Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

From my own view, being uneducated in the science involved, the one thing they all agree on is that there is that in fact global scale changes in the environment that to date have yet to be fully explained. Bottom line is that things are changing, and again from my perspective, it will affect people differently.

It would be wise to consider the harsh reality of severe climate change. Some models have Edmonton matching San Diego's current conditions by 2050, which is relevant in as much as that is just about the northern edge of food production. This means that the northern territories would be on the edge for food production, an interesting opportunity or possibility in the future. My point is that there are opportunities everywhere. Perhaps that is the case for global warming locked up tight with a bow on it. There is money, lots and lots of money involved in this little debate.

[Michael Hardner]

Duh! Of course warming cannot be explained by solar sunspots alone. Nor can it be attributed to CO2 alone.....and by extension, even less can be attributed to man made CO2. Richard Lindzen said this:

Many so-called sceptics - like Lindzen - have similar positions that end up saying the same thing - we don't know how much man-made CO2 contributes to Climate Change.

Michael....if you haven't read the Royal Society's newly released guide that I posted in the other section of the forum under Climate Science 101....I'll post it here. It's a fairly refreshing look at the state of Climate Science and has sections that list what is well established, what is still under debate, and what is poorly understood.

Royal Society Guide: http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

I don't know if the "duh" if for me, or for Friis-Christensen. He put years into his research, before he changed tack on his theory so it's a complex body of work.

I read that Lindzen thinks that 30% of the increase in temps is due to human activity.

The Royal Society link looks interesting - I will look at it.

[Michael Hardner]

and Lindzen has zero... zero... credibility in regards CO2 attribution/sensitivity - his papers have consistently been refuted...

Caution, Waldo. Zero is the lowest whole number. If Lindzen has zero credibility, then what about the off-field bloggers who know math but not climate science ? Now what about the climate deniers and crackpots ?

Lindzen is a real scientist and without him, we are left with bloggers and posters here to challenge the science and ask questions.

[waldo]

And neither is in climate change. It just keeps changing, which is what it does best.

Like the weather - rain dance or not.

Btw, we could use some of the warm up. Minus 5 this morning.

it has been a while since I've seen such a lame attempt to punk a board.

[Michael Hardner]

And neither is in climate change. It just keeps changing, which is what it does best.

Science always moves forward. It's never settled.

[waldo]

Caution, Waldo. Zero is the lowest whole number. If Lindzen has zero credibility, then what about the off-field bloggers who know math but not climate science ? Now what about the climate deniers and crackpots ?

Lindzen is a real scientist and without him, we are left with bloggers and posters here to challenge the science and ask questions.

yes, a real scientist who properly received his due in regards his early 60's work... since his focus/attention shifted prominently in 2001, anything he's offered in direct relation to climate science has been completely and absolutely refuted. He has now been relegated to the dog and pony shows sponsored by such stalwart denier outlets as the Heartland Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition, Cato Institute, etc.

[jbg]

it has been a while since I've seen such a lame attempt to punk a board.

Saipan has long been a thoughtful poster, at the now-defunct Sympatico and CBC Boards. Hardly a "punk".

[BubberMiley]

Saipan has long been a thoughtful poster, at the now-defunct Sympatico and CBC Boards. Hardly a "punk".

Please tell us again how you had a hand in shutting down the CBC boards, grandpa.

[waldo]

Please tell us again how you had a hand in shutting down the CBC boards, grandpa.

oh snap - He's the guy!

(psa to jbg: note the use of punk in the verbal vernacular... as in 'disrespect', 'prank')

[Michael Hardner]

Saipan has long been a thoughtful poster, at the now-defunct Sympatico and CBC Boards. Hardly a "punk".

So what happened ?

[wyly]

It would be wise to consider the harsh reality of severe climate change. Some models have Edmonton matching San Diego's current conditions by 2050, which is relevant in as much as that is just about the northern edge of food production. This means that the northern territories would be on the edge for food production, an interesting opportunity or possibility in the future. My point is that there are opportunities everywhere. Perhaps that is the case for global warming locked up tight with a bow on it. There is money, lots and lots of money involved in this little debate.

Jerry because you see some colour on the map that's labeled Canada why do you assume it's arable?...have you lived in the far north? I have, it isn't the arable paradise you imagine unless you know of an agricultural technology that can farm bedrock and gravel...

the Peace river region is nearer to the northern limits of agriculture than Edmonton is...there potentially a strip of arable land from there to the arctic sea but it will not replace the loss of arable land if it should happen in our southern regions...only 4.5% of Canada is arable land that can produce crops...one estimate of future production has Canada as food deficient by the end of this century...

