Return to the Fruit & Orchards Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
The Climate Change Thread

Posted by canadianplant (My Page) on
Fri, Sep 6, 13 at 8:50

THis topic ALWAYS comes up, and I have not seen a legitimate thread here for this topic.

THere seems to be some debate (mostly from americans in my expeience) that climate change/global warming is not man made, or at least influenced by our way of life.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the scientific community does not deny this, or deny our activities are influencing the climate. Every few months there is more date being shown which explains our role.

Every lifeform on this planet influences climate. From squirrels planting trees, to cicada mass birth and death influencing soil fertility. This also goes along with natural climate fluctuations due to the earth axis, sun activity and geological features.

The last ice age was caused by the tilt of the earth axis. The PETM was caused by run away warming enabled from geological movement, and unlocking frozen methane deposits, causing the ocean floor to reach 20C (about 60F). The cretaceous was a time of great climate upheaval due to the indian subcontinent slamming into asia, and the rise of the rocky mountains, causing the inland sea in NA to drain. Well before that, there was the greatest exinction event at the end of the permian. There was a 95% extinction rate due to a basalt eruption which turned most of siberia into a giant volcano. This again caused methane deposits to melt quick causing a massive die off and warming.

Now there are some similarities between climate upheavals. Extinctions, less or more precipitation, dry land turning wet, and vice versa, "permanent" ice melting and fluctuating as well as rising water levels.

Now lets look at the present....

Humans have cut down roughly half the worlds forests, and they are now either a prarie/savannah type habitat, farmland or cities. The vast majority of forests are now secondary growth, which do not absorb and process C02 levels as well as primary forest. A good portion of the "filter" is gone due strictly our activities.

There is also the obvious correlation between our population rise and the use of fossil fuels, and recorded temp rises. These days out Co2 emissions are going hand and hand with directly measured co2 levels.

This is when I usually hear people scream (co2 was higher in the past, whats the danger?). Well the last times CO2 levels went up this fast, they melted methane deposits in the oceans creating even more warming, faster. Once methane starts to melt (like it has) there is almost no stopping the warming trend. Carbon 14 (methane) is something like 10 times more effective as a greenhouse gas. Before the rise of oxygen, it is thought methane warmed the planet billions of years ago before the rise of photosynthetic organisms like cyanobacteria or stalagtites.

Has the planet seen worse run away climate change in the past without human influence? Of course. Does this mean its impossible for us to influence and even change the climate? No, because the signs are already there.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I think you should probably tie this in with having a home orchard to make this thread relevant to the forum.

There's actually been lots of discussion here on this topic, with the majority seemingly strongly on the side of believing in human derived climate change.

I think it is the entourage of the American energy lobby that is the original source for much of the "controversy"- making villains of scientists in the process.

Americans tend to be extremely suspicious of intellectuals, unlike most citizens of the industrialized world. We are, after all, a nation originally formed primarily by religious fanatics. Don't want to face any ideas that counter our magical belief system. (Oh so cynical of me, possibly pompous and obviously a very subjective interpretation- my apologies to anyone insulted). We might just hate intellectual types because they were better than us at school.

Currently climate change is being discussed on the thread about organic rules. Olpea does an excellent job of providing a very clear and logical explanation of human derived climate change near the end of the thread.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Harvestman said: I think you should probably tie this in with having a home orchard to make this thread relevant to the forum.

Please, please, please, please!


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Nice thread! What confuses me is that the planet Mars temps are also higher. Also the historic record does not support the current theory. It shows co2 increases follow high temps, not the other way around.
Sunspot activity is at an 8000 year low. Some predict a mini ice age from it. The recent cooling trend in the upper atmosphere is also confusing.
"Has the planet seen worse run away climate change in the past without human influence? Of course. Does this mean its impossible for us to influence and even change the climate? No, because the signs are already there.
"

I would have to disagree. Even those who say we are causing it, do admit we cannot change it. We are way egocentric in thinking we can influence this is any meaningful way. China is going to do what it wants no matter what the western world says. They now produce more co2 than the USA.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-WARMING-WORLD-China-about-to-pass-U-S-as-2644115.php

What really irks me too, is if you read these articles they conclude that we are causing global warming, whereas it is just an unproven theory currently. No proof that co2 is causing this has ever been presented. Water vapor is considered a greenhouse gas, could not that be causing it?
Again show me proof, at this point it is still just a theory.
Sure most believe it is true, but consensus is not proof.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

  • Posted by ericwi Dane County WI (My Page) on
    Fri, Sep 6, 13 at 10:11

At Shark Bay, on the west coast of Australia, there are living stromatolites that can be seen growing on the floor of the bay, in shallow water. These green plants were once dominant on planet earth, until the appearance of grazing animals that regarded algae as a food source. I am guessing that the OP meant to say stromatolites, instead of stalagtites.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"Does this mean its impossible for us to influence and even change the climate? No, because the signs are already there." Your argument does not follow common sense. If man's actions have influenced climate change in the past, it follows that man's actions in the future can influence climate change.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Who knows what happens. Nothing is written in stone. We have a very low solar period coming up, so we'll see what happens with that.

In the end it doesn't matter, because we'll burn everything. We'll burn as much oil as we can get out of the ground, as much natural gas, as much coal... Then we may turn to the forests. With an ever growing population, its not going to be pretty.

Grow as much as you can, teach others how to grow...


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

HM - I think its inevitable for this to go towards orchards or at least plants in general. It will effect the "bread belt" and growing regions. I believe wine growing regions in france have already changed to some degree.

Drew - Check this out: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/hothouse-earth/kunzig-text

There are many cases where we have changed the climate. My area is one, where the first survey called the drying and warming of the bay due to urban expantion. Clear cutting forests changes weather patterns and influences climate in other areas (the butterfly effect). Personally I think seedling clouds may have something to do with it as well.

Of course it isnt as simple as man releases gases, the climate changes. There are many variables at play. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the most likely cause is industry, deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. Its unfortunate that I cannot paste a bunch of links on here, because there is a plethora of charts and data online from legit sources showing correlations between out rise in population- the rise of industry - Co2 emmisions.

Of course in science you cannot claim such things with semi anecdotal evidence of course. Most climatologists use geological evidence from ice cores from past warming events, as well data from rock strata and tree rings. On the other hand, us clear cutting forests, and replacing them with monoculture farms does not help. There is lots of evidence of agricultural run of causing dead zones in lakes due to low oxygen (due to phosphorus), causing cyanobacterial blooms.

Let me see if i can get a decent grouping of links. I hope they dont get too broken on here.

Eric - Yes, I meant stromatolites. There are fossilized stromatolites around here, from a billion years ago or so. Funny to think the evolution of these is thought to have caused the destruction of the pre oxygen bacteria almost to extinction! Thanks for the correction.

Charlie - We influence the climate on a wide scale now. To some degree we did in the past (say, the plains natives burning the prairie to create grasslands for buffalo, or the rise of the iron age stripping a major portion of europe of its forests, to what has been called " the greatest tree felling in human history", when the settlers, spanish and english came to NA. One single thing we do wont change the climate, but things we have done over out history, more so now of course have definitely changed the climate.

OF course, the real question is whether our influence has actually caused this change, has influenced it, or made it much more profound. I do not think any scientist will flat out say we have changed the climate, but there is a definite consensus that we are influencing the climate. Its also a question if that influence is playing against said solar low, the earth axis tilt and geological forces.

There is no argument that the climate is changing though. You can blame fox news for anyone saying other wise.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I agree with Franktank, we can argue till the mountains turn to lava but CO2 emissions from humans will continue to increase as China and the rest of Asia embraces the consumerist utopia we have tantalized them with.

In every developed nation it starts with industrialization and the wealth produced devolves into consumerism where each citizen's consumption of energy multiplies.

If the developed world can't come to a truly meaningful agreement and plan at this point how will the developing world do so in the next half century as they play catch up.

I'm sure that when the sea water drowns NYC and I'm growing mangoes in the hills of southern NY the deniers will be blaming it on sun spots. However, if my yard gets buried by a glacier, I promise to admit my mistake.

Good luck to anyone who hopes to change minds by rational discussion of this issue.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I musta missed franks response...

I see it more like, we will burn and burn until we find another cheaper more efficient methods of fuel. Its our mistake to build practically our entire modern society on one source of fuel (fossil fuels, namely oil but of course coal and petroleum products). I dont like seeing people becoming less self sufficiant and relying on further and further away places to dictate your personal well being.

Frank is right, grow as much as you can and teach others to do the same. I have more then 120 species in a 15 x 80 foot space, including 13 trees. Lawns in many places tend to take up too much resources like water and fertilizer in much of the US.

I think we can all agree that we should be trying to grow some of our own food with a focus on diversity and variety.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

deleted duplicate

This post was edited by mes111 on Fri, Sep 6, 13 at 15:09


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

deleted duplicate

This post was edited by mes111 on Fri, Sep 6, 13 at 15:07


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canadian;
At first you put forth a position for a discussion that could be held in a reasonable and reasoned way - even by people who were on opposite sides.

You said "There is no argument that the climate is changing though." Ok.... I don't disagree, but climate is always changing and ours has been WARMING for 12,000 years.

What you haven't proved is that any warming or acceleration is due human actions.

As to the "plethora of charts and data online from legit sources", do those "legit" sources also include the "respected" scientists and academics who changed or omitted the recorded/observed data when it did not confirm their "pre-conceived" idea of what the answer SHOULD be???? .

Does it include temperature measuring stations that were re-installed in the same spot - after a black asphalt parking lot had been built where the station had been previously when it was a wooded lot???.

All of these (and more) questions did not make me lose respect for you or your position.

HOWEVER... then... you just could not hold back the religious-like fervor with which you hold your position. A religious fervor which convinces you that those who do not hold your view are either evil or stupid and therefore it is ok to try to marginalize them.

You let it slip when you said... __"You can blame fox news (sic.) for anyone saying other wise"___

PLEASE... tell me what the $#*% does fox news(sic.) have to do with this?.

What is it about Fox News that would make a listener someone you would denigrate?

I recently heard that the difference between the "progressive/ liberal/green" and the conservative mindset is that the conservative thinks that the progressive/liberal is wrong and can be convinced, but, that the progressive thinks that the conservative is evil. Apparently, psychologically, this gives the progressive his self justification to do all the denigrating and name calling and belittling to try to win the day when he does not have the facts.

A lawyer once joked to me that when the law is on his side he bangs on the law. When the facts are on his side he bangs on the facts. But when neither the law nor the facts are on his side he bangs on the table. You, my friend are banging on the table.

FINALLY... So what if the oceans rise and New York City is now under water (I live in NYC). We will have a new coastline and maybe I will have an ocean view in Purling, NY 12470. So what !!!

New lands which are now dry and arid now will get more rain and we will be growing more crops and more in a longer growing season in Michigan, Wisconsin , Saskatchewan and Manitoba etc.. So what !!!

So populations will move... So What.

The only thing that does not change is that ---- THERE IS ALWAYS CHANGE. We deal with it. We don't whine about it.

PLEASE... LET US JUST STOP THE HYSTERIA !!!!!!!!!!

SO.... Bring on the heat... my fuel bills are too high anyway. And I want to grow oranges and tropical fruits in my zone 5a-b in Purling, New York.

