Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

[Xiahou]

Here's a story that's not making many headlines:

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.

Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.

Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”link (http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894)

I really liked this part...
But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.

“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”:2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

Um, I'm not going to dispute that the guy is qualified, nor the essential points he's making, but how is inevitable climate change that is beyond human control a good thing? I mean, where does the happy thumbs-up figure into this?

There's plenty of real climate change information out there, if one cares to look for it. The most interesting data, to this lemur, is the stuff coming from ice core samples, which show that the earth's climate is far more dynamic than we used to think. But think about it, Xiahou -- people have been building and pouring money into coastal cities and developments for hundreds of years. Their heirs are going to be in for a nasty shock if the seaboards change even slightly.

It's a serious issue, and I'm uninterested in the fear-mongering from the enviro-extremists. I'm even less interested in the bland complacency coming from the G.O.P.

Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.

[Big_John]

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.maybe it was sarcastic.

[Lemur]

Well, the "inevitable" quote was preceded by "I really liked this part," and followed by the little yllow guy giving the thumbs-up, so it sounded like Xiahou was borderline gleeful. Of course, the Lemur has been known to miss the joke on more than one occasion ...

[Proletariat]

I won't put words in Xiahou's mouth, but I think he was taking a jab at the partisianship surrounding this issue, rather than taking glee in masses of luxurious vacation homes being wiped off the map.

I wish I could find AdrianII's threads on global warming. He was able to devastate both sides so thoroughly that I'll never be able to take new developments in this argument without heavy skepticism.

[Xiahou]

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.
The :2thumbsup: is kudos to someone who's actually talking sense on the issue instead of following the pack. It's rare when you see someone come out so publicly with his viewpoint- there are certainly many, many other scientists out there who feel things like Kyoto are unwarranted or unecessary, but you seldom hear from them.


Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.I really dont think we're going to wake up one morning to discover Manhattan is underwater- this sort of thing (if it happens*) is going to take decades or more likely, hundreds of years. That's what really burns me up about scaremongers like Al Gore with crappy powerpoint presentations showing NYC filling with 20ft of water- totally ridiculous.

*Some recent studies suggest that grounded ice -which makes up the overwhelming majority of total world ice- is actually increasing. Melting sea ice isnt worth worrying about anyhow in terms of flooding, since it's mass equals its water displacement.

[Ronin]

*Some recent studies suggest that grounded ice -which makes up the overwhelming majority of total world ice- is actually increasing. Melting sea ice isnt worth worrying about anyhow in terms of flooding, since it's mass equals its water displacement.

really? :inquisitive:

someome should tell the glaciers in switzerland to get with the program then...
because they sure as hell aren´t increasing...

link (http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier_retreat.htm)


....I´ll look over what this guy is saying latter...don´t have time right now at work....but a scientist that uses phrases like "I’m sure that’s it" is kinda asking to have his ass handed to him.

[doc_bean]

I really dont think we're going to wake up one morning to discover Manhattan is underwater- this sort of thing (if it happens*) is going to take decades or more likely, hundreds of years.

Not neccessarily, climate is determined by more than average global temperature, for northern Europe (at least), its relatively mild climate is due to the gulf stream. Research in Greenland has shown that sometimes the Gulf stream just 'shuts down' in which case temperatures can go down 20°C in a decade (from memory, it was a lot anyway). Global warming isn't just dangerous because it can increase average temperature, but also because it can disturb the balance that keeps our climate the way it is.

Now, previous ice ages and warm periods were always caused by natural phenomena, and it is indeed valid to wonder whether or not we are to blame this time.

However: When discussing something like pedophilia, a lot of people claim these people should be killed and/or locked up for life because maybe, if released, they can rape another child and we just can't take that risk. Now, often these same, people say that since we don't know if we are causing global warming we shouldn't worry about it ? This time it needs to be proved there will be damage while in the other case there has to be absolute proof there won't be ? And while a pedophile might rape a few children, global warming might destroy entire countries.
I think we should look at this rational, we need to limit out impact on the environment simply because we don't know what the effects will be, we need to minimize the risks, as we always do.

