Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[eliotness]

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

Yes I did. I asked what peer reviewed scientific Modelling you have on the amount of population reduction is required to stabilise GW. Very important to remember eliot I base my opinions on credible peer reviewed studies / research so no Opinion Editorial rubbish from Murdoch's WSJ or Woman's Weekly. I have little to no patients with stupidity.

I did read an article based on agricultural, economic, environmental Modelling that indicated a +8^OC increase in Global Temperatures would only be able to support a population of 750M people. So if we did nothing about GW then the population would be forcibly cut by 90%. 7.3B down to 0.75B by the end of the Century.

Not sure exactly how it could be done because you are going to have to start reducing now. No children for the current generation, shut down manufacturing, bulldoze suburbs as they become vacant, disconnect power infrastructure, relocate cities. Not sure how you would go about it but just off the top of my head say reduction of 3.5 Billion people over the next 40 years maybe and begin shutting down manufacturing and infrastructure.

There is a study here but it seems to need limiting the GW to +2^OC by the end of the Century using renewable energy then a slow decline in population growth over 300 years.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

If you were to just use a decrease in population what would the modelling look like? How many and how quickly?

So you've just admitted that you have no qualifications or work experience in any environmental, especially climate, science. You are an avid reader of selective information on the internet. You called me stupid, rather insulting as you sir have no idea of my qualifications and experience. I could enlighten you but I feel sinking to your level is rather below me.

As for the earth's population, are you so blind as to what's happening that you need "computer modelling" to make any choices. As someone said earlier re computer modelling "bullshit in, bullshit out" Oh I could comment further,but to argue with idiots is to fall down to their level, so I'm bored and possibly "out of here".

I didn't say I didn't have any qualifications just haven't done any research on reducing Earth's population to nullify GW / CC. Nor did I say you were stupid. I simply have no time for the stupidity of Murdoch's WSJ Opinion Editorial because when you actually chase down the facts it always turns out to be a load of BS. You may as well read the Woman's Weekly.

I am just asking what you base your view that reducing the Global population to address GW / CC. What reduction in population would be required, what time frame is involved? There is some mathematical calculations on the Paper I linked too but that seems to include a mixture of renewable energy limiting GW to 2^OC, reducing peoples Carbon usage combined with a gradual decline of population over some 400 year time frame.

It seems to be your pet project to address GW / CC so I assumed you had read up on it and had an understanding of the process required. I have an open mind if you have some scientific research on the issue on how it can be achieved I will be interested to read it. No need to get upset I am just asking.

I'm bored !

[up2u2]

So Steven, you think both Rick and I are not credible. So pray tell what qualifications and work experience do you have to make such a sweeping statement. I notice your mate up2u2 refused to reply to a similar question. Also like him are you a denier of the unsustainable birth rate too ?

With the overwhelming evidence pointing elsewhere no, you're not credible.

I don't recall anybody denying the birthrate is sustainable. But that in itself is already a deflection, to which I will not further respond.

2

Anyone with a brain knows that an unsustainable birthrate is the core of any environmental problems, from pollution, man-made effect on climate, food supply, deforestation, regional conflicts etc etc etc. That sir is not a deflection it is the foundation that needs to be addressed now, not in 300 years as your mate sugests.

But of course both of you continue to decline any mention of any (internationally recognised) qualifications and work experience you may have. Says it all really !

So what is the reduction in population required and over what time frame to eliminate GW / CC? The 300 years is quoted in the Paper I linked too but that has included limiting GW too +2^OC and reducing peoples Carbon footprint.

Currently the global population is 7.3 Billion so what does the population have to be reduced too and what time frame is involved?

It is your idea I am just asking for some detail on how it can be achieved.

[eliotness]

So Steven, you think both Rick and I are not credible. So pray tell what qualifications and work experience do you have to make such a sweeping statement. I notice your mate up2u2 refused to reply to a similar question. Also like him are you a denier of the unsustainable birth rate too ?

