Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[F430murci]

If environmentalist are wrong, we wasted a lot of time, money and effort.

If big oil is wrong, future generations will live in a a completely jacked up situation that may look a lot like Harbin China did today and no way of undoing the damage.

If environmentalists are wrong they have already condemned millions of people from developing countries to death and hardship, along with damaging or destroying the world's industrial base.

Haha, that is just stupid. No one is being condemned to death. Breathe in, breathe out, relax. It's gonna be okay.

We have technology for hybrid and electric cars. What is so bad about those. What's so horrible about Fisker, Telsa and Porsche 918? I am the worst when it comes to gas consumption, but I have to admit I am certainly found of that 918.

If you were serious about the environment, you would be driving a 110cc scooter (my normal family transport), not a hybrid car which takes 10x more of the worlds resources to create than a normal petrol car and uses 3x the fuel of my scooter.

I don't give a dam_n about the environment, but suspect I am still more environmentally friendly (aka tight with money) than most numbnuts who spout this environmental rubbish.

I already said pages back that I am the worst offender. I am selfish, I make money investing in oil and I apparently do not care enough about the environment to make any real changes. I, however, cannot deny there is a serious problem brewing. Look how short of a time it took us to jack things up so bad. Check out the pictures of Harbin China today.

My wife is much more environmentally friendly than I and I get extremely annoyed by her recycling. Perhaps one day I will pull my head out of my arse and stop being so selfish.

[MJP]

Yes, sadly there is no alternative apart from a 3-4 week train journey. Not coming over is not an option, I have two children here.

You surely fly too, no?

I do try to minimise energy consumption and this has as much to do with economics as the environment, probably more so.

Edited October 22, 2013 by MJP

[francescoassisi]

Bleaching of coral is well documented and understood. There has been some good news recently on some corals' recovery rates, but the temperatures and conditions that cause this and subsequent death of the corals is quite well established. Therefore if certain changes occur, climate change or otherwise the effects on existing coral reefs are undisputed.

Edited October 22, 2013 by francescoassisi

[francescoassisi]

^^^

Did you ever read the story about the boy who cried "wolf!"?

People get wise to the charlatans who constantly cry "apocalypse" in pursuit of their personal agendas. And of course one mustn't forget that all those in the IPCC and the ragtag minions hanging on their coattails would be out of a job if 'global warming / climate change / global cooling' (or whatever it will morph into when the next predictions don't materialise) ceases to be an issue. That's a powerful motivation to keep the gravy train rolling.

And I don't believe I indulged in any "conspiratorial theories, as hominem attacks and stereotyping" as you put it.

When organisations lie and cheat and manipulate the figures, it's no wonder that all but the gullible dismiss their exhortations to don sackcloth and ashes to avert the alleged impending armageddon.

Well I guess a good dose of paranoia is for some easier than getting informed on the issues. Doesn't do it for me though.

[francescoassisi]

If environmentalist are wrong, we wasted a lot of time, money and effort.

If big oil is wrong, future generations will live in a a completely jacked up situation that may look a lot like Harbin China did today and no way of undoing the damage.

If environmentalists are wrong they have already condemned millions of people from developing countries to death and hardship, along with damaging or destroying the world's industrial base.

Haha, that is just stupid. No one is being condemned to death. Breathe in, breathe out, relax. It's gonna be okay.

We have technology for hybrid and electric cars. What is so bad about those. What's so horrible about Fisker, Telsa and Porsche 918? I am the worst when it comes to gas consumption, but I have to admit I am certainly found of that 918.

If you were serious about the environment, you would be driving a 110cc scooter (my normal family transport), not a hybrid car which takes 10x more of the worlds resources to create than a normal petrol car and uses 3x the fuel of my scooter.

I don't give a dam_n about the environment, but suspect I am still more environmentally friendly (aka tight with money) than most numbnuts who spout this environmental rubbish.

Every post this person does makes me gasp as he displays more and more his lack of understanding of any of the issues connected with MMCC yet he still voices an "opinion" which of course in reality it isn't.

[FiftyTwo]

Yes, sadly there is no alternative apart from a 3-4 week train journey. Not coming over is not an option, I have two children here.

You surely fly too, no?

I do try to minimise energy consumption and this has as much to do with economics as the environment, probably more so.

2 return flights in 5 years (one internal, 1 long haul), but then I'm not claiming to be an environmentalist and you are.

I don't use air-con either.

