Global Warming News

[Ken45101]

re: Easter Island:

When looking at specific land areas, don't forget that they have moved around considerably. IIRC, Wyoming was far south of the equator at one time and Antarctica was in a temperate zone.

 

[dave1949]

So what is man's impact on climate and what should we do about it?

Later,
Dan

It would be good to apply some common sense to the issue. There are lots of things mentioned in this thread that are irrelevant. Some that are just plain wrong, and others that are half-truths.

From the earliest days of global warming studies, the possiblity of more extreme weather events was forecast. That seems to be coming true.

The methane belching buffalo lived in an ecosystem that is all but gone today; how many trillions of tons of biomass comprised the native prairies, and 99% has been plowed down. A cornstalk or soybean plant bears no comparison to native prairie grasses. It isn't logical to pick out one facet of an issue and decide it means anything. It is a common mistake made by many people. Nobody understands the totality of how connected the environmental components are, but over time, the understanding is increasing that it is all connected. Push here and something moves other there.

If people like Rachael Carson had not existed, where would we be today? If you are old enough to remember the pre-green days, I think you would say we are improving. Of course there is no free lunch. It has taken investments in capital and knowledge and will continue to do so. That doesn't mean there is a cabal of people pulling the wool over our eyes to get rich. I guess if we are stupid enough to make a mess out of the planet, somebody will capitalize on our collective stupidity.

The polar bear population has dramatically increased, once hunting them to near extinction was outlawed. That has nothing to do with the polar bear's chances given the Arctic Sea ice decline. The two facts are not related and add no clarity to the discussion.

'Green' people prefer to use reusable grocery bags, not plastic or paper.

Old growth forests are necessary to support a wide spectrum of plants and animals. They may not be the ones that are popularly hunted. You can't turn the temperate zone forests into a giant food plot and expect good things to happen in the long term.

The earth's climate in historical times and back to the dinosaurs is certainly fascinating and worthy of study. It is no predictor of the future however, when the changes made by people in the past 200 years are considered. We can't even agree yet on what exactly has been done in the past two centuries let alone decide what effect it will have.

Humans are not equipped to think in long time frames. We think mostly from one meal to the next. From any one generation's frame of reference, the climate will look essentially the same to them over their lifetimes. That doesn't mean that suceeding generations aren't inheriting increasingly different climates.

The Bakken oil reserves are technically extractable, but at a huge cost to the environment. That does not include the cost to the environment of actually burning them. Is having all that oil worth turning the upper plains states into wastelands? Do the damages already happening in Colorado and Wyoming show us nothing?

Speaking of costs, lots of people ignore all costs except those at the pump head or bottom of the strip mine. That's silly. We know there are other costs associated with using just about any energy source. It becomes a lesser of evils choice. Compare the evils of coal to just about any other energy source. Even so, a few people here would be happy to just go on burning it and take their chances - and my chances and the rest of the world's too. No thanks, who says you get to decide all by yourself?

Common sense should tell us that injecting CO2 into the atomosphere at the rate we are is going to change something. I agree that what exactly changes or happens or not, is difficult to know, that's why it needs to be studied. The alternative would be to go about our merry way and hope for the best. Not a great idea in my opinion.

Yes, scientists need to be held accountable, we pay most of their salaries after all. I would hope someone fudging data was drummed out of their field. It is in the best interests of everyone; the public and other legitimate scientists. Climategate does not mean every scientist is suspect. We don't hear about the scientists that have too much respect for their field to ever consider fudging. That's not news.

Some of the opinions here seem to reflect a lot of fear of the unknown and fear of change. How else could someone actually believe there is a credible world-wide plot involving just about everybody, apparently; except for a few in-the-know souls on various forums? When we get on a bandwagon, we rarely recognize that we climbed on.

Some of the opinions are clearly politically motivated. When I see phrases like 'green elite' or enviros, or Al Gorewhatever, I see a person who is more interested in promoting a political point of view than anything else. The issue of GW at that point becomes irrelevant. It's just a vehicle to use for one's own purposes. The issue of global warming and climate change deserves better than that.
Dave.

