Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Well, to me the discussion (and it HAS gone on and on, not just on this thread) is... argggh... there seems to be Global Warming, followed by 1) What should we do, and 2) No it's not.

Following either of those two courses leads inevitiably back to something like 3) Mars may be warming, too, or 4) So what.

This is then followed by... more bad weather, more hand-wringing, and a lot of bad feelings.

I understand exactly what you're saying about the costs outweighing anything we might be able to do.....however, I wonder how those costs can be figured when nobody is doing anything and the world is... as they say, going to hell in a handbasket.

Meanwhile, the people in charge are mostly worried about staying in charge. Leading us.... where?

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

I understand exactly what you're saying about the costs outweighing anything we might be able to do

more precisely, anything we might find worth the trouble of doing.

Piffka wrote:

.....however, I wonder how those costs can be figured when nobody is doing anything and the world is... as they say, going to hell in a handbasket.

1) The expected costs can be figured with economic models that are about as reliable as the climate models used by Kyoto supporters. 2) If you find that too unreliable, that would cut both ways of the argument: If the costs can't be figured, neither can the benefits. 3) I think you are assuming your conclusion when you state that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Piffka wrote:

Meanwhile, the people in charge are mostly worried about staying in charge. Leading us.... where?

This point, if true, would cut both ways of the argument just like your previous one did. The governments of France, Germany, and Japan are mostly worried about staying in charge as well.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The earth may indeed be a very pleasant place for those few survivors of the oil and resource wars into which we are about to be plunged

Just as pleasant as it is for us few survivers of the whale oil and firewood wars, into which our ancestors were plunged when these valuable energy sources became scarce. Razz

You raise a good point though: I know a good number of environmentalists who simulataneously believe the world is running out of fossil fuels, and that it's headed for a heat death from runaway global warming. They usually find it hard to accept when I point out to them that the two beliefs are mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

Thomas -- I assume no conclusion. I have no idea what is going to happen and mostly, whenever I watch the news anymore, it is like watching a bad horror film.

That all the science and scientists in the world can't help us to understand what is going on with the apparent (nodding to the naysayers) seeming gyrations of the weather isn't much comfort. Neither are the accountants and economists who say nothing worthwhile would work anyway.

(Everybody complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it.)

That leaders all over the world want to stay in power, stay on top of the heap and are starting to purchase land in northern Canada... yes... that's what makes me worry.

Hell in a Handbasket? Just a turn of phrase and supposed to be funny. You should be laughing and not looking down your nose at me.

I happen to live in one of those northern temperate areas that is expected to do quite well with a gradually warming climate, though we worry somewhat about drought and the various creepy crawlers and critters who are inching their way north, we're frankly quite pleased about the turn of the barometer. Our weather has been fantastic. I am also happy to report that my waterfront lies approximately 50 feet above the shore. I'm no fool.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

Thomas -- I assume no conclusion. I have no idea what is going to happen and mostly, whenever I watch the news anymore, it is like watching a bad horror film.

Yeah, right, now you're insulting bad horror films. Ever seen Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? It's so bad it's good. Politics, by contrast, is just plain bad. No comparison at all.

Piffka wrote:

You should be laughing and not looking down your nose at me.

I wasn't looking down my nose at you, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

Piffka wrote:

I happen to live in one of those northern temperate areas that is expected to do quite well with a gradually warming climate, though we worry somewhat about drought and the various creepy crawlers and critters who are inching their way north, we're frankly quite pleased about the turn of the barometer.

We're having an unusually warm November here in Munich, and I must say I could get used to it. Smile

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Just as pleasant as it is for us few survivers of the whale oil and firewood wars

Must have missed that Thomas. You know I'm gonna make it my mission in life to try and convince you that we really are facing a big big problem with oil.

Dr Colin Campbell was a very senior geologist with one of the major oil companies. Here is his submission to the British Parliament.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/the_assoc_for_the_study_peak_oil.pdf

I know its long and detailed and in English, so for a man of your capabilities it shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes to absorb... Smile

0 Replies

I don't think anybody denies we're in a warming trend. I just think there seems to be plenty of argument that the trend is not all that unusual in the grand scheme of things. Yes, anybody can google up scientific opinion that it's the warmest ever and point to 'proof' that CO2 levels are unprecedented in this century while others offer equally impressive looking scientific opinion to the contrary.

In a recently completed poll cited on TV this morning--I got in on the tail so can't tell you the source--a majority of Americans do believe there is global warming; a small number, 12% I think though not certain, do not believe there is global warming; and it is pretty even among those who believe humans are and are not responsible for it.

I am among those who do not know. I simply want good evidence that expensive national policy and radically changing our lifestyles will make a difference before w go that route.

Meanwhile here in New Mexico we are seeing a possible break in a decade long drought, we have experienced somewhat warmer winters over the last decade, but we have also consistently experienced somewhat cooler summers. All in all the weather is quite pleasant. And we are a lot closer to the equator than Canada is.

I think it bears watching and continued scrutiny. I do think there is sufficient evidence that it is not yet time to panic.

0 Replies

Good and, it's true, I'm no connoisseur of horror films. I have not seen the Ed Wood's film you mentioned. Its memorable quotes" page on imdb were good for a laugh, that's for sure.

Quote:

Visits? That would indicate visitors.

I'm glad that Munich is having a similar weather pattern to ours. It is hard not to feel like basking when the weather is so unusually temperate.

0 Replies

Its warm here too. And windy. Meanwhile outside, all the trees have their leaves still.