Edited October 22, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[isawasnake]

@F430murci

Haha, I guess the folks at NOAA have it all wrong or are they also part of the conspiracy?

What conspiracy would that be?

The same one that 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are all part of.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Edited October 22, 2013 by isawasnake

[MJP]

Yes, sadly there is no alternative apart from a 3-4 week train journey. Not coming over is not an option, I have two children here.

You surely fly too, no?

I do try to minimise energy consumption and this has as much to do with economics as the environment, probably more so.

2 return flights in 5 years (one internal, 1 long haul), but then I'm not claiming to be an environmentalist and you are.

I don't use air-con either.

Same, same flights and no air-con.

I'm not claiming to be an environmentalist, it's just good housekeeping and home economics really. I do not like waste and unnecessary consumption and try to engineer for optimum efficiency where practicable.

I just mentioned that there were many things you can do to improve efficiency and remapping your diesel car is an easy and interesting one which shows quite good results (doesn't work well with petrol cars by the way). Whether you do this for reasons of environmental concern or economic self-interest is down to the individual.

I still recommend watching the documentary Chasing Ice. It is interesting. Personally I have no clue whether climate change is even happening as I'm not a researcher in that area. I do know how to clean up brownfield sites and that's about it.

Edited October 22, 2013 by MJP

[F430murci]

@F430murci

Haha, I guess the folks at NOAA have it all wrong or are they also part of the conspiracy?

What conspiracy would that be?

The same one that 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are all part of.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Whoa, that is quiet a list!

Edited October 22, 2013 by F430murci

[canuckamuck]

If environmentalist are wrong, we wasted a lot of time, money and effort.

If big oil is wrong, future generations will live in a a completely jacked up situation that may look a lot like Harbin China did today and no way of undoing the damage.

If environmentalists are wrong they have already condemned millions of people from developing countries to death and hardship, along with damaging or destroying the world's industrial base.

Haha, that is just stupid. No one is being condemned to death. Breathe in, breathe out, relax. It's gonna be okay.

We have technology for hybrid and electric cars. What is so bad about those. What's so horrible about Fisker, Telsa and Porsche 918? I am the worst when it comes to gas consumption, but I have to admit I am certainly found of that 918.

Yes there is already a program to get a Porsche or Tesla to every starving child in Africa. It's a golden age. Sadly the countries involved are being denied the power plants needed to charge them - they require fossil fuels.

[RickBradford]

@F430murci

Haha, I guess the folks at NOAA have it all wrong or are they also part of the conspiracy?

What conspiracy would that be?

The same one that 97% of the climate scientists, NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are all part of.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Whoa, that is quiet a list!

It sure is -- the evidence has always suggested that establishment climate scientists are so hapless that they would have trouble organizing a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a worldwide conspiracy.

[F430murci]

If environmentalist are wrong, we wasted a lot of time, money and effort.

If big oil is wrong, future generations will live in a a completely jacked up situation that may look a lot like Harbin China did today and no way of undoing the damage.

If environmentalists are wrong they have already condemned millions of people from developing countries to death and hardship, along with damaging or destroying the world's industrial base.

Haha, that is just stupid. No one is being condemned to death. Breathe in, breathe out, relax. It's gonna be okay.

We have technology for hybrid and electric cars. What is so bad about those. What's so horrible about Fisker, Telsa and Porsche 918? I am the worst when it comes to gas consumption, but I have to admit I am certainly found of that 918.

Yes there is already a program to get a Porsche or Tesla to every starving child in Africa. It's a golden age. Sadly the countries involved are being denied the power plants needed to charge them - they require fossil fuels.

Just had to play the starving African children card in response to a loght bearted post. Unfortunately, they may be hungrier and hotter soon if what some are saying is true.

Is that true that African countries are not being allowed to build power plants

[F430murci]

Kind of a sad story and somewhat in line with what we are talking about. This guy basically says the ocean is dead and looks like a dump. He said it was completely different than what he experienced doing same voyage 10 years ago.

-----

The ocean is broken

Exactly 10 years before, when Newcastle yachtsman Ivan Macfadyen had sailed exactly the same course from Melbourne to Osaka, all he'd had to do to catch a fish from the ocean between Brisbane and Japan was throw out a baited line.

"There was not one of the 28 days on that portion of the trip when we didn't catch a good-sized fish to cook up and eat with some rice," Macfadyen recalled.

But this time, on that whole long leg of sea journey, the total catch was two.

No fish. No birds. Hardly a sign of life at all.