 

[EddieWalker]

Dave,

I commend you on your reply. You stand out as the only believer who took the time and effort to put forth a reason for believing in global warming. You make some good points and miss a few. The biggest that jumped out at me was your comment about the polar bear population increasing because hunting them was outlawed. That never happened. They have always been legal to hunt in Canada. What was outlawed was hunting them in Alaska. The Native Americans in Canada have always hunted them, and probably always will. They are allowed to kill so many per year. They can either kill that number of bears themselves, or they can sell that permit to anybody they want to. For a number of years, Americans would go up there to kill a polar bear just for the experience of it, to take some pictures of it, and then give the meat to the Native Americans. Nothing goes to waste, it's just a question of who gets what. Then in the 90's, when the population of polar bears was discovered to be so great, the USFWS removed them from their protected status and allowed hunters to import the bears into the US. That lasted until just a few years ago whent he bears were relisted. Not because of low numbers, but because of the fear that global warming "might" reduce the ice mass and lower the bear populations. While waiting around for this to happen, the Native Americans in Canada continue to hunt and kill their quota of bears and anybody who is willing the pay the price can go up there and kill one too. It's not cheap, but then there is allot that goes into one of those hunts. You have to be fitted with a custom caribou hide suit to keep you warm. Nothing else will work. You can only hunt from dog sled, which requires allot of support and people to make it happen, and then their is a profit margin for the owner of that permit. If he can't use it to kill a bear himself, he expects to be compensated for it.

I also think that the reasons those of us doubt global warming is misdirected into something rediculous, like we're against the planet or are for polution. Not only is that insulting, but it's absolutely wrong. I'm all for fighting polution and clean drinking water. Unfortunately, this attack is used to mislead those who refuse to debate the talking points and instead try to change to topic by making personal attacks.

For a period of time, it's very likely that the planet was a warming. Unfortunately, we can only base this on science that has been proven to be based on lies and manufactured data. Saying that it's a conspiracy has allot of truth to it because it is all based on a few individuals with enoumous influence. Unfortunatley, those who want to debate their science were attacked and systimatically discredited. Toss in large sums of grant money to support global warming, and it quickly becomes a game of saying what is expected to get the money. People are people, and just because some of them have fancy degrees does not mean that they are honest or above being greedy.

For me, it's a simple point that they have had to lie and fabricate their proof to support man made global warming. If it was for real, then they should be able to prove it, and even more importantly, debate it. Their refusal to do both just screams out that their is something wrong here, and they are not to be trusted.

Eddie

 

[Ken45101]

From the earliest days of global warming studies, the possiblity of more extreme weather events was forecast. That seems to be coming true.

Oh? More extreme than what? Looking at long term cycles, we are no where near extremes. Those that claim we are having extremes are cherry picking the data.

Common sense should tell us that injecting CO2 into the atomosphere at the rate we are is going to change something.

The problem with common sense is that it's not very common

While I agree that something will change (with CO2), it is not clear:
1-- that mankind can have a significant affect on the globe (especially compared to natural processes like volcanoes)
2-- that it is a good or bad change. More CO2 will encourage plant growth (e.g. trees). Is that good or bad?

The one point that screams to me that all of this is a scam is that the proposals will NOT make a difference globally. If the U.S. destroys it's economy, all the dirty industries will move to China, India, etc. where there will be even MORE pollution created! China is adding a coal fired power plant every day, and each one of them is dirtier than the U.S. power plants. How is it helping the global environment to move industries to countries with less controls and restrictions? It doesn't! This is just a scam to destroy the developed economies. Somebody is going to get rich off of this scam, the economic health of the U.S. be damned!

If China, etc. had to meet the same requirements, it would be a different story. But that has never been in the plan. This is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth plan, dressed up in hysteria.

Ken

 

[catfishdaddyengineering]

Some of the opinions are clearly politically motivated. When I see phrases like 'green elite' or enviros, or Al Gorewhatever, I see a person who is more interested in promoting a political point of view than anything else. The issue of GW at that point becomes irrelevant. It's just a vehicle to use for one's own purposes. The issue of global warming and climate change deserves better than that.
Dave.

Well, of course it always comes down to political motivation. But it is also monetary motivation. The politicians, who complain about the one side having dirty hands from oil, have dirty hands from the green movement. Al Gore is making millions from Carbon Credits, while he still flies around in his jet and lives in his energy inefficient mansion. If he really cared about the need for carbon credits, he would use the technology available now to do video conferencing for his speeches instead of flying on-site to do a speech.

 

[Reg]

It is easy to confuse "Weather" (short term) with "Climate" (long term).

Receding glaciers and melting ice caps are a better indication than a few cold storms lasting days or weeks.

