Climate Change

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Edit - isn't it odd how far we have come from the OP - and the reality that one of the "leading" climatologists behind the global warming hoax has admitted that there has been no real change in 60 years.....

Where the hell did this happen, how did I miss this?

Where the hell did this happen, how did I miss this?

Its easy to miss, what you did was fail to take the word "significant" and change it to "real" and then take "15" and quadruple it.
So you really made the simple mistake of missing something because it wasn't there.
Learn to use your imagination more and then you won't miss out on so many fantabulous statements.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

What do you mean by isolate?

Blocking the boarders. Don't let people of those places "invade" countries that do have birth control. Not really perfect, I know, but I don't know how else to protect a country with birth control from beeing "flooded" by people from countries that are still celebrating growing populations.

Originally Posted by Skybird

How to come from 7+ billion to 1 billion in a reasonable ammount of time...? Let nature handle it? Or lend her a hand ourselves? There is a massive moral dilemma.

Well, with world wide birth control (yes, I know it is impossible and plenty of countries don't want / can't do it...) the population would shrink by 50% within the next 80 years.
The big question is, what is a reasonable time?

Actually there is pretty much no way to save the planet (and ourselves) with mild therapies any more. But as long as we are ignorant of this and continue to be proud of growing populations (not so much in the west, but in some other places...) it's controlled, wanted suicide.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

The big question is, what is a reasonable time?

A timeframe that leaves us still enough time to to throw around the helm and save our future once a lower population level has been reached. I doubt that much time is left. So nature will have her ways of settling the question of humanity's fate.

Demographic control is something EU policies is strictly against. Not only is there an irrational fear of lower population sizes in Europe (as a matter of fact after the end of the heavy industry era we do not need as many workers anymore as before), there is also a dedicated social-engineering experiment going on in Europe, for reasons that qualify as suicidal self-deception.

The following link is not due to the Islam-related content itself, but the deep corruption and treason of the EU, which has a major impacts on birth policies and population levels. You may need to dig a bit into it, it is a long document. But you should get the content quite easily, and see how this is against anything like "birth control".

published 2006
http://vladtepesblog.com/?page_id=289
http://vladtepesblog.com/?page_id=1131

2008-update
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3590

Do not shoot the messenger - the sites hosting the documents - for the message, give the message a chance to speak for itself. Also note that the documents can be found at many different sites indeed. Some are more leaning than others, and certainly none of them is left, islamophile or pro-EU.

A German translation of the complete chapters you can find here:
http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2010/02/Defeating_Eurabia_German_Book1.pdf

It reads "Book1", but it is all 5 chapters nevertheless.

I do not say Fjordman'S blog entries and essays are the 100% exact representation of reality - but I think he points at some where obvious and very worrying facts that explain plenty of the otherwise apparently bigot or unreasonable decisions in EU policies. And so far I have not learned any better explanations for the dicatorship the EU has turned into - the biggest coup d'état in the history of mankind. If you look at it from his perspective, many things suddenly fall into place and actually make sense.

[Schroeder]

This will probably take me days to read as I'm a bit short of time at the moment.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Where the hell did this happen, how did I miss this?

Antikristuseke - that should be 15 years - I have edited it to be correct(but left the mistatement since its been quoted). I had 1950 on the brain when I typed that. My screw up.

Do not shoot the messenger - the sites hosting the documents - for the message, give the message a chance to speak for itself.

The message speaks for itself, the people speaking the message speak for themselves, it says a lot about the message and those who say it.

I do not say Fjordman'S blog entries and essays are the 100% exact representation of reality

Wow a notorious ignorant bigots writings are not exactly accurate to reality, what a shocking revelation, who would have thought it

Also note that the documents can be found at many different sites indeed.

Also note that many sites no longer use the documents as the author is a nutcase with links to racist extremists

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

..."flooded" by people from countries that are still celebrating growing populations.