AND... I still have the utmost 100% respect for you and your skills as a gardener and envy your abilities.

Mike
Who does not particularly listen to Fox News more than any other news /talk outlet.



 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Please, let's not talk about the inherent nature of liberals and conservatives or suggest one side is civil while the other is simply hostile. This is just more stereotyping bigotry no matter which side you are doing it to.

I've known all personality types on both sides, thank you very much.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"We have a very low solar period coming up, so we'll see what happens with that."

Frank, what does this mean? You are my weather guru! Mrs. G


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Harvestman...

I would agree with you... however, I think that the inclusion of the reference to Fox in Canadian's followup came __only after__ Drew51 and CharlieBoring posited a point of view that did not coincide 100% with his. Whether it was done consciously or not, it was improperly dismissive and disrespectful of a differing point of view. That is never helpful or conducive to a free-flowing conversation. Furthermore, it has the potential chilling effect on other people's joining the discussion. Who wants to opine at the risk of being dismissed as some sort of inferior non-thinker?.

I think his comment was improper and unbecoming - that is my opinion and I feel strongly about calling it out.

I think that calling this sort of stuff out will serve to expand this conversation on the merits of the actual topic as more may join without fear of personal attacks.

Also Drew51 and BoringCharlie (who might or might not be Fox listeners but nevertheless disagree or G-d forbid question the original premise of the post) can have their point of view considered based on their content and not dismissed out of hand as if whether or not listening to Fox news has any bearing on the validity of what they said.

Also, if this keeps this sort of stuff out of future posts and responses it can't help but improve the exchange of ideas and opinions ___ON GARDENING ISSUES___.

Do you disagree?

Mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Mike, that doesn't cover it. You can't lump in an entire group with the behavior of one member or several or even most whatever your interpretation of the behavior. This is the definition of bigotry, although I'm pretty sure you are no bigot.

Please take your issues up specifically with the one you are offended by without stereotyping the behavior of an entire group.

Rush Lambaug is an angry depressing man with no respect for anyone who disagrees with him. He also seems pretty much without joy. It wouldn't be fair to say the description applies to everyone on the right fringe.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

mes111, you seem rather bothered by the fact that canadian didn't capitalize the F and N in Fox News. When I first read your post I thought you were adding the "sic. [sic]" because he called it "news" when it is really opinion/commentary. Just for correctness sake, the proper usage is "sic" (no period) meaning "thus" as in "sic erat scriptum" (thus it was written). I don't think canandian used lowercase to intimate disrespect. Your hypercorrection and frequent all caps don't help with the attempt to stop the hysteria.

Following what HM said about civility vs. hostility, I recently heard a podcast (can't seem to figure out what it was) talking about a study where both liberals and conservatives were asked to describe each other or to describe how the other would describe them. Both groups basically said the same things. Each thought that the other was out of touch, unthoughtful, uncaring, uneducated, etc. mes111, your comment about wrong & convincible vs. evil can easily be said from the other perspective.

Regarding climate change, the difficult part from the scientific perspective is that we as scientists cannot and should not make definitive claims about things. Science is about trying use observations to form a hypothesis and then designing experiments to disprove the hypothesis. Science is a process and theories are under constant revision and refinement. The bulk of the testing and data that we have gathered thus far point very strongly to the idea that human actions are contributing to and accelerating climate change. Is this proven? No. Is this likely the truth? Yes. People who argue to the contrary do so using belief, fear, distrust, or misunderstanding as their evidence not data. Unfortunately, people arguing this way can use definitive statements and will often use the skepticism inherent in the scientific method as part of their proof that they are correct.

Even if you don't think that our actions have consequences (I'm talking in terms of climate change), what is the great harm that will befall us if we limit our CO2/methane production just in case? Are you worried about it hurting business or giving China an advantage? Isn't that a small price to pay in the off chance you are wrong and we really are making the earth less hospitable?

I think genetic and biodiversity are some of the greatest and most beautiful resources that we have been blessed with. I think we need to be careful that our own actions don't destroy this beauty. There are natural cycles to out environment, and things will change with or without us, but shouldn't we at least try to conserve what we have?

Oh, and growing lots of trees/plants is awesome (my tie-in to home orchards).

This post was edited by sf_rhino on Fri, Sep 6, 13 at 18:22


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

The issue for me is not climate change itself, but the profiteers, kleptocrats, elite, wall street hooligans, fly-by-nighters, etc. who will make out like bandits on carbon trading schemes. After all, the establishment of a carbon trading system is the intended goal of the powers that be, and is being sold as the solution to the "problem". Watch for what they are trying to sell us on any of the mainstream news channels.

Motor fuels, electric service, heating oil, and all other energy sources will be taxed more to "save the earth", making fruit deliveries, production, and tourism (apple picking) more expensive. Electric grid interruptions will become more frequent due to coal plant shutdowns, causing fruit to spoil, among other things.

There is no evidence that a carbon tax will turn the climate around. But the collection of this tax will put an undue burden on us all whilst enriching the few.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Harvestman
I agree with you. Should have emailed Canadian privetly but did not think of it. In retrospect I was using too broad a brush.

Sf:

Actually I did mean sic in the way that that you first thouht. There is a distinction between the news and the commentary departments.

As to man caused global warming I am an agnostic. I think that there are larger things hapenning and if we are a contributing cause I think we could compare ours to a flee on a fly on the ass of an elephant.

As you said our adaptivity will be what saves us. Because I think that the things that we can do, especially with current global conditions, are miniscule if at all.

I don't think we can fix the problem and I think that we will do more damage to ourselves and our way of living by trying.

Hey Canadian .... sorry
Let us grow more and more fruitfull trees . Let us try and fix SWD then I'll work with you on that warming thing.
Mike

Mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Drew, I'm a bit confused by your comment about Mars. Was that meant to be sarcastic? I have to admit that I am a sarcastic person but cannot pick up on sarcasm by others.

Average temp on Earth is about 15C (around 60F), however without the natural greenhouse effect it would be around -20C (around 0F). On Mars the average temp is about -60C (about -80F). The natural greenhouse effect on Mars only increases the surface temp by a few degrees, 5-10C (about 10-20F).

Where you pointing this out because the atmosphere of Mars is almost entirely CO2? If so the discrepancy is due to the atmosphere on Mars being about 100x thinner than ours. The infrared energy radiated from the surface isn't absorbed by the atmosphere to a high degree.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

First off, no apologies needed at all. Its a discussion that touches peoples beliefs, and it gets heated. Also, do not group us all together. We agree and disagree on topics, you learn better through discussion rather then arguments, which is where I was going. The first bit is be trying to be non bias and the latter is my own personal opinion. I tend to play devils advocate, but its nothing to get upset about. We are all here to learn :D

I mentioned fox because it is basically the poster child for bias news. I dont care if its "right" or "left", I care that the information I hear or read is bias and unjustified. I used the example specifically due to its anti global warming.climate change rants ive seen.

I love near minnesota and manitoba. The winters have less snow in many areas here, and faster warmer spring melts. THat isnt good for the land around winnipeg. It isnt good for the great lakes either. The temps fluctuate like mad from year to year here now. Yeah the growing conditions are a bit longer, but that does not mean its a benefit.

Rhino - I think it was you who was worried about writing long posts. Welcome to the thread of long posts lol

It seems common sense to think that business would have secondary interests rather then the environment. A business exists to make money (some do break the mold of course). There has not been a large amount of evidence to support it unfortunately. I have seen some, but not enough to say "yes this is how we know".

Im not saying I disagree with you. Again it would make sense if people were worried that another country would be more profitable then they are, or any business for that matter. We just think in the now. Humans seem to be able to grasp the long term in some cases.

Swampsons - People will try to profit from anything, especially when the familiar way is in danger of changing. We dont like uncertainty.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

The thing that baffles me to some degree is how the validity of human caused climate change became a political issue in the first place. Most issues of a strongly scientific nature we leave to scientists to figure out, realizing that their conclusions are far from infallible but still much more reliable than the guesswork of laymen.

We generally don't wait for 100% consensus from scientists on any given issue before we accept the conclusions of the vast majority of specialists on said issue. That is, we accept that the conclusion is likely true.

Now plenty of mistakes have been made, such as when people gave up butter for margarine and began eating transfats for the sake of heart health based on scientific opinion at the time. However it was scientists who discovered the mistake, not pundits.

Few issues have been more exhaustively studied than climate change by people whose entire lives are devoted to trying to understand cause and affects related to climate.

How is it that the public acceptance or rejection of the findings of these many scientists is strongly based on general political positions that have absolutely nothing to do with this subject?

It seems to me that the variance of the values and belief of liberals and conservatives should have nothing to do with how science is interpreted on the subject of climate change.

It is apparent that there is strong manipulation going on to divide us on this issue for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific interpretation of data.

If 8 out of 10 doctors said I had cancer I'd follow the best course of action to treat that probable cancer and I certainly wouldn't go to my mechanic for an 11th opinion.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

SN has a good point about profiteering on a carbon tax. I personally am in favor of some sort of regulation on carbon production, and a tax or cap & trade system is certainly what I'd go for. But the implementation is where it gets hairy. There are a lot of people looking to line their pockets.

Mike, I think you are underestimating our contribution to things, but that said the planet is pretty adaptable and other non-human forces have pretty big effects. Besides, we obviously can do more harm pouring a quart of oil into a lake than burning it in an engine.

As you said, we shouldn't get so set in our current environmental conditions. If Michigan and Manitoba have longer growing seasons, we'll need to move with the times. The idea of trying to keep nothing from changing really bugs me. We can't and shouldn't try to stop normal shifts in the climate. The problem with human-made climate change is that it is potentially way more abrupt than we can handle.

Greater crop diversity and planting things appropriate to local conditions are smart things we can do to not get bitten in the long run. When rain patterns shift, we should shift where we grow certain crops not pipe in more water.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

The scientific dictatorship should be vigorously opposed. Only human liberty leads to abundance. Carbon trading schemes and carbon taxes serve to shut down industry, leading us into the post-industrial wasteland outlined in the united nations plan called agenda 21.
Science today serves mostly oppressive corporate and state partnerships. These are the entities set to profit, unfortunately. Until science truly serves the common man, it is the tool of tyrants as it always has been. Health care is a good example.
The orchard is an adaptable place, rewarding the both the owner's toil and native wildlife. Perhaps orchards will be eligible for carbon credits. But would you trade your liberty for security? Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Living in Zone 3, I look forward to global warming. There are all kinds of fruits and vegetables I'd like to grow but it's just too cold in the winter for some fruit bushes and trees to survive, or they don't get enough heat in the summer to ripen. Plus I hate winter-driving.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Rhino - I brought up that point in another thread (maybe the one on GMO rice?) It would be easier to adapt to the areas that change, then to adapt the food to it. IF its too dry for rice, why make it a top crop because you used to be able to grow it with ease? I can understand old habits dying hard, but in some cases it seems to be getting to the point of insanity (at least by einstiens definition).

There are areas in which people have no real idea what they can grow, or old stigmas stopping people from trying. Up here there is a stereotype that it is generally "inhospitable" (NW ontario) There are no real large scale farms up here, even though the soil is great and there is land and water (minus the muskag, but is basically free peat). There are some home farmers who grow some fruits, but nothing crazy.