. . .

"We were weaving around these pieces of debris. It was like sailing through a garbage tip.

"Below decks you were constantly hearing things hitting against the hull, and you were constantly afraid of hitting something really big. As it was, the hull was scratched and dented all over the place from bits and pieces we never saw."

Plastic was ubiquitous. Bottles, bags and every kind of throwaway domestic item you can imagine, from broken chairs to dustpans, toys and utensils.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/

[boomerangutang]

The scientific data and first-hand observations which back-up human-exacerbated climate change keeps coming in daily. It's only a wrong-headed conspiracy for those relative few who are determined to deny it. Their reasons may vary, but there's probably a significant % of deniers who are involved with fossil fuel biz in one form or another. It the reason was simply hating to see money wasted (as they claim is happening by scientists studying climate change/trends), then consider how there's a heck of a lot more money wasted on other large projects. Granted, two wrongs don't make a right, but come on, that's rather thin ice to be skating on - to use 'money wasting' (if, indeed, it's a big problem) as a the reason to completely disagree with what most climate scientists observe and concur about.

Edited October 22, 2013 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

Kind of a sad story and somewhat in line with what we are talking about. This guy basically says the ocean is dead and looks like a dump. He said it was completely different than what he experienced doing same voyage 10 years ago.

-----

The ocean is broken

Exactly 10 years before, when Newcastle yachtsman Ivan Macfadyen had sailed exactly the same course from Melbourne to Osaka, all he'd had to do to catch a fish from the ocean between Brisbane and Japan was throw out a baited line.

"There was not one of the 28 days on that portion of the trip when we didn't catch a good-sized fish to cook up and eat with some rice," Macfadyen recalled.

But this time, on that whole long leg of sea journey, the total catch was two.

No fish. No birds. Hardly a sign of life at all.

. . .

"We were weaving around these pieces of debris. It was like sailing through a garbage tip.

"Below decks you were constantly hearing things hitting against the hull, and you were constantly afraid of hitting something really big. As it was, the hull was scratched and dented all over the place from bits and pieces we never saw."

Plastic was ubiquitous. Bottles, bags and every kind of throwaway domestic item you can imagine, from broken chairs to dustpans, toys and utensils.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/

Yes, such sad stories are cropping up at all sorts of places. Jacques Cousteau, way back in the 1960's, mentioned how, while diving in supposedly pristine waters in the Arctic, he observed indications of oil and bits of trash floating around.

In the past 10 years, I've floated 6 hours down a medium sized river in northernmost Thailand. Each time in a different home-made raft. From Taton to Chiang Rai, guess how much wildlife I observed? A few birds, a water snake, that's it. I didn't go fishing, but I didn't see one indication of fish, and locals don't fish the river. Yesterday I was in a Burmese border town which is opposite a Thai border town of Mai Sai. The river is flooded and brown (same color as all Asian rivers outside of the Himalayas), and not a square meter of its surface, didn't have some trash floating on it.

[FiftyTwo]

In the past 10 years, I've floated 6 hours down a medium sized river in northernmost Thailand. Each time in a different home-made raft. From Taton to Chiang Rai, guess how much wildlife I observed? A few birds, a water snake, that's it. I didn't go fishing, but I didn't see one indication of fish, and locals don't fish the river. Yesterday I was in a Burmese border town which is opposite a Thai border town of Mai Sai. The river is flooded and brown (same color as all Asian rivers outside of the Himalayas), and not a square meter of its surface, didn't have some trash floating on it.

I don't think Asians throwing rubbish in their rivers and countryside can be considered an indication that global warming is real.

[MJP]

In the past 10 years, I've floated 6 hours down a medium sized river in northernmost Thailand. Each time in a different home-made raft. From Taton to Chiang Rai, guess how much wildlife I observed? A few birds, a water snake, that's it. I didn't go fishing, but I didn't see one indication of fish, and locals don't fish the river. Yesterday I was in a Burmese border town which is opposite a Thai border town of Mai Sai. The river is flooded and brown (same color as all Asian rivers outside of the Himalayas), and not a square meter of its surface, didn't have some trash floating on it.

I don't think Asians throwing rubbish in their rivers and countryside can be considered an indication that global warming is real.

No, but it's a good example of the externalized costs of economic growth which is essentially what man made climate change is, should it actually exist.

I know, I'm reaching here.

