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

A UN group of more than 2,500 scientists say there is a 90 percent certainty that GW is man-made.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-162428137.html

People lie with statistics, dont they... It is 90% probable. If it is certain, why dont you load a 10 chambered revolver with one round, and spin it. Hold it to your head and pull the trigger because a 10% probablilty cant happen can it ?

2,500...do you feel secure in a crowd ? Like on the Titanic..that was a certainity not to sink.

It is a guess. Tell me what the temperature of the planet should be without any influence from man. Tell me what causes natural fluctuations in the climate like Ice Ages. Tell me how weather variations have been eliminated. Lastly, but not least, tell me why environmentalists and Global Warming advocates feel so powerful and righteous. Then you can tell me why scientists and greenies have no human failings and cant be wrong.

Well, I live a (suburban) village, 80% conservative voters.
We don't have i.e. a single member of the 'Green Party' here and just some dozens voted for them.


Our environmentalis groups here don't really 'vilify' others ... however, since the two largest are run and organised by the local Evangelical and Catholic church, well, you perhaps could call it such.

On the other, Ionus, I have to admit that as a German citizen I'm "naturally" (pun intended) biased: in the main areas of what is called “environmental technology” we Germans have a significant hold. In heating and airconditioning we have 10% of the world market. In energy-efficient white goods we have 15% of the market. We have 90% of the biomass market, Germany accounts for half the world’s installed solar panels ... ...

I have to go off topic to clarify something. When I use the term Nazism I am referring to one aspect of a world wide cult that was one of the major factors of WWII. The Nazis in Britain wanted to join the axis. Those in USA tried to prevent their country joining the war. Several hundred Jewish survivors returned to Poland only to be murdered by those who had taked their homes. The French sent an entire train load of preschool babies to the concentration camps, having already overenthusiastically sent their parents. Within Germany, the largest group with blonde hair and blue eyes were the old noble families, who resented Hiltler and did everything they could to stop him. The most determined enemy to Hitler was Britain, who as a nation have a precentage of blonde hair and blue eyes higher than Scandinavia. We have learnt nothing if we think of Nazis as blonde haired blue eyed Germans.

The -isms, nazism, racism, sexism, communism, environmentalism, all demand blind obedience. You will believe or else...

Nazism is alive and well everytime you dont allow criticism or insult someone because of our differences, especially their beliefs. Anyone who is arrogantly confident of their beliefs, who can not rethink their opinions, and vilifies opponents, I call Nazis.

Lest We Forget....

If I was pro-GW that would make me shudder. This is a man who spins his head looking for a mirror, and then upon seeing himself, breaks into a big grin. I wonder what he is thinking: "God, I am pretty" or "Pretty, I am God".

A certain detachment from yourself is necessary to be objective.

People cite their experiences and say this is the worst drought or flood in 40 years. Whilst this is very folksy and makes for interesting conversation it is not science. To mean anything on a geological scale, we should be talking about 4 million years, not 40 years.

Starting 40 million years ago, there was a cooling trend which resulted in several Ice Ages. Our current Ice Age picked up the pace about 3 million years ago, resulting in the last Glacial Advance and Retreat from 20,000-13,000 years ago, called the Wurm Glacial Stage IIb. By 10,000 years ago, we had roughly the climate we have today.

What started that cooling trend? It is not known. Are we now coming out of this very long term cold trend naturally? Again it is not known.
Where are we with respect to Ice Ages? It is not known what starts an Ice Age. It is not known what ends an Ice Age. Are we to continue in this Ice Age, or are we coming out of it? If we are coming out of it then the planet will warm no matter what we do.

Where are we with respect to Glacial Advances and Glacial Retreats within an Ice Age? It is not known what causes Glacial Advances. It is not known what causes Glacial Retreats. Are we still coming out of the last Glacial Retreat? If we are then the planet will warm no matter what we do.

Prior to the last Glacial Advance the climate fluctuated greatly. Our weather and climate since the last Glacial Retreat has been unusually very stable. What is causing this extreme stability in our weather? Is this the norm or was the great instability of previous years the norm? It is not known. Why do news reports drum up very minor weather fluctuations as being extreme and blame Global warming?

For measurements of climate change and predictions of Global Warming, ice core samples and ocean sediment samples are usually used. Ice core samples only go back to the start of the current Ice Age. Most only go back to the start of the last Glacial Advance. Scientists say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. If we allow for Global Cooling, then we can reach the start of Earth’s climate at about 3.6 billion years ago. The most reliable amount of unreliable data only goes back 180,000 years. Long term climate is a linear trend and this means we only have one twenty-thousandth of the data. How do you predict a trend with only that?

