What Do We Think About Climate Change

There's that arrogance again... we are not a problem for the natural cycles of this planet, we are a problem for ourselves. Whatever we do the planet will regenerate and life will go on, quite possibly without us ... but hey nature should be worried?

We need to contain out growth for our own survival... yes we are quite likely already beyond the sustainable human population limit for the earth, given our current desired lifestyles. This is our problem, not natures... we will not kill the planet we have not got the power, all you have to do is consider its complete history to realise that. We might put a dent in things if we nuke the whole place but it will come back.... just without us. This is a human issue, we will be the main benefactors of taking the correct path and we need to be clear about what it is we are trying to achieve. Nowhere do I here politicians talking about stable zero growth economies and populations... or god forbid population reduction... no we are all foolishly hooked on more of more... in the greenest possible middle class way of course.... give me a break, anyone can see that is never going to work no matter how green we are. Limits to growth are real, we need to respect them for our own good.... but will we? nah....

 

YO heinz, sock it to em, I accept your reasoning.... (I didn't say I believe - hehe) but it makes more sense than many other posts.... Thanks and appreciated....

 

yuppers,,, we dont matter when it comes to the earths "natural" cycles,,,, but what are the cycles?, and when are they suppose to happen?,, all these gurus can say "oh every 2 million years we have an ice age",,, nope,, we have NO idea when and what is the cycle,,,. we wont "kill" the earth,, but we will kill ourselves,,, and the "greenies" way may postpone it,, but sooner or later even their outlandish thinking will kill us.
i myself dont give a crap bout the earth,,,, but i do give a crap bout my grandkids,,,,. the only argument i've heard bout the "green" side is we'll stop the economy ( actually slow it down alot),, that wont kill us,,,it may kill alot,, but not all ( and that could be a good population reduction),, i can live without oil,, and i know every could,,, we've done it for thousands of years,,, i dont think WE are all to blame,,, but i bet we're at LEAST 50% of the problem.
population is the BIG problem,, theres no arguing that,,,,,,
a 50 gallon fish tank goes through its own cycles,, put 10 fish in there, it still goes through them, but quicker,,put 20 more fish in there,,and the cycles get even faster, and more devastating,, and 20 more fish,, and it CANT recover,,,,,UNTIL it is empty and left alone,, it'll take a while,, but it WILL come back.


mornin Beanzy ,, hehe

 

I have come to that conclusion too

Having a problem with that , the1 .. ,....are they not in some way linked ?
I mean , harm the earth , harm the children ?Maybe I misunderstood ?

Yep:

(

yep: (So what`s the answer ? big war ?)

 

yup,,, their linked,,,,, that was the idea
and war will fix the population,, but so wont just letting stupid people die,,,,and letting the bums starve,, and letting monkey eating dwarfs die from aids, and many more things,,,,,,but NO,, we cant let that happen,, someone might see,,,hehe

 

Sorry the 1.....I think I was having a " blonde moment? "

Monkey eating darfs hey ? .......

 

The real wars will come when the water runs out ...its happened with oil already , but water is the big one I think.....

 

recycle sweat, urine and what else?

 

Sweet !

 

follow the funding

oil money in support of science that specifically defends oil use
your right
that does makes sense

from ( http://rebello.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/attempted-spin-of-the-week-from-lorne-gunter/ ) <----- sample of a reference

although the part about All Gore being a scientist is way off ( he is definitely not a scientist ) in general this article, if not the next, pretty much exposes the NIPCC "scientists" for what they really are, oil industry cronies

from
( http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...eld-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/ ) <------ another sample of a reference just in case anyone round here wants to give it a try

found this next commentary to be kinda funny
Im presently running a search through multiple databases and see what DR Singer has published but it will take till morning to get complete results

from ( http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/06/skeptical_dr_fred_singer_on_he.html ) <----- yes, each source does get its own reference

ok so these heartland NIPCC oil stooges are pretty easy to to see through
clearly they have an ulterior political motive

I would recommend sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org. if you would like any further verification as to the highly political affiliations of the NIPCC and its members

thank you
B

steps off soapbox
takes a bow

 

I love how they dismissed Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen as "not a real scientist" Mikey Mann over at Realclimate.org isn't fit to carry test tubes for either of those guys Look up their credentials and see for yourself.

Boston, Whenever YOU "step off soapbox" it's merely onto a skyscraper of soapboxes that last one was on top of

Jimbo

 

Here ya go, Boston,

I've saved you all that fingertip strain and looked up S. Fred SInger's credentials for you. I know he's not a '"'''"" Real Scientist""'''"' by the lofty standards set by the likes of your hero Mikey Mann, but he has had a few minor highlights in his career that may be of interest. Maybe the gods over at Realclimate.org would be kind enough to show him how 'real scientists' do the AGW boogie




"Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.

Singer invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of US weather satellites. Singer was Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, Chief Scientist, United States Department of Transportation from 1987 to 1989, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1971, and the first Director of the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center, where upon his leave he received a Gold Medal for Distinguished Federal Service. In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami.

Singer has also been a consultant to the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, GAO, NSF, AEC, NRC, DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative), US DOE Nuclear Waste Panel, the US Treasury, and the state governments of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania, and to various industries including GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, Lockheed Martin and IBM.

In the 1950s, Singer was Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming, the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom, the Marshall Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which Singer founded."



Jimbo

 

"We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the
motives of ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism."

S. Fred Singer

 

exactly

thanks bntii
its pretty obvious
its simply not possible in a dynamic system to artificially add anything
and not effect the system as a hole
its kinda a no brainer

Having heard some compelling and well presented minority theories, I’ve always been curious to hear the dissenting opinion on global climate change and now that I have listened to it, am not surprised that this view gets little play in scientific circles. Frankly, the detracting view presented here has been wanting, in content, presentation, veracity and general civility

A debate implies there are two viable positions to be considered, in regards to global climate change there appears to be only one position with the necessary continuity in refereed work to form a theory. the dissenting opinion having no such chain of peer reviewed work available.

in leu of any substantial reviewed and published evidence being presented for consideration through citation and reference, the detractors of modern global climate change theory have shown themselves incapable, not only within this layman’s forum but throughout the scientific community’s forums, of mounting a viable scientific argument giving validity to there claim that anthropogenic emissions have no effect on atmospheric chemistry. Detractors, failing in citation, claim to be subject to exactly the tactics they so readily have displayed in there arguments here, thus showing a political component to there arguments while being hesitant to make citation or provide reference’s to those citations. There is obviously no chain of refereed work forming a consistent body of data demanding a reconsideration of the consensus view. Having personally researched what few references were provided I found them to be substantially wanting, being by and large associated with bias industry financing, outside what is considered the scientific community, either failing to present itself for scientific scrutiny or, being dissatisfied with that scrutiny ignored rejection, instead presenting itself in industry sponsored publications.

In conclusion there has been no compelling evidence offered and no substantiated claims made sufficient to challenge the consensus view,
"Anthropogenic changes in the chemistry of the environment are artificially initiating a cascade reaction within the environment resulting in rapid global climate change."

descending to a series of insults and paranoid accusations lacking credibility through referenced literature, and peer reviewed work, only shows an admission the detracting position is untenable.

best of luck with that new ditch
B

 

ditch is going fine- thanks