The rapid loss of Arctic ice, enough that the Northwest Passage is becoming navigable for the first time in history; the shifting northwards of insect and bird species; the thinning of Antarctic ice; the alteration of habitats – note that individuals may survive, but civilization doesn’t have to. If the Midwest becomes a tropical dust bowl, for example, we’ll lose the breadbasket. If the Gulf Stream shifts (one possible scenario), then Britain becomes colder than Newfoundland - which is roughly on the same latitude.
Yeah, there’s lots of change.
Yo, motey, it’s alright. Arctic Ice is back at a recent high. Seems the rumor of Gaia’s Menopause is over-blown. (It seems cartoonists, politicians, and Libs don’t always know what’s going on…)
Or University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. (http://www.livescience.com/environment/090917-artic-ice.html)
Or see this fuller report, which says even though it was somewhat cooler this year, “scientists do not consider this to be a recovery. Despite conditions less favorable to ice loss, the 2009 minimum extent is still 24% below the 1979-2000 average, and 20% below the thirty-year 1979-2008 average minimum.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Helps if you read the news completely.
Anybody know how much CO2 a person produces just by breathing? Just wondering. Seems like the best thing that could happen to the Earth is the extinction of the Human Race. That’s called evolution.
kensurg, are you being witty? I, for one, am not talking about “saving the Earth,” which will continue whether we are on it or not, unless we do something much more drastic than pollute (and yes, we have the technology to do so). I am concerned about our ability to maintain a complex human society with a large number of healthy people if climate changes even a few degrees.
Evolution works, but a lot die in the process.
Yo, motey, ever heard of sunspots? What exactly do you propose to do about “climate change”; assuming it even exists?
Yo, GlobalAlarmists with marxist background and connections…When did you start collecting conclusive data? Yesterday, the day before, or was it last week?
I know, fennec, but hope springs eternal. It does make one sigh (at least), when the response is “yo, ever heard of sunspots,” which is of course one of the things the REAL scientists studied, duh, and then brings in Marxism, which is even more tangential – to put it kindly. I’ve said repeatedly that I think Marx was full of it as regards his understanding of human beings, and virtually any psychologist would say the same. And I also keep posting www.realclimate.org, which would TELL you how long this has been around (Svante Arrhenius raised the issue for the first time in 1896).
As for my psychological knowledge, in fact, there have been some interesting brain-scan studies that indicate at least some conservatives may in fact be inhibited in their ability to learn and other studies that indicate they are lower in the Openness personality dimension, which predicts willingness (and thus ability) to seek out and absorb new information. The question is the cause and effect direction, of course. But in the past there have been thoughtful conservatives – what happened? Or maybe we should just scan posters on gocomics.com…
Man made climate change theories are 100% BS - a lie!
Up until recently I thought that man’s activities have had - however small an impact on the earth’s climate.
After having read Vaclav Claus’ excellently researched and documented book Blue, not Green Planet (an economist now serving his second term as president of the Czech Republic), and a couple of equally well made documentaries - one British and one American, I have absolutely no doubt that he ‘theories’ have nothing to do with real science - certainly not climatological, and everything with the desire to control - in the way Communists and other religions want to control.
Motive, what makes you think “openness” is a virtue? I don’t have the benefit of your exhaustive learning; but I do know the great healer, Jesus. I do know the link which you supplied first as well as your realclimate.org links are mere synopses of and collections of aggregate data; both lacking any intrinsic confirmations of any of the global warming theories that are being monopolized by politicians and demagogues in order to leverage public sentiment.
Wowee. petergrt, what entitles an economist to talk about and dismiss climate change? And which documentaries? The British one I suspect you are referring to (I’m sorry, I can’t remember the name offhand) has been found to distort data and outright lie about findings, and was condemned by British science organizations. Thousands of scientists doing what they always do – research – have found consistent data to support global climate change. What does that have to do with “control”? Science isn’t religion.
And ShakeyPup old pal, synopses of real research by real researchers are rather more significant than political screeds by the uninformed, don’t you think? Claiming that because it is a summary, it lacks an “intrinsic confirmation” is just silly. All academic research papers have a section called “Abstract,” which summarizes the findings. Normal practice.
