Global Warming To Hit Thailand's Rice Production

[ding]

Thoughtful people will think what they like of the climate change deniers. Now more to the point;

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Economi...mate-Change.pdf

Asian Development Bank

Climate change will affect everyone but developing countries will be hit hardest, soonest and have the

least capacity to respond. South East Asia is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change with

its extensive, heavily populated coastlines, large agricultural sectors and large sections of the population

living under $2 or even $1 a day

...

That the governments of the Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam have supported

this study, indicates that the policymakers in the region are increasingly clear, that not only is climate

change, if left unmanaged, a severe, or insuperable challenge to their growth and poverty reduction goals,

but also that action will lead to a wide range of business opportunities for growth and development.

[RickBradford]

The ADB is a large multi-government bank, set up to alleviate poverty in Asia, and it has done such a lopsided job that even environmentalists hate it:

"Operating at a global and international level, these banks can undermine people's human rights through projects that have detrimental outcomes for poor and marginalized communities." - Oxfam Australia. ("Poor and marginalized communities" means those "large sections of the population living under $2 or even $1 a day" that the ADB claims to be so concerned about.)

"Much of the growth has bypassed more than 70 percent of its [ADB region] rural population, many of whom are directly dependent on natural resources for livelihoods and incomes." - United Nations Environmental Program. ’Economic growth... has also led to widespread pollution, land degradation and depletion of natural resources. Unless addressed, these changes may cause irreversible ecosystem damage with far-reaching implications for economic activities that depend on natural resources.’’

The report is almost one year old, and draws heavily on the comedy show that was the Stern Report.

ADB believes that international funding "is essential" to help mitigate climate change. Who'd have thought it? I bet they just can't wait to get their hands on some of that Western cap-and-trade money....

Nul points.

EDIT: Oh, and the World Wildlife Fund, in its role as expert researcher for the IPCC was wrong about the Amazon dying as well, NASA says.

Edited March 12, 2010 by RickBradford

[ding]

...

"Accepting the AGW hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong" is to show moral bankruptcy of a high order and a sneering contempt for the poor people of this planet.

It is also another step in what these people really want which is everyone goes back to some pre-industrial revolution time and lives like people did back then. Of course, people back then only lived to be about 35 and all but a very few had truly miserable lives by any definition.

TH

Well what about "these people"? The Pentagon/DoD isn't an organization you can smear as liberal commie pinkos.

Depeartment of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future. Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt and alterations in river flows.

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

This encompasses Thailand and specifically rice production.

[Spee]

Depeartment of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

You must be really desperate if this is the best you can come up with after 4 days of searching. Everyone knows that with the current administration, anything and everything associated with the federal government will contain global warming propaganda.

This encompasses Thailand and specifically rice production.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Thailand or rice production in Thailand.

Are you and JR related?

[ding]

Depeartment of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

You must be really desperate if this is the best you can come up with after 4 days of searching. Everyone knows that with the current administration, anything and everything associated with the federal government will contain global warming propaganda.

This encompasses Thailand and specifically rice production.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Thailand or rice production in Thailand.

Are you and JR related?

Al Gore won the election!

and that has something to do with rice production n Thailand as well

[RickBradford]

US defence and security agencies have a legitimate interest in how climate will change worldwide -- the US would prefer Thailand to remain stable, and that obviously includes its ability to feed itself and make money from exports, hence the importance of rice production.

Back in 1974, the CIA wrote:

"The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climate change. Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations round the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will, in the future, occupy a major portion of the intelligence community's assets."

The concern? Global cooling.

"The Wisconsin forecast suggests that the world is returning to the climatic regime from the 1600s to the 1850s, normally called the Neo-Boreal or Little Ice Age, an era of drought, famine and unrest"

All those "leaders in climatology and economics", all "in agreement" about "a long-term reality."

And utterly wrong.

As today's AGW hoax makes abundantly clear, our capacity to blind ourself with arrogance and self-importance hasn't changed in the last 35 years.

[ding]

"I recognize the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem,"

– George Bush in Denmark

2005

[Garry9999]

"I recognize the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem,"

– George Bush in Denmark

2005

George bush also said

1. "Will the highways on the internet become more few?"