Is that like me "celebrating" my expanding waist line? [/QUOTE]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Edit - isn't it odd how far we have come from the OP - and the reality that one of the "leading" climatologists behind the global warming hoax has admitted that there has been no real change in 60 years..... EDIT - that should be 15 years..... my fault - had 1950 on the brain at the moment.

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0222-h...onviction.html


---


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-sceptics

http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/12/cli...es-exxonmobil/

[SteamWake]

Someone should really put a stop to this. This could impact the climate drramatically !!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLAUn4Gy92ss

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

Is that like me "celebrating" my expanding waist line?

I meant that there have been celebrations for the one billionth guy in India and things like that. But actually you are quiet close. An expanding waist line is about as much reason to celebrate as growing population.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Yes, actually. We may never attain perfect models, but I think we'd be able to get quite close.

Our models and data are always improving. The very idea that we're already at or close to the pinnacle of climatic modeling doesn't ring true to me at all.Indeed. However, I remember that after hurricane Katrina, scientists predicted a swelling in Atlantic storm activity the following year, using those models. Furthermore, they attributed their prediction on global warming.

It didn't come true.

There were reasons why those predictions didn't occur which were contained in the model. Also fluctuations always happen, even large ones can generally be accounted for, which is why we look at longer term trends.

Those models are indeed predictions of long term AVERAGES. Why, then, is much of the scientific community dead set upon using that data for more immediate alarmism?Man, how right you are in this, but how wrong your interpretation of this is, in my opinion.

Frankly I think most of it comes from outside of the scientific community and is influencing it.

Yes, we need to control what we can control. But what doesn't make sense is that many people on your side of the debate actually believe that it is possible to control the human condition overall.

There in is the problem with out solution, human nature. But does that excuse us from throwing our hands up in the air and doing nothing? Also I should state that my position on the topic is flexible, all I care about is where bulk of the evidence lies. Right now most of it weighs in on man made climate change.

We have a burgeoning global population, developed nations with no interest in pollution control but a vested interest in economic and industrial development (China), and an increasing global energy demand. You believe that, while we cannot control, say, volcanos, WE can control human energy consumption and the resulting CO2 emmissions. I submit to you that you're wrong - we can hardly control human energy consumption any more than we can control a volcano.

I never said we could control it, I said we should. Unless humanity wakes the hell up and looks beyond its own individual selfish interests, our species is doomed to eventual extinction. I don't think its very far off myself.

What we CAN do is avoid absurd policies which shift industry from countries with decent environmental policies to those without. Say, if it's too expensive to build something in demand in the US due to environmental policies, then it will simply be built in China, with lax controls. Most extinctions happen in a geological blink but really occur over a period of many years. Should a large enough asteroid collide with the Earth today, we'd see massive loss of life initially but human civilization would likely prattle on for thousands of years. The environmental changes may or may not eventually catch up to humans, and either we would become extinct or we'd survive.

I don't believe that will be anywhere near enough (though I agree with it). As for extinction yep that is usually the way it works (super bugs though can do it very fast).

However, in any case, the event itself which would cause the eventual extinction would have happened in an instant. That is essentially what theoretically happened regarding the K-T extinction.

It depends on which theory you are working with as there are several variations and types of K-T extinction theories. Not all of them were fast processes at all.

Pollution, on the other hand, is a much slower process. The Earth is far more likely to be able to adapt to gradual CO2 emmissions than, say, the Chicxulub event.

Well if the data is right the co2 increases are hardly gradual (in comparison to ice core samples, current levels are spiking at an unprecedented level). It is also very possible that things will suddenly speed up. I am also uncertain that life will adapt so easily due to the tremendous pressure most ecosystems around the world are under due to humanity (we are already in a period of mass extinction as it is). It could push things completely over the edge and wipe out most existing life forms if the web gets disrupted.

Ultimately, my point is we really don't know.For full disclosure, I only follow climatology with passing interest. Physics are far more interesting to me. As such, I don't read papers but simply follow the highlights. If something seems interesting, I look briefly at it and at counter-proposals without predisposition. I found that, in science, it's pretty easy to identify what makes sense.

