an agreement to drastically cut atmospheric emissions of an invisible, odorless gas: carbon dioxide. Despite efforts by some leading countries to lower expectations ahead of the conference about what can and will be achieved, the meeting is still being called the most important conference since World War II. And at the conference’s heart are the results of Tyndall’s experiments.
But the story starts even before Tyndall, with the French genius Joseph Fourier. An orphan who was educated by monks, Fourier was a professor at the age of 18, and became Napoleon’s governor in Egypt before returning to a career in science. In 1824, Fourier discovered why our planet’s climate is so warm – tens of degrees warmer than a simple calculation of its energy balance would suggest. The sun brings heat, and earth radiates heat back into space – but the numbers did not balance. Fourier realized that gases in our atmosphere trap heat. He called his discovery l’effet de serre – the greenhouse effect.
It was Tyndall who then put Fourier’s ideas to the test in his laboratory. He proved that some gases absorb radiant heat (today we would say long-wave radiation). One of these gases was CO2. In 1859, Tyndall described the greenhouse effect in beautifully concise words: “The atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
Then, in 1897, Svante Arrhenius, who earned a Nobel Prize for chemistry six years later, calculated how much global warming a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause. His answer was 4-6 degrees Celsius (a little more than the 2-4 degrees that modern studies consistently find).
Arrhenius was not in the least troubled by the prospect of global warming. Perhaps because he was Swedish, he proposed setting coal mines on fire to speed it up, since he thought a warmer climate was an excellent idea. But it was all just theory in Arrhenius’s time, since nobody had measurements to prove that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were in fact increasing.

It then took only a few years until, in 1965, an expert report – the first of many – to US President Lyndon B. Johnson warned of global warming: “By the year 2000, the increase in carbon dioxide will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate.” In 1972, a more specific prediction was made in the leading science journal Nature , namely that temperatures would warm by half a degree Celsius by 2000. And, in 1979, the US National Academy of Sciences issued a stark warning of impending global warming.
And
Most countries now agree that global warming should be stopped at a maximum of two degrees centigrade. But this has become an extremely tough challenge, as growth in greenhouse-gas emissions and atmospheric stocks accelerated in the years since Rio. That is why Copenhagen is so important: it may well be our last to address climate change before it addresses us.
Tyndall’s measurements 150 years ago showed that carbon dioxide traps heat and causes warming. And, 50 years ago, Keeling’s measurements showed that CO2 levels are increasing. In the meantime, earth’s climate has been heating up, as predicted. How much more proof do we need before we act?



The whole article:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ramstorf1

[SteamWake]

Fish, alot of that article is based on the tainted data we are discussing. Indeed global tempratures have not increased in the last few years in fact they have declined.

I saw this this morning, I can imagine Boxer's head swelling up to the exploding point. Oh I would have liked to see the look on her face. :03:


(CNSNews.com) – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57879

Here is a decent summary of the events that have unfolded recently.


So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/

[Onkel Neal]

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:


:har::har:

It is climate change Neal, climate change....nothing to do with your local weather. Come on, did you not get the book on Gore-isms.? BTW, look for some carbon credits I got you for Christmas. Check your stocking out. :03:

[Onkel Neal]

Great. I spent a whole year fighting spam in the forums and keeping flamewars in check and all I get is a lump of carbon in my stocking:wah:

[AVGWarhawk]

Great. I spent a whole year fighting spam in the forums and keeping flamewars in check and all I get is a lump of carbon in my stocking:wah:


All thanks to Al Gore. Carbon for everyone! :salute:

[SteamWake]

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:

Dident yall get some snow today? (12/02/09)

[Fish]

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:

Neal, I live near the seashore and am fishing there on a regular bases. Last 15 to 20 years the seawater themp is rising new fishes come and others who lived here for centuries seem to move on north.
So whats the problem you will ask, well it's not a problem for me, but what for my grand-grand children? Is this what it is, or just the prelude to a much bigger problem?
Liever blo-jan dan do-jan, as we say. Means something like, better afraid, then dead. ;)

[SteamWake]

The Aussies.. if you will forgive the pun... Show cooler heads prevail.


SYDNEY – Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia

[August]

Great. I spent a whole year fighting spam in the forums and keeping flamewars in check and all I get is a lump of carbon in my stocking:wah:

Did you pay the tax for that lump of carbon?

[SteamWake]

Earlier I posted this


(CNSNews.com) – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.


I found that to be amusing. So whats Boxer's response?

Prosicute the hackers... so much for adulation of 'whistle blowers' :haha:


"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe

[AVGWarhawk]

Earlier I posted this



I found that to be amusing. So whats Boxer's response?

Prosicute the hackers... so much for adulation of 'whistle blowers' :haha:



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe)

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/whistle.gif

[Skybird]

Neal, I live near the seashore and am fishing there on a regular bases. Last 15 to 20 years the seawater themp is rising new fishes come and others who lived here for centuries seem to move on north.
So whats the problem you will ask, well it's not a problem for me, but what for my grand-grand children? Is this what it is, or just the prelude to a much bigger problem?
Liever blo-jan dan do-jan, as we say. Means something like, better afraid, then dead. ;)

Two days ago german media reported that near Kiel (Laboe, that place that some of you just have visted during the subsim meeting) a not so small moonfish was found stranded on the beach, and died. Another, even bigger moonfish still swims in the area, they say. The size is such that these fishes cannot have lived in somebody's private aquarium and then got released.

Moonfishes normally live in tropical waters.

Sightings of exotic jellyfish, even dangerous Australian species, happend to take place on the British coasts occasionally, that was rare but nothing new. But in the past years, the number of sightings have gone way up - and now occur not only on the British coasts anymore. Could be due to rising temperature. Could also be due to changing ph-values. could also be due to both, which is the most likely explanation. Globally the ph-values are chnaging such that the oceans become more prehistoric again, tougher to bear for normal fish, but more pleasant for yellyfish. In some places they have started to mess up fishe'S breeding grounds and bringing up a stable next generation. Yellyfish problems are becoming a global phenomenon - and that is not about people getting stung.

Insects are even more an indicator for chnaging climate zones, and boundaries of equatorial, warm places moving north. Many exotic species are moving into Europe, for example.

[AVGWarhawk]

What moonfish? Atlantic Moonfish?


Distribution

Western Atlantic: Nova Scotia, Canada through most of the West Indies; along coasts of Gulf of Mexico and South America (Ref. 26938 (http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/references/FBRefSummary.php?ID=26938)) to Mar del Plata, Argentina. Absent from the Bahamas (Ref. 26938 (http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/references/FBRefSummary.php?ID=26938)). Replaced by Selene dorsalis in the eastern Atlantic. These two species have not been adequately studied and may prove to be conspecific. Known to occur in Mauritania (Ref. 5377 (http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/references/FBRefSummary.php?ID=5377)).


Seem to like all kinds of water temps.

[Onkel Neal]

Did you pay the tax for that lump of carbon?


It was a gift, c'mon, man! :cool:

[Fish]

Two days ago german media reported that near Kiel (Laboe, that place that some of you just have visted during the subsim meeting) a not so small moonfish was found stranded on the beach, and died. Another, even bigger moonfish still swims in the area, they say. The size is such that these fishes cannot have lived in somebody's private aquarium and then got released.

Moonfishes normally live in tropical waters.

Sightings of exotic jellyfish, even dangerous Australian species, happend to take place on the British coasts occasionally, that was rare but nothing new. But in the past years, the number of sightings have gone way up - and now occur not only on the British coasts anymore. Could be due to rising temperature. Could also be due to changing ph-values. could also be due to both, which is the most likely explanation. Globally the ph-values are chnaging such that the oceans become more prehistoric again, tougher to bear for normal fish, but more pleasant for yellyfish. In some places they have started to mess up fishe'S breeding grounds and bringing up a stable next generation. Yellyfish problems are becoming a global phenomenon - and that is not about people getting stung.

Insects are even more an indicator for chnaging climate zones, and boundaries of equatorial, warm places moving north. Many exotic species are moving into Europe, for example.

An other moonfish found a mile from home.


http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/nederland/article4183782.ece/Grote_maanvis_strandt_op_strand_Katwijk

In 2005 there were 15 strandings of Moonfishes.

[AVGWarhawk]

It was a gift, c'mon, man! :cool:

Are you a politician? There are rules for gifts if you are a politician unless of course if you are a Chicago politician were no rules apply to anything. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

An other moonfish found a mile from home.


http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/nederland/article4183782.ece/Grote_maanvis_strandt_op_strand_Katwijk

In 2005 there were 15 strandings of Moonfishes.


That looks like an Ocean Sunfish.

[August]

Are you a politician? There are rules for gifts if you are a politician unless of course if you are a Chicago politician were no rules apply to anything. :03:

If he were a Chicago politician we'd probably end up having to pay him... :DL

[SteamWake]

Al Gore cancels climate lecture in Copenhagen...

No reason given :doh:

It's breaking news and not much out there on it yet.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-%E2%80%93-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch.html

[SteamWake]

It was a gift, c'mon, man! :cool:

Remember those 'tax cuts'??

Yea those were taxible income as well.

[AVGWarhawk]

Al Gore cancels climate lecture in Copenhagen...

No reason given :doh:

It's breaking news and not much out there on it yet.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-%E2%80%93-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch.html

Now there is surprise. :shifty:

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/algore-decline.gif?w=450&h=334

[Skybird]

I am not familiar with moonfishes, and only quote the media. the only thing I know is that they do not stop growing all life long, thus can become very big. They said there are several types of moonfishes, and the one being found near Kiel belongs to warm waters in tropical regions. So far I only knew that the lived in the waters around Japan, and often are met by Japanese fishermen.

I assume the prefer to meet a giant moonfish than to meet those giant yellyfishes they have over there, too - in swarms. :-?

[AVGWarhawk]

I am not familiar with moonfishes, and only quote the media. the only thing I know is that they do not stop growing all life long, thus can become very big. They said there are several types of moonfishes, and the one being found near Kiel belongs to warm waters in tropical regions. So far I only knew that the lived in the waters around Japan, and often are met by Japanese fishermen.

I assume the prefer to meet a giant moonfish than to meet those giant yellyfishes they have over there, too - in swarms. :-?

I believe it is the Ocean Sunfish as sometimes it is called a Moonfish.

[Skybird]

Could be, I was just translating from the German name, "Mondfisch".

[August]

Are these Moonfishes good eatin'? :D

[SteamWake]

are moonfish related to moonbats?

Hey speakin of moonbats.. :haha:

A map of how California will be affected by climate change in the future was unveiled yesterday by state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The map, which demonstrates the devastating effects of global warming in just a century, shows how San Francisco Airport would be completely underwater if sea levels were to rise by 150cm (60in).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1232884/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-unveils-dramatic-climate-change-map-shows-flooded-San-Francisco-future.html

[antikristuseke]

Dun dun dunnnnnnn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

[Skybird]

Nice find, antikristuseke.

"I've instinctively known this from the get go 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up..!!! And the reason I know it is that liberals (!!!) are behind it."

Huuhahahaha - frightening, horrifying, evil, creepy - liberals...! God save my family from ever meeting one of them alone in the dark!

:har:

What a braindead super-idiot! Compared to the lack of light in his mind, a stellar black hole is a bright shining place.

investigate what has been written - and what it actually means."

Good advise that could not be repeated often enough.

[AVGWarhawk]

Could be, I was just translating from the German name, "Mondfisch".

Well, whatever the case the fish is not supposed to be there! Attributed to global warming? I can not say for sure. Whales and dolphins beach themselves. Sometimes in places they do not belong. Some say the echo location/bearing mechanism distorts their sense of direction. Another phenominon yet to be explained fully from what I understand.

[August]

I'm still waiting to find out how they taste! :arrgh!:

[Skybird]

Well, whatever the case the fish is not supposed to be there! Attributed to global warming? I can not say for sure. Whales and dolphins beach themselves. Sometimes in places they do not belong. Some say the echo location/bearing mechanism distorts their sense of direction. Another phenominon yet to be explained fully from what I understand.

If it were a sunfish belonging to a species living in the Atlantic, it could have been that the pair trapped itself when travelling into the Skagerrak and Kattegat. We have seen rare events of other big fishes and wahles not belonging to the Baltic. But if the sunfishes belonged indeed, as they claim, to a species living in tropical waters only, then this means "warm" waters, and then you have top explain why they swam thousands of kilomters through waters that were "too cold" for them.

The stranding of whales and dolphins does not compare to this, it usually is not attributed to warming temperatures in the ocean, but due to underwater sound pollution, shallow beaches, virusses, and the leading animal having become insane and the others following their leader, the thepries are many with sound pollution being the most prominent one. We do not know for sure, but the indications for sound pollution seem to be the strongest by far. That means not only sonar, but for the most it means propellers and engines. Sonar seem to be a problem not in polluting the envrinonment constantly, but by hurting and doing physical damage to the animals' brain, sonar apparatus, and other tissues.