2. "It’s a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life"

3. "I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq"

4. "I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office"

5. "We’re concerned about Aids inside our White House – make no mistake about it"

6. "I’m honoured to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein"

7. "I’ve coined new words, like “misunderstanding”

8. "I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances"

9. "It’s in our country’s interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way"

10. "One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end"

11. "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn’t here"

12. "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test"

13. "I don’t particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it

14. "[The Taliban] have no disregard for human life"

15. "When the governor calls, I answer his phone"

16. "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law"

17. "I think we agree, the past is over"

18. "America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienalienable right of life"

19. "My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions"

20. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures"

:D

[mridiot]

US defence and security agencies have a legitimate interest in how climate will change worldwide -- the US would prefer Thailand to remain stable, and that obviously includes its ability to feed itself and make money from exports, hence the importance of rice production.

Back in 1974, the CIA wrote:

"The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climate change. Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations round the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will, in the future, occupy a major portion of the intelligence community's assets."

The concern? Global cooling.

"The Wisconsin forecast suggests that the world is returning to the climatic regime from the 1600s to the 1850s, normally called the Neo-Boreal or Little Ice Age, an era of drought, famine and unrest"

All those "leaders in climatology and economics", all "in agreement" about "a long-term reality."

And utterly wrong.

As today's AGW hoax makes abundantly clear, our capacity to blind ourself with arrogance and self-importance hasn't changed in the last 35 years.

You are making me look smart!

I wonder if you helped write the most important book of our skeptic's club: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Deny it all..........use words like "hoax."

Ignore the scientific evidence and say "utterly wrong."

Say something is "abundantly clear" when it is not.

Try to make people think that scientists are blind to reality when we--the deniers--are blind to reality.

Try to make people think the danger is global cooling............all of these tactics are right from The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Be careful not to say something that might fall under the category of "intelligent."

You might then have to respond, backing up your response with actual scientific information! Impossible to do.

That would break the pattern and might make the house of cards we deniers are building fall down.

Remember, they can't discover that we don't know anything about the subject and are getting all of our information from those websites funded by Exxon-Mobile.

We want to keep people ignorant as toads and confused.

We want to keep people slaves to companies like Exxon-Mobile (remember, our job is to make them money).

Keep up the crusade. I am sure there are a lot of other idiots, just like me, that admire what you are doing.

[Garry9999]

US defence and security agencies have a legitimate interest in how climate will change worldwide -- the US would prefer Thailand to remain stable, and that obviously includes its ability to feed itself and make money from exports, hence the importance of rice production.

Back in 1974, the CIA wrote:

"The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climate change. Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations round the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will, in the future, occupy a major portion of the intelligence community's assets."

The concern? Global cooling.

"The Wisconsin forecast suggests that the world is returning to the climatic regime from the 1600s to the 1850s, normally called the Neo-Boreal or Little Ice Age, an era of drought, famine and unrest"

All those "leaders in climatology and economics", all "in agreement" about "a long-term reality."

And utterly wrong.

As today's AGW hoax makes abundantly clear, our capacity to blind ourself with arrogance and self-importance hasn't changed in the last 35 years.

You are making me look smart!

I wonder if you helped write the most important book of our skeptic's club: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Deny it all..........use words like "hoax."

Ignore the scientific evidence and say "utterly wrong."

Say something is "abundantly clear" when it is not.

Try to make people think that scientists are blind to reality when we--the deniers--are blind to reality.

Try to make people think the danger is global cooling............all of these tactics are right from The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Be careful not to say something that might fall under the category of "intelligent."

You might then have to respond, backing up your response with actual scientific information! Impossible to do.

That would break the pattern and might make the house of cards we deniers are building fall down.

Remember, they can't discover that we don't know anything about the subject and are getting all of our information from those websites funded by Exxon-Mobile.

We want to keep people ignorant as toads and confused.

We want to keep people slaves to companies like Exxon-Mobile (remember, our job is to make them money).

Keep up the crusade. I am sure there are a lot of other idiots, just like me, that admire what you are doing.

Hi JR

[catmac]

I wonder what Exxon-Mobile did to poor old JR, to turn him into the raving lunatic that now graces this thread in his many nom-de-plumes?

On a side note, I'm having endless fun watching such fanatical espousers of AGW as the BBC squirming their way out of the Climategate mess!