And Jesus certainly seemed to think openness was a virtue, in that he was open to the dregs of society, and people who were despised and condemned in his time.
Serious climate changes are occurring. Naturally there are cycles with ebbs and flows. Also different parts of the planet are in different stages at any one decade.
But (a) we are talking about long term 50-250 years and (b) much of the financial burden will fall upon the US with some of the biggest contributors (China/India) going about their business lives without change. We are literally discussing spending trillions of dollars.
My personal #1 priority for us in the US is the economy, multi-trillion dollar debt and deficit, destroying, in the very near future 10-30 years, the lives of millions dependent on these entitlements. We face a very real, very near term crises because of the economic instability of social security, medicare and whatever health bill passes.
Unfortunately, we probably can only attempt to solve one catastrophic problem per Presidency.
With Obama facing Iran, the current economy, Afghanistan, health care, “bankruptcy” of social security and medicare, maybe the polls which show Americans concern over climate changes at the bottom of most lists is not so irrational.
get it through your heads - the sun is virtually the sole source of the earth’s thermal energy and consequent effect on its climate, and it doesn’t give a hoot about what you think or do.
To suggest that burning a few billion tones of fossil fuels even registers in comparison with the sun’s energy being sent, or not, our way, is grotesquely idiotic.
Well, I don’t even know what you mean by openness, anyway. And how can you measure it? And again, we’ve already been through the global warming topic ad nauseum…There is not one shred of conclusive scientific evidence that what we are currently experiencing is unusual or is in anyway attributable to Mankind, except for local air quality. Goodbye and good luck with your therapeutic delusional concern over Mother Gaia.
Nebulous Premium Member almost 15 years ago
The UN, Congress, Parliaments around the world, etc. all produce way too much hot air, adding to global warming.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
The rapid loss of Arctic ice, enough that the Northwest Passage is becoming navigable for the first time in history; the shifting northwards of insect and bird species; the thinning of Antarctic ice; the alteration of habitats – note that individuals may survive, but civilization doesn’t have to. If the Midwest becomes a tropical dust bowl, for example, we’ll lose the breadbasket. If the Gulf Stream shifts (one possible scenario), then Britain becomes colder than Newfoundland - which is roughly on the same latitude. Yeah, there’s lots of change.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
Yo, motey, it’s alright. Arctic Ice is back at a recent high. Seems the rumor of Gaia’s Menopause is over-blown. (It seems cartoonists, politicians, and Libs don’t always know what’s going on…)
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Funny, that’s not what Physics Today says. http://blogs.physicstoday.org/update/2009/08/the-arctic-on-thin-ice.html
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Or University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. (http://www.livescience.com/environment/090917-artic-ice.html) Or see this fuller report, which says even though it was somewhat cooler this year, “scientists do not consider this to be a recovery. Despite conditions less favorable to ice loss, the 2009 minimum extent is still 24% below the 1979-2000 average, and 20% below the thirty-year 1979-2008 average minimum.” http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Helps if you read the news completely.
ken591 almost 15 years ago
Anybody know how much CO2 a person produces just by breathing? Just wondering. Seems like the best thing that could happen to the Earth is the extinction of the Human Race. That’s called evolution.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
kensurg, are you being witty? I, for one, am not talking about “saving the Earth,” which will continue whether we are on it or not, unless we do something much more drastic than pollute (and yes, we have the technology to do so). I am concerned about our ability to maintain a complex human society with a large number of healthy people if climate changes even a few degrees. Evolution works, but a lot die in the process.
Magnaut almost 15 years ago
ACORNS BECOM HOAX AND GORES BECOME GORBAGE…THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES…BUT HE’LL NEED THEM AS IT GETS COLDER.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
Yo, motey, ever heard of sunspots? What exactly do you propose to do about “climate change”; assuming it even exists? Yo, GlobalAlarmists with marxist background and connections…When did you start collecting conclusive data? Yesterday, the day before, or was it last week?
