Do you believe?

[wrdwrght]

That's the key for me too. IF man is the major cause of climate change, the only logical solution is the one that's unthinkable - reduce the human population by 50% worldwide with the next 5 years. Everything else is either a feel good palliatives, pie in the sky speculation, or an attempt to promote some company's, industry's, or politician's agenda. War may be good business, but fear is an even better one. IF we're not the cause, we're still screwed as a species because we'll soon breed to the point where even the most perfect climate will not be able to provide sufficient food and water for everyone.

What would Malthus say? But as you suggested earlier, we're treading in hazardous ideological waters...

[JNewell]

+10! Agree whole-heartedly! Solyndra Anyone! :)

Maybe, but Guttenberg, Galileo and a host of others got the same...

[eric m.]

Maybe, but Guttenberg, Galileo and a host of others got the same...

Rather die in the Truth than live in the lie! Millions have gone before, and millions will come after!

[Gunslinger]

I have been working major overtime, pipes freezing and breaking everywhere.

Just to remind you guys/gals to unscrew your outdoor hoses, and if you have any water pipes running through an unheated cellar or basement to buy a space heater and keep those pipes from freezing.

[dialex]

It was -7 this morning on my way to work. It's so stupid to judge global climate change based on less than 100 years of data. That isn't even a blink of an eye on the grand scale of time.

A very pertinent observation. I don't think we have reliable recordings of the climate evolution older than 300 years now. Of course, there are stories about natural cataclisms (like floods, ice ages, vulcanic activities aso.) but IMO those are not enough to come to a conclusion.

[shunsui]

When the relavent corporations want my opinion on global warming, I'm sure they will provide it.

[JNewell]

Rather die in the Truth than live in the lie! Millions have gone before, and millions will come after!

Not sure what you're getting at - are you with the Popes who censored and excommunicated those two? :confused: They were very sure they had the Trvth. :o

[eric m.]

Not sure what you're getting at - are you with the Popes who censored and excommunicated those two? :confused: They were very sure they had the Trvth. :o

Absolutely not! Was referring to the martyrs of ages past, who refused to give in to "the established truth of the Papacy", and the future martyrs to come! :)

[Liquid Cobra]

A very pertinent observation. I don't think we have reliable recordings of the climate evolution older than 300 years now. Of course, there are stories about natural cataclisms (like floods, ice ages, vulcanic activities aso.) but IMO those are not enough to come to a conclusion.

Science is the search for truth gentlemen. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean someone else isn't dedicating their life to finding it.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_researc ... iefing.php

[Syncharmony]

That's the key for me too. IF man is the major cause of climate change, the only logical solution is the one that's unthinkable - reduce the human population by 50% worldwide with the next 5 years. Everything else is either a feel good palliatives, pie in the sky speculation, or an attempt to promote some company's, industry's, or politician's agenda. War may be good business, but fear is an even better one. IF we're not the cause, we're still screwed as a species because we'll soon breed to the point where even the most perfect climate will not be able to provide sufficient food and water for everyone.

I think over-population is a much more real and pressing danger than any sort of climate issue. Looking at places like China and India, they are so grossly overpopulated that living conditions are becoming intolerable. Some of the pictures coming out of China's major cities look like some sort of distopian future where everyone has to wear gas masks to breath and you can't even see a blue sky due to smog. That doesn't even touch on the major issues they are having simply feeding their people. Seeing that sort of thing makes me really nervous... It's only a matter of time before someone thinks that it would be simply easier to fight and take food and resources rather than buy it.

I hope I don't live long enough to see it but I could easily see a scenario where the next world war is fought for control of farmland rich countries. When you have more mouths than food, political relationships can sour quickly and the use of force becomes more and more likely.

Anyway, sorry for the depressing thoughts.

[eric m.]

I think over-population is a much more real and pressing danger than any sort of climate issue. Looking at places like China and India, they are so grossly overpopulated that living conditions are becoming intolerable. Some of the pictures coming out of China's major cities look like some sort of distopian future where everyone has to wear gas masks to breath and you can't even see a blue sky due to smog. That doesn't even touch on the major issues they are having simply feeding their people. Seeing that sort of thing makes me really nervous... It's only a matter of time before someone thinks that it would be simply easier to fight and take food and resources rather than buy it.

I hope I don't live long enough to see it but I could easily see a scenario where the next world war is fought for control of farmland rich countries. When you have more mouths than food, political relationships can sour quickly and the use of force becomes more and more likely.

Anyway, sorry for the depressing thoughts.

Before any 1%er starts to starve, better population control measures will be introduced!(ie.pandemic viruses, limited nuclear war in the middle east, and whatever else the global elite has in store) Don't get me a straight jacket yet, just wait and see! :)

[The Mastiff]

. I don't think we have reliable recordings of the climate evolution older than 300 years now. Of course, there are stories about natural cataclisms (like floods, ice ages, vulcanic activities aso.) but IMO those are not enough to come to a conclusion.