[AugustineB]

I am amazed at how many people have been swindled by the fossil fuel industry into believing that anthropogenic global warming is not a serious threat. This is the true "hoax" that a greedy selfish oil industry has managed to discredit over 100 years of multiciplinary research into climate change in the publics mind . As for the conspiricy thheories- give us a break - you mean to tell us for the last 8 years George Bush has been funding hioppied and climate scientists as part of some global conspiricy.

If anyone has any genuine scientific objections to global warming theory I would be quite happy to debate it with them, but if you are basing your opinion on a bunch of mass media hype and dodgy websites funded by Exxon mobil - dont bother !

[ding]

I am amazed at how many people have been swindled by the fossil fuel industry into believing that anthropogenic global warming is not a serious threat. This is the true "hoax" that a greedy selfish oil industry has managed to discredit over 100 years of multiciplinary research into climate change in the publics mind . As for the conspiricy thheories- give us a break - you mean to tell us for the last 8 years George Bush has been funding hioppied and climate scientists as part of some global conspiricy.

If anyone has any genuine scientific objections to global warming theory I would be quite happy to debate it with them, but if you are basing your opinion on a bunch of mass media hype and dodgy websites funded by Exxon mobil - dont bother !

I tried wading back into this because there's a concerted zealous attempt to puff this hired-gun climate change denier stuff up again lately. They never fail to deliver; make a wild claim, then change the subject when refuted. Mud slinging and character-assassination of the messenger who refuted them. They try to claim that a critique of messenger's format or method disproves the info.

Then just revert back to making bogus claims and sloganeering.

"The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might." -Twain

And this is why I keep trying; there is no reboot, retraining, plan B, or relocating- regarding this problem.

Edited March 17, 2010 by ding

[AugustineB]

"The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might." -Twain

Indeed.

[RickBradford]

"The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might." -Twain

Indeed.

That is AGW beautifully described -- all the loudmouths like Al Gore pushing infantile nonsense on a gullible public.

[mridiot]

"The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might." -Twain

Indeed.

That is AGW beautifully described -- all the loudmouths like Al Gore pushing infantile nonsense on a gullible public.

Good response.........."loudmouths," "infantile," "nonsense," "gullible public,"...............all right from our bible:

The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Just be careful to not let them know we have no idea what we are talking about.

At some point you might have to actually provide an intelligent response.

Good luck.

[canuckamuck]

Ding, Augustine, JR - aka Mr. idiot (from a long proud line of idiots I assume)

I have followed this issue for years and I am unconvinced that man made climate change is occurring at a perceptible level.

I understand that the climate has changed throughout the history of this planet and it is changing today.

I also understand that man is polluting the environment and we need to keep finding cleaner industrial solutions.

I do not have any sympathy for any oil companies. I think all organizations are inherently selfish.

But still I do not see that climatology has truthfully revealed that, C02 resulting from human activity has warmed our climate.

Please show me some evidence that man is causing the atmosphere to be warmer.

Remember national governments. the UN, and many foundations have poured untold billions into this research. Many magnitudes more money than any oil company spends on PR and media spin. How is it possible that you believe an oil company's media department has defeated the international science community and their massive funding in their attempts to prove AGW?

[mridiot]

Ding, Augustine, JR - aka Mr. idiot (from a long proud line of idiots I assume)

I have followed this issue for years and I am unconvinced that man made climate change is occurring at a perceptible level.

I understand that the climate has changed throughout the history of this planet and it is changing today.

I also understand that man is polluting the environment and we need to keep finding cleaner industrial solutions.

I do not have any sympathy for any oil companies. I think all organizations are inherently selfish.

But still I do not see that climatology has truthfully revealed that, C02 resulting from human activity has warmed our climate.

Please show me some evidence that man is causing the atmosphere to be warmer.

Remember national governments. the UN, and many foundations have poured untold billions into this research. Many magnitudes more money than any oil company spends on PR and media spin. How is it possible that you believe an oil company's media department has defeated the international science community and their massive funding in their attempts to prove AGW?

You need to read more carefully The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

We deniers are not supposed to ask for real scientific information on the subject--especially from an intelligent person--because we don't know anything about the subject and can't respond to an intelligent answer in an intelligent manner.