What I try to do is educate myself about the flora around the shores of the great lakes, the ottawa/toronto/montreal corridor, and also minnesota and wisconsin for plants to try. I have learned a lot from people on here about growing in other areas as well.

HM - We all have our bias. I think part of the problem may be that in the situation of say, superstorm sandy, we say it coming. It was in a few days, we could see radar images of it. You could show all the data you want and have the best science behind it, it is not as simple to do the same with climate change. I think many people need to see something other then melting ice caps and ice in greenland before they accept it.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

``Until science truly serves the common man, it is the tool of tyrants as it always has been.``

Just remember, that science is in the medication you take, in the food you eat and in the plastics that make up everything you own. Just because it has been used in a negative way does not mean that it has always been used as such, or even the majority of the time.

Its a tool, and any tool can be used wrong, and for the wrong reasons. It can be influenced just like anything else.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

As a person who studies a great deal of history I cannot believe in global warming. the climate has always been an ebb and flow thing. History has had many previous presentation of the science and all the political pressure on other issues. It has all been done before. read up on "victorian era semen loss" It was the same social-political BS. The catholic church in the 15th century sold indulgences like Al Gore selling carbon credits...

and the big one is read up on Karl Marx and his hate for the industrial revolution and his plan to stop it was scheme exactly like global warming as we know it today, however Marx went with chilling the climate so people would think crops would fail and they would starve... Oh and one more thing, the wikileaks hacks of the leading global warming scientists discussing the fraud they are presenting.

I don't like pollution any more then you, but I don't want to be lied to in order to keep it down.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Sf:

Regarding the Mars temps.

A while ago I read that temps on Mars and I think on Saturn's moons have risen in tandem with ours.

I think that there is a Russian scientist who is saying that the Mars, Saturn and our temp rises are as a result of solar procesees.

But maybe the rise on Mars is as a result of the suv's we have " roving " all over the place. The temp rise corolates with the increase in suv's on Mars (impish grin )

Mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

  • Posted by lkz5ia z5 west iowa (My Page) on
    Fri, Sep 6, 13 at 23:34

I'm the Scatman
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it so can you

Everybody's sayin' that the Scatman stutters
But doesn't ever stutter when he sings
But what you don't know I'm gonna tell you right now
That the stutter and the scat is the same thing
Yo I'm the Scatman

Where's the Scatman? I'm the Scatman

Why should we be pleasin' all the politician heathens
Who would try to change the seasons if the could?
The state of the condition insults my intuitions
And it only makes me crazy and my heart like wood

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you

I'm the Scatman

I hear you all ask 'bout the meaning of scat
Well I'm the professor and all I can tell you is
While you're still sleepin' the saints are still weepin' cause
Things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born
I'm the Scatman

I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody
I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody

I'm the Scatman
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it so can you

Everybody's sayin' that the Scatman stutters
But doesn't ever stutter when he sings
But what you don't know I'm gonna tell you right now
That the stutter and the scat is the same thing
Yo I'm the Scatman

Where's the Scatman? I'm the Scatman

Why should we be pleasin' all the politician heathens
Who would try to change the seasons if the could?
The state of the condition insults my intuitions
And it only makes me crazy and my heart like wood

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you

I'm the Scatman

I hear you all ask 'bout the meaning of scat
Well I'm the professor and all I can tell you is
While you're still sleepin' the saints are still weepin' cause
Things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born
I'm the Scatman

I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody
I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody

I'm the Scatman
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it so can you

Everybody's sayin' that the Scatman stutters
But doesn't ever stutter when he sings
But what you don't know I'm gonna tell you right now
That the stutter and the scat is the same thing
Yo I'm the Scatman

Where's the Scatman? I'm the Scatman

Why should we be pleasin' all the politician heathens
Who would try to change the seasons if the could?
The state of the condition insults my intuitions
And it only makes me crazy and my heart like wood

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you

I'm the Scatman

I hear you all ask 'bout the meaning of scat
Well I'm the professor and all I can tell you is
While you're still sleepin' the saints are still weepin' cause
Things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born
I'm the Scatman

I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody
I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody

I'm the Scatman
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it so can you

Everybody's sayin' that the Scatman stutters
But doesn't ever stutter when he sings
But what you don't know I'm gonna tell you right now
That the stutter and the scat is the same thing
Yo I'm the Scatman

Where's the Scatman? I'm the Scatman

Why should we be pleasin' all the politician heathens
Who would try to change the seasons if the could?
The state of the condition insults my intuitions
And it only makes me crazy and my heart like wood

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you

I'm the Scatman

I hear you all ask 'bout the meaning of scat
Well I'm the professor and all I can tell you is
While you're still sleepin' the saints are still weepin' cause
Things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born
I'm the Scatman

I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody
I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody

I'm the Scatman
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it so can you

Everybody's sayin' that the Scatman stutters
But doesn't ever stutter when he sings
But what you don't know I'm gonna tell you right now
That the stutter and the scat is the same thing
Yo I'm the Scatman

Where's the Scatman? I'm the Scatman

Why should we be pleasin' all the politician heathens
Who would try to change the seasons if the could?
The state of the condition insults my intuitions
And it only makes me crazy and my heart like wood

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you
I'm the Scatman

Everybody stutters one way or the other
So check out my message to you
As a matter of fact don't let nothin' hold you back
If the Scatman can do it brother so can you

I'm the Scatman

I hear you all ask 'bout the meaning of scat
Well I'm the professor and all I can tell you is
While you're still sleepin' the saints are still weepin' cause
Things you call dead haven't yet had the chance to be born
I'm the Scatman

I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody
I'm the Scatman, repeat after me
It's a scoobie, oobie, doobie, scoobie, doobie melody


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Swamps, when you use terms like 'scientific dictatorship' and 'post-industrial wasteland' your argument pushes a bit into the realm of conspiracy theory. I've been a scientist for many years, and for the most part there is pretty widespread disinterest and misinterpretation of science by our elected officials. Oh, and I do actually think orchards can qualify for carbon offsets.

cckw, you are making a similar move with the wikileaks hack comment. I am sure some climate scientists have overstated things, made incorrect claims, misled, and even lied; but that does not mean that the climate change argument is invalid. In science we have a thing called peer review, where people unconnected to our group/company/university/etc. scrutinize our assertions before they can get published (for further scrutiny by the larger community.) Yes, bad data gets published, but as a community one thing that pretty much all scientists love to do is point out other scientists' errors. We love to argue.

HM, I almost said the exact thing before about 8 out of 10 doctors... For whatever reason climate change has gotten very politicized with people on both sides getting a bit fanatic. As soon as people get defensive about their positions, it is hard to change minds either way even in the face of good data.

Canadian, I was thinking about your previous comment about GMO stuff. It is really the least elegant way of responding to any kind of environmental change. I think a lot of the hesitation to change can be overcome. If you look at common crops 50 years ago vs. today, there have been some massive changes. Sadly I think that the economics of farming have limited diversity in that farmers need to grow a limited number of cash crops, usually reinforced through government subsidies. The real change/experimentation will probably come from small farms, university test farms, and backyard growers. In terms of local flora, it is sad how much of that knowledge used to be commonplace but is now so rare.

Mike, I'll look into the Mars thing. I hadn't heard that before, although the argument about climate change is that we are contributing to it to a harmful degree, not that there are no outside causes. Just stochastically, even with no systemic thing going on, one would expect half of the bodies in the solar system to be heating to some degree while half are cooling. It may be cherry picking, but it could be something so I'll go read. My guess about Mars is that it has less to do with SUVs and more to do with Schwarzenegger turning on that alien reactor to make O2.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Sf:

Please report back after you have had a chance to look it up.
Mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

>>I think many people need to see something <<

Earth simply can't sustain this growing population much longer.
Governments "need" to address birth control!


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

On scientific method:

Science never finally 'proves' a theory. A theory is developed and scientists try to disprove it. Thus, human induced global warming cannot be finally proved, it can only be disproved. Until someone does that, it's still our best guess. So, if someone has a disproof of human induced climate change, please direct me to it. Otherwise, I'm going with what my physical senses, my common sense and the majority of scientists tell me. We are responsible for climate change.

On whether or not humans can change the climate:

The earth is littered with civilizations that wrecked their climate and then collapsed. We are next. We've already acidified the oceans.

On Carbon Trading: what a nightmare of bureaucracy!

If people want to reverse climate change, all we need to do is increase organic matter in the world's agricultural soils by 2% and atmospheric co2 will drop to pre-industrial levels.

There are 2 systems that can increase soil carbon rapidly. 1 is agroforestry - the savannah system is the most photosynthesis for land ecosystems. Funny, how orchards are kinda like a savanna, isn't it? But I am talking multi-story savannah food forests - permaculture style.

The other system is something like Allan Savory's Holistic Management. He has shown how you can regenerate degraded grasslands by grazing more cattle, build soil organic matter, trap carbon, restore aquifers all while getting a better yield. See link below.

We have all the solutions, must educate.

Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

This post was edited by yukkuri_kame on Sat, Sep 7, 13 at 4:16


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Not a waste of time, just an idle past time. It's all entertainment.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"I am sure some climate scientists have overstated things, made incorrect claims, misled, and even lied; but that does not mean that the climate change argument is invalid"

No.....but if the argument was valid, was truly as cut and dried as they say they would not have to brain wash the weak minded and they would not HAVE to lie, misrepresent and falsify data. The fact they are is quite telling that it is in fact an agenda not science.

Didn't Al Gore say he wanted climates change to be the same as racism? That even questioning it would be looked on with scorn? Sorry folks but that is not science, that is religion. It is sad how many people just go along and believe whatever they are told. One person states something another repeats it and it is to many at that point a fact. Look at all the garbage that goes around the internet that people forward..not once questioning if it is true.

If you folks want to join the MMGW church be my guest because that is just what it is, a religion. Have faith...believe!!!! Even the terms the church members use such as "deniers!!!!" to belittle those that don't sheepishly fall in to the fold. The church members don't even realize they are doing it.

The real problem is exponential population growth and this is something WE CAN do something about....I wonder just how many of those that scream we are killing the planet have more than one child? Of course if they were truly committed to helping the planet they would have no children at all.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

CCK - since you are a history buff, you understand climate changes role in our society and evolution. Then you should understand that we have not dumped this much CO2 into the atmosphere, deforested like we have on such a large scale, and have not had top soil depletion like we do these days.

ALso, that "leak" you seen, is more then likely emails during the peer reveiw process. It is also generally incomplete data ahead of a larger paper. Mind you, it does seem a bit familiar that some of the information was "leaked" a head of time..

MrClint - LOL

Rhino - I read about other planets heating up with ours, but I dont think it was to the same extent (and really, since were the only planet with a thick atmosphere and ozone, we should be heating up more anyways right?). I do not think the amount of warming is the same. CHeck out NOAA, I think there is some things mentined there.

This is how I see GMO. Im not old enough to experience this, but I think its akin to the late 60s early 70s muscle car era. Just because we could make them bigger and faster doesnt mean we shouldve. Remember how much they changed during the embargo in the 70s? We went fro 440 mustangs to gremlins and datsuns!

The novel Jurassic park makes this point. Just because we can, should we?