[SteamWake]

Dunn dun dun...


The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

[AVGWarhawk]

If it were a sunfish belonging to a species living in the Atlantic, it could have been that the pair trapped itself when travelling into the Skagerrak and Kattegat. We have seen rare events of other big fishes and wahles not belonging to the Baltic. But if the sunfishes belonged indeed, as they claim, to a species living in tropical waters only, then this means "warm" waters, and then you have top explain why they swam thousands of kilomters through waters that were "too cold" for them.

The stranding of whales and dolphins does not compare to this, it usually is not attributed to warming temperatures in the ocean, but due to underwater sound pollution, shallow beaches, virusses, and the leading animal having become insane and the others following their leader, the thepries are many with sound pollution being the most prominent one. We do not know for sure, but the indications for sound pollution seem to be the strongest by far. That means not only sonar, but for the most it means propellers and engines. Sonar seem to be a problem not in polluting the envrinonment constantly, but by hurting and doing physical damage to the animals' brain, sonar apparatus, and other tissues.


Well, it does make for interesting conversation. Just on my own shores the pelican has been showing up. As a kid I would summer in Ocean City Maryland. Never remember seeing pelicans. Last few years the pelican has been seen by me. The pelican normally does not fly up this far from the southern east coast regions where it stays warm year around. In fact, the first wild pelican I witnessed I was in Clear Water FL back in 1978. Of course I was a kid back then and probably did not take much notice of this bird but it seems to me the pelican is migrating north.

http://www.worldbirdingcenter.org/bird_info/images/brown_pelican390.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

Haha, the weather guys were right. We now have snow in Gulf Coast Texas, in very early December. :haha: Third time in 5 years.

Believe whatever they tells ya, that's fine, but you need to call it something else, "global warming" is dead.

[AVGWarhawk]

Haha, the weather guys were right. We now have snow in Gulf Coast Texas, in very early December. :haha: Third time in 5 years.

Believe whatever they tells ya, that's fine, but you need to call it something else, "global warming" is dead.

Climate change is catch word of the day.

[antikristuseke]

And it is +5 C in Estonia in early December. Looking at one area and making claims about global climate is a bit dim.

Climate change is catch word of the day.

Well it better describes what is going on, but most issues like this get striped down to catchprases that do not actually represent the problem at hand.

[SteamWake]

Well, it does make for interesting conversation. Just on my own shores the pelican has been showing up. As a kid I would summer in Ocean City Maryland. Never remember seeing pelicans. Last few years the pelican has been seen by me. The pelican normally does not fly up this far from the southern east coast regions where it stays warm year around. In fact, the first wild pelican I witnessed I was in Clear Water FL back in 1978. Of course I was a kid back then and probably did not take much notice of this bird but it seems to me the pelican is migrating north.

http://www.worldbirdingcenter.org/bird_info/images/brown_pelican390.jpg

Ive seen pelicans as far north as Maine many years ago.

[AVGWarhawk]

And it is +5 C in Estonia in early December. Looking at one area and making claims about global climate is a bit dim.

Point is, stop call it global warming. Is it really warming or cooling? Are we just experiencing climate change and nothing more? I'm thinking the scientific community is befuddled. BTW seems you are just looking at +5 in Estonia.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ive seen pelicans as far north as Maine many years ago.

Is that odd to you? As a kid I do not remember seeing them off the coast of MD. The past few years I have. Now when I mean kid that was over 25 years ago or more.

[Fish]

Haha, the weather guys were right. We now have snow in Gulf Coast Texas, in very early December. :haha: Third time in 5 years.

Believe whatever they tells ya, that's fine, but you need to call it something else, "global warming" is dead.

Could be caused by the sun:


There appears to be an emerging Cycle 23 spot
at the left, but still no new Cycle 24 spots. Click for large image
That’s never a good sign. Below is an excerpt from an article in Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm) that ponders the question:
Excerpt: The sun has been laying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites. That’s good news for people who scramble when space weather interferes with their technology, but it became a point of discussion for the scientists who attended an international solar conference at Montana State University. Approximately 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America gathered June 1-6 to talk about “Solar Variability, Earth’s Climate and the Space Environment.”
The scientists said periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, but this period has gone on longer than usual. “It continues to be dead,” said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission. […] The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today’s sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren’t sure why. “It’s a dead face,” Tsuneta said of the sun’s appearance.
Tsuneta said solar physicists aren’t like weather forecasters; They can’t predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/10/scientists-not-sure-why-sun-continues-to-be-dead/

[Onkel Neal]

Ho ho ho! Had to cover my Tabasco pepper plant!

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs111.snc3/15840_194658412527_535097527_3012668_1862259_n.jpg


And it is +5 C in Estonia in early December. Looking at one area and making claims about global climate is a bit dim.



Well it better describes what is going on, but most issues like this get striped down to catchprases that do not actually represent the problem at hand.

I think the whole concept is a bit dim :)

[SteamWake]

Is that odd to you? As a kid I do not remember seeing them off the coast of MD. The past few years I have. Now when I mean kid that was over 25 years ago or more.

In my youth I spent alot of time sailing up and down the east coast and gulf with trips to the carribian. About 20 years ago.

One thing that was consistant in nearly all ports of call were the effing poop laden Pelicans. They could make a real mess of things in the matter of an hour or two. Their poop was slimey sticky and dried to the consistancy of plaster. They would foul the rigging and sometimes the radio gear. It was a pita to get up in the rigging to clean it up.

We would carry slingshots and chase em off :haha:

[NeonSamurai]

Haha, the weather guys were right. We now have snow in Gulf Coast Texas, in very early December. :haha: Third time in 5 years.

Believe whatever they tells ya, that's fine, but you need to call it something else, "global warming" is dead.

That actually doesn't disprove global warming, as a known side effect of changing temperatures is the altering of ocean and air currents, and weather patterns, which accounts for stuff such as snow in places where it doesn't normally snow. It also explains the rather sudden increase in the number and strength of severe storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes in the last several years.

Further, if we are in fact really in a global cooling cycle, why have we been loosing massive amounts of ice in both poles, and in glaciers across the globe? If the earth is getting cooler we should be gaining ice not loosing it, right?

Lastly I just love how this issue has become an issue of politics and not science. We should also probably look at who is making lots of money from blowing totally out of proportion the hacked emails. It is certainly in the best interests of the windbags on radio and TV to make as much as they possibly can out of it for their own gain. I find it especially ironic when they even start totally misquoting the emails they use as evidence of a conspiracy.

PS thanks for that video link antikristuseke that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the situation.

[Skybird]

Over here, the weather guys said we have had the warmest Novembre since VERY long time. Two weeks ago I was bicycling in a T-Shirt. If you wonder whether or not that is unsual in northern germany, then be told: yes, it is. It ahs also been the first nomvembre in all my life where did not turn on heating for even just a day. Until some years ago, I started heating in late Septembre. On most days this Novembre, I had the door to the balcony open, as long as it did not rain (it rained a lot).

Now what? Is Northrhine Westphalia - or the coast of Texas the navel of the Earth?

And how compoares a micro-wetaher cycle over 11 years with a general trends in climate shifts? They way some of you argue - for ideologic, not for scientific reasons! - compares to taking the weather of one day and by that conclude on the mean weather values for all the year.

And despite that absence in reasonable standards you guys dare to criticise sciences - which you can only do by massively ignorring anything you do not not want to hear and see in explanation - whether it be regarding climate chnage and global wamring, or regarding those emails...???

You must be kidding.

[SteamWake]

I know this may come as a shock to some of you but...

The weather does change...

day to day, week to week, month to month, season to season, year after year, decade after decade, millenium after millenium.

It has done so since the earth was formed and will do so untill it is destroyed.

I just find it hard to beleve that on the scale of things mankind could actually influence the weather on a global scale.

[Onkel Neal]

Over here, the weather guys said we have had the warmest Novembre since VERY long time. Two weeks ago I was bicycling in a T-Shirt. If you wonder whether or not that is unsual in northern germany, then be told: yes, it is. It ahs also been the first nomvembre in all my life where did not turn on heating for even just a day. Until some years ago, I started heating in late Septembre. On most days this Novembre, I had the door to the balcony open, as long as it did not rain (it rained a lot).

Now what? Is Northrhine Westphalia - or the coast of Texas the navel of the Earth?

And how compoares a micro-wetaher cycle over 11 years with a general trends in climate shifts? They way some of you argue - for ideologic, not for scientific reasons! - compares to taking the weather of one day and by that conclude on the mean weather values for all the year.

And despite that absence in reasonable standards you guys dare to criticise sciences - which you can only do by massively ignorring anything you do not not want to hear and see in explanation - whether it be regarding climate chnage and global wamring, or regarding those emails...???

You must be kidding.


Like I have said many times before on this subject, I neither believe nor dis-believe global climate change. I am inclined to disbelieve it is significantly man-made, but still, I only know what I read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts". You are in the same boat, you only know what you are told. Please don't tell me about your many years of exhausting meterological research in your spare time ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

I do believe man contributes to climate change. I do not believe how much of what man does affecting the climate can be calculated on any scale. I do believe the scienctists do not understand some of the things the earth does and many other phenominon that must be factor in but can't because the lack of understanding. But, we are going to hang our hat on Al Gore, retired VP and carbon credit salesman? No, the emails are an inconvienent truth that Al is all about Al and nothing more.

[Skybird]

Like I have said many times before on this subject, I neither believe nor dis-believe global climate change. I am inclined to disbelieve it is significantly man-made, but still, I only know what I read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts". You are in the same boat, you only know what you are told. Please don't tell me about your many years of exhausting meterological research in your spare time ;)

I must not. I only tell about you the changes in weather I already have seen over the span of my life so far. That alone already would be sufficient to make me think. Doing a little bit of additional reading every once in a while, certainly helps, though. ;)

[Skybird]

I do believe man contributes to climate change. I do not believe how much of what man does affecting the climate can be calculated on any scale. I do believe the scienctists do not understand some of the things the earth does and many other phenominon that must be factor in but can't because the lack of understanding. But, we are going to hang our hat on Al Gore, retired VP and carbon credit salesman? No, the emails are an inconvienent truth that Al is all about Al and nothing more.

I wonder why you and some others so often must refer to Al Gore to make your points. Have you ever noted that I never do, and many others and scientists as well mostly never need to do that as well? He is a media phenomenon. He skims on the surface of the problem, for his own benefit or not, but in the end he simply is not important, he is not the cause of the porblem, and he is not the one solving it. At worst he is just an opportunist.

Like almost every politician.

[SteamWake]

Ho ho ho! Had to cover my Tabasco pepper plant!

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs111.snc3/15840_194658412527_535097527_3012668_1862259_n.jpg




I think the whole concept is a bit dim :)

Heh Brace yourself !!!


Houston this morning broke a record with the earliest snowfall ever recorded in the city's history.
Forecasters are still hedging their bets on the amount, but say the most likely scenario is 1 to 2 inches of widespread snowfall through the day. Some areas could get up to a half a foot.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html

[Skybird]

I just find it hard to beleve that on the scale of things mankind could actually influence the weather on a global scale.
And the boundaries of your imignation define the limits of possible realities...? ;)

If my imagination would be the decisive variable, then I would be the master of the solar system by now, I would rule over the world the way I see fit and you all would better believe in me and do as i tell you. If you pardon my fantasy. :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

I wonder why you and some others so often must refer to Al Gore to make your points. Have you ever noted that I never do, and many others and scientists as well mostly never need to do that as well? He is a media phenomenon. He skims on the surface of the problem, for his own benefit or not, but in the end he simply is not important, he is not the cause of the porblem, and he is not the one solving it. At worst he is just an opportunist.

Like almost every politician.

Unfortunate, Al is the front man, stuffed shirt and entirely self indulgent. Since he is the front man on this who else would you like anyone to refer to concerning global matters?

[NeonSamurai]

Refer to the science maybe rather than spokesidiots? Just a thought :DL

[Dowly]

And it is +5 C in Estonia in early December

Same here. We had abit of snow few weeks back but then it got warmer and now we've been getting rainshowers.. in fricking December! :nope:

[SteamWake]

And the boundaries of your imignation define the limits of possible realities...? ;)

If my imagination would be the decisive variable, then I would be the master of the solar system by now, I would rule over the world the way I see fit and you all would better believe in me and do as i tell you. If you pardon my fantasy. :O:

Call it personal observation. I am in no way an 'expert'. But to me mankind thinking they can influence the enviroment on a grand scale is just a little bit arrogant.

But lets make an example. A deadly typhoon is bearing down on Venezuala, what can mankind do to stop it?

A blizzard paralyzes the north east of the united stats, what can mankind do to stop it?

A volcano in the tropics erupts and spews billions of metric tons of ash and steam into the atmosphere. In fact it spews forth more pollutants in one day than the entire industrialized globe has done in its entire lifetime. what can mankind do to stop it?