Last I checked glaciers and ice caps had NO knowledge of politics (-:

 

[dave1949]

Dave,

I commend you on your reply. You stand out as the only believer who took the time and effort to put forth a reason for believing in global warming. You make some good points and miss a few. The biggest that jumped out at me was your comment about the polar bear population increasing because hunting them was outlawed. That never happened. They have always been legal to hunt in Canada. What was outlawed was hunting them in Alaska. The Native Americans in Canada have always hunted them, and probably always will. They are allowed to kill so many per year. They can either kill that number of bears themselves, or they can sell that permit to anybody they want to. For a number of years, Americans would go up there to kill a polar bear just for the experience of it, to take some pictures of it, and then give the meat to the Native Americans. Nothing goes to waste, it's just a question of who gets what. Then in the 90's, when the population of polar bears was discovered to be so great, the USFWS removed them from their protected status and allowed hunters to import the bears into the US. That lasted until just a few years ago whent he bears were relisted. Not because of low numbers, but because of the fear that global warming "might" reduce the ice mass and lower the bear populations. While waiting around for this to happen, the Native Americans in Canada continue to hunt and kill their quota of bears and anybody who is willing the pay the price can go up there and kill one too. It's not cheap, but then there is allot that goes into one of those hunts. You have to be fitted with a custom caribou hide suit to keep you warm. Nothing else will work. You can only hunt from dog sled, which requires allot of support and people to make it happen, and then their is a profit margin for the owner of that permit. If he can't use it to kill a bear himself, he expects to be compensated for it.

I also think that the reasons those of us doubt global warming is misdirected into something rediculous, like we're against the planet or are for polution. Not only is that insulting, but it's absolutely wrong. I'm all for fighting polution and clean drinking water. Unfortunately, this attack is used to mislead those who refuse to debate the talking points and instead try to change to topic by making personal attacks.

For a period of time, it's very likely that the planet was a warming. Unfortunately, we can only base this on science that has been proven to be based on lies and manufactured data. Saying that it's a conspiracy has allot of truth to it because it is all based on a few individuals with enoumous influence. Unfortunatley, those who want to debate their science were attacked and systimatically discredited. Toss in large sums of grant money to support global warming, and it quickly becomes a game of saying what is expected to get the money. People are people, and just because some of them have fancy degrees does not mean that they are honest or above being greedy.

For me, it's a simple point that they have had to lie and fabricate their proof to support man made global warming. If it was for real, then they should be able to prove it, and even more importantly, debate it. Their refusal to do both just screams out that their is something wrong here, and they are not to be trusted.

Eddie

Hi Eddie, Thank you. It's always nice to be commended.

The point about polar bears is that hunting and listing, or not, the changes in Arctic ice will determine how well they do in the future. It seems they will have to adapt and hopefully they will. They are supposedly related to grizzly bears. Maybe one day we will be seeing pie-bald 'grizzpoles'.

It's (almost ) never my intent to be insulting. I hope no one was. The connection between the possible causes of global warming and fossil fuels is credible. But even if that were not so, the use of fossil fuels carries a lot of environmental downsides. From the extraction and refining processes to the smog and and heavy metals, it just has a lot of problems. It's sort of a defacto thing, if you are a champion of fossil fuels as they are used today, you are against a healthy environment. Of course we are dependent upon them, but we need to become less and less dependent on fossil fuels.

I have known few real scientists personally. My guess is they are more interested in their research than blogging opinions with people who are not as educated in their field. They just aren't into that sort of debate. They see it as a waste of their time. I hope the dedicated scientists aren't confused with the publiicty seekers and grant money chasers.

For example, you are a builder of fine things. You are conscientious and bring your best game. Other builders or contractors don't exactly live up to that, but we don't lump you or the results of your work together with them. I think that works the same way across most professions.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

Dave,

I commend you on your reply. You stand out as the only believer who took the time and effort to put forth a reason for believing in global warming. You make some good points and miss a few. The biggest that jumped out at me was your comment about the polar bear population increasing because hunting them was outlawed. That never happened. They have always been legal to hunt in Canada. What was outlawed was hunting them in Alaska. The Native Americans in Canada have always hunted them, and probably always will. They are allowed to kill so many per year. They can either kill that number of bears themselves, or they can sell that permit to anybody they want to. For a number of years, Americans would go up there to kill a polar bear just for the experience of it, to take some pictures of it, and then give the meat to the Native Americans. Nothing goes to waste, it's just a question of who gets what. Then in the 90's, when the population of polar bears was discovered to be so great, the USFWS removed them from their protected status and allowed hunters to import the bears into the US. That lasted until just a few years ago whent he bears were relisted. Not because of low numbers, but because of the fear that global warming "might" reduce the ice mass and lower the bear populations. While waiting around for this to happen, the Native Americans in Canada continue to hunt and kill their quota of bears and anybody who is willing the pay the price can go up there and kill one too. It's not cheap, but then there is allot that goes into one of those hunts. You have to be fitted with a custom caribou hide suit to keep you warm. Nothing else will work. You can only hunt from dog sled, which requires allot of support and people to make it happen, and then their is a profit margin for the owner of that permit. If he can't use it to kill a bear himself, he expects to be compensated for it.