I agree the changes will be small farms, urban lots, comunity gardens and large yards. Permaculture can help this, since it can be utilized on 1000 acres, or even a small city lot. Since it is a consumers market, all it takes is us to change how we buy and spend our money. If more people spent money on homegrown food, subsitue farms wont be as viable. It is also the easiest way to get yeild (not from one tree but the system as a whole) as well as diversity.

Konrad - This is where the debate gets heated. There is only one reason our population boomed, and that is due to oil replacing man power and enabling us to grow food faster in saller spaces due to petroleum products. This enabled the medical boom of the early 1900s.

I think if we did things different, we could support the population as it is, but that would mean an almost complete paradigm shift in how we get food and live. The planet is over populated because of HOW we live. Farming takes up an area the size of S america to feed the planet, and add the area of N america we use for cities it seems there is lots of land. Now add the areas for open pit mines, and industry, the land shrinks more.

Allocating farm land should in theory help give more area to nature, which in reality is the best defence we have against any sort of climate or natural disaster - a healthy ecosystem.

Yukeri - Thats the way I tend to see it. The odds are we are influencing the climate, and probably exaggerating an already "normal" warming trend. I see it as seeing a fire, and tossing gas on it.

You do make a great point. any people are guilty of talking of theries as 100% proven (me included), and in the realm of science, the most accepted theory can still be augmented and changed, yet still be the same theory. Evolution is just a theory, but it takes some pretty closed minds to ignore the piles and piles of scientific data across the board which show it to be truth.

The warning sign for me are the confirmed methane plumes in the arctic permafrost and oceans. Methane plumes mean the permafrost is melting and the ocean floor is warming. Every few months there is an article talking about finding such plumes. The last time i remember reading about any real evidence about these was 40 MYA during the PETM, one of the highest run away warming events in our planets history. I dont belive there were plumes during the melting of the glaciers. There MAY have been some during the midievel warming, but I cant remember reading about finding higher methane levels then.

I glad you mentioned permaculture. Many people seem to see it as untidy, unclean. Basically unvictorian. We tend to focus on yeilds of one plant, rather then the whole system. "oh, you only got 3 bushels of apples? well how is that productive, I have 20!" Many people dont realize that on top of that 3 bushels of apples, in the same amount of land you could get pears and plums, herbs, berries and medicine as yeilds. You get a VARIETY of yeilds which is almost an insurance.

I try my hardest to stick to permaculture principles. I am not an expert or certified but I think i understand the concepts enough now to pull it off. Aphids got my toka plum, so no plums, but if my apple and pears were old enough to bear fully, I would have apples and pears. IF i had all plums, the odds are they would all be affected.

Lastly, that link you posted is very intersting...


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Bamboo rabbit - Fortunately, Al gore is not a climate scientist...


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

That is true but he is one of the MMGW religions high priests:)


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

There was a 7 degree difference between the warmest temps of the warming period that began shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire vs the coldest of the little ice age centuries later. There is no historical info of changes in sea level, nor is these any scientific evidence of it.. yet Al Gore and company would have you believe that cities will flood from a 2 degree difference by 2050. Global warming is full of this BS. Furthermore they had to change from "Global warming" to "Climate change" because the warming trend has began to reverse. None of the things they have predicted so far have came true. Just because you don't like pollution does not mean you should be gullible.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"That is true but he is one of the MMGW religions high priests:)"

LOL. You made my day

CCKW - You are also using 2 extremes not the norm. It also may not have been due to CO2 but rather the tilt of the axis and/or solar out put. Those are 2 different types of warming that cause the planet to warm in different ways. This means the planet may have warmed, but ice may not have changed. Its not like the norse in greenland were locked in by ice, the summers got too cold and sea ice in the bays formed too early.

ALso, this point always comes to my mind when people bring up gore, namely "an inconvinient truth". IF he was so hard up on making money off of it, why did he give away copies and donate all money he made from it to environmental charities?

Global warming was coined a long time ago. It was used by edia to explain the warming TREND There are some places where it seems like climate change hasnt effected... yet. There are some glaciers in the himalaya that are growing or sitting steady, but that does not offset the majority shrinking and disappearing.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Al Gore, as always, stands to gain for his promotional work. He did a good job shoving NAFTA and GATT down our throats. Remember him telling Larry King it was a good deal? And Ross Perot telling us about the "giant sucking sound" of all the American jobs being sucked away? Who was right? And who is Al Gore working for? Is he really a vampire, carrying so many blood packets around with him?
Most of us just enjoy working in our orchards. But people like Gore enjoy hurting people. It's in their blood. His company is called Gore and Blood. He is a wealthy oilman who is in this fight to win, and stands to gain of course.
For a situation like this, which is supposedly so dire, we are offered the same old snake oil. More taxes on fuel and a new stock market game of carbon trading.

I keep reading that there are too many people. I don't like where this is going.....


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Plate tectonics theory used to be just a theory, but now we know that is a proven theory, same thing with global warming.... I don't think that GB should be used as a scapegoat to overtax Americans.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

cckw wrote: "Furthermore they had to change from "Global warming" to "Climate change" because the warming trend has began to reverse."

Um...no. Kinda the opposite.

The term 'inadvertent climate modification' preceeded the term 'global warming' because they were not sure exactly what the effects of our changing the composition of the atmosphere were going to be. In 1979 the term 'global warming' came into being and it stuck around because the evidence continued to suggest a rise in global surface temps was the likely outcome.

The terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' are both still in use. They mean different things.

Global warming (rise in surface temps) can simply be considered one symptom of climate change, much as an elevated body temperature can be considered one symptom of having the flu.

As for warming not happening, that is also untrue. Warming continues unabated DESPITE the fact that solar irradiation has been in a low cycle for most of the past decade. We are going to COOK as we solar irradiation peaks over the next 5 years.

Globally, we have had 340 consecutive months of 'above average' temperatures for the 20th century.

2012 was the 10th hottest year on record globally. 2010 was the hottest.

The 10 warmest years on record globally since 1880 all happened from 1998-2012, again despite most of that time having lower solar irradiation.

90% of glaciers are disappearing...faster than predicted.

Polar ice melting faster than predicted. Greenland melting faster than predicted.

And most of the co2 and heat has been absorbed by the ocean, a giant thermal flywheel delaying us feeling the effects.

Fasten your seat belts, folks, this isn't going to be pretty.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Hey swamp, I'm not sure Thomas Jefferson is the final go-to guy for issues defining liberty. His grasp of the subject was a tad myopic.

I'd rather be a slave to a faceless bureaucracy than be a slave to an eccentric white man and rapist (slaves don't get to say no).

However, if the world followed the philosophical lead of TJ instead of Hamilton, the industrial revolution that has led to our current environmental pickle may never have happened and we wouldn't be exchanging our profound silliness on the internet.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Great post Yukerei. Have you been able to find if the axis has changed at all? Thats one piece of info I cant seem to find.

HM - The way I see it is, oil is so versitile, and we have "So much " of it, We used it in everything we make to some extent. The only thing is, when you pick one thing to build your society on, one that resource runs out, or some people ed up cornering the market, its almst impossible to live as we do, since eberything fro fod to medication and out houses are all dependant on oil.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"I'd rather be a slave"

That does sum up quite well those on the left fringe.

Are these the same experts that told us we would have a way above average hurricane season? Tell me how many hurricanes have we had so far this year?

Even if the earth is warming lets see some proof that man is causing it. The earth has warmed and cooled since it formed.

The same scientists predicted in the 1970's we were headed for a new ice age.

The models the church of MMGW has put forth have all been wrong. It is sad really how easily some are fooled in to buying the propaganda.

This post was edited by bamboo_rabbit on Sun, Sep 8, 13 at 10:04


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Nice FY remark Bamboo. Not gonna get in a match with you except to assert that the minute you start stereotyping the entire group on either side of the political spectrum you have entered the realm of bigotry. I already know this sentiment is unappealing to you in your world of heroes and villains and black and white.

Good and bad ideas come from people of all political persuasion, in my opinion, and none of us agree with all good ideas.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

HM,

Your comment was ridiculous and insulting to this nation and her history. I called you on it. Keep your comments centered on the topic.......the church of MMGW and we will have no issues.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

BR, If you read the line of responses you will see that I was responding directly to another comment about TJ representing Liberty.

My comment does not insult American History, unless you believe whitewashing is a compliment and a requirement of true patriotism. I love my country, and my friends warts and all.

Also I didn't insult any other poster by suggesting their remarks are rediculous, which, as you know, violates the rules of the forum. Why do you always believe you get to write the rules in your quest to assert your idea of vigilante.justice?

Please answer that question by e-mail to me, privately.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

HM,

I have no desire to email you. Two wrongs don't make a right.......stay on topic. Stating a fact is not an insult. If you want to make a thread bashing one of the greatest Americans be my guest but this thread is about climate change. Can't you simply confine your responses to that subject?

Tell us what you think the reasons are for all the MMGW cultists falsifying data..or how tell us your feelings on how man made north America tropical so many times in the past. Heck tell us about your pink poodle sweetums if you want but leave out the POLITICS.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Bamboo, then please explain the correlation between oil production and use, population increase and CO2 levels, as well as C14 (carbon 14, or methane). Explain that geological speaking, this type of warming trend has not happened since the end of the last ice age?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Basically, assuming that I believe the doom and doom of climate change/warming/human cause proposition...

I am, not at all, worried about the consequences. Nor has anyone laid out why I should worry of any of its consequences other than the politicians using it as an excuse to suck more wealth and assets from the private sector that created the wealth to the public politician controlled public sector which consumes it inneficiently.

Mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canadian,

Has the earth warmed and cooled thousands of time in the past? Yes.......please explain how that was mans fault since we did not exist yet. Why is mars warming and is that mans fault also?

Using 100 years worth of data which is a blink to try to prove anything is ridiculous.

I am not qualified to answer the questions you asked and I refuse to be a "google expert" as so many are. I bet nobody here is qualified to answer the questions you asked beyond opinions. I could bury you with links showing the earth is cooling while you bury me with links that the earth is warming due to MMGW what is the point in that?

What is wrong with oil???? It is organic after all......oh wait, wrong thread.

If Al Gore and the MMGW cultists get their way it will destroy our economy, is that what you want? Let us try to concentrate on what we know really IS A PROBLEM.....population growth. That is a problem that we can understand and do something about.

This post was edited by bamboo_rabbit on Sun, Sep 8, 13 at 11:56


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

B R, great does not mean without flaws and mentioning verifiable flaws is not bashing. I was raised a Quaker and when TJ was enjoying a lifestyle based on slave labor and fathering children from his slave lover (there is ovewhelming DNA evidence of this) there were Quaker abolitionists working hard to end slavery. Same time period, different political and moral perspectives.

People go off topic on these threads all the time and you rarely intervene unless it's something that counters your politics. I was at least responding to a comment made on the thread I found amusingly parodoxical.

I've already exhausted my supply of commentary about the legitimacy of man made climate change and there are so many better people than you and me to assess the data.

As Franktank has already stated, we will find out soon enough as the oil and coal will be burned up, no matter how we feel about it. Unfortunately history may not be around to asses who was right. If the crap doesn't hit the fan by the time I'm 90 I will eat crow for you if it's possible.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Sun, Sep 8, 13 at 12:11

Re: Allan Savory's Livestock Management

Recently, Allan Savory's lecture has been mentioned a couple of times on this forum as a solution to atmospheric CO2. I thought I'd respond.