[AVGWarhawk]

Refer to the science maybe rather than spokesidiots? Just a thought :DL

Will do for Skybirds sake. Somehow I think Skybird does not think highly of Al Gore either and it raises the old hackels just reading his name.

[NeonSamurai]

Call it personal observation. I am in no way an 'expert'. But to me mankind thinking they can influence the enviroment on a grand scale is just a little bit arrogant.

But lets make an example. A deadly typhoon is bearing down on Venezuala, what can mankind do to stop it?

A blizzard paralyzes the north east of the united stats, what can mankind do to stop it?

And yet we have managed to over-fish most of the oceans, extincted countless species, and are stripping most of the worlds forests for fuel.

There are almost 7 billion people on this planet, each one wanting food, fuel and a place to live. We are cutting down the co2 absorbers in massive numbers and dumping tremendous amounts of carbon into the environment (by burning fuel such as wood, coal, oil, etc). Frankly I think its equally arrogant to claim we are not having an effect.

Also just cause we can't control the weather, doesn't mean we don't effect it.

A volcano in the tropics erupts and spews billions of metric tons of ash and steam into the atmosphere. In fact it spews forth more pollutants in one day than the entire industrialized globe has done in its entire lifetime.

In 2007 the estimated amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by humans was around 10 billion tons globally. So unless you are talking a super eruption, like if Yellowstone park errupted, we are out producing your average volcano. Especially when you consider that most of the stuff spewed out by a volcano comes back to the earth pretty rapidly, where as carbon does not (it has to be absorbed by plants mostly)

[NeonSamurai]

Will do for Skybirds sake. Somehow I think Skybird does not think highly of Al Gore either and it raises the old hackels just reading his name.

Frankly I don't think many scientists think very highly of him either. He is seriously muddying the waters by politicizing the issue. This isn't a political issue, its a scientific one. If we are significantly responsible for what is happening, we better think about trying to fix it before it fixes us.

[Skybird]

Call it personal observation. I am in no way an 'expert'. But to me mankind thinking they can influence the enviroment on a grand scale is just a little bit arrogant.

But lets make an example. A deadly typhoon is bearing down on Venezuala, what can mankind do to stop it?

A blizzard paralyzes the north east of the united stats, what can mankind do to stop it?

A volcano in the tropics erupts and spews billions of metric tons of ash and steam into the atmosphere. In fact it spews forth more pollutants in one day than the entire industrialized globe has done in its entire lifetime. what can mankind do to stop it?

That is such queer a "logic" that I refuse to adress it. In fact I feel sorry for me that I even have to take note of this nonsens-argument.

Get serious.

[SteamWake]

Frankly I don't think many scientists think very highly of him either. He is seriously muddying the waters by politicizing the issue. This isn't a political issue, its a scientific one. If we are significantly responsible for what is happening, we better think about trying to fix it before it fixes us.

If you dont think this is a political issue I just dont know what to say.

[AVGWarhawk]

Frankly I don't think many scientists think very highly of him either. He is seriously muddying the waters by politicizing the issue. This isn't a political issue, its a scientific one. If we are significantly responsible for what is happening, we better think about trying to fix it before it fixes us.

Oh hell, I agree with you 100%. Al is a lousy poster child for this issue. So, back to the post you have there with SW and the population. I will repeat again, I do think man does contribute to climate change. To what extent I do not believe we can measure, however, the landscape is getting raped as well as the oceans and what lies beneath as you pointed out. I think this will be our undoing before any type of climate change does.

[AVGWarhawk]

If you dont think this is a political issue I just dont know what to say.


It is not a political issue but has been made a political issue and a pawn for those seeking political leverage or clout. Plus, it is a convienent way to introduce more taxes.

[NeonSamurai]

Oh hell, I agree with you 100%. Al is a lousy poster child for this issue. So, back to the post you have there with SW and the population. I will repeat again, I do think man does contribute to climate change. To what extent I do not believe we can measure, however, the landscape is getting raped as well as the oceans and what lies beneath as you pointed out. I think this will be our undoing before any type of climate change does.

No that won't kill us, but it may push an already unbalanced system over the edge. The proverbial straw on the camel's back.

[August]

It also explains the rather sudden increase in the number and strength of severe storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes in the last several years.

What sudden increase? I remember claims after Katrina that hurricanes would become far more numerous but that hasn't happened at all.

[NeonSamurai]

What sudden increase? I remember claims after Katrina that hurricanes would become far more numerous but that hasn't happened at all.

The intensity and number of severe storms has been increasing over the globe. You can also have high and low periods between years, which is why one looks more long term to avoid statistical flukes. Anyhow here is some data.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24452

If that data is true, the number of category 4&5 hurricanes has more then doubled in the last 30 years. I would call that a sudden increase myself.

[NeonSamurai]

If you dont think this is a political issue I just dont know what to say.

AVG said pretty much what I would have said.

Unfortunately by having been turned into a political entity, with each side of the political spectrum lining up behind a certain side (and all those milking each side for their own gain), it has become a political quagmire, where it is not about fact or science any more, its about your ideology. The debate is taking place in the general public on ideological terms, not factual or scientific.

This is why when I get involved in environmental debates, the first thing I'll do is try to shred to pieces all the ideological crap clogging up the issue, so that it can be looked at with out all the attached rubbish. The political stuff is irrelevant and a distraction.

[Onkel Neal]

I must not. I only tell about you the changes in weather I already have seen over the span of my life so far. That alone already would be sufficient to make me think. Doing a little bit of additional reading every once in a while, certainly helps, though. ;)

Yes. And your little research = what I said, what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts". You don't know if man is impacting the global environment. But you can choose to think so, if you wish. Like I said, I am not convinced one way or the other.

And the boundaries of your imignation define the limits of possible realities...? ;)

No, not at all. But it does define the limits of what I believe :)



If my imagination would be the decisive variable, then I would be the master of the solar system by now, I would rule over the world the way I see fit and you all would better believe in me and do as i tell you. If you pardon my fantasy. :O:

Hey, how do you we don't do that now? But in a humble state of secretness? :03:



What sudden increase? I remember claims after Katrina that hurricanes would become far more numerous but that hasn't happened at all.
That's right, there were no major storms of any consequence this year. I guess that's just outlier data, we better get ready for 10 class 5's next year.

[AVGWarhawk]

I guess that's just outlier data, we better get ready for 10 class 5's next year.

Oh hell, FEMA and I will be very very busy then.

[CaptainHaplo]

I know this is going to irritate GW supporters - but lets be real.

Yes, I will be the first to admit that "fact" that over the last 600 years there has been what appears to be a "global average" increase of temperature. However, this "fact" is based off of things like Ice Core and "third party" indicators (called proxies) - such as tree rings. Now if I am going to stipulate that - whats the problem? Global Warming must be true, right? Well not exactly.

There is a wonderful piece of wisdom that bears directly to this....

"Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure!"

The data used to create this fact is accurate - but those presenting the arguement do so in a way to make the figures match their intended goal. Why use the figure of 600 years? Global Warming advocates in the science realm are using one of the oldest tricks in the books to push this. How you ask? Simple - instead of going back 600 years - use those same methods of gathering data to go back 200 years more - for a total of 800 years. What then? Wonder of wonders, we find that the earth was warmer 800 years ago than it is today. This is what is known as the "Medieval Warm Period" in environmental studies, and is a big problem for GW advocates.

Selective use of the start date on any set of data is one of the oldest tricks to used to get the outcome you want. Is the earth warming? Sure it is. But its doing so well within what we can already tell are its normal margins and tolerances. This "our impact is the straw that MIGHT break the camels back" is fearmongering - and is being used to create onerous, intrusive and destructive regulations and laws upon nations because others don't approve of what we do.

There are so many proofs AGAINST global warming being a man made phenomenon, its unreal. However, as a scientist, many cannot put forth that proof in "respectable" journals for the reasons we see in these emails - to go against the "consensus" - regardless of fact, is to be outcast. What is sad is that many people are defending these actions, as well as ignoring the reality that the evidence shows, because once again, it conflicts with their attempts to control others.

[Skybird]

Yes. And your little research = what I said, what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts".
No. I meant it literally. I was simply talking of what I see when I open the door and go outside. That "outside" is not the same outside I used to walk out to 25 years ago. The seasons are different, the weather does not match the time of the year in the way it did back then. and I am not even living in a region with extreme climate changes and extreme weather phenomenons. these changes are so obvious that insurrance companies have recalculated their cost payments for that reason several times since I left school. they would not have done that if the weather had not changed and fluctuations - which are natural - would be within the natural norm. Due to a low in the sun cycle, currently the global means fluctuate to a relative low as well (which does not mean or show the general trend of wrming has reversed). Many people immediately say: "Look, it's coolin." but the fact remains that even since this claim is made, in the past ten years since I arrived in my current hometown, one warming record for "warmest month in the region/in Germany/in Europe since weather recordings started" has followed the other. Globally, the tmeperature may plateauing currently. But here in Northwestern Germany, you don't feel that. you just relaise that the seasonal escesses we have had for winter and summer five years ago currently do not take place.but record numbers for seasons and months we still have. Novembre just again was beyond what is the meteorological norm over here.

There are micro cycles, like sun activity, and El Nino/El Nina. they cover some years and cause the zigzags in the temperature curve. and then there is the general trend. It does not cover some years, but several decades and centuries. This is the constant general "up" in the temperature curve, that simply swallows up all that microscopic zigzagging. Much of the disucsisons leave to desire a lot becasue people do not differ ebtween the general trend, and microcycles. they think one sunny day makes a sunner, one weekened defines the yearly mean weather value, and five oir ten years of plateauing means a trend is changing. and that is simply a wrong thing to do.

Books, data, other material from research - all that exists, too, and you belitteling it will not make it go away, Neal. Better try o differ between the populstic stuff, and the more reaosonable stuff, and then have some reading about the latter, Neal, it won't hurt you. But ignorance will. To say "It's all just paper and media, and thus you only believe what they tell you to believe", is another way to say "Leave me alone, I do not want to check my own position." There is better literature than newspapers, you know. ;) If your attitude is "don't trust the media", then I have sympathy for that, but my advise is not to stop reading, but stop watching every TV news show, and most of what is on the internet. Be a critical reader, then, raise your standards. If you do, the stuff presented by "sceptics" is the stuff you will reject first.

Have you checked the photos of glaciers I linked to two days ago? It's things like that you have to explain. Or the ever rapidly disappearing arctic ice. You have to explain how it comes that species that in the past did not survive in once moderate and cold climate zones in the past, now can, and move into them, while others that cannot move and are sensible to raising temepratures, die.

the important thing simply is this. Whether you believe it is man-made or not, the climate becomes warmer, you can climb on a piano and make stand on your head and wave your hat and yell "Texans don't believe in GW" and sing your anthem backwards - but that does not change it. The question is: how do we deal with the changes that climate change will bring - whether we are prepared for them or not.

[Skybird]

I know this is going to irritate GW supporters - but lets be real.

Yes, I will be the first to admit that "fact" that over the last 600 years there has been what appears to be a "global average" increase of temperature. However, this "fact" is based off of things like Ice Core and "third party" indicators (called proxies) - such as tree rings. Now if I am going to stipulate that - whats the problem? Global Warming must be true, right? Well not exactly.

There is a wonderful piece of wisdom that bears directly to this....

"Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure!"

The data used to create this fact is accurate - but those presenting the arguement do so in a way to make the figures match their intended goal. Why use the figure of 600 years? Global Warming advocates in the science realm are using one of the oldest tricks in the books to push this. How you ask? Simple - instead of going back 600 years - use those same methods of gathering data to go back 200 years more - for a total of 800 years. What then? Wonder of wonders, we find that the earth was warmer 800 years ago than it is today. This is what is known as the "Medieval Warm Period" in environmental studies, and is a big problem for GW advocates.

Selective use of the start date on any set of data is one of the oldest tricks to used to get the outcome you want. Is the earth warming? Sure it is. But its doing so well within what we can already tell are its normal margins and tolerances. This "our impact is the straw that MIGHT break the camels back" is fearmongering - and is being used to create onerous, intrusive and destructive regulations and laws upon nations because others don't approve of what we do.

There are so many proofs AGAINST global warming being a man made phenomenon, its unreal. However, as a scientist, many cannot put forth that proof in "respectable" journals for the reasons we see in these emails - to go against the "consensus" - regardless of fact, is to be outcast. What is sad is that many people are defending these actions, as well as ignoring the reality that the evidence shows, because once again, it conflicts with their attempts to control others.

you accuse others of abusing correct data by presenting them in a manipulative manner so that it fits their agenda, but you just do right that yourself, Haplo.

the one thing you miust explain is this: why is it that the climate change speed has so insanly accelerated that now it is the - by far - fastest climate change taking place that science knows for planet earth since many huindred million years? Never, never has the climate chnaged and warmed upo so damn fast. And you need to think in geological dimensions. a tenth centigrade in a couple of years or so, that may not sound much. But for geological thinking, it is a rollercoaster falling in the vertical and having lost touch with the track. This acceleration in climate actiivty is the thing you must explain, not pointing to that cklimate is chnbaging - that is just natural. the speed at which it does is what is the message. And next you must explain why it does so obviously coincides with the beginning of the industrial age and the beginning of a real dramatic population growth globally.