0 Replies

I am sorry. Old Europe, that you did not take the points made by my link to the Report given by the National Academy of Sciences and attempt to rebut them one by one. There are some very very pertinent issues discussed in that report. I took great pains to outline them.

Probably the most important one was the one I have posted three times now( with this posting)--

"The nature and magnitude of these hydrological feedbacks give rise to the largest source of uncertainty about climate sensitivity."

Given your lack of rebuttal on ALL of the points I made, I can only assume that you either agree with my conclusions or that you simply are unable to rebut them.

Cheers- Old Europe

0 Replies

Thomas and Foxfyer have made some excellent points. I do hope that they are familiar with the material found in the National Academy of Sciences Report. They may find the link in my response to Old Europe. There are too many problems with the theory of "global warming'. How great it is: whether the actions of clouds will strongly mitigate it( See Lindzner); whether the action of the Sun is highly complicit in the one degree rise in temperature, etc, etc. etc.

I will be quite interested to see if President Hillary will shut down the American Economy to stifle the so called "global warming". Old Europe says that my comment about the "destruction" of an economy is paranoic. Indeed, some predict only a 4 or 5% downturn in the economy if our leaders were to fully accept all of the strictures connected with a questionable theory involving global warming?

Will Hillary take on a 4 to 5% downturn?

Of course not!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma are quite expensive.

0 Replies

I have been following this debate,and I have a few questions for those that think global warming is real.

1. Since we dont have the ability to control or predict the weather,how can we be controling the climate?

2.If the earth is warming,then how come the mean temperature on earth is LOWER now then it was in 1998?

3.If people can tell the "average mean temp" on earth,tell me how.
Are there thermometers covering every mile of the earth?

4.How does anyone know what the temp was 300 years ago?
Can anyone say with CERTAINTY what the temp in the Gobi desert was in 1600?

5.Assuming "cause and effect",then tell me what caused the last ice age?
I know the earth cooled,but tell me why?

6.IF man is causing global warming,then why arent the urban areas reading higher temps then the rural areas?
Shouldnt there be a noticeable difference in temps?

And lastly,

If the cause of global warming is man and industry,are you willing to allow some parts of the world,like Africa and parts of Asia,to remain in poverty and to allow those people to starve because they cannot modernize?
Are you willing to allow the third world countries to continue in poverty and squalor,to stop global warming?

0 Replies

I did not think that Old Europe and some of the other people worried about "global warming" and its effects would give up so soon and without even attempting to rebut the very detailed points I made( given with links, of course).

Then foxfyre gives a great summary concerning benefits vis a vis costs and Mysteryman asks some very pertinent questions.

Perhaps it is true that the "global warming" contingent cannot stand the "warming" provided by pertinent questions.

0 Replies

Mortkat, several of your points were rebutted by my posts. In fact they were rebutted using the links YOU had posted and not throughly read. You never bothered to try to rebut the rebuttals. You never do. You ignore the points that others make, and just repeat the same things. over and over again. Why bother replying to you. You don't discuss. You polemicize.

0 Replies

Really? I read your posts and do not agree that you rebutted. Would you be so good as to SPECIFICALLY state what it is that you THINK you rebutted.

You are obviously unaware that I made EIGHT SEPARATE POINTS.

You did not even touch on most of them. Why not? Don't be shy. If you can rebut them all, by all means do so, but if you try you will have to show that your rebuttal specifically shows that my posts are not correct.

This, I am sure, you will not do.

Cheers--Username--Good try but, as the soldier said in "All Quiet on the Western Front"--INADEQUATE.

0 Replies

Oh, yes, Username--I am afraid that you overlooked Mysteryman's trenchant questions also.

0 Replies

So, if the scientific results tell us that there's no global warming, I wonder why the White House would want to take those and change them before they publish them....

Quote:

White House defends editing of climate reports

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

Maybe somebody could explain....

0 Replies

I don't know why they did that, do you, Old Europe?

It could be that they did not want to give anymore ammunition to the left wing "crazies". I don't know.

And, did you say that President Bush made the changes?

Or was it Karl Rove?

Or was it Condi Rice?

Or was it a lower level bureaucrat.

Stop the nonsense, Old Europe. I assiduously posted a great deal of material which came< not from an individual, but from the highly prestigious and respected( show that it is not!!!) National Academy of Sciences.

Specifically rebut the points I referenced. If you cannot, alluding to a bureaucrat named Cooney who altered some lines DO NOT change the import of the NAS report.

Do you need the link again?

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

I don't know why they did that, do you, Old Europe?

It could be that they did not want to give anymore ammunition to the left wing "crazies". I don't know.

And, did you say that President Bush made the changes?

Or was it Karl Rove?

Or was it Condi Rice?

Or was it a lower level bureaucrat.

Stop the nonsense, Old Europe.

Reading comprehension, Mortkat. It's all about reading comprehension. Of course, you may want to call the Chief of Staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality a "lower level bureaucrat". But even then he's part of the White House administration, isn't he?

So, if the White House reads the scientific facts, the White House reviews the scientifc facts, the White House edits and changes the facts, the White House then publishs the report and, later, it is the White House justifying the changes, guess who I'm gonna blame?

And it's really funny that you would say

Mortkat wrote:

It could be that they did not want to give anymore ammunition to the left wing "crazies".

It's funny, because that's exactly what they stand accused of. "Hey, let's change the facts a bit. It would be too outrageous to mention the actual findings in our report. You know, all the left wing crazies were always talking about global warming, and we don't want our report to sound as if they were right!"

I believe that changing scientific findings to fit your own political agenda is irresponsible and unjustifiable.

But, of course, that's merely my opinion.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know