I don't agree with the claims Allan Savory makes about his holistic grazing approach. He misstates, exaggerates and sometimes downright misrepresents information.

It's a little bit tough to critique his ideas because the terms he uses are fuzzy. When he's "pinned down" on a misstatement, he finds an out by changing the definition of the term. He also mixes some truth with his exaggerations, again making it difficult for people to sort through his ideas.

Intensive grass management has been around for a long time. Savory wasn't the first to discover it. It's generally considered good management these days because it causes the least erosion and there is some argument it captures the most energy compared to other grazing systems.

The idea is fairly simple. Force a high density of cattle to "mow" the grass, then remove them to allow the grass to recover. This makes the grass stand thicker (just as someone mowing their lawn regularly). Again, there's nothing new about this.

What is new is that Savory claims he can save the planet with this. However, a dessert can not be turned into a fertile grassland by intensive grazing (or by push mowing). It is true intensive grazing followed by recovery will improve the the flora and landscape vs. land currently being overgrazed with no recovery, but this is far different than creating a lush landscape out of empty desert.

From my personal perspective, in Savory's TED lecture, he shows the area where I live as subject to desertification. That's simply not true. In my area, any land allowed to remain idle will turn into a forest, not a desert. This is true for nearly all of the Midwest.

If you read some of his writings, he also states burning prairies causes significant erosion. Again not true in the Midwest. The indians burned prairies for 10,000 years (which kept the area from becoming a forest) and the land remained fairly stable from an erosion standpoint. Prairie grasses are very deep rooted and hold soil well.

He also makes this distinction b/t what he calls "fire dependent" grass plants and "animal dependent" grass plants, claiming "fire dependent" grass plants can't sustain grazing animals. In reality, grazing animals survive quite well on prairie, as evidenced by the millions of buffalo on the plains before 1800.

Even today, the flint hills of KS are burned every year to support cattle on the prairie. Prairie grass doesn't have the protein of other grasses and can't support very high density stocking rates, but it can and does support livestock.

A lot more could be said, but below is an article which offers a cursory critique of Savoy's TED presentation.

I'm not at all against growing and eating beef (whether corn fed or pasture) but Savory's claims are over-the-top.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.html

For a more scholarly evaluation of Savory's holistic management approach to grazing

Here is a link that might be useful: Short Duration Grazing


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Olpea,

While not quite the same it is in parallel to the "experts" that say instead of using oil we should just make fuel out of the switchgrass. Like you can just take take take and it solves all the worlds problems. You can tell none of these people have ever worked the soil or have a clue on how nature works.

It does not matter if we take the grass for fuel or if the cows eat grass to grow their bodies you can't take and not give back. Does not matter if it is the switch grass that is trucked out or the steers it is taking from the soil and the top soil will be depleted little by little. Alternating the fields to graze will not work for long until the ground will be exhausted.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canadian Plant: Yes, axis has moved, just pinch during the 3/11 Daishinsai (great disaster), but I believe that it has moved a meter or more in recent years.

Olpea: thanks for the links, I will definitely check them out and take them into account in looking at Savory's work. I'll also run the criticisms past some of the folks who practice holistic management to see what they have to say.

Bamboo Rabbit: Seeing as you haven't responded to it, I assume you have accepted my argument that the term 'global warming' has not been replaced by 'climate change' due to political expediency or a change in scientific opinion. Yes or no?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

>>I bet nobody here is qualified to answer the questions you asked <<

Agree,
only the the Kings of wisdom, lots to read here

Here is a link that might be useful: Humanity's Impact


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I was watching Iowa PBS today. An ag news show came on that I watch on occasion, they had a guy on who studies historical climate trends. He said in the large climate cycle we are in a several year period of weather extremes.. He also predicted the same conditions that created the dust bowl in the 30's will hit again at about 2025. It comes every 89 years give or take a couple. this is based on 300 years+ of weather documentation. He did not allow anything for global warming or etc. Just past patterns applied to present and it is a correct fit.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Yukkuri,

No I don't agree....I think the bishops in the church of MMGW have in fact knowingly made a decision to change the term from MMGW to MMCC. That way if we have a cold winter it is our fault.....warm summer our fault. The MMGW folks are not dumb....they know that easy to repeat slogans such as "deniers" work best. The term "inadvertent climate modification" does not really roll off the tongue and is hard for the flock to understand. MMGW is easy to remember and it states the problem and who is at fault all in 4 easy words. The problem is the climate was not following their models and what if it gets colder? MMCC is just so much better as no matter what the weather does the blame is clear.

I am a non religious person.....I believe in science......and if they had proof I would be on board but it is not proven....it is a theory and a very weak theory at that. Just because the mass is screaming the world is flat should I believe it is flat? The fact they have to screw with the numbers and falsify data does not help their case.

Not sure why you think the terminology is so important?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Hey guys/gals

Please read and follow the link

A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997.

The original predictions led to billions being invested in green measures to combat the effects of climate change.

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

Agendas anyone???
Mike

Here is a link that might be useful: ARTIC ICEPACK GROWTH N.W. PASSAGE BLOCKED

This post was edited by mes111 on Sun, Sep 8, 13 at 16:30


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

MEss111,
well if you are in a drought and get 1/4" of rain does that mean everythign is OK now?
You keep saying you have not been given a reason for concern...what do you think is going to happen when/if a tipping point is reached and food supplies radically alter for the global population?

BR,
the science is not based on 100 years of data, it is based on 1000's and even 100,000's years of data gathered form multiple sources around the globe:Ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, stalagmites, tree ring analysis and correlation, deep lake anoxic sediments, pollen content analysis, high desert dust drifts...I can go on and on. You drag up a few bad apples who falsified data, and some petty name calling and claim that as disproof of the theory?

I am not a "google expert" I am not an expert of any kind. But I used to do the science. I spent countless hours sorting foraminfera from ocean sediment cores to differentiate species and back correlate that to ocean surface temps. 15 years ago Environmental science was all I did. the more educated I became, the grimmer the picture was so I left the field...just couldn't wake up everyday to fight the losing fight. But since then I have tried to stay current on the research and maintained contact with colleagues who remained in the field. 15 years ago the evidence was fairly convincing...nothing since then has done anything but reinforce the theory.

Unfortunately I agree completely with farnk and harvestman, nothing will change, we are too greedy, self-centered and shortsighted as a species to make the hard choices. We will burn through everything until it is far too late.

I desperately hope I am wrong and that this will prove to be a case where the scientific community really screwed up. It is possible, I am the first to admit the system is so complex that prediction is exceedingly difficult. But you can only work with what you know, and right now everything we know and find continues to support a very grim outlook.

Canada,
as an aside, I think you have some terms confused. c14 is carbon 14 a radioactive isotope of carbon useful in dating organic materials ("Normal" carbon is c12). C4 is sometimes used as shorthand for methane which is a single carbon atom (of either isotope) surrounded by 4 hydrogen atoms

I can't believe I let myself get sucked into this again! Let's be honest no one participating in this discussion is open to changing their position on the issue.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"All diseases are self-limiting", a doctor I knew once told me. And so it will be with the climate. Why should we endure the futility of a carbon tax? If climate change is coming, we ain't gonna stop it.

The church of climatology rears its ugly head every time the weather is bad. When the weather is nice, they are nowhere to be found.

The oil isn't going to run out. Its just gonna cost more. Let's not make it even more expensive by paying al gore a carbon tax. Tar sands and abiotic oil are virtually limitless sources of oil. Plenty of coal out there too for conversion into diesel or propane.

Let's not limit humanity. We don't need to be control freaks. I want my gasoline. I will pay you for it.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Bamboo rabbit ��" That is simple. There are definitely natural reasons as to why the earth can change. No scientist, and no person here has said the earth’s climate doesn’t change in its own long/short term cycles.

The main warming that comes to mind is the death at the end of the Permian. There was a massive basalt eruption in Siberia (we call the the Siberian traps) is a miles thick sheet of lava that bubbled up from the mantle, basically BBQing the entire continental plate underneath. This warmed the planet rather quickly, which therefore melted methane in the deep ocean floor, which then again caused more warming and ocean acidification, wiping out 95% of all species in the fossil record.

There is the warming after the last ice age thought to be caused by the axis tilting (what caused it in the first place). There are also thoughts that sun activity played a part (again, no one here as denied the role the sun plays in influencing the climate).

It’s a pretty simple concept in my opinion. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Much of our industry and transportation released carbon dioxide. They can look at the levels being released now in comparison to other warming events through geology and ice cores. Also, about half the world’s forests are gone and either turned into cities, crop land or roads. What is left is almost completely secondary forest, which is not as efficient at processing carbon as primary forest.

The way I see it is that denying that humans are at least influencing the climate, and exaggerating a natural warming trend, is saying that we do not release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and that there are no repercussions for our actions and denies cause and effect.

Lastly, you mentioned switch grass as biofuel? You should check out miscanthus gigantea. The data is promising.

Yukkuri ��" The earth’s axis has caused ice ages, mini ice ages and warming periods. Earth quakes can change it as you mentioned. There have been some big quakes that have caused the axis to change like the Chile quake, fukishima quake and the Malaysian tsunami quake. I am wondering if this has influenced the axis to change the past “normal” cycle we are used to?

Mes111 ��" Yes there were cool temps this august in the arctic, but there is still a below average level of ice:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Windfall rob ��" Thanks for the correction. Again, I’m not an expert, but I try to use as much of the scientific method I know and read the least bias papers I can find on the subject. I’ve always read about the climate. The extinction of the dinosaurs fascinated me even more as a kid. I read so much I confuse terms sometimes (I think some Uni would help me though)


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Arctic ice returns with gusto in 2013

Here is a link that might be useful: Global cooling - Arctic ice caps


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Windfall
No one said that the purpose of this conversation is to change anyone's position. It is a discussion. You get to find out what other people are thinking and what their position is on the subject.

Your response to me is perfect to prove a point that I am making.

If you read my previous post(s) you will see that I am not denying that there is warming. I object to the occurrence of an event that I do not believe we can do much or anything about being used by the political elite as another excuse to take from those who create to redistribute as they see fit.

So ... You justify the dire predictions of Artic melting being 100% wrong by calling a record growth in the icecap to a QUARTER Of AN INCH OF RAIN during a drough.

This type of "win at any cost" mentality, and ignoring inconvenient truths even if we'll intentioned, drives me nuts.

My objection is to intellectual dishonesty that I see from the " warming crowd" ( yes HM I am generalizing here because I believe that what I am about to say is generally true). When a polar bear allegedly died as a "direct result" of lack of ice in the Artic, we were fed that report in TV headlines, newspaper headline, online articles and quoted by one spokesperson or another moring noon and night for months and months. Same when there was talk of the potential opening the Northwest Passage to shipping all year round.

But, the tiniest bit of information that may be,might be, could be, could have the slightest potential of being (get the picture) indicatively contrary to the "accepted" point of view, it is ignored, not even brought up with an explanation and if pointed out is dismissed as a1/4 inch of rain.

And, actually I have not been given any solid compelling reason to be concerned. Sorry but your 1/4 inch analogy does not qualify as convincing evidence. Where do you get this fear of a "tipping point" and the "radical" alteration of the global food supply stuff?