With the overwhelming evidence pointing elsewhere no, you're not credible.

I don't recall anybody denying the birthrate is sustainable. But that in itself is already a deflection, to which I will not further respond.

2

Anyone with a brain knows that an unsustainable birthrate is the core of any environmental problems, from pollution, man-made effect on climate, food supply, deforestation, regional conflicts etc etc etc. That sir is not a deflection it is the foundation that needs to be addressed now, not in 300 years as your mate sugests.

But of course both of you continue to decline any mention of any (internationally recognised) qualifications and work experience you may have. Says it all really !

So what is the reduction in population required and over what time frame to eliminate GW / CC? The 300 years is quoted in the Paper I linked too but that has included limiting GW too +2^OC and reducing peoples Carbon footprint.

Currently the global population is 7.3 Billion so what does the population have to be reduced too and what time frame is involved?

It is your idea I am just asking for some detail on how it can be achieved.

You miss quote me sir. Nowhere did I say the earth's population has to be reduced. What I said was the current growth rare of mankind is unsustainable. I have never said I do believe in GW. Climate Change has always happened and THAT ALONE cannot be denied. Exactly what is man's contribution to any current change in the climate is what this thread should be about.

The activities of human population is responsible for significant pollution on this planet, of which greenhouse gases are but one aspect, but Mother Nature contributes too, also significantly, much more than mankind as Climate Change occurred long before we did and even when mankind was just a few million soles living in caves. Birth control is opposed by most of the world's religious groups, who show no sign of facing reality. That is why I say your "the end is nigh" stance on climate will be of no consequence compared to the problems arising from a world population that can't be fed, housed or employed.

I note again, with amusement, that yet again you completely ignore my query as to your qualifications and work experience.

[up2u2]

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

So your position is if any complex science attracts a widely accepted consensus it should be viewed with suspicion. Science cannot be involved in complex issues as the results cannot be verified sufficiently? Once science (or mathematics) progresses past 2+2 = 4 it becomes far to complex to imply any reasonable reliability.

GW / CC is far to extraordinarily complex for anyone to arrive at a consensus it is far to complex with to many variables and chaotic environment?

"......like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it)...."

'or near to it'? Really? What do you come up with:

2+2=?

lol

[up2u2]

You miss quote me sir. Nowhere did I say the earth's population has to be reduced. What I said was the current growth rare of mankind is unsustainable. I have never said I do believe in GW. Climate Change has always happened and THAT ALONE cannot be denied. Exactly what is man's contribution to any current change in the climate is what this thread should be about.The activities of human population is responsible for significant pollution on this planet, of which greenhouse gases are but one aspect, but Mother Nature contributes too, also significantly, much more than mankind as Climate Change occurred long before we did and even when mankind was just a few million soles living in caves. Birth control is opposed by most of the world's religious groups, who show no sign of facing reality. That is why I say your "the end is nigh" stance on climate will be of no consequence compared to the problems arising from a world population that can't be fed, housed or employed.

I note again, with amusement, that yet again you completely ignore my query as to your qualifications and work experience.

So your argument is we are all doomed so what's the point in being concerned with the GW / CC issue.

[eliotness]

You miss quote me sir. Nowhere did I say the earth's population has to be reduced. What I said was the current growth rare of mankind is unsustainable. I have never said I do believe in GW. Climate Change has always happened and THAT ALONE cannot be denied. Exactly what is man's contribution to any current change in the climate is what this thread should be about.

The activities of human population is responsible for significant pollution on this planet, of which greenhouse gases are but one aspect, but Mother Nature contributes too, also significantly, much more than mankind as Climate Change occurred long before we did and even when mankind was just a few million soles living in caves. Birth control is opposed by most of the world's religious groups, who show no sign of facing reality. That is why I say your "the end is nigh" stance on climate will be of no consequence compared to the problems arising from a world population that can't be fed, housed or employed.

I note again, with amusement, that yet again you completely ignore my query as to your qualifications and work experience.

