Global Warming Proven Beyond Shadow of Doubt

[Bonam]

You are making an assumption.....get back to us after "humankind" has survived for many millions of years....like...say...sharks!

Sure. Tell you what, if you and me are still alive in many millions of years, we can sit down and have a nice chat about it.

Nope.....the planet doesn't care one iota.....our stay is ultimately temporary.

That's because the planet can't "care". It can't feel or think anything. It is an inanimate object. Humans are not. We can "care" and we can think. We alone of all creatures on Earth can comprehend the issues in the debate we are having now, which is why it is our existence which is of paramount importance.

They are still here in different form....adaptation is fun!

That's hardly relevant, but yes, lifeforms that are related to dinosaurs and have evolved through the millions of years since the dinosaur's extinction do exist.

[daniel]

...That's hardly relevant, but yes, lifeforms that are related to dinosaurs and have evolved through the millions of years since the dinosaur's extinction do exist.

So to conclude that raising global temperature levels within 100 years and comparing it as equivalent to temperatures hundreds of millions of years ago credits the deniers alot more imagination and creativity they don't have.

[Riverwind]

So to conclude that raising global temperature levels within 100 years and comparing it as equivalent to temperatures hundreds of millions of years ago credits the deniers alot more imagination and creativity they don't have.

The changes in temperature over the last 100 years are well within normal variation over the last 10,000 years. The planet was definitely warmer 5-8K years ago and there is evidence that the temperature changed at a faster rate in the recent past. See http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm

Of course, alarmist insist on denying these facts and insist that the recent changes are exceptional. One could say that alarmists are natural climate change deniers.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nevermind

Edited August 26, 2009 by TrueMetis

[daniel]

Mom: Jimmy, make your bed. Wash your dishes, cleanup after yourself.

Jimmy: But why mom, it's only going to get messed up again.

Mom: Don't make excuses. It's not respectful nor considerate to leave your mess for others to clean up.

[Riverwind]

Mom: Jimmy, stop breathing. All of the CO2 you are emitting is destroying the planet.

Jimmy: But mom, If stop breathing I will die.

Mom: Don't make excuses. What makes you think you deserve to live?

Fixed it for you.

[Moonlight Graham]

Improve compared to what? Which baseline are you trying to preserve, only to be faced with another cycle of change?

We can start with what Kyoto set out. Get emissions down to pre-1990 levels. But it's not about some arbitrary number. Humans should be trying to behave in a manner that is at least somewhat in balance with their environment. We need to act in ways which do not do significant harm the planet, because we are only harming ourselves.

When we chuck pollution into the air, water, and ground we only end up breathing, drinking, and eating it eventually. Logic says keep that crap out of my body.

Dr. Hawking has been wrong before, but is certainly entitled to his dire predictions.

As previously stated, his was just a estimate of the worst-case scenario, not what is most likely. Stephen Hawking is a scientific and mathematical genius. When it comes these matters, he's going to be right a heck of a lot more often than anybody on these boards.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[Riverwind]

We can start with what Kyoto set out. Get emissions down to pre-1990 levels.

And what if the technology required to accomplish that goal does not exist?

Humans should be trying to behave in a manner that is at least somewhat in balance with their environment. We need to act in ways which do not do significant harm the planet, because we are only harming ourselves.

Statements like this make me want to scream.

CO2 is NOT harming the planet. The planet does not care. The biosphere can and will adapt to changing CO2 levels as will humans. CO2 is ONLY a human economic problem because human settlements are not mobile.

When we chuck pollution into the air, water, and ground we only end up breathing, drinking, and eating it eventually. Logic says keep that crap out of my body.

Stop conflating CO2 with real pollution. There are many things we can and should do about real pollution but these things will not get done as long as governments are being pushed to spend trillions trying to solve a problem that may not actually exist.

Stephen Hawking is a scientific and mathematical genius.

On this point he is out to lunch. There are unique factors that resulted venus becoming like it is today and a similar scenario is not going to happen on earth.

[daniel]

...

Fixed it for you.

The perfect right-wing example of misinformation. A usual tactic to create general public confusion.

Here’s the original.

Mom: Jimmy, make your bed. Wash your dishes, cleanup after yourself.

Jimmy: But why mom, it's only going to get messed up again.

Mom: Don't make excuses. It's not respectful nor considerate to leave your mess for others to clean up.