I do similar, though I have scanned many different papers on the subject. I also try look at it with out bias towards the subject, and examine the arguments critically. I don't though pay any attention to the media, spokesmen, or public opinion or the political aspects of things (I don't believe in politics).

That being said, science is NOT A DEMOCRACY! There have been many instances of failed scientific consensus. I'll link to a great list a lilttle bit later on.

Sure there have been plenty of failed theories. Some got improved or superseded, some were proven false and dropped entirely. Scientific consensus is similar to a democracy though no votes are taken. The important thing is only those who know about the subject have any real say in the matter, rather then any idiot off the street.

In any case, that's besides my point. I have little doubt that CO2 levels are rising, my issue is that the effects of this are little understood.

To which I disagree saying that they are better understood then you think, though of course not perfect or all encompassing (which will never happen)

Umm...yes.

Ever heard of Aristotle? Or Ptolemy? Both believed in the geocentric model of the universe where the Earth was at the center, and not for religious purposes. The latter was a mathematician, the former devised one of the first theories on physics.

BOTH proposed a geocentric universe independantly of anything Biblical (I'm pretty sure Aristotle had no idea what the Bible even was), which mathematical reasoning behind it.

Neither are or were true scientific theory, they were philosophic theory (as was Aristotle's theory on Physica) based mostly anecdotal evidence and supposition (Ptolemy based his mathematical modeling on Aristotle's philosophic theories). They didn't follow scientific methodology and can't be considered scientific theory as a result. As for the bible and geocentric theory, the Greek theories were merged with christian theology (and biblical references), which became religious dogma and subject to heresy laws, which the early scientists behind heliocentric theory were persecuted by. I am not saying those 2 did not contribute to science in the end, but their theories were not scientific in nature.

The Egyptians and some other cultures developed their own heliocentric models (some of which were very very accurate), and in many ways were closer to true scientific theory as those models were based on very careful and precise observation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't listen. I'm merely saying the data is incomplete. And finally, I'm saying that we should attempt to make drastic, short-sighted economic policy based upon such data.Perhaps the global civilization will collapse, but personally I don't think humanity benefits greatly from being a global civilization anyway.

And I am saying that the data and theories will forever be incomplete as that is the nature of science and humanity. I also suspect that if global civilization collapses there is a good chance it may take us out with us (or cut our numbers way way back). We are totally dependent on it.

In all honesty though, I don't see any collapse as necessarily being global, and I don't see why one should except in perhaps an anecdotal sense. Should civilization change, there will be haves and have-nots. The haves will move on, and mankind will endure. In fact, preventing such a collapse is partly why I'm so opposed to socialism, but that's another topic for another time.

Given the level of inter-connectivity of our civilizations (we are more like one civilization really) and our use of an interconnected token economic system. If there is a major failure in a good chunk of one area, it is reasonably likely to drag the rest down with it (and is shown in history where problems in one region brought down the entire civilization).

Okay, so my point was wrong, how?

Also, what kind of science do you do?

Your point seemed to be that I was not looking at this rationally, which is not true. My opinions and thoughts are fairly well backed up by research and other evidence. I usually only engage in such discussions if I feel I can back up my opinions well.

The social sciences (Psychology specifically) is my area of expertise, though I also have a background in the natural sciences as well.

I pretty much agree with all of that (although I think you're idea that the earth could only sustain around 1 to 2 billion people is, well, off).

1-2 billion isn't my idea; there are several figures being batted around depending on level of resource usage and number of haves vs have nots. 500m is a common number for everyone in the world to live by middle class standards with out putting pressure on the ecosystem and generating pollution beyond what the earth can deal with. 1-2b is where there is still an economic divide not as bad as we have now (but similar proportions).

In the end, my point is this: we really don't know what's going to happen, we need to NOT screw with economics in an attempt to engineer a decrease in energy use as it could likely backfire, and we need to search for an artificial way of stabilizing the climate SHOULD it become necessary.