[Michael Hardner]

Wyly, there's also the matter of longer growing seasons, less disruption to business and our lives with winter. Granted, there's an expectation of other types of extreme weather - but the point is that would be some benefits.

[jbg]

Please tell us again how you had a hand in shutting down the CBC boards, grandpa.

I wrote out a greeting of "Happy Purim, from the J3ws to the non-J3ws", to evade an offensive filter of the word "Jews". Hutchinson of the National Post got wind of this from Lorne Gunter, on my e-mail list. I was interviewed for the March 10, 2004 National Post article, which bad publicity perhaps was one of the factors closing the Board.

Did I shut the Board? No, I told the truth about virulent Jew-hatred that pervaded the Board and its moderation. Shame on me.

[BubberMiley]

What's wrong with filtering the word "jews?" Some consider it derogatory, like "negro" or "civil servant."

You filter the word g*d all the time. Is it because of your deep hatred for the lord?

[wyly]

Wyly, there's also the matter of longer growing seasons, less disruption to business and our lives with winter. Granted, there's an expectation of other types of extreme weather - but the point is that would be some benefits.

there will be a number of trade offs to be sure but anyone that would suggest that it's all going to be beneficial is wishful thinking...we may gain some arable land in the north but changing weather patterns could destroy what we have in the south first, the prairies could turn into a dust bowl decades before we see any benefits further north...

[Saipan]

the prairies could turn into a dust bowl decades before we see any benefits further north...

"Could". But actually there's a dusty flood there.

"Could" be Lake Agassiz is coming back. Too much Rain Dancing.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Saipan

[wyly]

"Could". But actually there's a dusty flood there.

"Could" be Lake Agassiz is coming back. Too much Rain Dancing.

one season of higher than normal amounts of rain isn't a trend, it's la Nina...the prairies should expect a colder winter as well...

[Saipan]

one season of higher than normal amounts of rain isn't a trend, it's la Nina...the prairies should expect a colder winter as well...

Is "could" that didn't happen any trend?

Is one season of higher than normal temp a trend?

When we get the warm ones?

Edited October 4, 2010 by Saipan

[RNG]

Serious question. The news for about three years now is about flooding in all kinds of places. And that sort of grabs my attention because through so much of my life, starting in grade 3, we were campaigning for charity for the poor buggers suffering drought. So, anybody got an answer? Again, the change from global warming to climate change? What bullshit.

[Smallc]

The change was made because people, in general, are idiots and can't be bothered to understand(I used to be one of those idiots). The earth, on the whole, is warming. The climate, as a result, is changing. This down't mean that the entire earth gets hotter or more dry. It simply means that on the average, the earth will get warmer, and the consequences (again, on the average) will not be good.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Smallc

[RNG]

The change was made because people, in general, are idiots and can't be bothered to understand(I used to be one of those idiots). The earth, on the whole, is warming. The climate, as a result, is changing. This down't mean that the entire earth gets hotter or more dry. It simply means that on the average, the earth will get warmer, and the consequences (again, on the average) will not be good.

I disagree. Some may be hurt, but there will be some good. For example, maybe finally the Inuit will be able to grow themselves some vegetables. And therefore increase their lifespans significantly. There is always a silver lining.

Edited October 4, 2010 by RNG

[Smallc]

I disagree.

Disagree all you want. It doesn't change any of the science.

Some may be hurt, but there will be some good.

Will there be enough good? I don't know. I doubt it. It will be good for Canada maybe, but not the planet as a whole.

[TimG]

Disagree all you want. It doesn't change any of the science.

Science says many things. Some of it has a strong basis in physics. Some of it is nothing more that wild guesses and opinions. The consequences of the warming fall into the category of wild guess. We have no idea if it will be a net benefit or harm. The only rational argument for action is it could be a net harm.

[wyly]

Serious question. The news for about three years now is about flooding in all kinds of places. And that sort of grabs my attention because through so much of my life, starting in grade 3, we were campaigning for charity for the poor buggers suffering drought. So, anybody got an answer? Again, the change from global warming to climate change? What bullshit.

bullshit is right it's been climate change for 22 yrs, were you asleep the whole time?

[Slim]

Science says many things. Some of it has a strong basis in physics. Some of it is nothing more that wild guesses and opinions. The consequences of the warming fall into the category of wild guess. We have no idea if it will be a net benefit or harm. The only rational argument for action is it could be a net harm.

Hey now, that's not true at all.