[canuckamuck]

Yes there is already a program to get a Porsche or Tesla to every starving child in Africa. It's a golden age. Sadly the countries involved are being denied the power plants needed to charge them - they require fossil fuels.

Just had to play the starving African children card in response to a loght bearted post. Unfortunately, they may be hungrier and hotter soon if what some are saying is true.

Is that true that African countries are not being allowed to build power plants

Sorry, I was trying for a little return humor there.

[F430murci]

Yes there is already a program to get a Porsche or Tesla to every starving child in Africa. It's a golden age. Sadly the countries involved are being denied the power plants needed to charge them - they require fossil fuels.

Just had to play the starving African children card in response to a loght bearted post. Unfortunately, they may be hungrier and hotter soon if what some are saying is true.

Is that true that African countries are not being allowed to build power plants

Sorry, I was trying for a little return humor there.

It's all good. Was kind of funny!

[RickBradford]

The scientific data and first-hand observations which back-up human-exacerbated climate change keeps coming in daily.

You make it sound as though fellows like Dr Michael 'Piltdown' Mann spend their days hacking their way through the impenetrable jungle, thermometer in one hand, rain gauge in the other.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll lay an even bet that Mann has never taken a temperature other than his own.

The key 'first-hand observations' which underpin 'consensus' climate science were made by two Russian scientists named Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov in the high Arctic, and some companion studies in Sweden and northern Mongolia. Michael Mann would sooner gargle battery acid than visit places like that.

The data is then sent back to Mann et al, in their air-conditioned university offices, with their computers, their R programs and their Twitter accounts, where they graph the impending destruction of human civilization by CO2.

They don't use all the data, only selected bits. Indeed, Mann's colleague Keith 'Lonesome Pine' Briffa created his graph of impending doom principally from a single tree, known as YAD 061.

They then glue together their models, and present them to a waiting world as 'settled science'.

Of course, if they had instead published the 'first-hand observations', a rather different picture would have emerged.

But that wouldn't have fitted the narrative at all.

So, I would agree that 'first-hand observations' are a good way to do science. A pity that climate science didn't do more of it.

Edited October 23, 2013 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

The scientific data and first-hand observations which back-up human-exacerbated climate change keeps coming in daily.

You make it sound as though fellows like Dr Michael 'Piltdown' Mann spend their days hacking their way through the impenetrable jungle, thermometer in one hand, rain gauge in the other.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll lay an even bet that Mann has never taken a temperature other than his own.

The key 'first-hand observations' which underpin 'consensus' climate science were made by two Russian scientists named Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov in the high Arctic, and some companion studies in Sweden and northern Mongolia. Michael Mann would sooner gargle battery acid than visit places like that.

The data is then sent back to Mann et al, in their air-conditioned university offices, with their computers, their R programs and their Twitter accounts, where they graph the impending destruction of human civilization by CO2.

They don't use all the data, only selected bits. Indeed, Mann's colleague Keith 'Lonesome Pine' Briffa created his graph of impending doom principally from a single tree, known as YAD 061.

They then glue together their models, and present them to a waiting world as 'settled science'.

Of course, if they had instead published the 'first-hand observations', a rather different picture would have emerged.

But that wouldn't have fitted the narrative at all.

So, I would agree that 'first-hand observations' are a good way to do science. A pity that climate science didn't do more of it.

So, you've found a bogey man named Mr. Mann.

To me, scientists with certificates are just one major part of the dynamic. Perhaps as important are first-hand accounts of people who reside and work/play in areas of concern. Such folks, within or near the Arctic circle, at the base of glaciers, etc. have very interesting observations which, when taken together, attest to global warming - at greater degrees (pun intended) than would be happening naturally - as if we're coming out of a mini ice age, as some claim.

[RickBradford]

as if we're coming out of a mini ice age, as some claim.

As some claim?

How quaint. You cite the important role of 'first-hand accounts of people who reside and work/play in areas of concern', and then in the next sentence dismiss the first-hand accounts of millions of people who lived through the Little Ice Age -- frost fairs in London (1607-1814), the destruction of Swiss villages by encroaching glaciers, the freezing of the Bosphorus and New York harbour, famines in France, Norway, Sweden which killed around 10% of the population, serious damage to Chinese agriculture and a host of other impeccably documented events.

[boomerangutang]

as if we're coming out of a mini ice age, as some claim.

As some claim?