So your argument is we are all doomed so what's the point in being concerned with the GW / CC issue.

Sorry you misunderstand me. Dealing with pollution should concern us all NOW, immediately and forever in the future. I believe, from experience, that gases that may possibly be contributing to a change in the current earth's climate are just one, albeit quite important, facet of the problem.

Man has over the centuries developed technologies that have made sustaining a larger population possible, from crop rotation, mechanised farming, electrical equipment, pesticides etc etc. Whilst I believe the current technologies are unable to sustain the current growth rate, that does not mean in the future technologies will be developed that may support a greater increase in birthrate. Changes in means of propulsion of personal transport are only a tiny bit of the overall pollution problem.

So no I don't think "we are all doomed", but we must not continue to breed as though it was still 1815, while we develop new technologies (not possible to put a timescale on that) and reduce pollution in ALL its manifestations.

As for reducing the population, well apart from a few politicians, bankers and lawyers, I don't think that is an option, although saying that several regimes in the 20th century tried and ISIS seems to be making an attempt.

[up2u2]

Sorry you misunderstand me. Dealing with pollution should concern us all NOW, immediately and forever in the future. I believe, from experience, that gases that may possibly be contributing to a change in the current earth's climate are just one, albeit quite important, facet of the problem.

Man has over the centuries developed technologies that have made sustaining a larger population possible, from crop rotation, mechanised farming, electrical equipment, pesticides etc etc. Whilst I believe the current technologies are unable to sustain the current growth rate, that does not mean in the future technologies will be developed that may support a greater increase in birthrate. Changes in means of propulsion of personal transport are only a tiny bit of the overall pollution problem.

So no I don't think "we are all doomed", but we must not continue to breed as though it was still 1815, while we develop new technologies (not possible to put a timescale on that) and reduce pollution in ALL its manifestations.

As for reducing the population, well apart from a few politicians, bankers and lawyers, I don't think that is an option, although saying that several regimes in the 20th century tried and ISIS seems to be making an attempt.

'should', 'I believe', 'may possibly', 'may', 'I don't think', 'tiny bit'

So kick back put your feet up and that 'should', 'I believe' 'tiny bit' and 'may possibly sought ALL the issues out.

Ok I got it.

I feel better already.

Edited October 10, 2015 by up2u2

[eliotness]

Sorry you misunderstand me. Dealing with pollution should concern us all NOW, immediately and forever in the future. I believe, from experience, that gases that may possibly be contributing to a change in the current earth's climate are just one, albeit quite important, facet of the problem.

Man has over the centuries developed technologies that have made sustaining a larger population possible, from crop rotation, mechanised farming, electrical equipment, pesticides etc etc. Whilst I believe the current technologies are unable to sustain the current growth rate, that does not mean in the future technologies will be developed that may support a greater increase in birthrate. Changes in means of propulsion of personal transport are only a tiny bit of the overall pollution problem.

So no I don't think "we are all doomed", but we must not continue to breed as though it was still 1815, while we develop new technologies (not possible to put a timescale on that) and reduce pollution in ALL its manifestations.

As for reducing the population, well apart from a few politicians, bankers and lawyers, I don't think that is an option, although saying that several regimes in the 20th century tried and ISIS seems to be making an attempt.

'should', 'I believe', 'may possibly', 'may', 'I don't think', 'tiny bit'

So kick back put your feet up and that 'should', 'I believe' 'tiny bit' and 'may possibly sought ALL the issues out.

Ok I got it.

I feel better already.

Sir, I was trying to be reasonable and use words that would facilitate further debate. You however wish no debate and rather like the Pope think your arguments are infallible and not open to debate. Furthermore you STILL have not mentioned what internationally recognised qualifications and work experience you have achieved that make you THE expert on this matter. At this point I shall rest my case.

Edited October 10, 2015 by eliotness

[up2u2]

Sir, I was trying to be reasonable and use words that would facilitate further debate. You however wish no debate and rather like the Pope think your arguments are not open to debate. Furthermore you STILL have not mentioned what internationally recognised qualifications and work experience you have achieved that make you THE expert on this matter. At this point I shall rest my case.

Seems to be an opinion editorial based on 'should', 'may possibly', 'I believe', 'may' and 'tiny bit' so not a great deal to debate.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[eliotness]

Up2u2, I am not an alarmist, therefore I stated "pollution should concern us all". Why do you have a problem with that ? Some people are lucky and live in places where pollution is not a concern, but with many others it has a constant effect.

After over 30 years in environmental management, I have a hard earned right "to believe".

I am not convinced that man made climate change is a fact, therefore I said "may possibly". I am not a denier, just not 100% convinced and your posts are not helping to convince me any further.

So what part of technology development do you think will definitely allow an increased birth rate ? I haven't got a crystal ball, but human ingenuity is a wonderful thing, which is why I said "may", trying to be an optimist rather than a pessimist. Do you not understand the reasoning behind that ?

Personal transport is a difficult one because of the pollution experienced in big cities. However the pollution caused by public and commercial transport is much worse. If you've ever considered what a full "life cycle analysis" of the various forms of transport would show then you would appreciate why I said "a tiny bit of the overall pollution problem". Just think about the environmental damage caused by building railways in the first place. In the UK the last steel mill making railway lines closed years ago, so now all the replacement track is manufactured in India. Try putting a carbon footprint on that. Railway sleepers were originally made from a tropical hard-wood, rain forest depletion. Now made from reinforced concrete, again a huge carbon footprint.

And finally I hate being told what to believe, I make my judgement on my experience.

[up2u2]

I am not convinced that man made climate change is a fact, therefore I said "may possibly". I am not a denier, just not 100% convinced

What would convince you?

[eliotness]

I have seen some of the worst pollution in the world and know the effects of pollution of the last 2 centuries. I am convinced that mankind needs to do more to address pollution, a lot more. I know the effect of pollution on fauna and flora, so I guess it would be naive to say that the atmospheric discharges will not effect the localised weather and eventually the earth's climate.

The problem is how to quantify man's contribution to any changes in the climate. Certainly politicians have from Rio onwards come out with all the right phrases, but so little real action has happened and I expect, unfortunately, the same result from Paris. Shifting production and associated pollution to other parts of the world is not a solution, neither was "carbon credits". However I am certain that the current increase rate of the human population will easily nullify any token gestures that come out of Paris. Thus we have 2 interlinked problems that need to be addressed, but the problem of pollution, although massive, would be relatively easy to solve compared to asking people to limit the size of their families and facing the wrath of various religious groups.

So what to do ? Nothing should and cannot be an option. Try to reduce pollution, in all its facets, reduce fossil fuels usage (but do genuine LIFE CYCLE ANALYSES of any proposed alternative power sources), strive for even more efficiency in electrical equipment, make sure your car/motorbike is serviced regularly, reduce wasteful packaging (especially plastic) and a host of other things, but they need to be done worldwide, with the heaviest burden on the worst polluters (try and get that through the UN !)

From my experience trying to get people to change their lifestyles will be the most difficult problem and unless the rise in sea levels cause massive flooding worldwide and the Gulf Stream suddenly stops bringing Polar type winter weather to Western Europe, unless there is massive crop failures and millions starving, then and only then will people think about change. That unfortunately how people work. How to introduce sensible family planning I cannot answer. China tried for a while but seems to be relaxing the rules recently. It is more of a religious

and cultural issue, so 99.994% impossible to solve.

But, and it's a big BUT can mankind reverse any change in the earth's climate ? I regret to say with the present bunch of politicians and the lifestyle expectancy of so many people, not a cat in hells chance. So the scientists better come up with some fancy technology soon to help us cope with a changing climate.

[up2u2]

".....I am not convinced that man made climate change is a fact, therefore I said "may possibly". I am not a denier, just not 100% convinced...."

".... it would be naive to say that the atmospheric discharges will not effect the localised weather and eventually the earth's climate....."

?

[thaibeachlovers]

The CIA report of 1974 was not justified simply as it was based on issues that had no scientific evidence or scientific consensus at the time.

Having read the report in its entirety, I can safely that that statement is, to use your own phrase, "absolute bunkum".

There was plenty of scientific evidence adduced, dozens of scientific publications cited, mechanisms and climate models invoked, and a National Climate Plan (for the US) was mooted, with input from the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This happened in concert with the Conclusion of the report, which read, in part: "Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems around 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."

They had evidence, they had plausible mechanisms, and they came to the wrong conclusions.

Recent research has shown conclusively that the the majority of the scientific consensus and scientific evidence for a short period during the early 70's was focused on Global Warming NOT Global Cooling. Were there reports of possible Global Cooling? Yes. Were those views dominant? No. If you did some basic research on the topic of Global Cooling early 70's you would know this.

Overall during the early 70's the scientific community came to the correct conclusion and that was Global Warming was the more realistic view as they are today based on the overwhelming scientific evidence and scientific consensus.

Your argument is back to front because here is what your CIA analogy is attempting to purport:

Today the scientific consensus on Global Warming is 99.994% you are arguing that because there is a 0.006% rejection of Global Warming the science should be rejected.

You would also be attempting to argue that because ONE study out of 17,000 studies reject Global Warming the science on Global warming should be rejected.

If there is ONE dissenting voice of ANY description on GW / CC then the entire scientific evidence and consensus should be scrapped.

It is a nonsense position.

We are all still waiting, waiting, waiting for your scientific community to come up with a viable plan to reverse the effects of GW. Given that they have not, and do not even look like coming up with a plan I'm pickin' that they have no solutions that would work.

NB windmills, solar panels and extra taxes will not solve the problem.

PS Given that not one of them points to overpopulation as the major cause of GW I scorn them.

[stevenl]

".....I am not convinced that man made climate change is a fact, therefore I said "may possibly". I am not a denier, just not 100% convinced...."

".... it would be naive to say that the atmospheric discharges will not effect the localised weather and eventually the earth's climate....."

?

I am a bit confused as well, he seems to be changing his position.

[up2u2]

We are all still waiting, waiting, waiting for your scientific community to come up with a viable plan to reverse the effects of GW. Given that they have not, and do not even look like coming up with a plan I'm pickin' that they have no solutions that would work.

NB windmills, solar panels and extra taxes will not solve the problem.

PS Given that not one of them points to overpopulation as the major cause of GW I scorn them.

Correct a mill to grind grain driven by wind will not solve the GW / CC problem.

So solar power and taxes are excluded what are the solutions you have seen that would be effective.

What mechanisms can be put in place to address overpopulation?

[eliotness]

".....I am not convinced that man made climate change is a fact, therefore I said "may possibly". I am not a denier, just not 100% convinced...."

".... it would be naive to say that the atmospheric discharges will not effect the localised weather and eventually the earth's climate....."

?

I am a bit confused as well, he seems to be changing his position.

No, but maybe the debate has evolved,

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

Yes I am certain man's generation of pollution is damaging the earth. To restrict that to just one aspect however, i.e. CO2 generation is simplistic. As an aside, which group of scientists thought firstly of putting organic Lead in petrol, which was proven to cause brain damage and then decided to replace it with benzene, a well known carcinogen with a huge "global warming" potential.

To attempt to blame man's contribution to the current climate and any changes in the future, whist ignoring changes that occurred in the past is again simplistic. To quantify man's contribution is hugely difficult and appears from several posters to be based on computer modelling. That is not as definitive a process as some would like us to believe. Therefore any interpretation of the data should be open to debate.

Any pollution is wrong. Some pollution is however unavoidable. The aim must be to reduce pollution, whether of the air, water or soil, to manageable and/or acceptable levels.

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the earth's atmosphere. Life on earth could not exist, in a form we recognise, without the presence of CO2.

Whilst the climatology scientists have raised many good and factual points, it is apparent that this has been taken up by a very nasty group of anti-capitalists as something to bash the establishment with. The Corporate Establishment has attempted to counter this, but by giving the likes of Marsha Blackburn a stage they degrade their argument. This radical politicisation of the argument makes sensible debate almost impossible. Not blaming just one side.

It is easy to state a problem, the difficulty is defining a workable solution. If GW is man-made then solutions need to be stated by its proponents, clearly, loudly (so even politicians can understand) and not to be perceived as anti-capitalist, imperialistic, racialist, anti one religion or another. Hugely difficult problem.

There is also a danger of being thought to "cry wolf" too often. I've been in that situation several times in my career. The wolves did come eventually, but in the meantimes my warnings were ignored.

Finally Up2u2 asked what would actually convince me that man-made global warming is actually happening. Without wishing to state an oxymoron, I am a sympathetic sceptic. What would however convince me and put me firmly in the GW camp is if the Pope and other religious leaders stated that "they got it wrong" in the past and for the sake of the planet everyone should practice family planning to limit the number of children produced. One can dream, but that ain't going to happen, ever !!!

[up2u2]

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

[canuckamuck]

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups.

[up2u2]

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups.

So how do you know climates have always changed? What 'temperature records', 'basic statistics', 'ancient ones' are you referring too? What records say climate constantly changes? Who actually says 'change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it a different case and difficult to prove?

[eliotness]

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

Written history shows that in different parts of the world the climate was very different than now. Never heard of the fertile crescent ? In Roman times North Africa was fertile. In the Viking period Greenland was actually green and they farmed the land. In Victorian times the River Thames froze over, just a few examples. You don't need science to prove that.

It is not "the same science that is used to confirm GW". Please, Climate Change has always happened, hotter and cooler. These records were written by people who were there at the time, long before computer modelling. Are you suggesting there is scientific proof that the earth's climate has been stable until the industrial revolution, when massive CO2 emissions commenced ?

[canuckamuck]

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups.

So how do you know climates have always changed? What 'temperature records', 'basic statistics', 'ancient ones' are you referring too? What records say climate constantly changes? Who actually says 'change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it a different case and difficult to prove?

Let's do it this way, find me a temperature record of reasonable statistical length that shows climate doesn't change. And no thanks to anymore straw men, this thread has enough.

Edited October 11, 2015 by canuckamuck

[up2u2]

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

Written history shows that in different parts of the world the climate was very different than now. Never heard of the fertile crescent ? In Roman times North Africa was fertile. In the Viking period Greenland was actually green and they farmed the land. In Victorian times the River Thames froze over, just a few examples. You don't need science to prove that.

It is not "the same science that is used to confirm GW". Please, Climate Change has always happened, hotter and cooler. These records were written by people who were there at the time, long before computer modelling. Are you suggesting there is scientific proof that the earth's climate has been stable until the industrial revolution, when massive CO2 emissions commenced ?

What 'written history' are you referring too?

'Roman times', 'Greenland', 'North Africa', 'River Thames' what 'written history'?

"....These records were written by people who were there at the time...."

Written by what people where?

I am not suggesting anything I am just asking how you know climates have always changed.

[up2u2]

So how do you know climates have always changed? What 'temperature records', 'basic statistics', 'ancient ones' are you referring too? What records say climate constantly changes? Who actually says 'change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it a different case and difficult to prove?

Let's do it this way, find me a temperature record of reasonable statistical length that shows climate doesn't change. And no thanks to anymore straw men, this thread has enough.

You are the one making the statement 'climates change' do you have a temperature record that shows this? What records do you have that shows climates constantly change?

[eliotness]

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

Written history shows that in different parts of the world the climate was very different than now. Never heard of the fertile crescent ? In Roman times North Africa was fertile. In the Viking period Greenland was actually green and they farmed the land. In Victorian times the River Thames froze over, just a few examples. You don't need science to prove that.

It is not "the same science that is used to confirm GW". Please, Climate Change has always happened, hotter and cooler. These records were written by people who were there at the time, long before computer modelling. Are you suggesting there is scientific proof that the earth's climate has been stable until the industrial revolution, when massive CO2 emissions commenced ?

What 'written history' are you referring too?

'Roman times', 'Greenland', 'North Africa', 'River Thames' what 'written history'?

"....These records were written by people who were there at the time...."

Written by what people where?

I am not suggesting anything I am just asking how you know climates have always changed.

Sorry, but I think I have replied to your comments enough. At one point I actually thought we had become involved in a sensible debate, however you recently appear to be just being provocative for the sake of it. Whatever turns you on my friend, but you have just put a huge question mark over your previous logic. So be it. I do not feel the urge to reply to you any further.

[up2u2]

Written history shows that in different parts of the world the climate was very different than now. Never heard of the fertile crescent ? In Roman times North Africa was fertile. In the Viking period Greenland was actually green and they farmed the land. In Victorian times the River Thames froze over, just a few examples. You don't need science to prove that.

It is not "the same science that is used to confirm GW". Please, Climate Change has always happened, hotter and cooler. These records were written by people who were there at the time, long before computer modelling. Are you suggesting there is scientific proof that the earth's climate has been stable until the industrial revolution, when massive CO2 emissions commenced ?

What 'written history' are you referring too?

'Roman times', 'Greenland', 'North Africa', 'River Thames' what 'written history'?

"....These records were written by people who were there at the time...."

Written by what people where?

I am not suggesting anything I am just asking how you know climates have always changed.

Sorry, but I think I have replied to your comments enough. At one point I actually thought we had become involved in a sensible debate, however you recently appear to be just being provocative for the sake of it. Whatever turns you on my friend, but you have just put a huge question mark over your previous logic. So be it. I do not feel the urge to reply to you any further.

Is that because you can't actually site the records or provide information on how you know climates have always changed. You seem to make a lot of statements and not be able to provide how you have arrived at these statements.

You say climates have always changed yet cannot show how you know this? I thought that was a pretty simple question.

You say 'written history of people who were there' what people and where were they?

[canuckamuck]

So how do you know climates have always changed? What 'temperature records', 'basic statistics', 'ancient ones' are you referring too? What records say climate constantly changes? Who actually says 'change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it a different case and difficult to prove?

Let's do it this way, find me a temperature record of reasonable statistical length that shows climate doesn't change. And no thanks to anymore straw men, this thread has enough.

You are the one making the statement 'climates change' do you have a temperature record that shows this? What records do you have that shows climates constantly change?

Why don't I just ask you? You wish to be seen as some kind of climate expert.

Up2U2, has the climate frequently changed over the course of Earth's history?

[up2u2]

Why don't I just ask you? You wish to be seen as some kind of climate expert.

Up2U2, has the climate frequently changed over the course of Earth's history?

Because I am not the one making the statements you are:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What 'temperature record'? what 'basic statistics'? what 'record says the climate constantly changes'?

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it 'altogether different' and 'difficult to prove'?

If you make these statements they must be based on something. Surely?

[canuckamuck]

Why don't I just ask you? You wish to be seen as some kind of climate expert.

Up2U2, has the climate frequently changed over the course of Earth's history?

Because I am not the one making the statements you are:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What 'temperature record'? what 'basic statistics'? what 'record says the climate constantly changes'?

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it 'altogether different' and 'difficult to prove'?

If you make these statements they must be based on something. Surely?

From a five second search on Google, a Wikipedia snippet. Not that Wiki is a reliable source, but let's move this along and see what cunning plan you are baiting me into. Could it be that once I accept anything scientific, then I must accept everything from the same source?

From Wikipedia:

On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Gradual changes in Earth's climate of this kind have been frequent during the Earth's 4500 million year existence and most often are attributed to changes in the configuration of continents and ocean sea ways.

Edited October 11, 2015 by canuckamuck