I think it is necessary now and that the evidence is strong enough to put significant resources into research. But we have to be careful as artificial solutions may backfire as well. But I do think acting in an environmentally friendly way is also a very wise move too. I don't agree with concepts such as carbon taxes and the like (though it could be used to fund research).

I don't agree completely.

That is fine, though perhaps your picture of the situation isn't broad enough

I mentioned in my last post about the sun's impact on terrestrial climate. The sun's output is continually decreasing (over long term periods) at it decreases in overall mass. However, there have been recent theories that a long term solar cycle may be a primary cause of the Earth's past ice ages. An ice age would be detrimental to humanity as well, wouldn't it?

Both are bad for us either way. Anyhow you might want to recheck your information on the sun. The rate that the sun looses mass compared to its total volume is almost insignificant. Odds are we will be long extinct before there is any noticeable decrease in energy output (some theories suggest there will be no decrease and the sun will expand as it runs out of fuel to maintain equilibrium for fusion). That said the output does run on a cycle, which explains much of the fluctuations in temperature data. Solar theories relating to the ice ages have a fundamental flaw in that the available data is almost non existent.

Furthermore, over the long term geological period known as the Cenozoic, we have been experiencing a rather steady period of global COOLING. Increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses could have perhaps a stabilizing effect long term. Or, should an ice age loom (due perhaps to solar causes), an enhanced greenhouse effect could be somewhat mitigating.

Other than recently where there has been a warming trend which isn't explained by solar output. The increases have only dropped off over the last bit due to the sun being in a low point in its output cycle. As for an ice age, we have no idea when the next one will be, and the earth going the other way into a hot(?) age will be rather bad too.

Again, we really don't know what the long term effects of all this is. And that's my point.

We have a pretty good idea from several different scientific areas of study. But we can never predict things absolutely, and never know what may come next which will change things. But pretending it doesn't exist will not help either. Is it possible the theories are wrong, sure it is always possible, question is how probable it is if if they are wrong, and if they are how wrong are they?

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0222-h...onviction.html

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-sceptics

http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/12/cli...es-exxonmobil/

No real surprises in those links. I certainly agree that real scientific skeptics on climate change should stay far away from the media and other sources of pollution and interference. Science is best left to the scientists, not the genera public. Also well known that certain interest groups are trying to swamp people with bogus science and research. And I am not surprised that consensus has not changed at all, there is no reason for it to change given that there is no new evidence disproving anything


As a general comment I don't see us as species ever implementing effective population control that will actually reduce our population. We are to selfish as individuals for that to ever happen, plus all the ethical considerations. I do have to say though that I personally want to smack those people who have lots of kids in this day and age. Talk about egotistical self centered behavior.


Anyhow I grow weary of this topic and think I shall withdraw at this point. I don't think it's worth the energy for me to debate this topic further here. Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même chose.

[Aramike]

I've read your response, and ultimately find that we are not too far apart in our recognition of the current science of climate change. Ultimately the difference in opinion is simple: you place far more faith in the current scientific analysis than I do.

While I could do a tedious point-by-point breakdown for my agreements and disagreements with your post, in the interest of time, I'm going to skip them unless you point out a specific point you wish me to address. All except for this:

Neither are or were true scientific theory, they were philosophic theory (as was Aristotle's theory on Physica) based mostly anecdotal evidence and supposition (Ptolemy based his mathematical modeling on Aristotle's philosophic theories). They didn't follow scientific methodology and can't be considered scientific theory as a result. As for the bible and geocentric theory, the Greek theories were merged with christian theology (and biblical references), which became religious dogma and subject to heresy laws, which the early scientists behind heliocentric theory were persecuted by. I am not saying those 2 did not contribute to science in the end, but their theories were not scientific in nature.

The Egyptians and some other cultures developed their own heliocentric models (some of which were very very accurate), and in many ways were closer to true scientific theory as those models were based on very careful and precise observation.