Now you are asking for evidence that is based on a ton of scientific research worldwide. The evidence that global warming and climate change are real and largely man-made is overwhelming.

You are not helping our cause at all. I might write a letter to Exxon-Mobile and tell them what you are doing. They will likely fire you for making the deniers like myself look like idiots and <deleted>

But going down the "conspiracy theory" road is smart (right from the book)........that will throw them off the track.

Yes, scientists are greedy. It is a massive conspiracy. It is a big lie. Take that you tree lovers.

[AugustineB]

Ding, Augustine, JR - aka Mr. idiot (from a long proud line of idiots I assume)

I have followed this issue for years and I am unconvinced that man made climate change is occurring at a perceptible level.

I understand that the climate has changed throughout the history of this planet and it is changing today.

I also understand that man is polluting the environment and we need to keep finding cleaner industrial solutions.

I do not have any sympathy for any oil companies. I think all organizations are inherently selfish.

But still I do not see that climatology has truthfully revealed that, C02 resulting from human activity has warmed our climate.

Please show me some evidence that man is causing the atmosphere to be warmer.

Remember national governments. the UN, and many foundations have poured untold billions into this research. Many magnitudes more money than any oil company spends on PR and media spin. How is it possible that you believe an oil company's media department has defeated the international science community and their massive funding in their attempts to prove AGW?

Dear Canuckamuck,

thankyou for your calm and insult free post. Your post adresses the issue from two standpoints - political and scientific.

Firstly let me adress the political side. Much of the emerging research in climatology has been performed ove rthe last 8 years of George Bushes presidency - I think all will agree that a climate change conspiricy which puts George Bush and his good ol boys in league with solar power manufacturers, hippies and climate scientists is unlikely. Besides they can already tax oil and his connections with that industry arfe well known. Whatever our energy source ourr governments are likely to tax us and there will be those that will try and profit from the situation - such is human nature - however this does not necessarily mean that the changes are based on false premises. For example you wouldnt say smoking wasnt bad for you just because Nicorette patches seek to turn a tidy profit from those desperate to give up smoking . Personally I think govts are trying to do the responsible thing for once .

Now the scientific argument :

Man is emiting vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere , far morew than volcanoes, but less than rotting vegetation in forests. This raise in CO2 levels has been matched by a raise in warmth. The argument that the warmth is triggering higher CO2 levels rather than the other way round is a half truth. Indeed the warmer it gets , the more CO2 is released fromt he ocean etc, but that CO2 itself acts as a greenhouse gas and triggers more warmth (a positive feedback) . The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 have been known for over a hundred years when John Tyndal measured the radiant heat absorbtion of different gases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#...scientific_work

Im sure everyone will agree it is ridiculous to suggest that Victorian Scientists were part of some sort of Climate conspiricy. Other evidence for CO2 increasing heat comes from diciplines as diverse as paleoclimatology to evolutionary biology - to suggest they are all in on some sort of conspiricy is absurd - far more likely the oil companies are trying to cloud the issue at a critical juncture (copenhagen) by playing on the publics distrust of governments and taxes.

For example biology tells us Co2 also affects the atmosphere by increasing methane production in methanogens (more CO2 means more activity in plants which put more nutrients into the soil stuimulating the production of methane by methanogens). Methane is much more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and also leads to increased water vapour in the troposphere after it decomposes.

Another line of evidence is the fact that different gases absorb different frequencies of the electromagnetic speactrum. When light enters the atmosphere it can be measured and then when it is reflected back to the Earth by greenhouse gases it can also be measured, as can the different frequencies leaving the planet. By measuring the differences in different frequencies both incoming and outgoing it is possible to work out which gases are trapping which frequencies and in what quantities. Although some of the frequencies which CO2 absorb overlap those of water vapour others quite clearly indicate CO2 is trapping a significant amount of infrared radiation.

If you would like to know more about these studies I will dig out some links to them.

Lastly I would like to say that as anyone who has conducted research knows any area of science and research, closely scrutinised enough, will reveal some academic fraud , incompetency and imperfections - and I mean ANY area - the quality of research in any dicipline will vary. If a highly skilled team of internet hackers and scientists were paid enough money to find some holes and cooked results in say , genetics, they could do it . The only reason climate science is getting the grilling is purely political - its going to cost a lot of very rich people a LOT of money and they are not just going to sit back and let that happen (yes I mean people like exxon mobil) . The email hacking scam for example was traced back to Saudi Arabia..........

