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

{{gwi:123859}}

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I like mike

Me too lol

ZZZZZZZZZ

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

"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.

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)

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

""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?

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).

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.

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

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

It's happening all over...

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

{{gwi:123860}}

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

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

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

LMAO.......

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.

"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.

"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

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

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.

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

"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

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.

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?

The #1 cause for our messed up Planet

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.