This point you made was remarkably full of spin. You specifically stated that the geocentric universal view was Biblical. It in fact was NO SUCH THING, as it predated the Bible. Now, in order to haphazardly support that statement you went on to attempt to invalidate that view as though it was not science, which is oddly discriminating. To me it seems to be bad form to invalidate the science of old (or even, antiquity) upon the basis that we know more now. I have never met a scientist or historian (and I know quite a few) who had ever even suggested such a concept. Simply because a concept doesn't fit modern scientific models does NOT MAKE IT NOT SCIENCE.

The reason I point this out is mere basic intellectualism. You suggest essentially that our climate models will never be substantially improved (and thusly different) and yet you imply that our scientific methods are airtight and therefore not subject to improvement (by extension claiming that such methods are too impervious to change that, at some point, a future scientist would then be able to claim that our current methods are not, indeed, "science").

I'm fairly sure that Ptolemy may have viewed things similarly (and would therefore have been similarly wrong).

My point is simple and has been consistant: we don't know enough to make accurate predictions which require such drastic changes to our economies. The science is simply too incomplete and HAS NOT been proven. While I have made it quite clear that I agree with most of the principles of the climate science, I believe that the picture is still far too incomplete.

And, I think that many scientists have been distorting said picture in order to reach their predetermined conclusions (this has been well-documented).

Your post dismissing early human scientific endeavors as not being scientific is very reminiscent of such a distortion. Perhaps, more well put, you used spin to redefine an understood concept...

...which is specfically was I accuse many climatologists of doing.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Actually there is pretty much no way to save the planet (and ourselves) with mild therapies any more. But as long as we are ignorant of this and continue to be proud of growing populations (not so much in the west, but in some other places...) it's controlled, wanted suicide.

The quay will turn the boat, is an old saying here.
And it will probable turn the hard way.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon,

I have to take issue with one statement in your response. While we do disagree on some climate issues, I will agree that man has some level of impact on the environment.

However - you stated:

The important thing is only those who know about the subject have any real say in the matter, rather then any idiot off the street.

I know that was not meant as an insult to those who don't have a scientific background, but thats a rather dangerous opinion to have in my view, because the "idiot" on the street is often the one impacted the most by the decisions of those who "know about the subject". For example, a scientific consensus that has real say in the matter may decide that the only way to stabilize the environment is to remove certain CO2 sources - such as internal combustion engines. Now if they are the only ones with "real say" - then they just decided to kill the economic infrastructure of most of humanity.

Perhaps you meant this only in the role of having say in what the scientific conclusions were - which would limit science to a purely "theoretical" advisor type role? This also has dangers, since it would keep scientists from being able to work toward and support (outside of advisement) solutions.

Speaking of solutions - Sometimes its the "idiot" on the street that comes up with solutions that work. Edison started working on light bulbs because he - as well as everyone else - was getting reamed by gas companies (as lighting at the time was primarily gas). His background at the time was in the telegraph industry, among other things - but was NOT in lighting at all. He was, in a sense - an "idiot on the street" since he had no real knowledge. Yet over time and with help (as well as purchased patents) - a modern incandescent bulb was born. To discount the contribution that those who may not "know stuff" is a real failure, as many scientific breakthroughs come from entirely unrelated projects and "non-subject matter experts" people.

As for worrying about climate change - I think everyone is worried about something that doesn't matter. The ecosystem will not fail - though it may at some point fail US - that is not a failure by the system. It is rather a correction, and a natural one. When that happens - and resources become so scarce that survival is questionable, mankind will cull itself - not into extinction, but into managable numbers. It will do so through war and violence, sickness and disease, as our history has shown we always do, in a fight for the resources to survive. Unpleasant, damned uncomfortable for those involved, but ultimately unavoidable as this is simply the natural cycle of growth, collapse and rebirth. Our known history shows the cycle repeatedly, and for those that study "pre-history" and the possible civilizations that are suspected to exist at the time - it would seem that the cycle was present then if you believe such a period existed.

I know it sounds somewhat cold to speak on those terms and lay it out so starkly, but it is reality - barring an outside event that exterminates us. However, to me, I see it as simply another stage of existence, so its part of the road, not the whole journey, and thus can see it like a roller coaster ride - every part has its ups and down.