I remember to have read estimations of the climate change accelrating ba several hundred factors, the fastest calculation I heared about was a factor of I think some thousand.

At the same time this planet sees another speed record: that for the fastet mass exticntion of species ever. Never before Earth has carried such a diversity in different species. and never before have species died in such a rapid succession like they do since the mpdern past, I don't know, let'S say 150 years or so. again the factor by which it accelerated, ranks in the 3-4 digit range.

for both these accelerations, no scientific discipline knows a precedent or comparable parallel caused by natural climate fluctuations.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird,

It is always enjoyable to discuss in a rational manner with a friend and colleague, even when we disagree. I want you to realize I enjoy our back and forth tremendously.

With that said, you say that I am guilty of the same thing the GW proponents are. Then you ask "why is it that the climate change speed has so insanly accelerated that now it is the - by far - fastest climate change taking place that science knows for planet earth since many huindred million years?" Well, lets look at that ok?

I am going to use random numbers here to illustrate - as I do not have data in front of me at the moment. So don't quote these numbers, they are for picture purposes only.

Today's global average temp was 85 F (29.4 C) and it was warmer than that 800 years ago. Ok - lets say 800 years ago, it was 87 F (30.5 C) since your not disputing the 800 year data old data I referenced earlier. Now - data says we have been growing warmer over the last 600 years, and I will play devils advocate and accept that for now. So - for 600 years the temps have been rising right? Ok - then the two hundred years prior - they had to drop. Whats more they had to drop so steeply during that "short" 200 year period that the increases over the last 600 years still hasn't caught up. Yet you claim that "that the climate change speed has so insanly accelerated that now it is the - by far - fastest climate change taking place that science knows for planet earth since many huindred million years." Well - looking back at that 200 year cold span - where temps dropped drastically to get the GW outcome some claim, would mean that the climate change was insanely accelerated at least 3 times higher than it is today, since it had to do in 200 years what is now being reversed over the course of 600. This means your question / statement on climate change rates is fundamentally flawed. Not your fault, but the data you have been given of "hundreds of times faster" is demonstratably false.

Which could mean a number of things.

The data we are being "fed" could be inaccurate - which the emails show is at the least highly likely as there is clear communications that the data has been "massaged" to perpetrate a specific agenda.

We could look at it and realize that there were no SUV's, evil corporations spewing pollution into the air, or other "environmental" sins going on that could cause such a drastic change in the climate, which would mean that nature has its own cycles that go well beyond what our "computer models" can truly forecast with any accuracy. On that note, I would point out that we still can't even figure out for sure if its going to rain or snow or be sunny tommorow, yet we are supposed to place blind faith in what a glorified weatherman tells us its going to be like in 100 years if we don't start living in caves again. They can't nail next week's weather, but by george there is not any question what the next century will be like! Sorry, but logic says otherwise.

Lastly, we could look at our world, realize that there are things we can, and should do, to conserve the resources we share, as well as do what we can to responsibly minimize our impact on the environment without destroying our way of life. This must then include a healthy scepticism of what a talking head predicts, just as it means we need to look at the many small things we can voluntarily contribute to the efforts of conservation.

Is there climate change? Of course. The fact that we do not have a stable and static environment requires climate change. But change over 600 years, that does not outpace changes that occured over 200 years, demonstrates that we are not on some environmental "doomsday" course. It does show that the earth has undergone significant changes in climate beyond what man at the time had the ability to cause, and that the changes we see now are minimal compared to that. Thus, there is no logical reason to fearmonger - unless those in power want to use the subject to further their control. Sadly, this is what we have seen.

[baggygreen]

At the same time this planet sees another speed record: that for the fastet mass exticntion of species ever. Never before Earth has carried such a diversity in different species. and never before have species died in such a rapid succession like they do since the mpdern past, I don't know, let'S say 150 years or so. again the factor by which it accelerated, ranks in the 3-4 digit range.

for both these accelerations, no scientific discipline knows a precedent or comparable parallel caused by natural climate fluctuations.
Not actually true, Sky.

Carboniferous period saw the most diverse range of plant and animal life (albeit somewhat less complex than todays), and the period finished in an extremely quick fashion at the end of the period.

Interesting to note, that C02 levels were roughly 3000ppm as opposed to the measly 385 or so of today, and yet the earth supported more and more diverse life than now.

hmmm

[Skybird]

Haplo,

First, better do not base on the assumption the email "scandal" shows any systematic, widespread effort or habit to feed manipulated data for reasons of pushing an “Goreanesque” agenda. The scandal so far is not basing on the content of the emails, but is fabricated. There is not a single systematic analysis out that proves point by point that the accused emails are what they are claimed to be, but over the past days more and more insiders from the fields seem to speak out that they cannot see the accusations as being true when they consider there knowledge of habits and proceeds from inside the field. There is a lot of yelling and fingerpointing going on, and shouting and "scandal" and "shame!", but until today it is just ungrounded media hysteria that even is so noisy that it creates waves into the politicians' arena as well. And that is wanted, and that is why it has been fabricated.

antikristuseke has posted a nice video which shows some very illustrating spotlight on what I say. It is linked somewhere above, I recommend you see it.

Second, whether or not I watch a graphs of temperature over the past few centuries, or the past millennia and millions of years, I see two cycles in them, making them look like the "skyline" of a shark's row of teeth. There seems to be a natural fluctuation cycle creating ups and downs over long periods of time, we are not talking just 600 years, but at least many millennia. These spikes are the single teeth of the shark. And then there are even smaller zig-zags in the contour-lines of these "teeth", micro-fluctuations taking place over much shorter periods of time, some centuries, and less. These are the serrated edges of the single teeth of the shark. Your reference to the medieval ice age is like that.

In the past let's say 150-200 years, we have seen a quick, very high upwards spike, a spike that also has a serrated edges, but the peaks in this serration are following in shorter succession, and they are separated by longer vertical distances, meaning the temperature from peak to peak is separated by a bigger margin (sorry, I feel I currently mess with English, it seems to me). This together means a massive acceleration of a warming, taking place in a fluctuating process that sees greater extremes than we have known before. You do not see such extremes in temperature difference sin a given timeframe, or such an acceleration in the beginning cooling and ending warming phase of the medieval mini - ice age, for example.

This sudden, almost vertical rocket climb of the curve corresponds to the timetable for the beginning population explosion, the industrialisation, and the also sudden acceleration of species' extinction.

Let me tell a story. It is an epic story truly minimising the importance of man and all timescales he is used to, and it will appear to be a distraction at first, but I explain at the very end why I tell you.

360 million years ago - I admit we think in different timescales now than just from the present back to the medieval - the era of the "Devon" (same word in English?) ended with a mass termination of animal and zoological and botanic life that saw half of the species in the ocean disappearing from the stage of planet Earth. The so far dominant species of the the placodermi (appropriately called "Panzerfische" in German) was completely terminated, and the architects of the coral reefs of that time were decimated and escaped extinction only by a single hair' width. The reason for these mass extinctions at the end of the Devon is unclear, popular theory is to assume that Earth once again had been hit by meteor strike.

but it was becoming even worse. the Carboniferous lasted until 200 million years ago, following the Devon. This era sees just one giant super continent, surrounded by just one big super-ocean, and the appearing of the first coal deposits. Glaciers formed at the poles, and the oxygen in atmosphere reached a hopping 35%, resulting the enormous boost in vegetation. Fishes start to undergo major evolutionary improvement, sharks appear, squids are one dominant species in the oceans. Both animals and plants enjoy an era where they reach sizes like never before, and never again after.

but then, in the North-East of Pangaea, today's Siberia, a very ambitious Volcanic activity started to seal the fate of this era.

Life was not in balance back then. Dead organic material was not transformed as efficiently, as it was to be seen in later eras, on the other hand, the ocean was brimming with monstrous life producing ever more amounts of future dead organic matter. The dead matter reacted with the high levels of oxygen in the atmosphere, binding it. The oxygen level in the atmosphere dropped to 16% (today it is 21%). due to the forming of glaciers and the polar ice caps, the sea level fell, exposing even more dead matter to the air that before was covered by water and hidden on shallow parts of the ocean floor. The forming of the united super-continent did not help, too, because it had drastically altered the sea tidings and the circulation of global ocean waters was not as efficient anymore as it had been before.

The Volcanic activity pumped a lot of toxic agents and substances into the air, not only being dangerous to life, but also changing climate regulation and the temperature absorption, although the latter probably was on a scale that it would not have caused that drastic end-result as there has been. Ashes and sulphur combinations amassed in the atmosphere. It became colder as sun light was reflected. More ice formed up, the sea level fell even more. Some scientists say the ozone layer suffered major damage, others point at the changed sea currents that favoured bacteria eating sulphur, and their excretions slowly poisoned the ocean and poisoned the life forms in it that could not adapt to these agents soon enough.

This development was further helped, so says a dominant theory, by the impact of a meteor 6-12 km in diameter somewhere in the ocean. This probably has caused a chemical chain reaction that led to the freeing of almost all methane reserves on earth and the creation of new methane, most of it getting bound in the water. This proceeding caused by a stellar event worked hand in hand with the ongoing global killing project initiated by Earth's volcanoes.

The estimated result of this cooperation differs from source to source, nevertheless it is dramatic. Some say that 90-95% of all life forms on earth faced extinction. Others estimate that "only" 75% of all species on land but at least 95% of all maritime species in the ocean had been terminated.

Why do I tell this big story, why did I take the time to quickly reread two brief chapters in one book of mine to sort my memories on the timeline numbers, and summarize all this in the above paragraphs?

The reason is simple. It is to illustrate what it means when scientists tell us that currently the global climate is changing faster and quicker and more excessively than ever before in the known history of Earth, further helped by a stellar event that today is not there in defence of man-caused consequences. It is to illustrate the dimension of the acceleration in climate change, because this insight into Earth's past can only be filled with a living idea of what that means for us today instead of just intellectual, abstract interest if putting it into a context of geologic timescales. Planet earth has seen cataclysms that have been much, much more drastic than what we currently can, by all reason, assume to come as a result of Global Warming. But even these worse disasters were accompanied by changes in the Earth's atmosphere and climate that took place in time spans that are a hundred and thousand times longer than the handful of years in which we have accelerated climate changes in the present that by their extrapolated trend could cause as severe climatologic endresults as back then, and it needed probably meteors impacting to reach the effects that man seems to have triggered all by himself. I repeatedly read comments of scientists saying something like that man's impact on the ecosystem of planet earth can only be compared to the meteorite that hit Earth and ended the era of the dinosaurs - just that man works quicker. Today, species on this planet get deleted by extinction much faster than ever before in earth's history, and faster than during the long mass extinction at the end of the carboniferous that lasted 60 million years and took quite some part of that time to get all that life killed. Zoologists and botanies say we have accelerated the extinction of species by up to a four digit factor. Climatologists say we have accelerated the climate warming by a factor in the high three digits or low four digits. The beginning of both processes corresponds with human population explosion and mass industrialisation.

that has been a long story. Now does that put some things into relation?

We are not only responsible for ourselves, but also for the generations coming after us. It is people's future we mess up that even are not born, and cannot defend themselves and their valid interest to have a place to live in themselves. And all we do is searching excuses why we must not care and why we must not change and why we must not stop accelerating climate changes and why we are not responsible and why it cannot be what should not be, and we invest resources in fabricating pseudo-scandals and pseudo-data whose only purpose is to reassure us that we must not change.

Homo sapiens - the man gifted with reason, and intelligence.

Well - really?

[Skybird]

Not actually true, Sky.

Carboniferous period saw the most diverse range of plant and animal life (albeit somewhat less complex than todays), and the period finished in an extremely quick fashion at the end of the period.

Interesting to note, that C02 levels were roughly 3000ppm as opposed to the measly 385 or so of today, and yet the earth supported more and more diverse life than now.

hmmm

While I wrote for Haplo and posted the one before this post, you posted as well.

Well, see my description on the Carboniferous. We are talking about a mass extinction that was very total, but nevertheless took place over much longer time then the speed record set by our present. we compare the past 100-200 years - to tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, maybe even more. Think in geologic time scales. The carboniferous lasted roughly 60 million years. Even a fraction of that seeing the extinction of much of the life forms of that time - most likely ystill means hundreds of tousand, even one or 2 million years. and one million years only - is fast, for geological standards.