[noahbody]

The perfect right-wing example of misinformation. A usual tactic to create general public confusion.

He likely would've gotten away with it too if he hadn't written "Fixed it for you."

Here’s the original.

Since little boys haven't been making their beds, the earth has been warming. I think you're on to something.

[Riverwind]

The perfect right-wing example of misinformation. A usual tactic to create general public confusion.

1) There is nothing right wing about pointing out flawed arguments.

2) The only one who is guilty of spreading misinformation is the person who is comparing the eliminating to CO2 emissions to cleaning dishes.

Such comparisons are nonsense to anyone who takes the time to understand the the problem. If want analogies then eliminating CO2 is like amputating your leg - something that no one would consider doing unless there was indisputeable evidence that there is no other choice. In the case of global warming the only evidence we have is the output of complex computer models being interpreted by people who have been caught manipulating/falsifying data in past.

[jbg]

We can start with what Kyoto set out. Get emissions down to pre-1990 levels. But it's not about some arbitrary number. Humans should be trying to behave in a manner that is at least somewhat in balance with their environment. We need to act in ways which do not do significant harm the planet, because we are only harming ourselves.

The 1990 baseline was hardly arbitrary. The European countries that have dominated the Kyoto process picked a base year where their economic activity and GHG emissions hit a pre-Cold War ending peak. Right after then, Germany reunified, tanking most of the former DDR's industrial capacity. Thus, the European basket of countries rather easily meets Kyoto targets while the U.S., Canada and Australia, whose economies were in recession at that time, have to make real reductions below already-depressed levels.

Indeed, certain other European countries have base years going back to 1986.

Can you point to one temperature that will be reduced by even one degree by Kyoto?

[noahbody]

In the documentary "The 11th Hour", Stephen Hawking says the worst-case scenario for global warming on earth would be all ice melting, massive amounts of CO2 on the seabed being released, and earth eventually having a similar climate as Venus, which has a surface temperature of 250 degrees. He argues that humans could not survive in a climate like that.

Firstly, that documentary came out in October 2007. To give Hawking the benefit of the doubt, he might have made those comments before the NASA data error was discovered in August of that year. Regardless, the new study suggests the worst case scenario would take six times longer to occur.

What Hawking has said this year is that global warming isn't the biggest threat to our existence. He believes it is asteroids. Maybe we should take that trillion dollars and put it into George Bush's Star Wars. We just need to rebrand it as Obama's GreenStar.

[daniel]

You have made your point, daniel. This is an issue of descency, consideration and responsibility. I retract all my previous posts and offer my public apologies.

[Riverwind]

daniel,

There is a running joke on this forum where quotes are modified in a response to make a point followed by a snarky 'Fixed it for you' note which indicates the quotes were modified. noahbody noted that in his response.

That said, I should have put strikethroughs and left the original text.

[jbg]

That said, I should have put strikethroughs and left the original text.

You've seen me use that technique, I'm sure.

[Moonlight Graham]

I apologize, I don't have the time to respond to all the people here, so....

And what if the technology required to accomplish that goal does not exist?

Then we reduce the waste and harmful technology we use that has caused the problem in the first place.

Statements like this make me want to scream.

CO2 is NOT harming the planet. The planet does not care. The biosphere can and will adapt to changing CO2 levels as will humans. CO2 is ONLY a human economic problem because human settlements are not mobile.

By planet i meant the environment. The biosphere is not adapting to the CO2 levels already. Look at the amount of species that have been negatively affected or went extinct because of it already. It is a dramatic rate that is causing massive harm to the web of life. Yes it's true that 99.99% of all species that have ever existed have become extinct. Life is constantly evolving. However, in my opinion it should be up to natural occurrences to cause the changes, not man-made ones gone out of control. It is morally wrong for humans to do this to so many species of life when it is entirely avoidable.

There is little moral difference in a bunch of people driving a gas-guzzling cars compared to rounding up wild animals and shooting the in the face. Same end result. The only difference may be the ignorance of their actions.

Stop conflating CO2 with real pollution. There are many things we can and should do about real pollution but these things will not get done as long as governments are being pushed to spend trillions trying to solve a problem that may not actually exist.

Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation in the man-produced CO2 in the environment and pollution caused from said CO2. Burning fossil fuels make up a vast amount of the CO2 humans poop into the biosphere, and burning said fuels also pollutes the environment. They are linked.