Despite its imperfections and the e=inevitable human error science remains our best method of ascertaining objective truth about the world around us - we ignore it at our peril.

Edited March 18, 2010 by AugustineB

[canuckamuck]

Thanks Augustine, but I think you misunderstood my request.

I am pretty clear on the theory of warming based on increased C02, what I was hoping for was your best genuine evidence in support of the theory.

Specifically I was looking for observations and evidence that show that Man is perceptibly warming the planet through industrial C02 emissions.

Simply having a theory, no matter how complex or plausible does not make it true. I think that a decade into this debate, there must be certain benchmarks that clearly indicate Man is warming Earth. But maybe there is no evidence.

[mridiot]

Thanks Augustine, but I think you misunderstood my request.

I am pretty clear on the theory of warming based on increased C02, what I was hoping for was your best genuine evidence in support of the theory.

Specifically I was looking for observations and evidence that show that Man is perceptibly warming the planet through industrial C02 emissions.

Simply having a theory, no matter how complex or plausible does not make it true. I think that a decade into this debate, there must be certain benchmarks that clearly indicate Man is warming Earth. But maybe there is no evidence.

"Maybe there is no evidence." Now you have done it again.

You are breaking the rules. He knows what he is talking about and you are asking for actual scientific data of which there is an immense literature on the subject that supports his, not our, views.

We deniers need to stick together.

Once again read our bible: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Don't worry, I know you and Crackpot and Brandenberg are having trouble supporting our crusade.

Me and my brothers will start helping you. We are total idiots, but maybe we can put together a good strategy.

I will ask them to send you messages and explain how to post as a denier in a way that will destroy the opposition.

Maybe you know them:

After their trip to Washington, DC, they have become famous deniers. I am sure they can help us all out.

Don't forget, we don't have a clue about climate science or global warming.

But that does not matter, all we have to do is to continue to divert readers from the issues and generate doubt.

And we must make people think the burden of proof is on the shoulders of scientists and not the skeptics like us who know nothing about the subject.

But if we are not careful, we might be flooded with scientific reality. That would be bad for our cause. We have no way of responding in an intelligent manner.

Exxon-Mobile only wants us to divert from the real issues, distribute lies, discredit messengers, and create doubt.

It is not possible to have an actual scientific argument because, as stated, we don't know what we are doing.

We are clueless. But my brothers will help you out starting now.

No problem. Relax. You can thank me later.

[canuckamuck]

Somehow Jr's posts are encouraging me because it is there I see that the battle for AGW is now only being fought by people like JR here who quickly remove any credibility for the cause with every word. The lunatic fringe as it were. It wasn't that long ago that the nonbelievers were considered the crazy ones.

Hey JR tell us about this idiots guide book one more time, I still can't get the joke.

[ding]

Simply having a theory, no matter how complex or plausible does not make it true. I think that a decade into this debate, there must be certain benchmarks that clearly indicate Man is warming Earth. But maybe there is no evidence.

Gravity is a theory. True story.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

—Saul Bellow

[canuckamuck]

Gravity is a theory. True story.

Certainly I can show you some evidence which would make a convincing argument for the existence of gravity. I am only asking for something along those lines for AGW.

[AugustineB]

Thanks Augustine, but I think you misunderstood my request.

I am pretty clear on the theory of warming based on increased C02, what I was hoping for was your best genuine evidence in support of the theory.

Specifically I was looking for observations and evidence that show that Man is perceptibly warming the planet through industrial C02 emissions.

Hi Canuckmuck,

No problem at all - first though Id like to ask you which particular areas you seek evidence for , for example do you wish to see evidence that man is pumping significant quantities of excess co2 into the atmosphere (ie more tha volcanoes etc), or do wish to see evidence that co2 retains heat, that co2 effects methanogens production of methane, that the quantity of co2 man is pumping into the air is sufficient to cause warming, that the world is warming at all or all of the above.