The diversity of life forms today is the highest in Earth's history. If we already have deleted so much of that that it compares to a prominent numerical fraction of the diversity of species 300 million years ago, and did acchieve that in just 200 years where back then it took a thousand times or more longer, then this really holds a message, doesn't it.

Again, man's impact on earth only compares to a major killer meteorite impact - just that we work for the consequences a thousand times faster than that damn rock.

[Onkel Neal]

Books, data, other material from research - all that exists, too, and you belitteling it will not make it go away, Neal. Better try o differ between the populstic stuff, and the more reaosonable stuff, and then have some reading about the latter, Neal, it won't hurt you. But ignorance will. To say "It's all just paper and media, and thus you only believe what they tell you to believe", is another way to say "Leave me alone, I do not want to check my own position." There is better literature than newspapers, you know. ;) If your attitude is "don't trust the media", then I have sympathy for that, but my advise is not to stop reading, but stop watching every TV news show, and most of what is on the internet. Be a critical reader, then, raise your standards. If you do, the stuff presented by "sceptics" is the stuff you will reject first.

Have you checked the photos of glaciers I linked to two days ago? It's things like that you have to explain. Or the ever rapidly disappearing arctic ice. You have to explain how it comes that species that in the past did not survive in once moderate and cold climate zones in the past, now can, and move into them, while others that cannot move and are sensible to raising temepratures, die.

the important thing simply is this. Whether you believe it is man-made or not, the climate becomes warmer, you can climb on a piano and make stand on your head and wave your hat and yell "Texans don't believe in GW" and sing your anthem backwards - but that does not change it. The question is: how do we deal with the changes that climate change will bring - whether we are prepared for them or not.

I'm always amazed at how you turn any discussion, on any topic, into a "I read a million books and you should too, so you won't be ignorant, but be an expert like me". :) When I said what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts", please understand that carries over to all the books you have time to read on the subject, as well as the numerous ice berg photos.

The global climate changes, I know that. It may becoming warmer, but so what? It could just as likely be a typical cycle, as has been occuring since the dawn of creation. I certainly wonder why these climate scientists are massaging the data to prove their point.

Now, as usual, over to you for the last word.

[August]

The intensity and number of severe storms has been increasing over the globe. You can also have high and low periods between years, which is why one looks more long term to avoid statistical flukes. Anyhow here is some data.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24452

If that data is true, the number of category 4&5 hurricanes has more then doubled in the last 30 years. I would call that a sudden increase myself.


That article was written just after Katrina's hurricane season ended, exactly when that argument was being made and it's chart ends 2 years before that.

But be that as it may, even if you are right what can be done about it? If GW is indeed human caused then it's human numbers, not human activities, that is driving it and you're never going to legislate that away.

[Skybird]

I'm always amazed at how you turn any discussion, on any topic, into a "I read a million books and you should too, so you won't be ignorant, but be an expert like me". :) When I said what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts", please understand that carries over to all the books you have time to read on the subject, as well as the numerous ice berg photos.

The global climate changes, I know that. It may becoming warmer, but so what? It could just as likely be a typical cycle, as has been occuring since the dawn of creation. I certainly wonder why these climate scientists are massaging the data to prove their point.

Now, as usual, over to you for the last word.

Sometimes i wonder how you are ticking.

Since you reject any attempt to get some education on the data available, since all that is just biased and prejudiced and means nothing and reading and trying to get some edudcation on something is very much in vain anyhow, i wonder why you say you think it could as well be just natural things going on. You cannot have any data basis for that opinion, since you refuse books and media and research data and everything!?!?

One can have two kinds of opinion. One that one just choses to have because one wants to have what it says. The other is an opinion that results from info one has collected, thought about and then considering the outcome of that reasoning. That can be in support or in opposition to what one wanted to have before. the first kind of opinion is called bias, or prejudice. The second is called conclusion.

What's it for you? ;)

And just for the record, I do not boast with how much I have read in books, not as long as people do not provoke me and try to ridicule what I say by assuming I just don't know what I am talking about: Islam. there i indeed have had a lot of books, yes, amongst other input. I do not claim that with other themes, too, not even psychology. But I would be a fool to refuse to use the few things that I have read, just becasue somebody thunks if I do not own all knowledge of the world, just pieces of it is irrelevant.

It's just that you refuse all available data, all books and all media and papers alltogether so that it cannot eventually put your opinion in questions. At least it appears to me like this, considering what you said on the issue discussed here.

I have a better alternative for you. Get as many different pieces as you can or are willing to put time into collecting, and then put them together in the way that best matches their individual forms. You never will get the 100% complete picture that way, and thus you never will have 100.000% certainty. But the more single piece you get, the closer your impression of what it is about, meets reality. Science does not claim to have that 100% criterion, too - it tries to give the best idea, the best theory on the available data we have. And if you think about it, you must admit that it is like that with all things in life, including your decisions and deeds you start to carry out. the outcome you never know for sure, but you know that you must try nevertheless. So, picking the pieces you can get instead of refusing them alltogether, saying you will never have them all, is a much more reasonable way to approach life and reality.

If you only wait before you start acting, until you ahve gotten all the possble pieces together, thehn you will see yourself at the end of your life having done nothing, and always having been blown back and fourth by a fate that always appeared as random event or naturalness only, nothing you could eventually have influence on.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird, I understand what your trying to convey, but it doesn't change the reality that your question earlier is based on a demonstratably false premise.

I don't say that we should not have a concern over our actions. But the data that you are trying to use in conjunction with the issue of "accelerated" climate change due to mankind's actions just doesn't hold with the facts. I pointed out that it was a NATURAL cycle that brought temps down significantly during the ~200 years between about 1100 and 1300 AD, since there was no man made SUV's and evil corporations to do so. This cycle was not man caused. Yet that same change, in reverse, over a period of 3 times as long, somehow gets attributed to mankind, and if you debate or question it, your just a "denier". Facts don't fit the claims.

What suprises me, is you glossed over the point I made. In doing so, I can only assume you have no rebuttal. If your post about what happened millions of years ago was it, then I fail to see how that story had anything to do with the data we are discussing - that covers the last 800 years.

Want to discuss the "serrated edge" effect seen in temps? Sure. We can do that. If you do the research, you will find each temporary, high intensity "spike" directly correlates with a measured increase in solar activity. Big suprise, that big ball in the sky that lights and heats us got a little more active on its own cycle, and wow - we got a spike in temps during that time. Simple cause and effect at work.

One thing that today's scientists are struggling with is a simple principle.

When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.

Literally, if a logical answer presents itself, and can be shown to have been a variable that was acting as theorized at the time, as well as the demonstratable result of such a thing, its simply bad science to dismiss a provable answer simple because it doesn't fit a political or social agenda.

What too many people do when they look at this question is take the data they are given, be it on the news, in books, or whatever, at face value, without questioning it. Just because someone claims to be a scientist, and an "expert" in the field, does that mean they are right without question? If so, then whats the difference between that and a mathmatician telling you that 2+2 doesn't equal four, but instead actually equals Pi to the 12th power. Oh, but don't forget, he also won't "show his work" when working out the problem to let you verify the accuracy. That is what has happened with GW. And my friend, you have latched on hook, line and sinker.

Now, maybe its that "middle ground" thing, but I don't disagree that we have an impact on our environment. Conservation is required - within reason. But the earth is not a planet balanced on the head of a needle. If you believe the evolutionary theories, its ecosystem has hit extremes well outside those considered "tolerable" by modern man, and has in fact had times when it would have been considered uninhabitable by mankind. It did this without our intervention.

So now here we are, with people screaming "you have to stop your way of life or you will kill the planet!". Such a statement is entirely false. The planet, and its ecosystem will continue to exist, barring a stellar event outside our control. The issue is that the earth is continuing its natural cycle - and while I will admit we may contribute slightly to changes, the fact is that it is going to go through its natural cycles with, or without us - as well as it is going to do so IN SPITE of us.

The only good arguement I ever have heard on "climate change" is that we may be speeding up our own destruction, by bringing on changes that will outstrip our ability to cope with them and remain on this planet. That may be the case - but then again, natural history shows - as you pointed out - that everything is cyclic, including what species is dominant. Neither of us want to see humankind be extinct, but the reality is that if you hold an evolutionary view, it is inevitable that humanity as we now know it will cease to exist at some point anyway. So either we remain on this planet, continue to adapt to its cyclical changes by whatever means are necessary - or we find a way to move past the confines of this ecosystem.

Regardless of "global warming" - the population growth dooms humanity unless new frontiers are opened, or nature reacts and lashes back, trimming humanity back as it would any other "top of the food chain" animal. Science "shows" that nature has done it numerous times before.

Let me bottom line this for you. Nature will continue its cycle regardless of what humanity does, unless we find a way to make that cycle stop in its tracks, and instead reroute and control that cycle as we see fit. Right now, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. So you can do one of two things. Live your life trying to push against an inevitable force, knowing there is no hope of success, and no reason to fight that natural force. Or you can realize that the question is one that humanity cannot control, and therefore concentrate instead on those things that you can. Your choice.

[NeonSamurai]

That article was written just after Katrina's hurricane season ended, exactly when that argument was being made and it's chart ends 2 years before that.

Yes you are correct, we won't know if the trend is continuing or not for several more years (10 or 20). Anyhow here is some more data (Wikipedia unfortunately).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Atlantic_hurricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Atlantic_hurricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Atlantic_hurricane_season

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090806-hurricane-season-2009-forecast.html

Now you will notice that the number of storms and damage vary wildly from year to year (also depends on how many make landfall, and where). This behavior is repeated if you go further back, where one year you can have very few damaging storms, and the next you can have a whole stack of them causing billions in damage. That is why the data I presented tabulates storms over 5 year increments. 2009 didn't have very many storms, and the big storms burned out their energy before making landfall, 2008 though was very similar to 2004, and caused 50 billion in damages


But be that as it may, even if you are right what can be done about it? If GW is indeed human caused then it's human numbers, not human activities, that is driving it and you're never going to legislate that away.I would say its both human numbers and human activities are equally to blame. As for a solution, I don't see a ready one available yet, but does that mean we should just ignore it?

I don't feel that most people realize how serious a change of a couple of degrees theoretically can be. For example if the temperature continues to climb, we can expect many things to happen. If the theory that warmer ocean temperatures is fueling bigger storms, then we will continue to see more and more damaging storms (how many 2005 or worse hurricane seasons can the US take before going bankrupt? not forgetting that other kinds of storms will be getting more powerful too). The temperature change will also totally upset the ocean ecosystems (which already are under severe strain from overfishing, pollution, and dumping), there are already numerous signs of this, such as the explosion of Humboldt squid populations, which have been decimating fish populations. There is a huge pile of other potential outcomes from GW which could have devastating consequences on the global ecosystem (and ourselves since we are not independent of it). This is aside from the problem of the most densely habituated areas on the planet being flooded from all the melted ice.

Even though we are entering into a cooling cycle right now, I expect that at best the temperature climb will only halt temporarily. However this will probably continue to melt the ice at the poles and glaciers, which if certain theories are correct will worsen the rate of warming. It is theorized that ice helps regulate global temperature by reflecting light back into space, where water absorbs it and converts it into heat, so the less ice and the more water, the more heat is absorbed. So if we loose enough ice, the earth may continue to warm during what should be a cooling period.


Interesting to note, that C02 levels were roughly 3000ppm as opposed to the measly 385 or so of today, and yet the earth supported more and more diverse life than now.

hmmm

Do I need to point out that life then was adapted to that kind of environment, and that sudden shifts to it would have wiped them out? Also to my knowledge life was not more diverse back then.

Its not a question of global warming turning the planet into a dead rock. On some level life would survive and adapt to the new conditions. However as the apex species we are among the most vulnerable to extinction if our environment gets trashed and many of the species of life go extinct.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon - I think we agree on some things here.

So let me ask you. Should we, as the animals at the apex, be taking steps to insure our own survival against the cycles of nature? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that nature will react drastically should we do so? To borrow from "The Lion King" - it is the circle of life that your saying we should be altering.

In one sense, yes - our existence alters the environment. However, isn't that alteration "natural" given the makeup of our species? Thus, our actions and its impact are in effect, a "natural" occurance. They are a product of humanity's "evolution" from its primitive roots. When people talk about modifying society's behavior to keep from "altering the natural course" of things, are they not altering the natural course of things by that very modification?

Climate change proponents state that we must change our society to maintain an ecosystem. Just a postulation - but wouldn't that change alter not just the forecasted weather - but the entire fabric of nature in all its facets by changing the track of natural evolution? Isn't maintaining an ecosystem, when the natural progression is to have that ecosystem change, a worse meddling in the affairs of what we all fail to understand in its entirety?

Granted, these questions border more on the philisophical, but they are thoughts that are rattling around my head at the moment.

[August]

We won't know if the trend is continuing or not for several more years (10 or 20).