[Xiahou]

really? :inquisitive:

someome should tell the glaciers in switzerland to get with the program then...
because they sure as hell aren´t increasing...

link (http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier_retreat.htm)


....I´ll look over what this guy is saying latter...don´t have time right now at work....but a scientist that uses phrases like "I’m sure that’s it" is kinda asking to have his ass handed to him.It's silly to think glaciers should remain constant- they're affected substantially by various local conditions including precipitation. Many are shrinking, some are growing. Besides, glaciers outside of Greenland and Antarctica make up a completely insignificant portion of total grounded ice... less than 1%*.

*see"What if All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html)

On increased ground ice:

Recent changes to ice shelves around the northern Antarctic Peninsula have inspired various environmentally-minded groups to warn that Antarctic ice is about to become a victim of "global climate warming." There is clearly a connection between warming around the Antarctic Peninsula and the collapse of peninsular ice shelves. Profound ecological changes are also occurring in response to local climate change. However, temperatures in the interior of the continent have remained fairly constant (Mosely-Thompson 1992) and it is not yet known whether the observed warming is part of a global trend or is simply a normal fluctuation in local climate. Moreover, warming may actually increase the volume of ice stored in the large Antarctic ice sheets. Dramatic as the retreat of peninsular ice has been, that ice is less than 1% of the total Antarctic ice volume (Swithinbank 1988) and its maximum possible contribution to global sea level is less than 50 cm. It seems that, in the rush to demonstrate the perils of human-induced environmental degradation, much of what scientists have learned about ice in Antarctica is being ignored.Note that they're referring to increased local temps around the Antarctic Peninsula and not necessarily a global trend- as indicated by italics.

Recent changes to Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves: What lessons have been learned? (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-06/ns_clh.html)

There are other studies that talk about it(google around), I grabbed this article because it was, imo, an interesting read.

[Lemur]

The :2thumbsup: is kudos to someone who's actually talking sense on the issue instead of following the pack. It's rare when you see someone come out so publicly with his viewpoint- there are certainly many, many other scientists out there who feel things like Kyoto are unwarranted or unecessary, but you seldom hear from them.
Um, I've never noticed that it's particularly difficult to find a scientist who dissents with anything. That's sort of the nature of the beast. As I was saying in another thread, we're getting low on flat earthers, but that's about it.

For the last ten years there were scientists and reports being brought forward claiming that climate change was entirely fictional. Now we have a gentleman who believes that it's inevitable, and uncontrollable. Really, I still think it's quite odd to be jazzed about that position.


I really dont think we're going to wake up one morning to discover Manhattan is underwater- this sort of thing (if it happens*) is going to take decades or more likely, hundreds of years.
Hm, I'm having trouble finding the place where I said that.

If I'm understanding your positions, as staked out in this thread:


Climate change will come
It will be really, really slow
There's nothing we can do about it
Sea levels won't change in any significant way, because of ground ice
Inevitable disasters are good if they contradict Al Gore

Does that capture the essence, or am I missing some crucial bits?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Lol! "meteorologist disputes global warming". The field is climatology :laugh4:

I can't imagine why this story isn't making many headlines.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

[yesdachi]

Lol! "meteorologist disputes global warming". The field is climatology :laugh4:

I can't imagine why this story isn't making many headlines.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html
And Gore is a Climatologist? :inquisitive:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And Gore is a Climatologist? :inquisitive:

Why on earth would you think Shakespeare was????

:dizzy2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's a serious issue, and I'm uninterested in the fear-mongering from the enviro-extremists. I'm even less interested in the bland complacency coming from the G.O.P.

Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.

Where's the chipper thumbs-up in that? Please explain.

Ouch. You have hit upon the one nearly inevitable problem. Regardless of what brings about change -- and its inevitable even if simple cyclic shift is the only reason -- I will be expected to bail out the waterfront developers with my tax dollars.

I don't think anyone has really planned with multiple centuries of life on a coastline as their rubric for what designs and parameters are sensible.

[yesdachi]

Why on earth would you think Shakespeare was????

:dizzy2:
I dont get it.

[Scurvy]

But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.


why china and india? the whole world is pumping out greenhouse gasses

it is nice to see a non-enviromentalist article though, the argument is far too one sided :2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I dont get it.