The ice cores/gasses, and tree ring studies have learnt lots of stuff. They have gone back in time over a half million years with ice cores. They can give you O2 and CO2 concentrations pretty much for the asking. In addition due to ash they have identified all major and many regional volcanic events. It also can give them an indication of how snowy/wet a particular year was.

They have found a bunch of stuff. During Rome's hey day the climate was warmer than now in the northern hemisphere. It got cold in the dark ages, and warmed again in the Renaissance. We are just about out of a cold spell called the "little ice age" which has skewed the last two hundred fifty years. It makes the warming seem more drastic when in fact we are returning to normal from this unusually cold event. Most of this is attributed to the sun, or precession, not atmospheric gasses which seem to follow not drive the temps according to the graphs from Ice core research.

We are still between eruptions of an ice age and will return to it within the next 40-70,000 years. The last event was only coming to a close 10,000 years or so ago when we had lower oceans, etc. ten centuries, or even ten millennium is a blink of an eye. A fast one.

Joe

[RanCoWeAla]

No I don't believe a word of it. That's all propoganda to help destroy this country by doing away with coal fired power plants while making you electric bill three times what it is now and putting thousands more out of jobs etc.

[araneae]

There are actually many scientists that do not believe in "global warming", but they are minimized because they do not follow the mainstream!

The non-believers are a very minimal part of the scientific community. A review of the scientific literature last year published by NPR found a 97% consensus that humans are responsible for accelerating climate change.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =184845126

It is sad how scientifically uneducated most of the public is currently.

[Liquid Cobra]

The non-believers are a very minimal part of the scientific community. A review of the scientific literature last year published by NPR found a 97% consensus that humans are responsible for accelerating climate change.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =184845126

It is sad how scientifically uneducated most of the public is currently.

Precisely.

[Liquid Cobra]

No I don't believe a word of it. That's all propoganda to help destroy this country by doing away with coal fired power plants while making you electric bill three times what it is now and putting thousands more out of jobs etc.

American scientists want to ruin America? For what purpose? I don't understand when people say they don't "believe" in things proven through research and fact.

I sit on the highway everyday with my engine running. Everyone else has their engine running. I'm in one spot on the globe surrounded by thousands of cars, every single one of them spewing out exhaust into the atmosphere. My little scene is not unique, the same exact thing is happening all over the planet 24 hours a day. How can people "believe" this has no effect on our atmosphere? The arrogance blows me away.

[kbuzbee]

American scientists want to ruin America? For what purpose?

Exactly! I ask myself that very question with every stupid thing I see these days. The only answer I can come up with is - they are insane.

I don't understand when people say they don't "believe" in things proven through research and fact.

It would probably help their case if they could scientifically "prove" the same thing twice in a row. They proved it was cooling, then they proved it was warming, now they've proven it's cooling again. And all from the same cause. They'd be way better off to say they have no idea what's happening or why. But that doesn't make them sound like geniuses, I guess.

I sit on the highway everyday with my engine running. Everyone else has their engine running. I'm in one spot on the globe surrounded by thousands of cars, every single one of them spewing out exhaust into the atmosphere. My little scene is not unique, the same exact thing is happening all over the planet 24 hours a day. How can people "believe" this has no effect on our atmosphere? The arrogance blows me away.

To my limited understanding, it's adaptation. If you put more CO2 in the air you cause more plant growth that then cleans more air, or some such thing.

And I agree with you on the arrogance (though I suspect we're looking at it from opposite sides)

Ken

[remnar]

The non-believers are a very minimal part of the scientific community. A review of the scientific literature last year published by NPR found a 97% consensus that humans are responsible for accelerating climate change.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =184845126

It is sad how scientifically uneducated most of the public is currently.

Did you really quote something from NPR? Like a lot of stuff they talk about on NPR, I didn't see any source given for their data. They simply stated that somebody did a poll of some scientific communications and found, "It shows that 97 percent of the time, scientists who express a view say that human activity is warming the planet". O.k., well sometimes human activity warms my sheets to. I do have a few questions about the study. What literature was studied? How was the literature chosen and who chose it? Who paid for the study? Why does the story lead with the fact that President Obama is tweeting about the study? There is some obscure reference to the study being published, but the exact date and location is not given. I'm pretty sure that almost everybody would agree that man has an impact on the environment and climate, but how did the "student" "volunteers" actually decide which opinions were which?Do you really think that NPR is an unbiased news organization? I surely would not rely on them for my scientific education. I do agree that it is sad that so many people are not educated about so many things. It is also sad that sometimes "common knowledge" comes from those that can yell the loudest and quickly diminish those that disagree with them.

[Liquid Cobra]

Exactly! I ask myself that very question with every stupid thing I see these days. The only answer I can come up with is - they are insane.