Yep. I would go further to say that we won't know for that long what are the true average numbers of storms per year.

The thing is Neo in the last 40 years we're really come a long way when it comes to identifying and monitoring the weather out at sea. Before the 60's the only way somebody knew there was a storm was if they happened to fly or sail through it. So i'd be surprised if there wasn't a big increase in the count since we've put those electronic eyes up in the sky.

I would say its both human numbers and human activities are equally to blame. As for a solution, I don't see a ready one available yet, but does that mean we should just ignore it?Nobody is ignoring it but i'm wary of throwing lots of money at things that won't actually address the problem.

[Pacific_Ace]

We have exactly one planet, and no where else to go. It is far better to err on the side of caution and discover later we didn't have to because the other option is we pay no attention at all and end up extinct or back in an iron age society.

[NeonSamurai]

Neon - I think we agree on some things here.

So let me ask you. Should we, as the animals at the apex, be taking steps to insure our own survival against the cycles of nature? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that nature will react drastically should we do so? To borrow from "The Lion King" - it is the circle of life that your saying we should be altering.

Well we have done exactly that for much of human history. We have (I think foolishly) tried to dominate, subdue, and control nature. We use technology to overcome population limits, and medicine to limit the effectiveness of natural population controls (disease, etc). Honestly I don't think we will be stopping that any time soon. We have already stomped all over the circle of life.

I think we need to learn how to control ourselves, for our own sake if for no other reason.

In one sense, yes - our existence alters the environment. However, isn't that alteration "natural" given the makeup of our species? Thus, our actions and its impact are in effect, a "natural" occurance. They are a product of humanity's "evolution" from its primitive roots. When people talk about modifying society's behavior to keep from "altering the natural course" of things, are they not altering the natural course of things by that very modification?Is it? We are not purely creatures of instinct, but are capable of escaping those bonds and able to consider our actions. If not we never would have gone far beyond our hunter/gatherer origins, which is what we are most naturally suited for. If we hadn't use our intellect beyond basic instinctive needs, the world probably wouldn't be in the mess it is in now. Most of our problems are due to our natural instincts to survive, thrive and reproduce, coupled with our intelligence, and developed technology. Though in spite of all our foolishness and hubris we are still just as bound to nature (the ecosystem) as we ever were.

Climate change proponents state that we must change our society to maintain an ecosystem. Just a postulation - but wouldn't that change alter not just the forecasted weather - but the entire fabric of nature in all its facets by changing the track of natural evolution? Isn't maintaining an ecosystem, when the natural progression is to have that ecosystem change, a worse meddling in the affairs of what we all fail to understand in its entirety?The question is, if our species is responsible for the changes to the ecosystem, and if so how much are we responsible for. I think in most cases the answer is that we are responsible for a lot of it. Obviously we cannot control the paths nature itself takes, the warming and cooling cycles which have gone on since the planet was formed we can't do much about. But we can try to control how much we negatively affect those cycles, and our negative impact on the global ecosystem. We are already meddling with nature by releasing the massive quantities of greenhouse gasses we do, by hacking down the forests (which consume C02), by causing the mass extinction of species, by overfishing the oceans and over cultivating the land, by creating massive amounts of pollution and dumping it into the environment, by overpopulating and putting local ecosystems under severe strain to maintain our numbers and continue our growth, etc.

Sure we are not responsible for everything, but I do think we are responsible for a lot of what is going on. The basic solutions are less people, less man made carbon and other emissions, more trees and other CO2 consumers, lower pollution, putting a halt to our expansion into the natural world, etc. Problem is I don't see this happening until it is way too late, which means nature will either take our species out (after a major global extinction, probably caused by our last gasps to survive, destroying everything around us), or cut our numbers down drastically (which has already happened more then once).

Granted, these questions border more on the philisophical, but they are thoughts that are rattling around my head at the moment.I don't mind discussing philosophical things, and thinking is always a good thing. :DL


Yep. I would go further to say that we won't know for that long what are the true average numbers of storms per year.

The thing is Neo in the last 40 years we're really come a long way when it comes to identifying and monitoring the weather out at sea. Before the 60's the only way somebody knew there was a storm was if they happened to fly or sail through it. So i'd be surprised if there wasn't a big increase in the count since we've put those electronic eyes up in the sky.

Yep :) which is why such studies tend to look at data starting in around the 1970s onward (we can though calculate how many damaging storms made land before that, but that data is incomplete as many storms do not make landfall). Of course the obvious problem is we have a very small window of data to work with. So we can't say for certain if the data we do have is following a pattern (natural or otherwise) or not as that pattern may be beyond the scope of our more recent solid data.

I will say though that it is pretty certain that warmth increases the power of storms, and that this has been demonstrated under laboratory "storm in a bottle" conditions.

Nobody is ignoring it but i'm wary of throwing lots of money at things that won't actually address the problem.That I can understand. I do think we better damn well start addressing the problems though, or pay the consequences later on. I do feel though that many people are trying their best to stuff their fingers in their ears and pretend its not happening, that is human nature too.

[Skybird]

:damn::damn::damn:

Haplo,

I had typed in a long reply, and then hit two wrong keys in the down right corner, deleting it all. Fan-tas-tic. Don't currently feel like wanting to type all that again.

Great way to start a Sunday. :dead: Happens when I type not in Words, becasue I don't expect it to become long, so I type directly into the forum browser, but then it necomes long, and then...

:stare:

[Skybird]

I should have known myself better. :)

This is just a shorter versons of what I typed before, I cut some things short.

Haplo,

I do not gloss over your medieval ice age argument. I just fail to read so much into it like you do, because as you say it is part of a natural fluctuation. And that is the reason why the medieval temperatures do not serve well as a parallel that could explain the even faster rise in temperature we see in the present. Because the natural conditions back then and in the past 150 years or less, do not compare. The warming today is being caused by different factors then the warming phase back then. later some comments more to that.

I do not want to spend another hour of typing, so I cut it short and link to two findings, that aimed at what I tried to say (and probably in a more complicated manner, as always :) ). the first is this article in the New Scientist, describing doubts why the medieval climate maybe cannot be used as an explanation for global warming today, because it may have been not a global phenomenon, but caused by just different patterns of heat distribution than today.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html

the second is a german article mentioning a project regarding the present, and I summarise it in short words therefore.

http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/klima/statistik-der-klimawandel-eine-luege_aid_448626.html

In that article they say that in Octobre, AP has ordered four statisticians to analyse - independently from each other - data sets provided by the american NOAA that included weather and temperature data, but the nature of the data was hidden from the analysts. All four statisticians came to the result that the data does not allow a conclusions that in the immediate past (the last years) a "cooling" has taken place. The statisticians were not aware of that the data they analysed was weather data - they did not know it, just dealth with the data formally and checking it with methodological tools of their profession. Even more: the conclusions of the statisticians mean that the American weather data by the NOAA indicate that the past years, including 2009, have been the warmest decade in the past 130 years since the beginning of recording weather data. According to that, 2005 has been the warmest year ever. the warmth record years of 1998 and 2005 are already lagging behind in people's minds, and the sceptic's argument that a cooling has taken place is being attacked by statisticians of the university of South Carolina for referring exclusively to the immediate past and trying to formulate a global, lasting trend by picking just the "rosins" from the past one or two years. They say that if you look at data since 1998 only, indeed that seems to indicate a minitrend downward, but doing so is simply misleading and wrong, because you just look at a very short timespan that happens to include a slight down-movement in the constant natural fluctuation of the general trend curve.

So much for that article.

We know for sure that in the past 11 or 12 centuries there have been 3 phases of relative coolings, followed by phases of relative warmings (logically! what naturally goes down, must naturally come up again). That this has been tried to hide in graphs linked to the IPCC reports, indeed is unforgivable, and bad science, or better: no science at all. But we are not sure about the quality of these phases, and currently the socalled medieval mini-ice age is beeing re-evaluated in temperatures, once it was said the phenomenen was global, it now gets seen as more regional, once it was seen as beeing all-low (and afterwards all-high) throughout the year, now one starts to think that the mean temepratures over the year possibly did not vary to the present by those excessive 3-5 degrees that once were assumed, but probably only differed by less than 1°C, but that the seasonal weather pendulum was swinging more extremely to the warm and cold poles: the summers were warmer, and the winter were colder. I think this is the most reasonable assumption indeed. In yearly averages, the weather was not that drastically different, probably, but the seasonal weather was far more extreme.

No serious scientist doubts that there are natural weather cycles, of various timespans, reaching from just 10-20 years, over a 300-400 year cycles to one including timespans of several thousand years. Occasionally I read the same three such cycles getting mentioned time and again. But there are huge differnces between scientiists and the sceptics camp in to what degree these could be held respinsible for the global weather trend of the modern era.

The point is that this natural fluctuation does not seem to be fit to explain the current acceleration in warming that we see, making it the fastest happening climate change and warming known in history. On the other hand we do know that we are emitting a lot of gasses that are proven in their effects on changing the temperature behavior of an atmosphere. And we see the close coincidence between the climate change starting to become conspicious in a statistical, methodological understanding, and the setting-in population explosion and industrialisation and environmental destruction done by man. These factors do not get explained by the medieval ice age at all (I also wonder why they call it the medieval ice age or mini-ice age, it wasn't an ice age, compared to a real ice age the climate still was pretty much moderate).

And let's not forget another thing: global warming can cause paradox effects. When you have ice melting in the arctic, the water vaporises into the air - and condenses (?) on the still present ice areas in other parts of the arctic that are still coller in relation, making the ice thicker there for a temporary time only. The melting ice is sweet water, but sea currents, amongst others depend on salienity differences, so the adding of huge ammounts of sweet water into the salt water ocean changes the pattern and energetic intensity of global currents, with all effects on climate that brings. If the Gulf Stream lowers it's activity, it brings less warmth to Europe, which translates into a relative REGIONAL cooling that is caused by global waming nevertheless. In the past years, there have been reports saying that some experts said the Gld Stream already has lost 18% in activity in the past years. Factors like this have been predicted and explained since the mid or late 80s, but still get picked out of context and then serve as an excuse or should I say: axe-cuse? - to doubt global warming - in principle the same distortion of methodology as the statisticians complain about in the article I summarised above.

I repeatedly said that science is no religion, claiming to have the ultimate, the final, the total truth, but I said that science tries - or at least should try - to bring observations made and systematically gained data into explanation models that combine and explain them in the currently best way possible, which means: logically, and as uncomplicated as possible, the models then get tested and usd for prediction, and eventually altered, which often is a constantly running process, making theories change over time, eventually. This is no treacherous or cheating behavior trying to supoort an agenda, but just natural acting in science. If sticking to this principle, I cannot do different than to assume that currently the theory of man-made emissions and environmental changes causing the major drive for an non-natural acceleration in global climate change - is the most appropriate explanation model available to us at the present moment. The emails do not change that in principle or detail, to me the "scandal" very much is a fabricated conspiration theory only.

I leave it here, it already is longer again then planned, and I already have typed so much this morning. :)

[Skybird]

Maybe I must correct my definitions of "summary" and "cutting it short". :D

[Torpex752]

My Concern isnt wether Climate Change is real, not real, caused by Humans or whatever....Its the Political storm of Control, Taxation, regulation and policing that "taints" this issue. And its not that I would mind paying a little extra, however we are already paying enough, and now with our economy in shambles the boneheads dont seem to realize that every bill that costs the American Tax payer $ makes any chance of recovery take two steps back. Who in their right mind plans taxing whne the unemployment rate is heading to over 20%.

[Respenus]

For a short recount on the for/against camp, I recommend this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm) article. It is in no way comprehensive, considering its length, yet it gives good starting point for debate. Guess which side has more scientific arguments?

Oh, and it's the medieval warm period. The little ice age was later on, during 17-19th centuries. The fact that Europe was overpopulated at the time of the Black death is because of the warmer climate and consequently the surprisingly high amount of grain produced considering their "primitive" farming techniques.

Edit: Thank you Neon.

[Skybird]

My Concern isnt wether Climate Change is real, not real, caused by Humans or whatever....Its the Political storm of Control, Taxation, regulation and policing that "taints" this issue.

I share that attitude. I just say "energy-saving light bulbs", "CO2 footprint of my pizza for dinner" etc.

It would be easier business if global warming theory would not be corrupted
by political opportunism and mass hysteria. It gives it a bad name.


And its not that I would mind paying a little extra, however we are already paying enough, and now with our economy in shambles the boneheads dont seem to realize that every bill that costs the American Tax payer $ makes any chance of recovery take two steps back. Who in their right mind plans taxing whne the unemployment rate is heading to over 20%.

On the one hand the private household'S concern'S over the monthly budget available to it, are real and cannot be ignored. But on the other hand if thing sreally should become bad and time already is of the essence, we must weigh the stressed economical situation versus elemental survival.