Until convinced otherwise, my position is 1). There is warming which has been going on for 12000 years, 2) it may be exacerbated by human activity, 3) I am not at all sure that it is being exacerbated by material degree, 4) I am not arrogant enough to believe that there is much or anything that we can do about it given the current state of global events, 5) I do believe that the political class (akin to other ruling classes in the past) is using all the noise and dred to try to take more of what is not theirs to use as they see fit and 6) I do believe that there are many good intentioned people who left their brains at the door and bought in to the "feel good" emotional high of "we gotta do something" .

Canadian
But there are reports that more is accumulating in Antartica. What does it mean? I don't know. But I do know that _neither_ is being widely reported or explained.

Agendas are driving this stuff, not facts!!!!
Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Sun, Sep 8, 13 at 22:47


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Wasn't 1998 the hottest year on record?; It was linked to global warming.

"Standing for science, standing for America's future"


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

""Canadian
But there are reports that more is accumulating in Antartica. What does it mean? I don't know. But I do know that _neither_ is being widely reported or explained.""

The loss of sea ice in the arctic has become something we are used to now. It isnt the headline news it used to be, except if you go looking for it of course.

Antartica is a different story. Instead of sounding like a complete idiot, please read this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487

There are also the circumpular ocean currents that surround antarcica. The pole is land in antarctica, the arctic has no large landmass in the center.

Theweatherman - the hottest years on record happened since 1998.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

In early July (2013), here in California High Desert we had four days of 112+ Degree weather.

I wonder why the temperatures were not recorded. What happened to the evidence?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

It's...
No ... That would not fit into the narrative


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

OH crap, mes111, when I said "instead of sounding like an idiot", I didnt mean you , I meant me ranting without checking data!

Thought i should clear that up


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

  • Posted by mrclint z10SoCal Valley (My Page) on
    Sun, Sep 8, 13 at 23:37


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canadian.. No problem....

I meant that the fact that the Artic unexpectedly and contra to expectations had a huge increase in ice is not being reported. The reverse has been over-reported IMHO.

Also Artic ice melt will not increase sea level since it already floating. It could play games with the salinity of the sea affecting currents and other oceanographic mechanics but won't raise sea levels.

Melting of land based ice would raise sea levels. So Antartica adding to land based ice could be countering sea level rise from other land based melt.

See... There are so many variables that even I, who am not at all trained in oceanography, can think of, that I can't justify the "sky is falling" reactions that I see and hear.

Sign me out as... Agnostic Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Mon, Sep 9, 13 at 0:05


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

You outdid yourself this time mr clint lol

Ive looked at NOAA and the link I posted above. They all report below average ice in the arctic, and more ice in the antarctic, which was explained in the article above. Im sure being an oceanographer I believe you are familiar with the freezing points of sea water vs fresh water...

I agree that melting sea ice wont increase sea level, but it will increase heating in the summer due to the reflective ice being gone. When ice forms in winter, it isnt permanent ice. Even in ant actica, they may rreport more ice, but that is not permanenet ice, it is ice from fresh melt water coming off the land mass.

The glaciers are indeed melting in antarctica. A few weeks ago another city sized chunk broke off. Much of it is land ice, same with alaska and greenland.

There are a crazy amount of variables, but that is what climatologists do. They are trained in many aspects of climate, using data from other scientists (like windfallrobs core samples, or your oceanographic data, so thanks :D ) to try to create a coheisive view of this non linear, and infinitely variable climate...

Which leads me to another point. If the climate is so variable, and deals with cause and effect, then how can you think that we cant change it, or that it isnt changing?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I can't believe that I go and spend one day away from my computer and it takes almost an hour to read through all the updates on this thread.

Mike, I don't agree with your lack of urgency or perception of the degree of the problem, but I do think you are one of the few people on the 'anti' side of the debate here that is willing to look at both sides. You also seem like you would come over to the dark side if you were presented with the right kind of evidence. I appreciate your open mindedness to the issue and would like to think/hope I am also open in the opposite direction.

BR, saying things like "The same scientists predicted in the 1970's we were headed for a new ice age." shows a general distrust and misunderstanding toward science. First of all, in the 1976 the first 5 1/4 inch floppy disc came out. It had about 100kB of storage space. Our current climate models are many many many orders of magnitude more sophisticated than they were 40 years ago. That doesn't make them right, just closer to right.

One other factor that contributes to sea level rises in response to temp fluctuations (man-made or natural) is thermal expansion of the sea water itself. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation once a few years ago just for fun (bored in a meeting) and recall it being in the neighborhood of a meter per two degrees of temp increase. If I have time tomorrow, I'll check my math on that one.

Swamps, other than oil we produce via biofuels we will certainly one day run out of petroleum. The same goes for coal, however, I'm afraid we'll never get that far as we'll probably choke ourselves out before we can burn it all up.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canadian.

I am __not__ an oceanographer but the poinnt is that there is now a huge _increase_ of ice where predictions predicted that there would be ___none___ and you _don't_ hear anyything about it on the mainstream media who were in the vanguard of the call pushing the man made warming agenda. And once agan..... So what if there is warming..... I still don't see the end of civilization.

Mrclint has it right. Our real road to destruction is furry and has a tail.

Saltwater freezes at a lower temp than fresh water. If anything, increased saltwater freeze , indicates that temps are colder.

Sorry, but the reports I read shows that the ice in the interior in Artartica is getting thicker from additional snowfall. No ice is permanent but ice in the interior which is over land is going to hang around longer.

And finally, there is change but __ I am not convinced that we are causing it and even less convinced that we can do much of anything about it.

Mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Rhino,

"BR, saying things like "The same scientists predicted in the 1970's we were headed for a new ice age." shows a general distrust and misunderstanding toward science. First of all, in the 1976 the first 5 1/4 inch floppy disc came out. It had about 100kB of storage space. Our current climate models are many many many orders of magnitude more sophisticated than they were 40 years ago. That doesn't make them right, just closer to right."

The point of my making that statement was the energy and conviction behind their dire predictions back then. The media ran with the story and how many millions believed it? If you would have had a snake oil salesman like Al Gore back then the church of man made weather change would have had an earlier start.

You do understand when you are mocking 100kb of storage that in 40 years people will be laughing at the pitiful slow and lacking computing power we have today, don't you? Man likes to think they know it all, that they have it all figured out but we don't. Any scientist who tells you MMCC is a fact is lying to you. Scream Deniers at the top of your lungs......oh how history loves to repeat.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I'm sorry BR, but the media coverage of that concept was tiny and extremely short lived compared to coverage of global warming.

There has been much more discussion of those few articles by change deniars (make that non-believers for you, BR) in recent years than ever around the time they were published. Link me to articles about that theory more than a couple years apart (I actually think it was over in a month but that was a long time ago).

The argument that because some scientists gathered around a certain theory that was later debunked by another theory is evidence the later theory is most likely erroneous seems to be either a mistaken idea about how science evaluates and reports on research or just a pundit-type red herring.

BR, I respect your intelligence enough to assume it is the latter in this case.

For myself, I think the best practical advice is to embrace the arguments of all who deny the strong possibility of imminent catastrophic climate change so you can go about the business of your lives focused on things you actually have some ability to control.

I found Mikes comments particularly comforting. Now if only I could find data that shows a significant percentage of climatologists who actually agree with his take.

I do trust scientists much more than most of the other voices that dominate the media (and this thread)- especially if they are not on the payroll of corporations benefiting from their positions.

History shows that if you want to know if science is junk or legitimate, follow the actual funding, not the imaginary funding that is usually conjecture and rumor perpetrated to promote distrust of honest scientists whose research the rumor perps don't agree with.

Big oil, coal and gas have power that dwarfs that of those who might benefit from reducing dependency on those products 100 to 1. They also have much more control of the media.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

HM,

Of course the media coverage was less......it was a different world then. Today news and information streams at us from all directions. Today the church of MMCC has so many venues to push their prophecies. Trying to minimize what was forecast then....I can't say I blame you but it was what it was.

Do you have children HM? If so you are part of the problem....you had a choice to do your part to help the planet and you did not.

"Big oil, coal and gas have power that dwarfs that of those who might benefit from reducing dependency on those products 100 to 1. They also have much more control of the media"

Utter nonsense. The church of MMCC is vast.....the flock screeches endlessly the sky is falling the sky is falling!!!! Repent ye fossil fuel users repent!!!! If it was not so harmful to this nation it might be amusing.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

BR, money is power. No significant legislation has passed that affects our energy use much so far. I fail to see how the greenies can be seen as a significant threat to the nation by anyone without paranoid tendencies. Between labor, the corporations and short term economic interests of most people I doubt such legislation will come until warming is too obvious for even you do deny.

Do you think that the loss of the Canada pipeline represents a significant threat to our economy? I think there's an outside chance of that happening as a bone to environmentalists, but trade-offs between political interests are how politics have always worked in our great nation. The oil will still be pulled up and enter the international markets somehow.

Government intervention requiring better mileage of cars and better efficiency of appliances helps the economic bottom line a great deal because so much oil is imported and other unused energy sources can be exported to help our trade deficit.

As far as global cooling, media was just as interested in an exciting story then as now and needed content to sell their product in exactly the same way they do now. They also modified their content to some degree to please their sponsors (mostly advertisers) just as they do now, IMO.

My point isn't just that media abandoned the story but that science rapidly rejected it as well, based on subsequent research. If it was up to the scientists the story would never have been sensationalized in the first place, I suspect.

The media is always picking up stories of limited research that suggests interesting and exciting things even though the actual researchers would say that much more research is needed before any conclusions should be drawn. That exhaustive research would seem to have been done on man- made climate warming.

Having no children would end the species as surely as any other possible catastrophe. I have a single son, so you can blame me for one additional human. He's 21, shares an apartment in Brooklyn with 4 others and doesn't drive, so his carbon footprint is pretty small by American standards.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Not that I compare myself to the good General MacArthur .... but, as to this conversation I will fade just away with these my final thoughts on the subject.

I sleep well at night not worrying about things that I cannot change but do agree to co-operate in supporting a sea change of our behavior that will _gradually_ accomplish a cleaner, healthier, more peaceful existence filled with happiness and contentment for all... ( that's the Mother Theresa in me)

Mushy, Mike..
Peace & happiness to all

Now as to those squirrels... don't get me started... yet.... am just recovering from this one.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Mike - Check this out then. According to the aussie government increased precipitation may be increasing some inland ice, but the melting ice of the west offsets this gain.
“All of the available estimates, however, show that the loss of mass in West Antarctica is greater than any added mass in East Antarctica.”

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise

Also, come to the dark side, we have poutine!

HM ��" Check out the above. More ice does not mean no melting ice.

BR ��" I would love for you to answer points on your comments. Ive asked quite a few times and have not seen a single link or comment.
You seem quite intelligent, but using terms like MMGW church, shows some horrible bias. IF you believe in science, then this bias has to go IMO.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I like mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Me too lol


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

ZZZZZZZZZ

This post was edited by mes111 on Mon, Sep 9, 13 at 13:36


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"BR ��" I would love for you to answer points on your comments. Ive asked quite a few times and have not seen a single link or comment.
You seem quite intelligent, but using terms like MMGW church, shows some horrible bias. IF you believe in science, then this bias has to go IMO"

If I have not answered a point it is probably because I don't intend to:)

Bias? Since when is calling a cult a cult or a church a church bias? In my opinion that is what it is. Isn't it odd how those in the cult never think they are in a cult ;) If and when MMCC is ever proven to my satisfaction I will join up and pray at the alter of Gore......till then color me skeptical. I just have never been a good blind unquestioning follower.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Yes mike , but the informatin and reasoning is anything but out dated. Basically you asked why it isnt news? Because it isnt anything new!

Bamboo rabbit - when you ask for evidence, or ask a question and someone takes the time to do so, it would be conciderate to follow through.

It is bias, when you take a dead stance and call the people giving as unbiased information as possible a "cult" or a church, while saying you believe in science, when science doesnt scoff information unless it has been out right disproven (like global cooling)


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canadian,

Sorry friend.....I have already stated that I will not be a google expert. It is not a wise use of my time or energy.

So when modern science was advocating using leeches to cure diseases I should have just went along? I can just see you telling me it is proven!!! It is science!!! follow the flock!!! No thank you. I don't have to see the skunk to know one is around......there have been so many theories that science put forth as fact through the ages only to be proven wrong in the end.

All I am asking is prove it, then act. If the church of MMCC has it's way it will decimate this nation and her economy.

What we could discuss is the real problem, over population.......so tell me Canadian, how many children do you have? Your high priest in the church of MMCC Al Gore has four children......he is the problem, are you?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

canadian did you your answer as to why so many people in the US are apposed to MMGW? After having read through all of this I find myself agreeing with mike. I am not convinced one way or the other as to how big of a problem this really is. I think the earth has been warming from the last ice age and it is hard to know just how much of an impact we are having. My gut feeling is that this isn't as big of a deal that it is being made up to be, bu that is just my opinion.

Also I do agree a lot with bamboo rabbit as this whole thing stinks of an agenda if not from the scientist at least from the UN and other would be beneficiaries of a carbon tax. The UN just so happens to be one of the biggest proponents of MMGW doom and gloom.

Do not underestimate the distrust many people in the US have towards the media and government. We have been lied to and manipulated so many times that a carbon tax seems like another money making scam. If MMGW turns out to be all it is cracked up to be then I place a lot of the blame on people like Al Gore due to their sensationalism and greed for the apathy of the public.

I do have some questions that didn't get answered that I feel maybe you guys could help clarify.
1. The media reports of ocean acidification as a consequence of elevated CO2. Do these decreases in ph also include sulfuric, nitric and phosphoric acid emissions? All of which are 1000's of time more acidic than carbonic acid. When you read reports of just 3 super tankers having as much sulfur emissions as all of the vehicles in the US combined it makes you wonder.
Not to mention the solubility of CO2 decrease with increased temps so maybe not initially but eventually if MMGW is true ocean ph should go up.

2. I see lots of bickering about using/not using isolated weather events for evidence both for/against MMGW, and in bamboo rabbits defense I think the media does favor the pro MMGW stance. So wouldn't it be better to rely on the past carbon history and temps? The problem here is that the computer models don't always correlate to what carbon levels versus temps have been in the past. CO2 levels have been 12 to 15 times as high as they are now with an average 2-3 C increase in global temps.
Last now that the CO2 levels have reached 400 ppm the temperature and CO2 graphs no longer correlate. Obviously there are other factors going on and this may just be a temporary fluke. Time will tell

3. Just because scientist agree doesn't mean that it is a foregone conclusion. Most people agree that the earth is over populated at least with the system we currently have especially scientist. Recent research has shown that even the most analytical person makes decisions based on emotions first and then uses logic to justify their position. Is it possible that many scientist "feel" like the earth is being over run so they take a stance that justifies their beliefs i.e. MMGW without truly being objective? I know that this part of my post may seem like I am showing bigotry but I am just going off of my experience with biology professors in college. I think in general they are more prone to be in favor for population reduction compared to the general public.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Mike and Swamps,
I did some digging about the arctic ice pack increase and it seems like what we have here is a case of the media trying to make a shocking headline by taking a datum out of context.

I think you quoted this before but I want to highlight:
'A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.'

Two things: First, of what I've seen from this leaked report, it is actually rather dire. Second, when I saw 'has led some scientists to claim' some red flags went up for me. This is classic wording used to mean that they got a couple people to agree with (or to not automatically refute) their assertion. Even if I agree with those scientists, I'd still be cautious but that is just my opinion.

When I read science reporting in the news, I usually try to double-check the interpretation (reporters are rarely scientists) so I went and looked up some of the primary data that the statement is based on. I'll put a link to it at the end, but basically here is the actual data. Sea ice coverage (area) is less informative than the actual sea ice volume but they are obviously interrelated:

From 1979-2011 (blink of an eye) average annual arctic sea ice ranges from 28,700 km^3 (April) to 12,300 km^3 (September). Average ice volume for August 2012 was 4,400 km^3. Average ice volume for August 2013 was 5,800 km^3. Average ice volume for August from the past 30+ years was about 13,500 km^3.

Therefore the ice volume for August 2013 was about 32% higher than the previous year. The 60% increase mentioned in The Telegraph article is in reference to the area, not the volume. The ice sheet in 2013 is actually slightly thinner which means the increase in volume was spread over a larger area. So it is correct to say that there was a sizable year-over-year increase in arctic sea ice; however, even with the increase we are still talking number 2-3x lower than the normal ice for this time of the year. This is also a very small data set so it is impossible to make any big predictions based on these data. That doesn't indicate global cooling, just that last year was really really horrible, and this year is only really horrible.

Here are the analyzed data w/some charts and a link to the raw data at the bottom.

Here is a link that might be useful: Polar Science Center


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Interesting discussion, and glad to see others are not buying into what is being reported as so-called truth. I think most scientists agree, because if they don't at best their peers will frown on them, and at worst they will be let go.
Certianly many were fired, and I too would be drinking the coolaid if my job was on the line. Enough have been fired to see what direction to go in.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

How's this thread working out, for ya, OP? Previously amiable people calling each other names.

Has anyone changed their minds about GW?

Heck, has anyone read any of the links supporting the opposing viewpoint?

We can only hope that threads get auto-locked at 100 replies and we can get back to discussing fruit.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

How's this thread working out, for ya, OP? Previously amiable people calling each other names.

Has anyone changed their minds about GW?

Heck, has anyone read any of the links supporting the opposing viewpoint?

We can only hope that threads get auto-locked at 100 replies and we can get back to discussing fruit.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

That's a nice digest of the data SF,

Mike, I am sorry if my earlier glib analogy to 1/4" of rain "drives you nuts" that wasn't my intent really. I just didn't have the patience to compile what SF just said. And I get so tired of folks using a single data point as defense or support of either side of the issue.

Changes in systems this complex are rarely linear. They are generally marked as oscillations with the extremes trending progressively in one direction or the other....so yes the ice may be better this year than last, but it is still far below "norm".

One thing I don't think has been broached in this discussion is the rate of change. And really, that is critically important.

As many who argue against man made change correctly say the earth has gotten warmer...much warmer...many times before. There is absolutely no denying this fact. But the transition is usually slow...slow enough for whole ecosystems and the species they comprise to shift and migrate.

The 3-6 times we know that climate changed rapidly (think asteroids, massive basalt eruptions, or deep ocean methane "ice" destabilization) the earth lost huge percentages of it's biodiversity.

The speed of change we are observing presently appears to be comparable to all of these extinction events (with the exception of the asteroid impact at the end of the cretaceous...that was faster).

This is what keeps climate scientists up at nights. This is the concern that gets voiced and comes across as fear mongering. This is the "tipping point" that I reffered to earlier, once these sytems crash they have to rebuild from scratch...they will, but that sort of evoltion takes millions of years.

So as I see it, it boils down to this...science is often wrong, we commonly overstate our understanding and underestimate the complexity. But right now this is what the best of our scientific minds are seeing and predicting...from a reasonably expansive set of data. The only choices that would make meaningful impact are very hard but the cost of not making them should the science prove out is terrifying...so what kind of odds do you like to gamble with? And how much responsibility are you ready to accept for future?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Bamboo - Its not being a "google scientist its using proper data to make a point, the same data you claim to like in "science". Is it any difference then going to a library?

Also, beleiving in overpopulation, is not much different them beleiving in climate change.

Drew - TO be honest I wouldnt be surprised about what you say. It can go both ways IMO.

Camp - See, this is a problem. Because people differ in views, and have a somewhat heated discussion, it cant be allowed, the thread is too long or its a "bad" thread?

Discussions wont always be smiles and sunshine, and everyone here knows how this discussion usually goes. As stated it comes up very often in this forum and it can impact what we grow and how we grow it.. I dont think anyone here is trying to change anyones minds, but talking about the issue can help people on both sides learn something IMO. Not discussing something because "omg, people get slightly upset", is not a reason to stop a conversation.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

""The 3-6 times we know that climate changed rapidly (think asteroids, massive basalt eruptions, or deep ocean methane "ice" destabilization) the earth lost huge percentages of it's biodiversity.

The speed of change we are observing presently appears to be comparable to all of these extinction events (with the exception of the asteroid impact at the end of the cretaceous...that was faster).

This is what keeps climate scientists up at nights. This is the concern that gets voiced and comes across as fear mongering. This is the "tipping point" that I reffered to earlier, once these sytems crash they have to rebuild from scratch...they will, but that sort of evoltion takes millions of years.

So as I see it, it boils down to this...science is often wrong, we commonly overstate our understanding and underestimate the complexity. But right now this is what the best of our scientific minds are seeing and predicting...from a reasonably expansive set of data. The only choices that would make meaningful impact are very hard but the cost of not making them should the science prove out is terrifying...so what kind of odds do you like to gamble with? And how much responsibility are you ready to accept for future?""

This^^^^^

I thought the PETM was the fastest change in our climate, or the basalt/methane warming at the permian?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Gad!

Well, I suppose it could be a still-more contentious Net-topic: say, evolution, abortion, guns . . .

I find climate change discussions difficult in that there is often miscommunication and mixing of the concepts and terms climate change, greenhouse warming, anthropogenic (human-induced) change, natural changes, short-term vs. trending natural changes, plus freely mixing trends that took place over vast stretches of time with those much much shorter. Beyond that there is the frequent misequating of "cannot [yet] prove" with disproved.

It's a fun topic but too much time usually gets spent in "translation." Though you with the energy for it, carry on!

I was just today reading about "the year with no summer" (1816).


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

The thing that keeps climate scientists up at night is the same thing that can keep us all up at night. That thing is money. If we follow the money in local, state, and federal government, we can see that climate based initiatives exist, and that they are based upon federal grants and incentives. In order to get the grant, you at least have to fake that you care about climate change. Those that can fake it real good get promoted. So basically climate change has money attached to it which comes from the feds. This creates a corrupting environment of false belief. A church of climatology.

In the big oil arena, the game is to shut down your competition. What better way is there to shut down your competition than to agree to government climate change plans to cut co2? Boom. All the little guys cant afford it and get shut down or absorbed. The big guys get taken for a ride by the govt but most can afford it. Profits go up for a while.

As stated in another posting, scientists these days are for the most part only appointed to positions in government and big business. The bottom lines are continuity of government and profits, respectively. The merger of state and corporate power is called fascism, a term coined by Mussolini. And this is the situation of money power in America right now.

There are hidden forces of money power pulling the puppet strings of us all, arguably. I am not at fault for seeing the strings and reporting back to you. I don't really want to change your mind about climate change. I just want to avoid paying for something that isn't gonna work.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canada,
The further back you go the poorer the resolution becomes on the relative speed of events.

The PETM (Paleocne Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction event) is thought to have been relatively quick...on the order of tens of thousands of years. and is relatively recent at 55 million years ago

The Permian-Triassic event was the most severe in the fossil record, with on average 80-90% of all species going extinct. The basalt eruptions are thought to be one possible cause. But at 250+million years ago cause and rates get harder to verify. Asteroid impact is also thought to potentially be involved, but the evidence is fragmentary and inconclusive.

The extinction at the end of the Cretaceous (end of dinosaurs) is now fairly well linked and supported by an impact on the Yucatan peninsula. at only 65 million years ago a lot more evidence still exists.

My comment about that being the fastest was a bit tongue in cheek. Any change resulting from a massive impact is pretty fast, near instantaneous in geologic terms. I pointed to the Cretaceous event because it is the best known and most well supported by evidence.

This post was edited by windfall_rob on Mon, Sep 9, 13 at 22:17


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Excerpt from attached article
"Grist magazine has called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for those who deny the internal combustion engine is about to cause a global climate disaster. Heidi Cullen, host of the weekly global warming TV show “Climate Code,” has called for the American Meteorological Society to strip its certification from any weatherman (or gal) who publicly questions anthropogenic global warming"

Typical tactics used in almost all liberal causes. I would never stand with these people, even if correct, out of principal.

Here is a link that might be useful: Global Warming: Silencing The Critics

This post was edited by Drew51 on Mon, Sep 9, 13 at 22:45


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

It's happening all over...

Here is a link that might be useful: university-professor-fired-for-global-warming-skepticism


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

  • Posted by mrclint z10SoCal Valley (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 10, 13 at 0:40


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I figured it was tongue in cheek, but I wanted to make sure my own knowledge on that subject wasnt flawed LOL.

I think the PETM is important in our current situation. I do believe there were no ice sheets at the poles (if they were they were seasonal). There are some parallels to our current situation according which you can see in the article I will post below.... I hate not being able to properly post links here!

I personally have a problem with the currently accepted theory of how the dinosaurs died. Mind you, I am anything but an expert on dinosaurs, but I dont think the impact alone could have wiped them out. There are some scientists who think that there were other reasons such as climate change starting due to the rising of the rockies, and the movement of india towards eurasia. MInd you, it is not a widely accepted theory, but IMO makes more sense then just the impact, which was world changing in itself.

The last I read the most accepted theories on the permian state the basalt eruptions didnt cause the massive extinction event in itself, but was definitely the cause of the runaway warming that is thought to have been the culprit. I have also read about the impact theory. If an asteroid half the size of the one at the KT boundary hit during the basalt eruption, that would have been the absolute worse case scenario. The only problem is, the evidence of an impact (the crater) would be almost completely eroded and/or folded over.

Here is a link that might be useful: nat geo link


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Sorry I guess fading away is a little harder than I thought.

But this makes my point exactly --->.

"The PETM is thought to have been relatively __quick__...on the order of __tens of thousands of years___..."

Are we really saying that our society will not be able to cope with changes that will take.... "tens of thousands of years"?

Sorry.... I refuse to lose sleep over it ... even if it takes only half that time.

Our society will adapt or die, that is only fair and "natural" & "organic". Don't feel bad... you probably wouldn't recognize and might not even approve of whatever society was in place at the time.

A runaway EPA is of a greater concern to my current everyday existence.

Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Tue, Sep 10, 13 at 7:36


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"Also, beleiving in overpopulation, is not much different them beleiving in climate change"

LMAO.......


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Mes - That few thousand years showed a roughly 10C temp change. They are predicting about 2 -5C change in about 100 years because various reasons.

Bamboo Rabbit - Its true. Im not denying that there are a lot of us, but people over react too much to over population.

The population hasnt been doubling every decade, which would be trouble. The problem is the population is too high for out way of living. Farming processes take up resources as well as space, to much space. We waste the resouces we are given.

Maybe you should become a google scientist. You may be able to keep up with the times.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"Typical tactics used in almost all liberal causes. I would never stand with these people, even if correct, out of principal."

"These" people? So there's this monolithic block of people called "liberals" who all think and act in lockstep? I think it's a lot more sensible to say that people of all stripes occasionally get a little hot under the collar about a particular issue, especially one that they're passionate about, and go to rhetorical extremes. To use those extremes to characterize a group as a whole is all too easy, but it's seldom fair.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"who all think and act in lockstep? "

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
I'm tired of being accused of hating when it's the liberals who use it as a weapon in so called righteous rants. I just want to let them know, I'm not buying their arrogant empty ideas.
It was a phrase,I'll amend it to "these liberals". meaning the ones who believe it's ok to present false data, to threaten people with loss of work, Present their side with righteous hate, and will go after one's finances via the court to get their way. Common tactics used in every single liberal cause. The tactics they choose to use, I'm afraid defines them clearly. So even if correct, the tactics are extreme and troubling. I do not want to be associated with hate. My best defense is the articles posted. How the other side tries to define deniers says it all. How many times do I have to say it? Yet you try to say I'm the hater? That just floors me. Unreal! I don't hate liberals, and that was never meant as a blanket statement. You twisted my words to your benefit. Did I say they all act in lockstep? No you said that, that is your words not mine. The words were meant to describe people who use the above tactics, and you know that. When one can't support their side of the argument, you attack the person making the argument, and that is exactly what you did. One of the most common liberal tactics out there. Stick to the issue, I'm not the issue. By trying to discredit me, you try to discredit my argument. Sorry, it's not going to work this time.

This post was edited by Drew51 on Tue, Sep 10, 13 at 11:08


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

By the way, who can point to a single global warming prediction that has came true? We have passed several of the drop dead dates yet it still snows in London (that was one of the scare predictions) Did any of them come true?

Since no one will answer this directly, I will. NO. none have. We only see the same weather cycles our ancestors did, but we have better fruit trees and deodorant


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

cckw - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

They predicted the lack of ice during the summer and species moving north and "invading" the arctic.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Canadian:

"Tens of thousands" became a few thousand?

"They are predicting about 2 -5C change in about 100 years because various reasons." - I am not impressed by "their" predictions because so far "their" track record is not so hot.

But if 2-5 degrees in the next 100 years is correct, then we have a runaway train that we can do nothing about short of turning off every fossil fuel machine, kill every head of cattle etc. and that is not happening.

So if we cannot do anything about it then I come back to point of " I am not tearing my hair out over it".

And even if correct, what will be the consequence?. Manhattan under water so what!.

Compare where our society was a mere 100 years (or 50) ago to today and then imagine its capabilities 100 years hence. I think we ( or our great grandkids) will be able to handle it.

I am more concerned by the reports cited by Drew51. No comments from the "dark side" ( as you called it) on these. More concern is being shown for the possible suffering to people unknown 100 years in the future than to those who are being destroyed today. I see an inbalance of concern if not something more distasteful.

Frankly, I am not willing to give up my steak, suv, air-conditioner, etc. today for a possible, potential, unproven, alleged , catastrophe maybe 50-100 years from now.

Does the fact that I don't believe legitimize me being put on trial or losing my job or being ostracized? I don't see any condemning comments from the "dark side".

Hey, extinction is a natural event. I am glad that there are no saber toothed tigers in Brooklyn, NY.

And IF the most dire predictions do come true... we will finally see if Darwin was right.

Mike


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

"By trying to discredit me, you try to discredit my argument. Sorry, it's not going to work this time."

I think you're reading way too much into my post, Drew. My point is that the kind of behavior that you're highlighting is universal, not the province of any one group of people, and that to dismiss an entire line of argument because you disagree with the perceived tactics of select individuals is unjust and unfair. If that's not what you were saying/doing, then I apologize for misreading your statement. I knew better than to get involved in this conversation... :)

This post was edited by shazaam on Tue, Sep 10, 13 at 12:27


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Before my wife and I retired to Florida we lived in NW Pennsylvania in a county that had a pretty large Amish population. Even by Amish standards our sect was very conservative....if you don't know each sect sets there own rules. Our nearest few neighboring farms were Amish, nice people, quiet and helpful with very respectful children. One day the Amish neighbor Atlee rolls up in his buggy and stops to chat as I am having a satellite dish installed. This is back in the day when you used the BIG 10 foot satellite dishes that moved. He asked me what the dish was and I told him.....then he asked how it worked. So I explained that there are satellites in space and they send the programming down to the dishes. As I am explaining I can tell he has sort of zoned out. I said...you don't believe there are satellites in space do you? Atlee responds no I don't. So I asked him why and he told me because the leaders of his sect say there isn't. I asked him if he ever questioned what they say and he responded no, never, we take it on faith. It is sort of like the church of MMCC....the flock is told what to think and they are not permitted to dare even question if what they are being told is true. It does not make the members of the church of MMCC bad people.....they are just gullible.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Bamboo, you really should get your own right wing talk radio show- your monologues would fit right in. People who disagree with you are either delusional or villains with a hidden agenda and you know, they are all just ruining this country. Certainly not worthy of one iota of your respect.

This climate cult thing would go over very big and the way you tie all the climate scientists into this weird, self serving monster with Al Gore's face would appeal to a group that just might become your own private and profitable cult.

Isn't it about time you stopped beating the poor dead horse?


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

The #1 cause for our messed up Planet

Here is a link that might be useful: The #1 cause for our messed up Planet


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Breaking News, The climate change is over!! Don't believe me? The one that started this whole mess has taken all his Marbles and bought a TV station! Come one guys, Talk Apples! GalaGala


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

Best apples I've picked and eaten so far this season- Sansa and Zestar. Sansa is as high sugar as any apple you'll eat but even tart lovers will like it, I think.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

I dunno Konrad, im of mind to think that we could work it out if we werent so wasteful with land water and other resources. The planet can more then likely handle us it just depends on our habits.

Basically the fact we live in a "perpetual summer" in regards to our food does not help our population at all. Changing our ways of farming can actually stem population growth without coming to harsher methods like mandatory birth control. OUr population is already showing signs of coming into an equilibrium.

I also advovate reforestation. Not how we tend to do it (which is mono culture generally speaking) but proper catalogueing of species before clear cutting for proper replacement as well as being a but ahead of the game and seeing what species further south will survive up here in a generally warming climate.


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

SINCE I AM BORED AND TO GET THOSE LATE SUMMER JUICES GOING..... (PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!)

AND .. I PLANTED MY TROPICAL FRUIT IN UPSTATE NY

From Thursday's Daily Telegraph

"On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change ��" but that the battle is all but lost.

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ " is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.
Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option ��" a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line ��" and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”."

This post was edited by mes111 on Wed, Sep 25, 13 at 18:12


 o
RE: The Climate Change Thread

fly by night- no names no references just pure sweet propaganda without a table of contents. i believe, i so believe

those evil scientists and their conspiracies will be the death of us all. why do they do this? probably cause they sucked at sports and we never liked them.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Fruit & Orchards Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here