In the long term trends for the planet Earth, we now have less green house gases then at any other time. There has been a steady decrease in green house gases since the Earth was formed and we currently have about 10% of the green house gases that were around when life started. The Earth was a good deal hotter then, and even only 125,000 years ago the world was considerably warmer than it is now. Why have we never had Global Warming before?

There have been many spikes of greenhouse gases in the past. One was produced when the planet dried out after the Dinosaurs and grasses came into being. Lightning strikes lit many grass fires which aided the carbon being released into the atmosphere by the forests dying out.

Most volcanic activity that is significant on a geological scale produces enormous amounts of greenhouse gases, each one many times more than the total produced by humanity since we lit our first fire. There have been many such episodes of long term volcanic activity. Southern India, Siberia and many others have seen huge areas of volcanic activity. Why didn’t we have Global Warming then? In fact, green house gases usually produce global cooling.

The West Antarctic and Greenland major ice sheets were not there in the past. They will not be there in the future and there is nothing man can do about it. However, they probably will return. Ocean levels have risen and fallen with the amount of water locked up as ice. In the past they were roughly 5m higher than they are today and have also been much lower, up to 80m lower. We are now close to the maximum level the oceans have ever been so the Earth has survived with even less ice than now. Which would do the most damage to the world’s reefs and shallow seas ? Being 80m above high tide or 5m below low tide?

If we had Global Cooling, it is probable that Ice sheets would cover North America, Europe and China. What would that mean for Nuclear War? There would be less rainfall world wide. Many continents not covered in ice would be cold deserts. This has happened before. It will happen again.
If we had Global Warming, vast areas of Siberia and Canada would be opened up for agriculture. There would also be deserts around the equator. They have been there before. They will be there again despite not being wanted.
If Global Warming is so understood as to be predicted, then why do some say Global Warming may introduce the next Glacial Advance?

One news report said that areas of Siberia were melting and releasing green house gases that had been trapped for 40,000 years. This has ‘Wow! Factor’ if you only live for 80 years. Does this mean that 40,000 years ago we had Global Warming and the Earth came to an end? How did we survive with those gases in the atmosphere?

The planet has shown natural cycles in what is a self correcting system. Many arguments are put forward for what a disaster Global Warming would be as if Global Cooling is impossible but which would you prefer? Which is objectively better, Global Cooling or Global Warming?

Some want to save the Tiger. Others want to save the Whale. Some want to show just how green they are by saving the non-cutesy ones like the shark. The shark cleans our oceans. Pig’s bum it does. If you are a fish in the ocean you have a 99.99% chance of being eaten alive by another fish. Other smaller fish then finish off the scraps. Our oceans are cleansed by microscopic life, the same microscopic life that does have a huge impact on Global Warming or Global Cooling, the same microscopic life that are the true lungs of the earth, not the rainforests.

In a worst case scenario, we could kill off most life including ourselves and still manage to evolve intelligent life again before the planet’s death in roughly 4 billion years, but only if we have not destroyed the microscopic life in the oceans.

Whenever there is an environment change there is usually an adjustment period of a couple of million years. Life dies out, then comes back into the changed environment just as strong as ever. This is why all species, rounded to 3 decimal places, ie 99.999% are extinct. Species are a temporay adaptation to a temporary environment. The Earth changes, people !

There have been the equivalent of Tigers, Sharks and Whales before and when ours die off there will be the equivalent of them again. Some like the big cats and the sabre tooth cats have evolved several times. Being terrified of change and desperately trying to save the now is understandable but not forgivable. It is taking away resources from what must be saved to protect all life on the planet, to allow cooling or warming to occur according to natural cycles and not just according to media interest because we cant change natural change . We must save the microscopic life in the oceans, and poisons, not carbon, is the greatest threat we face.

If the ocean’s microscopic life is so important, why isn’t more done to study it? Can you imagine Greenpeace vessels ramming other vessels to protect it? Or the captain of the Rainbow Warrior saying he could easily kill humans to protect it because it is just so beautiful and magnificent like he did for whales? A would-be murderer, but thats ok because he is green. I mean, it is not like he is a Nazi killing people because of his beliefs, is he ?

Perhaps there could be camera safaris to take happy snaps and brag about on your return? You have to look at it under a microscope for crying out loud! It’s just not sexy enough.

Those little wriggly things with big ambitions are not only where life came from but are probably the controllers of the climate, not us.

How did so much hype occur over so little science? There is research money to be had so people can spend a comfortable life doing what they want: studying animals. Climatologists have jumped on the band wagon. If we cut back on industry, we will save some environments. We will also delay the inevitable by creating a political climate whereby politicians can resist demands placed on them to increase the amount of resources consumed, especially as resources are becoming scarce. Why does every country expect GNP, a measure of consumption of resources, to grow every year? This can not continue forever.

There is also the need to develop the third world, probably at the expense of the industrialized west. Why is the Kyoto Protocol so in favour of poor countries if it is saving the whole world? It is a mechanism for redistributing growth.

Many highly qualified people including climatologists and biologists have expressed doubt about Global Warming but were quickly and quietly spoken to. Once it is explained what is trying to be achieved, most go with the flow. The aim of the restrictions that will limit Global Warming will do well for the planet.

There is no science behind Global Warming. Many mechanisms of the world’s climate now and in the past which are not in the least understood are not included to avoid debate. Global Warming is a guess that has grown into a conspiracy. It may accidentally turn out to be correct but so might any one of a million disaster scenarios for the end of days. Let’s stop advertising it as science.

Lies are counter productive no matter how noble the aim.

To go out of the topic, too: that's nonsense.

I cant let you say it is nonsense even if it is off topic. The Nazis own research showed the largest percentage of desirable features in any group was the old noble families. For their part, most of them snubbed Hiltler and openly criticised him at their gatherings. Hitler being Austrian, always felt a bit of an outsider and was somewhat in awe of the nobility which explains why he let them get away with it.

The military, naval and air force general staff were either noble or considered themselves noble by their position. They were a constant enemy to Hitler up untill July 1944 when they were purged after another failed assassination attempt.

Dont confuse doing their duty to Germany with supporting Hitler.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/006600.asp


I am reminded of the Pol Pot regime. Now seems like a very good time to panic before these extremists take hold. Are you Global Warming enthusiasts certain of what you want ?

I'm not confused.

You got a very weird view about German history and that of the Nazi-period in special.

I have no sources (and I've done some work for the encyclopaedias of German generals/admirals in the army, navy, air force, police and SS-troops) which could support your claim.

Same with your generalised opinion of the 'nobility'. (It wouldn't be correct either of I listed here high-ranked Nazis from the nobility, like the Prince of Waldeck, or just the nobility who were in the Reichstag on a Nazi ticket ... [see e.g. Engelmann: Einig gegen Recht und Freiheit, Goldmann, 1984])

So if you had to pick out one group who resisted, who would it be ? Because all the plots came from the nobility/upper class.

Nonsense.

Resistance came from all kinds of groups within the Reich. The members of the White Rose were university students. Groups and individuals who were affiliated with the former Communist Party (KPD - Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) - which had been outlawed by the NSDAP in 1933 - were planning to assassinate Hitler, and there were also plots involving the Soviet Union and the GRU. Even though these groups were acting independently, they were later treated as an organized terror network by the Gestapo and collectively referred to as "Rote Kapelle" (Red Orchestra). There were individuals who acted entirely by themselves, like the Swiss theology student Maurice Bavaud or the German carpenter and watch maker Georg Elser.

I don't think you can pick out one group - there wasn't any homogeneous group.

As said: nonsense.

Well, and I could add Goerdeler, Reichwein, Mierendorff, Leber, Haubach, Poelchau, Gerstenmaier, Steltzer, Delp, Rösch, König, Lukaschek, van Husen, Peters ... ... ...

I asked Walt to pick out one German group who, as a group of people, resisted Hitler the most and you return with individuals and foriegn groups. Of the White Rose, how many of them came from lower class backgrounds or would later go on to work at lower class jobs ? The peasants (for lack of a better word) did what they were told by comparison with say the Russian Revolution where workers were very active in attacking the regime and defending it. I stand by what I said. The single greatest source of resistance was by the upper classes. This does not mean that it was greater than the others put together, or that it was the only group which seems to be the interpretation put on it.

I never said there was one homogenous group. Dont change the quote, soundly thrash the "new improved version" and then declare yourself the winner.

That sounds like you are SURE of that statement. But wait.....



What a progression of nonsense from you Ionus. You moved the goal posts.

If all the plots came from the mobility then why did you later ask which group resisted the "most"? You sure look silly when you do things like that Possum. It's funny that you should attack others for believing something when you post such nonsense and then run away from it.