And let's be realistic: since generations the politicians as well as most private persons silently expect the next generation solve the issues that we do not wish to touch ourselves during our life span. "Let them fix it!" and "Wait for the economical growth start accelerating again!" are our most favourite mottos.

[NeonSamurai]

Maybe I must correct my definitions of "summary" and "cutting it short". :D

Nah, for you that is a summary and cut short :-j

BTW I like your Popper quote, that is a good one.

For a short recount on the for/against camp, I recommend this article. It is in no way comprehensive, considering its length, yet it gives good starting point for debate. Guess which side has more scientific arguments?

Think you forgot to put in the article :DL

[Skybird]

BTW I like your Popper quote, that is a good one.



Tell that Letum - he loves Popper, he says, but probably not me. :woot:

[AVGWarhawk]

Climate conference and Al Gore is writing poetry :shifty:



One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea


http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html


Maybe Al can get the Nobel for literature.

[NeonSamurai]

I would say that he shouldn't quit his day job, but he sucks at that too.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would say that he shouldn't quit his day job, but he sucks at that too.

That is the problem, Al has made climate change his job...:shifty: Pays well and comes with prizes. :up:

[Skybird]

Attempted breaches show larger effort to discredit climate science:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2300282


Scientists of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, that has contributed to the IPCC report, also reports a recent raise in systematic attempts to breach their internal computer systems' security.

In Novembre, the server of realclimate.org, a major platform where scientists rallied that support the theory of GW, has come under increased fire in an attempt to breach it.

As I already said earlier, to me this email scnadal is just part of a huge offensive of the interested economic circles that want to prevent changes to the current business routines at all cost.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hah, I'm guessing some folks want to get to the bottom of this issue. :hmmm: This will blow over as soon as the 140 aircraft land in Copenhagen for the conference! Carbon Credits for all!

[Skybird]

Actually I am critical of Kopenhagen, because politicians still raise the - false - impression that it is within their reach to adress major issues with climate if only they wish that. But the truth is that the tagetted CO2 emmission cuts are expensive, and simply are not enough both in quality and quantity, and even this insufficient goal will not be met anyway.

German edition of Der Spiegel has a good essay on right this today, to my surprise matching my own opinion to very wide degrees. I hope they translate it for their international edition in the coming days, then I will link it.

[Respenus]

Gentlemen, if you would, I would like to barge in and have a say.

Many things have been said in this thread, from both sides of the argument. Yet it does not matter how much evidence you show in support of either side, the question of climate change is a sociological and cultural one. Just as religion, you cannot expect anyone to change their minds unless there is some great cataclysm which will prove an argument once and for all. Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, which may or may not be purely subjective, depends on how you wish to see me, climate change does exist and all evidence shown by the other side can stand only inside its own construct, that is without any additional and different evidence. Yet I'm digressing from what I wanted to say.

It does not matter of you believe/have a rational explanation in climate change, accelerated climate change or just natural cycles. Climate change is a question of human rights and the question of famine, poverty and development. The Millennia Goals were set for a reason, and by states which are far from being an actor to ever set eyes of its own goals, that is power and even more power. Here lies also the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans. It is our different political paradigm that influences our views on climate change and how it should be solved and its damages mitigate. Yet again, I digress.

The importance of climate change is the fundamental change of paradigm in the way we interpret our world. I would like to call it rationalism (not only a method (empirical evidence+deductive reasoning), yet a system of action, a behaviour if I may call it that). We have come to realise, at least certain parts of our societies have, that there are millions out there, that suffer under the yoke of capitalism and economic liberalism that we have put around their necks and the sting of colonialism is still felt strong. Our strong-headed defiance to their claims will change nothing and even worsen the situation, to the point that we risk once again staring into a barrel of a gun. If economic ideology did not have the strength to destroy us all, it will be the question of climate change.

One thing that we are forgetting is that there is more to the world than just our materialist needs inside our closed communities. The governments of the world are meeting in extreme places to show that climate change is happening, no matter who's fault it is, although out actions are far from helpful, anyone must admit that. Even if this is something out of our hands, we have billions out there who live worse lives than frankly an animal. There are numbers that show that the billion most poor live worse than any medieval European peasant did (Katschinski lectures in Ljubljana). Who are we to today these people the right to exercise their reason and to live a dignified life, which we defend inside our comfortable and protected habitats, while denying it to those outside.

As I have mentioned, it is the way we look at the world that has slightly changed and that will change again in the future and this is something both sides have to expect. The change is both socio-economical and cultural in nature and will have profound influence on the way our world and the Homo sapiens sapiens species will develop in the future. Why has Desertec failed? The human condition. Which brings me to another point in this short post of mine. Even if we reduce all our emissions to 0% with renewable energy (solar) (let us forget about the cost for the moment, although again, economy isn't an argument that can stand to any logic), it is the resources which we do not and will have even less in the future. We have polluted our waters, destroyed our ecosystems and have come to the point where our food output can be expected to start falling, rather than decreasing. The only possible change is advanced aeroponics with GMOs, something which I am not right not willing to accept.

Even if food is not the question, what about the premise of capitalism? Are we really to expect infinite growth with finite resources? We have tried to combat this with sustainable development. An interesting experiment, which unfortunately has so far failed miserably. As someone has mentioned, it is the number of people that is too great to be supported, climate change or not. How can we expect everyone in the world to achieve a similar standard of living, even under the presumption of a rational individual and a pure socialist economic system? An utopia? Maybe? That does not mean it should not be explored, at least intellectually.

So what have I come to in this post of mine? Nothing actually, just a rant probably, but one which will point out that there is something some outside this world of ours than just economy and growth and that there are human beings being denied the right to prosper and grow and contribute to the development of the common humanity we are all members of.

I would only like to ask those who are crazy enough to respond to do so diligently and in an academic manner. I did not have enough time to present all my evidence, yet I did point out the basic outline. Questions asked will be answered as soon as humanly possible, to other I ask only to restrain your emotions and respond as rationally as possible.

[SteamWake]

This should be enough to give anyone pause...


(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099

[Skybird]

Actually you are pointing at a problem that is impossible to be solved by current paradigms, Respenus.

We are too many people on this planet.

The standard by which we politically define the material propserity of people that is understood to be their natural right, is defined by Wetsern stnadrs. And these standards are way too high.

Supporting prosperity for so many people on basis of such excessive living standards, is impossible.

Even if we would massively lower the living standards for all people, including ourselves, we would be too many people.

And even if we would be only a fraction of the global population we are today, our current living standards would be too high.

[NeonSamurai]

The only way we could maintain the western style of life for everyone with out trashing the environment, is if the human population was cut down to maybe 100-500 million, and used robotics or whatever for labor.

It is an impossibility as Sky said to fix the problem of poverty, resources, etc. As there are way to many people as it is, and the population continues to increase, mainly in those poorest of countries. This is also why the situation is so bad in these countries, as they have limited resources to begin with, and yet keep reproducing like mad (even with contraception made available to them).

I would also say that we have billions out there who live worse lives than frankly an animal. isn't quite true (unless you are talking a wild animal in its natural environment). Factory farming of animals, is in general beyond horrific, and far worse then what most people suffer in general. The only good thing that can be said is that at least the animals are not starving, but that is the only good thing.

Otherwise I more or less agree that our current system is highly flawed. Frankly I think we are heading towards major trouble, and that trouble is pretty much unavoidable.

[AVGWarhawk]

This should be enough to give anyone pause...



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099)

Pelosi is just flat out dangerous and needs to join reality with the rest of us.

[Skybird]

Actually I am critical of Kopenhagen, because politicians still raise the - false - impression that it is within their reach to adress major issues with climate if only they wish that. But the truth is that the tagetted CO2 emmission cuts are expensive, and simply are not enough both in quality and quantity, and even this insufficient goal will not be met anyway.

German edition of Der Spiegel has a good essay on right this today, to my surprise matching my own opinion to very wide degrees. I hope they translate it for their international edition in the coming days, then I will link it.

Actually they were very quick. Here it is:

"Why failure in Copenhagen would be a success"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-665703,00.html

[Torpex752]

My thoughts are this....The "leaders" of nations and bussiness while not technical experts had within their reach experts who could have at any time been asked to provide simple (plain language) data regarding the effects of production and operations. To deny the fact that these leaders of goverment or Industries knew or deliberately ignored the effects of their operations, one is missing (IMHO) a key issue. Responsibility.

In effect, if one were to place responsibility on this issue, if it could be conclusively proven to be human induced, I believe it lies with the producers, not the consumers. Yet, the consumers are in essence blamed for this because we consumed oil, gasoline, products, etc..Yet our "profits" in this case were not financial but functional. Some say dont look for blame, but is not taxation just another way of placing accountability on someone? For even if this Treasonous Treaty did only levy fines and taxes on the producers would it not ultimately land on the backs of those who use the products?

So what is this meeting? The same people (or their representatives) who caused a problem (directly or indirectly) are now proposing the solution. I'd call that a conflict of interest, and unacceptable.

Solutions can only be found in the truth derived from concrete facts, until that time comes its all a scheme to redistribute wealth shrouded in the cover of "save the world" and IMHO, nothing more. Not saying that Climate Change isnt happening, just on the fence about the whole, "its mankinds fault and now you all must pay" line I dont buy and who it is thats spouting it.

[Skybird]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=2009-set-to-be-fifth-warm

[Sailor Steve]

Nice try Sky, but this thread is about possible lies spread by the Global Warming community. I don't pretend to know what's true in this case, but did you even consider the possibility that the people in that article might be some of the ones whose character is in question?

Just throwing out a link doesn't prove your point.

[Skybird]

Nice try Sky, but this thread is about possible lies spread by the Global Warming community. I don't pretend to know what's true in this case, but did you even consider the possibility that the people in that article might be some of the ones whose character is in question?

Just throwing out a link doesn't prove your point.

And just making fabricated accusations on the emails doesn't prove yours. ;)

The German weather service, btw, has given such an information last week, independant from the WMO. Also the Potsdam Climate Institute, last week, on radio.

The link, btw, was also meant as a backing for my reply to Haplo some time earlier.

[Sailor Steve]

And just making fabricated accusations on the emails doesn't prove yours. ;)
I make no accusations at all. I just question people who insist that they're right. That includes just about any subject.

The link, btw, was also meant as a backing for my reply to Haplo some time earlier.
Cool. I didn't catch that part. I just saw a link and no text.

[Skybird]

In the past I also got attacked for not having given just a link but posting the content instead. :doh:

However. If you have more reliable weather records for this year and the poast ten years, they certainly would appreciate it if they get them.

[Onkel Neal]

My thoughts are this....The "leaders" of nations and bussiness while not technical experts had within their reach experts who could have at any time been asked to provide simple (plain language) data regarding the effects of production and operations. To deny the fact that these leaders of goverment or Industries knew or deliberately ignored the effects of their operations, one is missing (IMHO) a key issue. Responsibility.

In effect, if one were to place responsibility on this issue, if it could be conclusively proven to be human induced, I believe it lies with the producers, not the consumers. Yet, the consumers are in essence blamed for this because we consumed oil, gasoline, products, etc..Yet our "profits" in this case were not financial but functional. Some say dont look for blame, but is not taxation just another way of placing accountability on someone? For even if this Treasonous Treaty did only levy fines and taxes on the producers would it not ultimately land on the backs of those who use the products?

So what is this meeting? The same people (or their representatives) who caused a problem (directly or indirectly) are now proposing the solution. I'd call that a conflict of interest, and unacceptable.

Solutions can only be found in the truth derived from concrete facts, until that time comes its all a scheme to redistribute wealth shrouded in the cover of "save the world" and IMHO, nothing more. Not saying that Climate Change isnt happening, just on the fence about the whole, "its mankinds fault and now you all must pay" line I dont buy and who it is thats spouting it.


The coming global climate change has been reported at least since 1975, in this Newsweek cover story, (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) and it was really urgent then that we take corrective action before it was too late. Somehow...somehow we have managed to survive another 35 years...but still, I'm concerned.


There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now (emphasis added). The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.

See? Oh, wait, what? :o
The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

Cooling down? Oh, maybe the scientists were wrong then.

[CaptainHaplo]

The reality is we have only been recording temps for about 150 years. Of course - the tempatures of the first 100+ years were using analog devices that not only had high margins of error - but also depended on the human eye to gauge the reading properly.

Take a modern mercury thermometer. Put it out on a counter - then read it. Now do you think its possible - given the extremely small "markers" on the thermometer - to misread it by so much as "half a degree"? Add that discrepinsy to the reality that some thermometers were of a higher accuracy standard than others (really want to trust a russian thermometer of 1870 to be EXACT!?!?) and then realize that the original records - as were requested years ago under FOI and similiar laws - were instead "lost" by those who have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar - using "tricks" to manipulate the data.

When a scientist - or a group of them - do all they can to hide or destroy original data, refuse to allow open peer review, and instead go so far as to omit data and stating a willingness to go so far as to threaten "even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is." - it shows ta systematic attempt to keep the truth out. ***For the record - that is an excerpt of an email from Phil Jones - the former head of the CRU regarding papers he did not wish to include to the IPCC in his reports.

If it looks like a duck, floats like a duck, and quacks like a duck - its likely a duck.

[Torplexed]

The coming global climate change has been reported at least since 1975, in this Newsweek cover story, (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) and it was really urgent then that we take corrective action before it was too late. Somehow...somehow we have managed to survive another 35 years...but still, I'm concerned.


Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.Ironic that 35 years ago they were proposing covering the Arctic ice cap with soot. Currently, there's some genius proposing painting bare rocky areas of the Andes Mountains white to slow down glacial melt. Apparently, painting every rooftop white won't be enough. I'd buy Sherwin-Williams stock for sure.

It kinda reminds me of these conflicting scientific studies that come out every few months stating coffee or some other staple item is good...no, bad....no, good for you. :doh:

[magic452]

I'm nine days older than dirt and in all my years I have yet to see an "EXPERT" predict a future event in regards to the climate short term or long.

It's cooling down, heating up, will take 15 years to recover from this drought, etc, etc. Wrong every time. :nope:

They really don't know what they are talking about but they are sure making a lot of money off this thing. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good paycheck or story.

They're using questionable and unreliable data to spend trillions world wide.
For most governments this is just a way to bring in more tax dollars.

As for the "lost data" "The dog eat my homework." Quote by RR

There is little doubt that the climate is changing but what's new about that? It's cooled down and warmed up through it's history. It's been warming up since about George Washington's time.

The big question is, is man responsible for the the recent change??????
I don't think they really know.

A serious question. My time on the net is limited so I haven't looked it up yet.

What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere now and what was it say 10, 20 and 50 years ago? Not how much are we making but how much is really in play and does this percentage correlate with the warming trend.
I've never even seen this relationship mentioned. If the increase in atmospheric CO2 doesn't correspond with temperatures, Why not? What is the relationship?

It appears that we are in a slight cooling period for the last few years but CO2 has increased. Why?????? Are there natural factors in play here and if so why are these natural factors not responsible for most if not all the recent warming?

Man causes warming but natural factors cause cooling???? You can't have your cake and eat it too. What caused warming and cooling in the past and why is it different now?

These questions should be answered with open and honest data before we spend trillions on a problem we don't really know exist.

I have an open mind on this, it's just I haven't seen anything, that I truly believe, presented. Too many people with an agenda putting out all the information, I really don't trust them. Too much money and too many egos involved. There is an old saying "figures lie and liers figure"

Magic

[Sailor Steve]

I'm nine days older than dirt and in all my years I have yet to see an "EXPERT" predict a future event in regards to the climate short term or long.
In 1963 I visited Salt Lake City, eight years before I actually moved here. At that time local scientists were predicting that at the then-current rate of receding, the lake would be nothing but a salt flat by the end of the century.

In 1975 they noticed that the lake had stopped drying and had stabilized. They said that the likely answer was that at some point the salinity was so high that the water stopped evaporating.

1983: After two record winters (Alta had almost twice its 500-inch fall, and at some points the snow was over 200 inches deep), the huge underwater storage tanks were full and Salt Lake City got flooded. State Street was turned into a sandbag river for several months.

1985: The Great Salt Lake had risen from 29 feet at the deepest point to 34 feet, and some folks were worried that the city itself would be threatened. The worst that happened was that the water table under the airport came close to making the runways sag, but the only real problem was that the freeway and railroads had to be raised and moved at quite an expense.

The point is that once again the experts had no real clue as to what was going to happen.

[Respenus]

No, you Americans are right. Why the hell should you stop consumption at any rate, even if your CO2 emissions per capita are 19.1 tons. Why care about other areas of the world, where climate change is already visible and people are on the verge of quite literary loosing the land under their feet?

Of course science changes. That's what it does. If the variables change, so does the end result of the equation. That doesn't mean that the equation is wrong and this is what it is all about. Yes, climate change advances differently that we predicted and it will do so to a varying degree as long as Earth has an atmosphere. That in no way means that it isn't here, human made or otherwise. But in a fragile system that is our environment, a single grain of dust at the wrong place at the wrong time can cause catastrophic consequences. Global warming? Bah! If the Atlantic current stops once more when all the of Greenland's ice melts and when the Arctic is just another battleground for oil and gas, then we'll all see global warming :shifty:

Just so you know, as I haven't seen any of this data posted here, yet it was presented to us by the Slovenian IPCC representative (deserves all the respect, so I won't have any attacks just because you feel like it), we are already masking around 2 degree increase. Over one degree is covered by the world oceans, with the Pacific having the greatest effect right now. Half a degree is masked by aerosolic particles in the air due to air travel. And over half a degree is already visible.

So much about conspiracy theories.

[Sailor Steve]

No, you Americans are right.
"You Americans"? America is hugely divided on this question. I agree consumption should be cut by any reasonable means. I agree that we need to react as if every single claim about warming and greenhouse gasses is true. And I also think Al Gore is an idiot.

And I also see the need not to blind ourselves to the possibility that some folks are indeed lying about the numbers. Dishonesty in a noble cause is still dishonesty.

[Stealth Hunter]

What people are ignoring the most is that, even if the claims about the planet's climate changing due to man are false, that doesn't change the fact that these emissions from factories and cars and the like still dump large levels of pollution and poisonous gases into the atmosphere (like arsenic, radon, oxygen difluoride, phosphine, dinitrogen tetroxide, etc.). So if we do start cutting down on these emissions, we'll also be significantly reducing the number of these hostile gases to life here on Earth in general. Granted the whole thing about climate change by man will be false, but the effects of cutting emissions would nevertheless be great.

Furthermore, we're passing conclusions when we still don't know much about these emails... or the hackers who stole them for that matter. We don't know who's hands they've passed through, we don't know if they've been changed or not, we don't know if it's all some kind of huge hoax, we don't know what the scientists (if they are real) meant by their wording (we can guess and claim to know, but the fact is it's all a matter of interpretation of the "documents"). . . there's hardly any answers coming in on this. The only people eating up the claim that this proves it's all a fabrication are ones who've been skeptical from the beginning, and even then they're only doing so because it supports their position. And then you've got the big businesses and industries going along with this lot because it's good for their business; if they don't have limits on emissions and their pollution levels they can continue dumping out as much crap as they want and take in huge profits while producing more at the cost of the environment.

Now I'm not on board with people like Al Gore, but plain logic and common sense dictate that you can't have tens of thousands of these factories in places like China, India, Mexico, etc. dumping out tons of pollutants into the atmosphere (or into/onto the terrain) and not have any nasty consequences on nature as a result. And that's exactly what we're seeing. Look at China: the air is sometimes so toxic they have to issue alerts to their people to stay inside their houses until it clears off (I don't think anyone here has forgotten the Olympics and what happened then...). Mexico is no different. And don't even get me started on India's air and water. What they're proposing at Copenhagen is simple: cut emissions, tax anyone who pours out too much crap, save the planet. Again, even IF man-made climate change is a hoax, it's very plain to see that we need to cut emissions and pollution because of it's negative effects it has on a whole. Tax penalties offer up one solution, especially when it comes to big businesses and industries; money is something that they hold very dear. I already mentioned the poisonous gases we get from factories and cars, the degrading quality of water as a result, but what about other things like a more acidic and deadly soil quality? What about the harmful mutations caused to organisms the world over (extra legs, tails, multiple heads, etc.; ever wonder why India gets so many of those cases?)? And while some governments would abuse this tax idea to profit, the cutting of emissions is still what matters the most in the end. And that's still what we'd see overall.

[Skybird]

The coming global climate change has been reported at least since 1975, in this Newsweek cover story, (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) and it was really urgent then that we take corrective action before it was too late. Somehow...somehow we have managed to survive another 35 years...but still, I'm concerned.

You seem to believe in climate beign something that reacts faster than chemcial agents need time to react, and that it can be affected by switching it on and off like the light. You also ignore - by intention I a,m now sure - that alot has chnaged since 1975 that indicates that the trend towards warmer climate indeed is true.

If you fall out of the window in a high tower and fall down, don't be worried by people telling you that yoiu better shouldn'T have fallen out of that window. Becasue, in your thinking, ten floors deeper you see you are still alive and so things can'T be that bad, can they.

I don'T know for sure if the climate chnage will indeed kill human civilisation as we know it, but it certainly will force us to adapt to conditions that have changed more seriously than you want to imagine now. And for many people it will mean misery, suffering and death through weather phenomenens and extreme climate symptoms. In fact it already does. You just actively refuse to see that.

Cooling down? Oh, maybe the scientists were wrong then.
Micro cycles and macro cycles and meta cycles, the constant natural fluctuation that means that just one day'S weather does not define the average weather of the whole year and... wait, I explained these things several times now. If oyu haven't understood these very basics by now, than either you never will, or you have refused to understand them . and before you accuse me of being an expert for it and having read about it and made experiences - I am no meteorologist. But one muts not be an expert to understand these basic things, or to understand what the difference between summer and winter is and a high prssure and a low pressure weather front. Or to understand what micro, macro and meta cycles are.

As so very often on this issue, somebody raises just an arbitrary doubt and then demands that it should be seen as valid scientific counter argument, just doing so. But that demands a little bit more than just random claims - or fabricating a scandal over the emails that so far seems to have been rejected by any serious scientific source in the field, is so far unproven over the nature of its allegations, and just sees a loud and violent yelling that this known sceptic and that known media lobbyists there has raised and repeated this accusation time and again - although by now we already have been demonstrated that quotes were taken out of context and manipulated, and saw additional, false remarks added to them, and this poisonous message now spreads like the plague in the media - by volume and endless repetition only, not by reason or aergument.

A Republican group thought they must take it nupon themselves to go to Kopenhagen to correct Obama and to save America's reputation by not making it committing to emissions cuts. I laughed this morning when reading this.

BTW, Kopenhagen is no holy grail for me. I know that when the climate can be affected by emission cuts to a given agent by 90% only, a discussion on whether or not to cut it by 20% according to the standard of 1998 or better 2005 (would be even less a total cut) is pointless. I also do know that there is no st of switches with numbers from 1 to 10 by which poltiiians can decide how many degrees the world is allowed to warm - and gets threatened by sanctions of the UN when exceeding them. :)

The Spiegel article I linked to, on why a failure in Kopenhagen maybe would be a win, is very much my position. Whatever they decide there and will sell as a big boxoffice hit, it will in no way be sufficient, but cinsumes a hilarious ammount of money for somethign that will not change the trend. A much higher contribution to battling climate consequences is needed, a much more far-reaching chnage in production styles and living styles is needed that so far no politicians ever has dared to speak out about, and most people do not wish to even think abiut for a moment. And even then we cannot be sure that we could brreak through the inner dynamic that we have unleashed in the past 150 years or so. If you accelerate a high speed train to 350km/h, there just is no way to make it going reverse by flipping a switch et voila: there you go in reverse, there is no way without breaking first. and at that speed the breaking distance is not measured in dozens or hundreds, but thousands of meters (around 3.5-4 km). You better think ahead when plannign for your next halt. when you already see the next station, it's alredy too late.

[CaptainHaplo]

ok - let me start with Respensus. My friend - realize that the IPCC data you were presented with - relies almost exclusively on data from the CRU - the institute where every indication shows they manipulated data to get the results they wanted. I do NOT blame the IPCC for the outcome - but you have to be willing to look with a critical eye at the data and its source before you accept its validity.

Stealth hunter - for the record - the CRU knew in advance this data was out. RealClimate reported they had the data on Tuesday morning - and notified the CRU. They had 3 days to come up with a plausible cover story. Yet when the story hit broader display - what was the response from those involved? No denials of the validity of the emails and their contents. Instead - one of the main participants - Phil Jones - the head of the CRU at the time (and thus an immensly powerful player in the climate change hoax) stepped down with his tail between his legs. There has been no defense - but then again - how can you defend things like emails stating that INSTRUCT people to delete data so they can circumvent FOA requests? As for the source of the hackers - its now known the data first appeared in the public domain from a small town in Russia - where other major hacks sponsored by the Russian govt have sourced from. Though "who where the hackers" is just a way of trying to get people to not look at the facts of what has been uncovered. Its a "look over there for a second" trick - and rather indicative of how thin climate change arguements are in light of the reality.

[Morts]

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

you cannot deny it :arrgh!:

[Skybird]

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

you cannot deny it :arrgh!:

Simply brilliant! :DL

[AngusJS]

The coming global climate change has been reported at least since 1975, in this Newsweek cover story, (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) and it was really urgent then that we take corrective action before it was too late.That's really damning because, as we all know, Newsweek is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

[SteamWake]

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

you cannot deny it :arrgh!:

Meh all that proves is that pirates are uncool ! :D