Bear in mind the climate scientists are 90 percent sure that current warming is caused by mans co2 (and ch4 and nitrogen) emission - that leaves a ten percent room for doubt - and this doubt denialists play upon excessively (even such theories as quantum mechanics and evolution have room for doubt) . I will not pretend the science is definite - that would be misleading - but I can show strong evidence in favour - 90 % in favour - then you can decide for yourself if you think the evidence is compelling - Im sure we both agree its in all our interests to get to the truth of the matter and not stubbornly stick to our positions due to pride .

So there you go - tell me which particular type of evidence you want and I will provide it.

[canuckamuck]

Thanks Augustine, but I think you misunderstood my request.

I am pretty clear on the theory of warming based on increased C02, what I was hoping for was your best genuine evidence in support of the theory.

Specifically I was looking for observations and evidence that show that Man is perceptibly warming the planet through industrial C02 emissions.

Hi Canuckmuck,

No problem at all - first though Id like to ask you which particular areas you seek evidence for , for example do you wish to see evidence that man is pumping significant quantities of excess co2 into the atmosphere (ie more tha volcanoes etc), or do wish to see evidence that co2 retains heat, that co2 effects methanogens production of methane, that the quantity of co2 man is pumping into the air is sufficient to cause warming, that the world is warming at all or all of the above.

Bear in mind the climate scientists are 90 percent sure that current warming is caused by mans co2 (and ch4 and nitrogen) emission - that leaves a ten percent room for doubt - and this doubt denialists play upon excessively (even such theories as quantum mechanics and evolution have room for doubt) . I will not pretend the science is definite - that would be misleading - but I can show strong evidence in favour - 90 % in favour - then you can decide for yourself if you think the evidence is compelling - Im sure we both agree its in all our interests to get to the truth of the matter and not stubbornly stick to our positions due to pride .

So there you go - tell me which particular type of evidence you want and I will provide it.

Actually I was asking for observations, not the components of the theory. Where are we seeing this Man made effect?

Surely we can see something by now, after all there is a great deal of doom and gloom projected for the future, at least by the turn of the century. Industrial emissions of CO2 are obviously significantly higher for the last 50 years, so lets have a look at the results, what has occurred? If the last 50 years haven't produced any concrete evidence, why do we fear the next 50 or 100? How high is the ocean now? for example. It is supposed to on the rise, it is supposed to wipe out Bangladesh, among other places. Where's the beef?

[AugustineB]

Actually I was asking for observations, not the components of the theory. Where are we seeing this Man made effect?

Surely we can see something by now, after all there is a great deal of doom and gloom projected for the future, at least by the turn of the century. Industrial emissions of CO2 are obviously significantly higher for the last 50 years, so lets have a look at the results, what has occurred? If the last 50 years haven't produced any concrete evidence, why do we fear the next 50 or 100? How high is the ocean now? for example. It is supposed to on the rise, it is supposed to wipe out Bangladesh, among other places. Where's the beef?

Well heres the ocean levels for the last 130 years :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Some islands are already affected by sea level rise :

Dire climate change predictions may seem like science fiction in many parts of the world. But in the tiny, sea-swept Pacific nation of Tuvalu, the crisis has already arrived.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/world/as....2.5548184.html

Glaciers the world over have been in retreat dispite IPCCs Himalayan glacier fiasco, the fact the rate of melting slowed down was played upon by the media as evidence that they are not melting : this is untrue they are still melting even if they are melting slower in some parts. This issue is further confused by the fact that you may have an areas where 99 glaciers are melting but one is growing. However on the whole they are melting :

Whitechuck_glacier_1973

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...lacier_1973.jpg

Whitechuck_glacier_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whitechu...lacier_2006.jpg

Other glaciers :

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/im...sterglacier.jpg

Most recent report from the world glacier monitoring society reported :

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.5 metres water equivalen

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html

Melting sea ice :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...#zoomed-picture

Now on the issue of ice , global warming causes more water to evaporate from the sea which can mean ironically more snow in northerly latitudes whcih could lead to an increase temporarily in seaice and snow in northern latitudes - this would be grasped as evidence the world is in fact cooling but unfortunately it is only a temporary effect. Warming could also lead to the break down of the gulf stream which would mean Britain could actually get colder while the rest of the world warms - no surprise there.

Then there is evidence form the changing ranges of plants and animals. Different plants and animals can live in different climatic zones and condions. Some examples :

Slash pine forests (Pinus elliottii) in Florida, which are the habitat of the key deer and other endandered/threatened species, are being killed by salt water intrusion by sea level rise and storm surges.