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
I know, fennec, but hope springs eternal. It does make one sigh (at least), when the response is “yo, ever heard of sunspots,” which is of course one of the things the REAL scientists studied, duh, and then brings in Marxism, which is even more tangential – to put it kindly. I’ve said repeatedly that I think Marx was full of it as regards his understanding of human beings, and virtually any psychologist would say the same. And I also keep posting www.realclimate.org, which would TELL you how long this has been around (Svante Arrhenius raised the issue for the first time in 1896). As for my psychological knowledge, in fact, there have been some interesting brain-scan studies that indicate at least some conservatives may in fact be inhibited in their ability to learn and other studies that indicate they are lower in the Openness personality dimension, which predicts willingness (and thus ability) to seek out and absorb new information. The question is the cause and effect direction, of course. But in the past there have been thoughtful conservatives – what happened? Or maybe we should just scan posters on gocomics.com…
petergrt almost 15 years ago
Man made climate change theories are 100% BS - a lie!
Up until recently I thought that man’s activities have had - however small an impact on the earth’s climate.
After having read Vaclav Claus’ excellently researched and documented book Blue, not Green Planet (an economist now serving his second term as president of the Czech Republic), and a couple of equally well made documentaries - one British and one American, I have absolutely no doubt that he ‘theories’ have nothing to do with real science - certainly not climatological, and everything with the desire to control - in the way Communists and other religions want to control.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
Motive, what makes you think “openness” is a virtue? I don’t have the benefit of your exhaustive learning; but I do know the great healer, Jesus. I do know the link which you supplied first as well as your realclimate.org links are mere synopses of and collections of aggregate data; both lacking any intrinsic confirmations of any of the global warming theories that are being monopolized by politicians and demagogues in order to leverage public sentiment.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Wowee. petergrt, what entitles an economist to talk about and dismiss climate change? And which documentaries? The British one I suspect you are referring to (I’m sorry, I can’t remember the name offhand) has been found to distort data and outright lie about findings, and was condemned by British science organizations. Thousands of scientists doing what they always do – research – have found consistent data to support global climate change. What does that have to do with “control”? Science isn’t religion. And ShakeyPup old pal, synopses of real research by real researchers are rather more significant than political screeds by the uninformed, don’t you think? Claiming that because it is a summary, it lacks an “intrinsic confirmation” is just silly. All academic research papers have a section called “Abstract,” which summarizes the findings. Normal practice. And Jesus certainly seemed to think openness was a virtue, in that he was open to the dregs of society, and people who were despised and condemned in his time.
petergrt almost 15 years ago
“Thousands of scientists doing what they always do – research – have found consistent data to support global climate change.”
That is not in dispute - the climate is changing - all the time.
The man’s impact on such a change is the issue.
Claus is a brilliant economist - he looks at the independent body of research and puts it in a proper perspective.
With respective to the documentaries, they have one thing in common: the primary source of global heat is the Sun - a far from a constant source.
Libertarian1 almost 15 years ago
Serious climate changes are occurring. Naturally there are cycles with ebbs and flows. Also different parts of the planet are in different stages at any one decade.
But (a) we are talking about long term 50-250 years and (b) much of the financial burden will fall upon the US with some of the biggest contributors (China/India) going about their business lives without change. We are literally discussing spending trillions of dollars.
My personal #1 priority for us in the US is the economy, multi-trillion dollar debt and deficit, destroying, in the very near future 10-30 years, the lives of millions dependent on these entitlements. We face a very real, very near term crises because of the economic instability of social security, medicare and whatever health bill passes.
Unfortunately, we probably can only attempt to solve one catastrophic problem per Presidency.
With Obama facing Iran, the current economy, Afghanistan, health care, “bankruptcy” of social security and medicare, maybe the polls which show Americans concern over climate changes at the bottom of most lists is not so irrational.
petergrt almost 15 years ago
fennec and company:
get it through your heads - the sun is virtually the sole source of the earth’s thermal energy and consequent effect on its climate, and it doesn’t give a hoot about what you think or do.
To suggest that burning a few billion tones of fossil fuels even registers in comparison with the sun’s energy being sent, or not, our way, is grotesquely idiotic.
NoFearPup almost 15 years ago
Well, I don’t even know what you mean by openness, anyway. And how can you measure it? And again, we’ve already been through the global warming topic ad nauseum…There is not one shred of conclusive scientific evidence that what we are currently experiencing is unusual or is in anyway attributable to Mankind, except for local air quality. Goodbye and good luck with your therapeutic delusional concern over Mother Gaia.