The answer is that they wouldn't. They're trying to warn us before it's too late. Let's just argue for a second that they're right and we take steps for the benefit of our planet and our future. That's a win. Now let's say they are wrong and we made those changes for the benefit of our planet and our future anyway. That's a win. So why not?

It boils down to recycle more, throw away less. Recognize CO2 emissions are out of control, so let's find a cleaner way to go fast. We need to heat our homes, let's use solar power to harness the power of the sun. These are just examples, but we need to work the problems for a clean solution. I'm sorry that coal miners will be out of a job someday, but things change. Adapt or die. Coal and fossil fuels are going to run out eventually. We need to research alternative fuels now, not when the well has run dry.

It would probably help their case if they could scientifically "prove" the same thing twice in a row. They proved it was cooling, then they proved it was warming, now they've proven it's cooling again. And all from the same cause. They'd be way better off to say they have no idea what's happening or why. But that doesn't make them sound like geniuses, I guess.

Even a little digging will show you what these experts know. It's scary stuff, I'm not surprised most people just ignore it and go about their day.

To my limited understanding, it's adaptation. If you put more CO2 in the air you cause more plant growth that then cleans more air, or some such thing.

Do you really think the earth is that simple? More CO2 means less of the suns heat escapes the earth, makes it hotter. Polar ice caps are melting which means less of the ice shelf to reflect the suns rays allowing more of it to be absorbed into our ocean, makes it hotter. We chop down trees like it's our mission in life which equates to less trees which equates to less oxygen being produced, it gets hotter. Our oceans are polluted and getting warmer making it more difficult for plankton to thrive. Plankton is responsible for 50% of the earths oxygen production. No plankton, no oxygen. And so on and so on and so on.

[kbuzbee]

The answer is that they wouldn't. They're trying to warn us before it's too late. Let's just argue for a second that they're right and we take steps for the benefit of our planet and our future. That's a win. Now let's say they are wrong and we made those changes for the benefit of our planet and our future anyway. That's a win. So why not?

Or, let's say they really don't know, but by acting like they do they can create giant governmental bureaucracies. And since these scientists are now acknowledged as the experts, they will be paid a lot of money to staff and run these bureaucracies.

Bureaucracies gain power by growing and spending more money, so the more crises we face, the more extensive and complicated the solutions are.

It boils down to recycle more, throw away less. Recognize CO2 emissions are out of control, so let's find a cleaner way to go fast. We need to heat our homes, let's use solar power to harness the power of the sun. These are just examples, but we need to work the problems for a clean solution. I'm sorry that coal miners will be out of a job someday, but things change. Adapt or die. Coal and fossil fuels are going to run out eventually. We need to research alternative fuels now, not when the well has run dry.

I (personally) support all of that. If a new technology is better let a company develope it, market it and hopefully make a killing on it. Hey, if solar is "ready for prime time" then it should be easy. Surely it's cheaper to collect rays from the sun than it is to dig coal out of the ground? Same thing with wind.

But let's not proliferate this quasi governmental works program where we spend billions of tax dollars on technology that does the same thing at 1,000x the price.

Oh, and there are a few other details to work out. Like the production of wind turbines is being done in China because it generates so much toxis waste it would never be allowed here. There is an entire lake of the most potent toxins ever discovered in China.

But, hey, if we buy their wind turbines, maybe we'll just go bankrupt and those Chinese can come buy America and live here instead.

Even a little digging will show you what these experts know. It's scary stuff, I'm not surprised most people just ignore it and go about their day.

A little digging can show anything you want it to. I'm not saying there isn't truth out there. Just that you'll never find it because it's way more complicated than anyone wants to believe. It's an easy story to say "Look, see the smoke? See the litter? See the oil in the water? We did all that, so we have to clean it all up!" It rings an emotional bell in people. They think it's right. But they don't get how amazingly complicated all this has become.

Right now, as I see it, we have several choices.

We can keep doing what we're doing. That is economically sustainable (well, for the next 400 years or whatever) and hopefully (probably) the planet will be fine.

We can enforce Kyoto Treaty style change, killing the economies of every developed country and plunging the world into global depression. This would help out countries who don't go along with these "treaties" as their economies will flourish.

We can encourage "green" research and development and as products become viable and competitive they can take their place among existing technologies. Even replacing them if they are superior. But these products have to compete on a level playing field. Taxing the oil industry to double the price of gas makes electric cars seem more cost competitive but it actually kills the overall economy. Governments (our government) should not be in the business of picking winners and losers by providing economic advantage. Stop subsidizing industry, agriculture, energy and all the rest. Just get out of the way and let commerce do what it does best. Thrive.

Do you really think the earth is that simple? .

Of course not, it was just one component, and that is kinda the point. I believe to think we can do anything to hurt the planet is, as you said, pretty arrogant. The planet is huge and our impact on it is, IMO, slight. But I'm no expert and I'll admit I want less pollution and a cleaner world. But I see all this climate change hyperbole as simply more political maneuvering to gain power and expand government. Something I strongly oppose.

Ken