How quaint. You cite the important role of 'first-hand accounts of people who reside and work/play in areas of concern', and then in the next sentence dismiss the first-hand accounts of millions of people who lived through the Little Ice Age -- frost fairs in London (1607-1814), the destruction of Swiss villages by encroaching glaciers, the freezing of the Bosphorus and New York harbour, famines in France, Norway, Sweden which killed around 10% of the population, serious damage to Chinese agriculture and a host of other impeccably documented events.

If you choose to find fault, it's easy to do - particularly if you want others to describe things using your exact prescribed words. It harkens to the "repeat after me" admonitions of Bible thumpers.

[Scott]

Please keep the discussion on topic and civil.

[canuckamuck]

The scientific data and first-hand observations which back-up human-exacerbated climate change keeps coming in daily.

You make it sound as though fellows like Dr Michael 'Piltdown' Mann spend their days hacking their way through the impenetrable jungle, thermometer in one hand, rain gauge in the other.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll lay an even bet that Mann has never taken a temperature other than his own.

The key 'first-hand observations' which underpin 'consensus' climate science were made by two Russian scientists named Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov in the high Arctic, and some companion studies in Sweden and northern Mongolia. Michael Mann would sooner gargle battery acid than visit places like that.

The data is then sent back to Mann et al, in their air-conditioned university offices, with their computers, their R programs and their Twitter accounts, where they graph the impending destruction of human civilization by CO2.

They don't use all the data, only selected bits. Indeed, Mann's colleague Keith 'Lonesome Pine' Briffa created his graph of impending doom principally from a single tree, known as YAD 061.

They then glue together their models, and present them to a waiting world as 'settled science'.

Of course, if they had instead published the 'first-hand observations', a rather different picture would have emerged.

But that wouldn't have fitted the narrative at all.

So, I would agree that 'first-hand observations' are a good way to do science. A pity that climate science didn't do more of it.

So, you've found a bogey man named Mr. Mann.

To me, scientists with certificates are just one major part of the dynamic. Perhaps as important are first-hand accounts of people who reside and work/play in areas of concern. Such folks, within or near the Arctic circle, at the base of glaciers, etc. have very interesting observations which, when taken together, attest to global warming - at greater degrees (pun intended) than would be happening naturally - as if we're coming out of a mini ice age, as some claim.

But what good are these first hand local accounts anyways if you are trying to determine if climate change is man made or natural. All that can be determined by observation, even with extraordinary images as seen in the Chasing Ice movie, is the fact that things are warmer then they were 100 or 200 years ago. It says nothing about causation. Can you imagine what kind of Chasing Ice movie you could make if you went back in time to record the end of a major ice age. Can you imagine how much ice was calving off in those days?

Everybody is trying to prove man is warming the climate by giving examples of things seen. But none of things would have been any different the last time the planet warmed up. This is what warming looks like. It does not show the cause. In fact what it really shows is that everything is normal.

Edited October 23, 2013 by canuckamuck

[boomerangutang]

The scientific data and first-hand observations which back-up human-exacerbated climate change keeps coming in daily.

You make it sound as though fellows like Dr Michael 'Piltdown' Mann spend their days hacking their way through the impenetrable jungle, thermometer in one hand, rain gauge in the other.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll lay an even bet that Mann has never taken a temperature other than his own.

The key 'first-hand observations' which underpin 'consensus' climate science were made by two Russian scientists named Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov in the high Arctic, and some companion studies in Sweden and northern Mongolia. Michael Mann would sooner gargle battery acid than visit places like that.

The data is then sent back to Mann et al, in their air-conditioned university offices, with their computers, their R programs and their Twitter accounts, where they graph the impending destruction of human civilization by CO2.

They don't use all the data, only selected bits. Indeed, Mann's colleague Keith 'Lonesome Pine' Briffa created his graph of impending doom principally from a single tree, known as YAD 061.

They then glue together their models, and present them to a waiting world as 'settled science'.

Of course, if they had instead published the 'first-hand observations', a rather different picture would have emerged.

But that wouldn't have fitted the narrative at all.

So, I would agree that 'first-hand observations' are a good way to do science. A pity that climate science didn't do more of it.

So, you've found a bogey man named Mr. Mann.

To me, scientists with certificates are just one major part of the dynamic. Perhaps as important are first-hand accounts of people who reside and work/play in areas of concern. Such folks, within or near the Arctic circle, at the base of glaciers, etc. have very interesting observations which, when taken together, attest to global warming - at greater degrees (pun intended) than would be happening naturally - as if we're coming out of a mini ice age, as some claim.