I'm sorry. I assumed from your post that you thought shakespeare was the source of all climate related knowledge. Looking back, I'm not sure what made me think that, oops! :2thumbsup:

[yesdachi]

I'm sorry. I assumed from your post that you thought shakespeare was the source of all climate related knowledge. Looking back, I'm not sure what made me think that, oops! :2thumbsup:
What light through yonder window breaks? Tis the sun off Juliet’s greenhouse gas.

He probably knew as much about it as some experts today. ~D

[Tribesman]

Here's a story that's not making many headlines:

Thats funny since Gray makes lots of headlines for a retired proffesor .
Normally about a subject that isn't his speciality .:juggle2:

[Silver Rusher]

He shot himself in the foot so many times in that argument. If some of those statements weren't there maybe it would be credible.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thats funny since Gray makes lots of headlines for a retired proffesor .

I’m still working every day, but I don’t teach and I don’t have as many graduate students and as much financial need.

Your trolling is getting weaker as of late. Funnily enough, most of his funding got cut off after Clinton and Gore came to office.

Anyways, in relation to the second part of his quote, I recall reading that such was the case with scientists studying agent orange - saying it's not a great problem doesn't get you more grant money to study, does it?


Lemur's prediction: Sea levels will change, and when they do, the taxpayer will be expected to buy off every idiot who built their house on low ground.
Another evil of socialism! :knight:

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Your trolling is getting weaker as of late.
What trolling Rabbit ?
Do you not understand simple sentances in plain english ?

Here have some help .
Here's a story that's not making many headlines:

Thats funny since Gray makes lots of headlines for a retired proffesor .
errr....... thats a hard one isn't it , the story linked is just one of many stories in the wider media and specialist publications that feature Gray and his theories , so to say that the story doesn't make many headlines is a statement of the bollox variety .
The mentioning that he is a retired proffesor is due to the fact that he has retired from the position , but is allowed to retain the title though he no longer holds the position .
Which means the article ....
Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University.......
is incorrect . It should read "was" .

See if you can grasp this bit .....I’m still working every day, but I don’t teach ........what do you call a teacher who doesn't teach ?
Well apart from "a useless teacher" the normal word in the english language is retired :idea2: amazing isn't it . So simple but obviousy of such complexity that you cannot understand it .


So that leads to the question Rabbit , what draws you to this story ? is it because it bears a resemblance to a story that isn't reported that actually is reported ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

If I'm understanding your positions, as staked out in this thread:


Climate change will come
It will be really, really slow
There's nothing we can do about it
Sea levels won't change in any significant way, because of ground ice
Inevitable disasters are good if they contradict Al Gore

Does that capture the essence, or am I missing some crucial bits?
I really have to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse... I dont seriously think you could be so obviously missing my point. :dizzy2:


Inevitable disasters are good if they contradict Al GoreHonestly, Lemur, Al Gore is the one predicting disaster, so if I went around claiming impending doom Id be singing the same song as he.

Let me spell it out, your prediction of having to bail out millions of residents due to rising sea levels is complete and total crap. Is that clear enough for you? I thought I produced enough sources and statements to say that, but apparently I have to spell it out for you...You seem to be under the false impression that climate change = impending doom and disaster, it doesnt.


Lol! "meteorologist disputes global warming". The field is climatologyGood point, he pioneered modern hurricane prediction- so he's clearly a feckless twit. I mean, hurricane prediction requires no understand of global temperatures or weather patterns..... Of course, the American Meteorological Society is cited as one of the groups concerned about global warming. Maybe meteorologists only count when they agree with you? :idea2:


However: When discussing something like pedophilia, a lot of people claim these people should be killed and/or locked up for life because maybe, if released, they can rape another child and we just can't take that risk. Now, often these same, people say that since we don't know if we are causing global warming we shouldn't worry about it ? This time it needs to be proved there will be damage while in the other case there has to be absolute proof there won't be ? And while a pedophile might rape a few children, global warming might destroy entire countries.
I think we should look at this rational, we need to limit out impact on the environment simply because we don't know what the effects will be, we need to minimize the risks, as we always do.That's a totally absurd comparison. Locking up a known criminal will prevent them from acting again. Taking steps to "stop" the Greenhouse as proposed, would cause tremendous damage with no clear benefit and would be in response to a problem that is not yet even clear.