I also think that the reasons those of us doubt global warming is misdirected into something rediculous, like we're against the planet or are for polution. Not only is that insulting, but it's absolutely wrong. I'm all for fighting polution and clean drinking water. Unfortunately, this attack is used to mislead those who refuse to debate the talking points and instead try to change to topic by making personal attacks.

For a period of time, it's very likely that the planet was a warming. Unfortunately, we can only base this on science that has been proven to be based on lies and manufactured data. Saying that it's a conspiracy has allot of truth to it because it is all based on a few individuals with enoumous influence. Unfortunatley, those who want to debate their science were attacked and systimatically discredited. Toss in large sums of grant money to support global warming, and it quickly becomes a game of saying what is expected to get the money. People are people, and just because some of them have fancy degrees does not mean that they are honest or above being greedy.

For me, it's a simple point that they have had to lie and fabricate their proof to support man made global warming. If it was for real, then they should be able to prove it, and even more importantly, debate it. Their refusal to do both just screams out that their is something wrong here, and they are not to be trusted.

Eddie

Eddie,

I disagree...

I don't don't think any of us here are qualified to debate climate science. What we can and do do is absorb the news and apply it to our world views.

There are enormous financial, political and geopolitical interests in determining where our energy is sourced and the kind of steps if any that we take to consume less of it.

To seemingly conclude that we do nothing about climate change because scientific debate remains in the accuracy of one climate model or another or in the efficacy of a particular method of data collection, given the circumstance and the potential consequences, would be irresponsible and perhaps reckless.

This is no longer about the science Eddie. Enough of a consensus exists today about man's impact on the climate that remediation efforts are taking place around the world and countries are dedicating enormous resources to addressing it.

And this is absolutely a political issue. It's very clear that American conservatives have attempted to use climate change to discredit their political opponents. We've seen similar tactics in the health care debate, in the questioning the President's religious faith and his citizenship, his intentions with respect to the economy and national security. It seems like conservatives are cooking up a new conspiracy almost on a daily basis.

The only difference between man's ability to exploit his environment beyond a point at which it can be sustained and other living organisms is his ability to rationalize the act Eddie.

History is re pleat with examples.

 

[EddieWalker]

I can't speak for the scientist, and what they are more interested in, but from what I'm observing, more and more of them are coming out against man made global warming. If you'll remember, when this all started, there was a list of signitures of scientist who supported global warming. It was used at proof that it is for real, and that it's caused by human activity. Since then, many of them have had their names removed from the list because they never gave permission for it to be there. I think the real number of scientist who support global warming is around 55, but I'm not positive on that number.

Anyway, there is another list of 31,000 scientist, with 9,000 of them beng PHD's who are denying man made global warming.

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming - Telegraph

Eddie

 

[EddieWalker]

I don't don't think any of us here are qualified to debate climate science.

It's very clear that American conservatives have attempted to use climate change to discredit their political opponents. We've seen similar tactics in the health care debate, in the questioning the President's religious faith and his citizenship, his intentions with respect to the economy and national security. It seems like conservatives are cooking up a new conspiracy almost on a daily basis.

Good try, but in your accusations, you expose yourself.

Debate is what is missing and we are all responsible for learning as much about it as possible. While I agree with you that there are two sides to every issue, there is one side who wants to debate it, and another side that refuses to do so.

I'm on the side that wants to debate global warming.

I'm also of the opinion that we need to debate and analyze what is in the health care bill.

It boggles my mind that there is nothing in it that addresses the reasons for the high costof medical treatment. If you don't fix the problem, then it's not going to get any better. And there is a list of why we should be very afraid of what is going on with health care. They are forced to bribe members of their own party to vote for it. They refuse to share what's actually in the bill, and they are rushing it through like there is some emergancy to pass a bill that won't go into effect until 2011. Since it doesn't do anything until then, why not debate what's in it and make it public so everyone can read it?