But what good are these first hand local accounts anyways if you are trying to determine if climate change is man made or natural. All that can be determined by observation, even with extraordinary images as seen in the Chasing Ice movie, is the fact that things are warmer then they were 100 or 200 years ago. It says nothing about causation. Can you imagine what kind of Chasing Ice movie you could make if you went back in time to record the end of a major ice age. Can you imagine how much ice was calving off in those days?

Everybody is trying to prove man is warming the climate by giving examples of things seen. But none of things would have been any different the last time the planet warmed up. This is what warming looks like. It does not show the cause. In fact what it really shows is that everything is normal.

Have you seen satellite photos of (or landscape photos to or from) large cities? If so, you've seen the yellow and/or grayish smog obscuring them. That's not natural. Do you agree CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'? If not, then we don't need to discuss these things. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, though about 1/8 as effective as methane (another factor in all this). As any schoolkid can tell you, CO2 is released in vast quantities each day by human activities - their machines, power plants, etc. Even man-made dams emit significant amounts of CO2, particularly when water rushes out.

[thaibeachlovers]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

It's just as realistic to say that CO2 is increased by warming as to say that it causes it. No one really knows. It could be caused by cosmic rays for all the scientists know for sure.

Perhaps they will tax the current bush fires in Australia and the US for producing excessive CO2!

BTW, there was a time last century when scientists were encouraging fossil fuel use to slow down the onset of the expected global cooling.

Whatever, always remember that whatever happens, the planet will be fine, it's only bad for us.

[lounger]

One year increasing ice cap is not a trend.in fact the much larger ice cap last year was still below the average size.

You/I read the reports and are still no wiser....

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

addendum to above post:
We're not saying CO2 is unnatural, by any means. It's the degree it's being released in the atmosphere that's significant. Of course, the planet has historically been going through thousands of cycles of warming and cooling - that's not the issue. The issue is the relative fast pace of warming currently, and ominous indications of that increasing in the near future. The cooling blip of the OP may be a trend, but most climate scientists wouldn't agree. Instead, they would say the trend is toward increasing warming.

Now that humans have commandeered the planet, slight increases in average temperatures are a big deal. As you've heard, a few degrees can spell doom for many coastal cities, and the stark scenarios go on and on. Personally, I'm not alarmed. For me, less people overall, means a chance for the planet and its other species to get closer to the equilibrium of earlier times. The planet has been overpopulated for 200 years. People are living on landfills and in city sewers and worse. If you want to see one future scenario of where cities could be headed, google; Hong Kong's 'Walled City.' Or, if you want to see one sort of scenario which takes place when there are too many people in a finite space, check out the history of Rapanui (a.k.a. Easter Island) or take a close look at the Middle East or North Africa or Central Africa or parts of China. It's not a pretty picture, and destined to get worse. GW is just one factor among many - which spells added misery for humans in the near future.

I just heard a radio report on NPR.org which spoke about a new pathogen which responds to no antibiotics, and it broke out wildly in one of the US's cleanest clinics - lasting months. Yet another of the hundreds of imbalances which stem from too many people. source

[RickBradford]

GW is just one factor among many - which spells added misery for humans in the near future.

I completely agree.

What I take exception to is the way that our political overlords have essentially focused on GW to the exclusion of so many other problems, in a ruinous way, because 'saving the planet' feeds their vanity, makes a lot of their friends in the crony capitalism sphere extremely wealthy, and enables them to feel powerful by telling everyone else how to behave.

GW may well be a problem in the future (though recent studies suggest that on current trends it will be of net benefit until at least 2080), but one thing is certain; imposing carbon taxes and mandating an immediate shift to renewable energy is economic suicide, and utterly pointless to boot (in terms of preventing or delaying GW).

The Danish environmentalist and economist Bjørn Lomborg asked eight of the world's leading economic experts this question in 2008: "Imagine you had $75bn to donate to worthwhile causes. What would you do, and where should we start?"

They answered:

1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) (Malnutrition)

2 The Doha development agenda (Trade)

3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) (Malnutrition)

4 Expanded immunization coverage for children (Diseases)

..

14 R&D in low-carbon energy technologies (Global Warming)

...

29 R&D and mitigation (Global Warming)

30 Mitigation only (Global Warming)

It's not that Lomborg doesn't believe in dangerous climate change -- he does.

"Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."

He just thinks we're going about it the wrong way. In essence, he wants to separate the Marxism from the mathematics and find an equitable way forward.