SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage

Skybird · 09-05-08, 06:43 AM

Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument.

the argument that atmospheric changes and temperature changes take place insanely fast currently, stands nevertheless.

Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities.
and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable
http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/16/nobel-prize-winner-asks-ipcc-to-admit-climate-change-errors/

I am aware of the weaknesses of the IPCC report, and the main critici9sm of it that was voiced by it's former head himself: that it assumed too optimistic assumptions mabout human energy behavior, and thus in it'S predictions even is not brtual enough. It paints a rosy picture basing energy demands already being reduced right now, instead of climbing in the future.

So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.

I do, but I have difficulty to take many of the sceptic's argument serious when I see them ignoring obvious and often-made obervations.

Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.

It WILL not, but already DOES affect us.

On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now.

I was against biofuels from the beginning on, yes. There mis no altermntaive to reducing our energy demands, by being more energy-proficient, and not wasting it by increasing our dependency on energy-heavy applications. You do not need an electric lemon squezzer, if it makes already no real difference to do it by hand, to give a very simply example. the comfort of such stupid applictions do not justify their consequences. And if the damage affects the higher wellbeing of the community, and nature, than it is the point where imo the right of the individual to claim freedom to choose using such things nevertehless come to an end. I do not believe in the unlimited freedom of people, and consumers.

I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.
Should we not, then, question their findings?

Sure, but the IPCC in the main is something like a metastudy, so tpo speak. the basic groundwork for it's conclusions has not been done by bureaucrats, but scitiensts. And most of them not being lobbyists, I would say.

Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise?

Depends on the defintion of such a compromise. If wife and husband are fighting over saturday nights's TV program, him wanting to see football and her wanting to see the music show, and the compromise is considered to be watching the music show, then the term is loosing it's meaning, doesn't it.

At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return.

Harm from headless environmental pollution and excessively exoploiting natural ressources, both regarding sea and air, also continues. The damage to oceans, reefs and fishes is already very huge. Some fishes that are on our tables are down to 10% of there populations just 20 years ago. I just have read about jellyfish taking over the oceans, and biologists mean it like that: taking it over. It is a very frigthening perspective. Fish populations are massively driven back not only by human fishing, but jellyfish as well. Add to that: algas, and a decrease in plancton.

Thoughts?

No, I am distracted. My new camera just arrived

Nice low budget solution, the Canon Powershot A590IS, very many options, features and pic quality, just a bit noisy at high ISO. It replaces my old A75 which just had broken down.

09-05-08, 06:43 AM	#39
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,796 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	*Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument.* the argument that atmospheric changes and temperature changes take place insanely fast currently, stands nevertheless. Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities. *and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable* *http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/16/nobel-prize-winner-asks-ipcc-to-admit-climate-change-errors/* I am aware of the weaknesses of the IPCC report, and the main critici9sm of it that was voiced by it's former head himself: that it assumed too optimistic assumptions mabout human energy behavior, and thus in it'S predictions even is not brtual enough. It paints a rosy picture basing energy demands already being reduced right now, instead of climbing in the future. *So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.* I do, but I have difficulty to take many of the sceptic's argument serious when I see them ignoring obvious and often-made obervations. *Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.* It WILL not, but already DOES affect us. On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now. I was against biofuels from the beginning on, yes. There mis no altermntaive to reducing our energy demands, by being more energy-proficient, and not wasting it by increasing our dependency on energy-heavy applications. You do not need an electric lemon squezzer, if it makes already no real difference to do it by hand, to give a very simply example. the comfort of such stupid applictions do not justify their consequences. And if the damage affects the higher wellbeing of the community, and nature, than it is the point where imo the right of the individual to claim freedom to choose using such things nevertehless come to an end. I do not believe in the unlimited freedom of people, and consumers. *I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.* *Should we not, then, question their findings?* Sure, but the IPCC in the main is something like a metastudy, so tpo speak. the basic groundwork for it's conclusions has not been done by bureaucrats, but scitiensts. And most of them not being lobbyists, I would say. Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise? Depends on the defintion of such a compromise. If wife and husband are fighting over saturday nights's TV program, him wanting to see football and her wanting to see the music show, and the compromise is considered to be watching the music show, then the term is loosing it's meaning, doesn't it. At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return. Harm from headless environmental pollution and excessively exoploiting natural ressources, both regarding sea and air, also continues. The damage to oceans, reefs and fishes is already very huge. Some fishes that are on our tables are down to 10% of there populations just 20 years ago. I just have read about jellyfish taking over the oceans, and biologists mean it like that: taking it over. It is a very frigthening perspective. Fish populations are massively driven back not only by human fishing, but jellyfish as well. Add to that: algas, and a decrease in plancton. Thoughts? No, I am distracted. My new camera just arrived Nice low budget solution, the Canon Powershot A590IS, very many options, features and pic quality, just a bit noisy at high ISO. It replaces my old A75 which just had broken down. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.