As climates in warmer latitudes become warmer permafrost (literally permanently frozen) melts allowing forests to start moving northwards. Forests have been extending their ranges northwards as have some of the animals that live in them.

Fairbanks (Ala), January 11 2009 - The treeless ecosystem of mosses, lichens, and berry plants is giving way to shrub land and boreal forest. As scientists study the transformation, they are discovering that major warming-related events, including fires and the collapse of slopes due to melting permafrost, are leading to the loss of tundra in the Arctic.

http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/mb_permafrost.html

Also as the permafrost melts and the tundra warms the Tundra releases more Methane as well - a much more potent greenhouse gas.

Do not expect any tidal waves washing over your home tomorrow - its not going to be like the movies and is likely to be something that effects our kids more than us. Sadly increased population + less land = human conflict. Thats not the sort of world I want to leave future generations and is the main reason I take the position I do - I regard the current attck on climate science as politically motivated and entirely designed to protect the profits of oil companies . Are there doubts in the science - of course - the tobacco industry even managed to exploit doubts in the science that linked ciggarettes to lung cancer - imagine what an industry with a thousand times more economic resources can do.......... the answer to that is the true "climategate" the real "hoax of the century" - how an industry managed to mislead the public derail several scientific diciplines just to protect their own profits.

Well this is all I have time for now - please dont hesitate to ask if you have any more queries .

Edited March 20, 2010 by AugustineB

[RickBradford]

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is one of the greatest - if not the greatest - sea level experts in the world today. He has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. He actually goes out and measures what happens as opposed to sitting in his office playing with computers.

"There is no change," says Mörner. "Sea level is not changing in any way."

"There is absolutely no sea-level rise in Tuvalu," Mörner insists. "There is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh."

"We do not need to fear sea-level rise," says Mörner. "(But) we should have a fear of those people who fooled us."

When the Maldives government played the victim card by holding a cabinet meeting underwater to dramatize sea level issues (and to try and secure billions of dollars of Western guilt money), Mörner felt obliged to write them an open letter and tell them not to be so silly.

And, much as I welcome the tone of civility which has returned to this debate, I have to point out the dangers of relying on The Guardian or Wikipedia as reliable sources on information on which to base arguments.

The Guardian, England's version of Pravda, has for many years been banging the Leftist and AGW drum without even a token regard for balance.

William Connolley, a leading member of Michael Mann's RealClimate web site, and an activist for the Green Party, has created or rewritten over 5,000 unique Wikipedia articles and removed a further 500, so that the site reflects the "proper" stance on climate change and environmentalism in general.

[canuckamuck]

Well Rick beat me to it, I was going to post something similar about sea rise. I think that when the top hydrologist in the field says there is no rise, one has to wonder where those estimates of twenty cm come from. There is lots of evidence to show the seas aren't rising, outside of tectonic movement, but Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner says it best; considering measuring sea levels was his life's work.

[ding]

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is one of the greatest - if not the greatest - sea level experts in the world today. He has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. He actually goes out and measures what happens as opposed to sitting in his office playing with computers.

"There is no change," says Mörner. "Sea level is not changing in any way."

"There is absolutely no sea-level rise in Tuvalu," Mörner insists. "There is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh."

"We do not need to fear sea-level rise," says Mörner. "(But) we should have a fear of those people who fooled us."

When the Maldives government played the victim card by holding a cabinet meeting underwater to dramatize sea level issues (and to try and secure billions of dollars of Western guilt money), Mörner felt obliged to write them an open letter and tell them not to be so silly.

And, much as I welcome the tone of civility which has returned to this debate, I have to point out the dangers of relying on The Guardian or Wikipedia as reliable sources on information on which to base arguments.

The Guardian, England's version of Pravda, has for many years been banging the Leftist and AGW drum without even a token regard for balance.

William Connolley, a leading member of Michael Mann's RealClimate web site, and an activist for the Green Party, has created or rewritten over 5,000 unique Wikipedia articles and removed a further 500, so that the site reflects the "proper" stance on climate change and environmentalism in general.

That's complete and utter trash. Disproved into the dirt, the lot. Go back to calling us names please, it's more direct. I see now that it's true -pointless to the point of good sport:lol: