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

I think they get the measurements right, but they dont know the whys, nor do they know the most prudent responses. I believe that we need to know a hell of a lot more before we set upon draconian responses such as are being talked about in Paris.

I would be OK with a massive 10 year plan to learn more, a global plan to train engineers and scientists in the appropriate fields and to fund their work in learning about mechanisms and trying to design technical fixes. Till then we should only deal with the low hanging fruit, the less disruptive and less costly ways to lower the amount of Co2 we produce. I also think that we need to start thinking about setting up means to carry out global approaches in the future should they be required, we dont currently have the institutions to do that,

To be clear what they SHOULD be talking about right now is ways to train more specialists, ways to fund the work, and ways to share information in such a way that it is shared fast and that we the people of the world dont get hung up on corporate hold-ups by way of patent laws. Whoever finds the best response should not be able to hold the humans of Earth hostage to unreasonable profit demands. This is not the time to be promising to degrade our quality of life in individual countries to attempt to help out the global climate situation, because we dont know enough and because nothing is going to work unless the people of earth work together. And the promises such as these are rarely kept anyways, and will not be kept if the little people do not agree because they will exact revenge upon any government that tries to forfeit their quality of life for global climate change when only part of the globe, at this point a small part, is doing all the giving up. That is the definition of chump, and few of us want to be chumps.

Are americans going to be OK with power prices going + 300% for the good of the Earth when China and india are pumping out increasingly amounts of Co2 year after year? No way.

Is a global community that can not even get their act together save the tiny nation of Haiti, after spending gobs of money, after hundreds of hours of press conferences and tens of thousands of hours of meetings, capable of saving the Earth?

Now that is funny stuff right there.

Doing nothing will end up costing us more in dollars and economic turmoil than doing something. Companies are coming to that realization. Ask the insurance companies how they think the warming planet will affect their bottom line.

You are proposing studying something for 10 years after you have rejected out of hand the research from the last 100. Why would you believe 10 more years of research?

We dont know that, and the something that we should be doing may well be managing global changes rather than trying to prevent them. Maybe the correct thing to do is work on managing water supplies and learning how to live on less water. Maybe the correct thing to do is to put most of our effort into managing human population levels...something that we are not currently willing to even think about. We are not even talking about those kinds of efforts to serve ourselves and future generations, everybody wants to talk about Co2, even though cutting Co2 will be horribly disruptive and we dont know what good it will do, or how long it would take to see improvement even if we become sure it would eventually. Are people who are willing to **** over the next generation financially going to do without on the POSSIBILITY that the sacrifice would help the grandkids? I dont see it happening. Improving our utilization and water though is something that would start paying off immediately, and it would help up to deal with what ever might be coming.

This stuff that is happening in Paris right now is the dictionary definition of going off half cocked.

Whackeye is an idiot, which is not news to anyone here. Whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere is a good idea. Whackeye wants ten more years of study because he's only just realized it might be true.

In fact, all Whackeye ever does around here is to attempt to figure out what the minority position might be, so he can tout and appear to be a courageous voice against the accepted wisdom. He's always working without a clue.

How did it get to be the only idea? What kind of people pick one idea on light evidence and then claim that we should run with it regardless of costs and not try to come up with better ideas?



Jesus man, is your brain now so feeble that it can not input new information? Had you listened to me starting about 6 years ago you would not now be surprised by the rise of Trump, as just one of many for instances where your biases and prejudice against the minority view serves you poorly. And Global warming is not about me, I am just one of 7.2 billion people, and global warming if it exists will impact many times more than that before the century is out according to prediction. How about you make the Herculean effort that would be required for you to talk about the thread topic rather than little old me? Do you think you could try?

The evidence is not light; it is in fact overwhelming. There are huge melt lakes on the surfaces of the Greenland glaciers every summer, and have been for years. For more than ten years, NASA's satellites have shown that the Arctic ice pack has been shrinking. There is now incontrovertible evidence that the west Antarctic ice sheet is starting to detach from that continent--estimates for it's final detachment are 50 years to 150 years. When that happens, Miami will be underwater, along with Holland, Bangladesh, more than half of Indonesia, much of New York and Los Angeles, most of Tokyo--the list goes on and on.

You have no idea what my attitude towards Trump is. I defy you to quote a post of mine on the subject. You are just making sh*t up, as you always do, in an attempt to come up with an argument. Trump floated the idea of a presidential run in 1988, 2004 and 2012. He at least has had enough business sense to realize that without broad-based support, he'd have to spend his own money on what might have been a dubious venture, and he has no interest in that.

Who the hell does "you people" refer to? You are laughably clueless. In Lash's thread about a possible Russian-Chinese alliance, you posted a link for and quoted an article about Iran in the middle east which did not mention either Russia or China. It was a standard performance for you, to run out and find the first thing you could on an inept web search, and then post it as though you are wise and knowing. Here, you refer to "light evidence," and then write about "impact many times more" in an inept and largely incoherent sentence in which you also write "global warming if it exists," as though there any doubt among well-informed individuals. This thread is not about you, but any thread is about bullsh*t, which should be called when seen. I'm calling bullsh*t on you--which, if i did it every time you posted bullsh*t would turn into a full-time job.

The Earth is getting warmer, it may or may not keep getting warmer, it may or may not keep getting warmer for the next 100 years regardless of what we do on Co2.....so maybe the best place to put money is on sea wall and water pumping solutions. We should think hard before we blow our wad on Co2 control.

My argument has nothing to do with what you think of Trump, nor did I make a claim about your views on Trump, it has to do with the fact that I am often right and that the minority view often turns out to be the correct view so your consistent bias and prejudice is your failing, and you are not a good example to follow. Open minds which are willing to constantly take in information and reevaluate is where the gravy is when it comes to promoting civilization.

Unlike a lot of people around here I do attempt to support my opinion with internet evidence, because it is the right thing to do. Your mistake is in assuming that that is all I do, that I did not do years or decades of looking at and evaluating the question before I did that. And sure I am not going to spend a lot of time doing stuff that others are not willing to do at all, and I am not going to write up a 10,000 word essay trying to advance my argument because few if any around here would take the time to read it and then give me honest feedback on it. What we see here is just another facet of your bias and prejudice against people and ideas that dont conform to your tastes.

We don't know what it will cost to do nothing but you know what it will cost to do something?

I see you are more than happy to **** over your grandkids based on your stance on the issue. Improving our utilization of water isn't going to prevent drought or floods. What do you think it will cost to move water on a massive scale to mitigate droughts and floods?

Funny you should bring up Trump on a discussion of sea walls to protect many major metropolises. I suppose you think the rising sea will pay for those walls so we don't have to.

it will be expensive, but we should be able to figure out ways to do it cheaper. We best get working on it, as water problems are already here, and it will be the first major problem we will face if the human cause global warming theorists are right, and if they are right that it takes 100 years to impact the global systems we will see extreme water problems for sure, probably very soon. THe scientists were warning about major global water management issues back in the 80's long before all this CO2 chatter started up, and yet we have ignored the issue. It is time to get on it, and in my opinion it almost certainly is a higher priority than trying to manage CO2 output. But predictably we cant hardly even strike up a conversation on that.

Gosh, it would be cheaper if we reduced the likelihood of drought and floods rather than increasing it. Oh wait. You prefer to say "**** you, grandkids."

Your self-delusion is breathtaking--and unsurprising.

By the way, Whackeye, you introduced Trump to the conversation, apparently thinking you can just make unsubstantiated claims and that will support your silly, overinflated ego. Trump first investigated a presidential run 27 years ago--so your six years means nothing. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (You do understand how analog clocks work, right?)

Indeed, if CO2 is the cause, and I don't know that it is, we may well have already passed some tipping point. I don't think anyone suggests that we can eliminate all anthropogenic carbon dioxide releases, and it might not make any real difference if we could. It is time to deal with the results of our global warming. But go ahead and fix the blame instead of the problem if it makes anyone feel better.

Noting that the use of fossil fuels releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not fixing the blame. Noting that cutting down forests on massive scales reduces nature's way of scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is not fixing blame. Were i, personally, to fix blame, i'd blame the energy industry, heavily dependent upon selling fossil fuels, for the anti-global warming hysteria. They certainly don't care about Whackeye's grandkids, or Parados' or mine or yours. They just care about how much money they can stuff in their pockets, and the rest of us be damned. It is in their interest to muddy the waters about global warming, and to interfere in any solution which may reduce their income.

I like to shame my neighbor. He drives a 4wd pickup with crew cab, and uses it exactly as I use my car. I only give him a hard time in the summer, though.

How big is he? Is he ill-tempered?

Nothing that a $1.85 per gallon increase in the federal gas tax would not solve. We should to that yesterday.

By the way, to the suggestion that we don't know if the climate will continue to warm, i also say bullsh*t. Warming-cooling cycles run about 1700 to 2300 years, 2000 years for practical purposes. This can be seen from the 8.2 kiloyear event, the 5.9 kiloyear event and the 4.2 kiloyear event (descriptions of all these events can easily be found online). The last prolonged cooling period in the northern hemisphere seems to have bottomed out in the winter of 1709-10. That winter was so cold that animals in burrows--badgers, rabbits, etc.--froze to death in the ground. Birds froze to death in trees and shrubs, and fell dead on the ground. Giant packs of wolves, some estimated at one hundred or more individuals, roamed in towns and cities, and attacked individuals, in the hope of killing and eating them. On more than one occasion, giant wolf packs attacked the barriers of the roads leading into Paris--they launched themselves at lines of infantry armed with muskets and bayonets--those who made it past the troops hunted in the streets for children, the elderly, the homeless. This was in the midst of the War of the Spanish Succession, with English, Dutch and German troops, as well as French troops, who provided the testimony of conditions in France, as well as their home countries.

If the patterns that can be seen for the last 1o,000 years run true (and there's no good reason to assume otherwise), we're 1500 years or more away from the next deep freeze. Count on it.