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

It's always interesting to see how many of the hard core pro-AGW group ignore stuff like that though.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

259
Biologist Josef Reichholf, who heads the Vertebrates Department at the National Zoological Collection in Munich, rejected climate fears and asserted global warming will be beneficial to humans and animals, particularly polar bears. Fears of mass species extinctions because of global warming are "nothing but fear-mongering, for which there is no concrete evidence. On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that warming temperatures promote biodiversity. There is a clear relationship between biodiversity and temperature. The number of species increases exponentially from the regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species," Reichholf said in an interview with Der Spiegel on May 8, 2007. Reichholf, a professor of ecology and conservation at both of Munich's two universities, and author of the book A Short Natural History of the Last Millennium, continued, "As recently as the 1960s, people were more concerned about a new ice age -- and that would indeed pose a great danger to us. The most catastrophic eras were those in which the weather became worse, not phases of warmer climates. Precisely because we have to feed a growing population on this planet, we should in fact embrace a warmer climate. In warmer regions it takes far less effort to ensure survival," he said. "How did the polar bear survive the last warm period? Seals are the polar bear's most important source of food, and the Canadians slaughter tens of thousands of them every spring. That's why life is becoming more and more difficult for polar bears, and not because it's getting warmer. Look at the polar bear's close relative, the brown bear. It is found across a broad geographic region, ranging from Europe across the Near East and North Asia, to Canada and the United States. Whether bears survive will depend on human beings, not the climate," he said. Fear of spreading malaria is also unfounded, according to Reichholf. "That's another one of those myths. Many people truly believe that malaria will spread as temperatures rise. But malaria isn't even a true tropical disease. In the 19th century, thousands of people in Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands and even Scandinavia, died of malaria, even though they had never gone abroad. That's because this disease was still prevalent in northern and central Europe in previous centuries. We only managed to eliminate malaria in Europe by quarantining the sick, improving hygiene and draining swamps. That's why I consider it virtually impossible that malaria would return to us purely because of climate change. If it does appear, it'll be because it has been brought in somewhere," he said. "There have been much faster climate fluctuations in the past, which did not automatically lead to a global extinction of species. As a biologist, I can tell you that only the fewest animals and plants are accustomed to rigid climate conditions," he added. (LINK)

Speaking purely as a layperson and with no pretense of any scientific expertise, it seems to me that if melt in Anarctica does not occur from time to time, the ice mass would continue to grow and grow and grow until it took over everything.

Foxfyre wrote:

Speaking purely as a layperson and with no pretense of any scientific expertise, it seems to me that if melt in Anarctica does not occur from time to time, the ice mass would continue to grow and grow and grow until it took over everything.

Foxfyre, with that observation you've earned an honorary degree in science!

But to presume to measure global climate cycles within 100 or 1000 years strikes me as pretty naive.

Well if CO2 DOESN'T increase before temperature does

There is a rough cyclical rhythm here on the high desert...

But to presume to measure global climate cycles within 100 or 1000 years strikes me as pretty naive.

I have never claimed that my impression nor my opinions have any validity apart from what I have experienced and/or those impressions/opinions that I share with people known to be experts in their fields.

Are you presuming that you know what the climate rules are and therefore your impressions/opinions are superior to mine? Are you making that claim at this time?