[BDC]

So he disputes it scientifically, then blames greed/competition, then gives in and says there's nothing that can be done anyway.

Well thought out speech with wonderfully clear arguments there.

:shame:

[Samurai Waki]

I Believe the Glaciers in Glacier National Park (Montana/Canada) have been ebbing and flowing for quite some time now, twenty years ago they were on the brink of Completely melting away, but now it looks like they are starting to advance at an alarming rate (about 100 meters a year). But its also predicted that they will start to retreat within about 50 years...

[Reverend Joe]

https://img119.imageshack.us/img119/286/bulltc5.jpghttps://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6499/poopar4.jpg

~:handball:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Good point, he pioneered modern hurricane prediction- so he's clearly a feckless twit. I mean, hurricane prediction requires no understand of global temperatures or weather patterns..... Of course, the American Meteorological Society is cited as one of the groups concerned about global warming. Maybe meteorologists only count when they agree with you? :idea2:

Um, no. He's an expert in hurricanes--a specialist in fact. The Earths climate is an entirely different system. It's only a bit better than asking a biologist about dark matter. I don't see why you hooked some random professor in as if it gave credence to your argument, I'm sure there are far better.

I find the criticisms of global warming to obvious to have been overlooked by very many very bright people.

[Xiahou]

Um, no. He's an expert in hurricanes--a specialist in fact. The Earths climate is an entirely different system. It's only a bit better than asking a biologist about dark matter. I don't see why you hooked some random professor in as if it gave credence to your argument, I'm sure there are far better.Again let me point out that one of the main advocacy groups for global warming in the US is the American Meteorological Society. You seem to be saying that meteorlogical science has no relevance to global warming study- this is not that case. Climatologists, evironmental scientists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and geophysists are just some of the fields that scientists come from on both sides of the issue.

But cuz I like you so, here's (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf) a paper(pdf form) by the Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A specialist in hurricanes doesn't have the knowledge to put it all together and say something definitive about global warming, especially Gray, if you check my link. If I was going to read about it, I'd go for someone who has been studying global climate for 25 years (http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/hansen.pdf#search=%22hansen%20global%20warming%20sciam%22)

Your article is good, but it is only focusing on one thing that has been used to support global warming. I was surprised to see this thread actually, since I recalled the "humans aren't the cause of global warming" argument being put to rest a while ago. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html) Also, is it just me or do people who say humans aren't the cause always follow it up with "and even if we are, there's nothing we can do about it"?

[Red Peasant]

Well, a Belgian friend of mine is a PhD in climatology at Uni of Reading (UK), but she is also a meteorologist by training and undertaking research in the Meteorology dept. Is she then competent in climatology or meteorology? Who knows? Certainly not me. It's much too complicated for a classicist. :book:

[Tribesman]

Look on the bright side , the Republicans could have been paying to listen to Ollie North after their breakfast instead of Gray .:2thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

Your article is good, but it is only focusing on one thing that has been used to support global warming.What one thing was that?
I was surprised to see this thread actually, since I recalled the "humans aren't the cause of global warming" argument being put to rest a while ago. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html)You thought a newspaper article about a study on Ocean temperatures that hadnt been peer-reviewed was enough to put it to rest? Why, because the author of the study said so? Forgive me if I remain skeptical.

The Climate Science weblog will discuss the importance of this paper in more detail in a later weblog. However, the reported over 20% loss of upper ocean heat content between 2003 and 2005, which had accumulated between 1955 and 2003, is a very important observational finding. According to the paper, this cooling corresponds to -1.0 (+/- 0.3) W/meter squared global radiative imbalance over this time period.

This is a significant observation, which has important climate science implications as has been discussed in the Climate Science weblog of August 8, 2006. None of the multi-decadal global climate models predicted such a cooling.
link (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/08/10/new-geophyical-research-letters-paper-accepted-recent-cooling-of-the-upper-ocean-by-jm-lyman-jk-willis-and-g-c-johnson/)


Also, is it just me or do people who say humans aren't the cause always follow it up with "and even if we are, there's nothing we can do about it"?It's just you- they don't always say that. I personally tend to agree with that statement though. I certainly havent seen any convincing evidence to suggest that we go back to the dark ages in order to stave off impending climate doom.

Speaking of dark ages, it's interesting to note that most studies seem to suggest that the world was warmer during the medieval warm period than it is during our current one.
link (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mcwpp.jsp)-refer to the qualitative & quantitative charts.... or read the whole study. :book:

[Lemur]

Let me spell it out, your prediction of having to bail out millions of residents due to rising sea levels is complete and total crap. Is that clear enough for you? I thought I produced enough sources and statements to say that, but apparently I have to spell it out for you...You seem to be under the false impression that climate change = impending doom and disaster, it doesnt.
So, just to make sure I'm getting this straight, you don't believe any climatic shift in, say, the next century will have any effect on the seaboards? Let's break this down a little further -- do you believe that climate shift will be too gradual to have any effect, or do you believe that any shifts won't affect the seaboards?

I'm going to take it as a given that you're not making the argument that there's no such thing as climate change.

[Xiahou]

So, just to make sure I'm getting this straight, you don't believe any climatic shift in, say, the next century will have any effect on the seaboards? Let's break this down a little further -- do you believe that climate shift will be too gradual to have any effect, or do you believe that any shifts won't affect the seaboards?There will be some change- I don't believe there will be catostrophic change. Slight variations in sea level are certain to occur and have occurred- but in terms of centuries, it's measured in centimeters.


I'm going to take it as a given that you're not making the argument that there's no such thing as climate change.Indeed, I think that's false premise that many of the pro-global warming rank and file seem to fall for. They seem to think that the climate should be static and that any changes must be a result of our actions.

[Lemur]

Well, there are some prominent people who agree with you, Xiahou. Rather more who don't, but that's neither here nor there; science isn't a popularity contest -- somebody's right, and the rest are wrong.

It's so hard to tell with you, though, how seriously you're taking the discussion. You've staked out positions in the past largely because of their political value. Is your current position something you truly, deeply believe, or are you reacting against Al Gore and Greenpeace? I ask because you're approaching this with such an air of certitude, when climate studies are an area where indisputable conclusions are few and far between.

Maybe I'm just jaded by our exchange over "Islamic fascism." It's also entirely possible I'm getting too old for the Backroom.

[Proletariat]

Maybe I'm just jaded by our exchange over "Islamic fascism." It's also entirely possible I'm getting too old for the Backroom.

Any chance I could get a link to that?

[Xiahou]

It's so hard to tell with you, though, how seriously you're taking the discussion. You've staked out positions in the past largely because of their political value. Is your current position something you truly, deeply believe, or are you reacting against Al Gore and Greenpeace? I ask because you're approaching this with such an air of certitude, when climate studies are an area where indisputable conclusions are few and far between.I was a global warming believer for years. When I'd hear someone speaking out against it I'd think "How can they say that? We all know it's true."- I never heard any different in school. But eventually, I started looking into what info was available and came to the conclusion that it certainly is not a sure thing. I now think man-influenced global warming is a possibility- but not even close the the level of threat that it's made out to be by certain opportunistic doomsayers who are amplified in the media. It irks me, because it means that we can't take any environmental statements we read in the news at face value anymore (maybe we never could) because of the intellectual dishonesty of a vocal few.


Maybe I'm just jaded by our exchange over "Islamic fascism." It's also entirely possible I'm getting too old for the Backroom.


Any chance I could get a link to that?I think he means this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=68588) one.

[Productivity]

we're getting low on flat earthers, but that's about it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/index.php

They may not be scientists but there's enough nutters around. :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, there are some prominent people who agree with you, Xiahou. Rather more who don't, but that's neither here nor there; science isn't a popularity contest -- somebody's right, and the rest are wrong.

I think we can agree that we cannot be certain of what's causing global warming. Humans and CO2? Then why the drop from 1940 to 1970?

To me, it seems that what's going on is natural earth changes-perhaps influenced by the sun. It's possible some is human caused, but how much is uncertain. Most people agree that completely shutting down industrialized civilization would only slow down the temp increase by 1C over 100 years at most.

The problem lies with those like Al Gore and Greenpeace- who try to make like we're going to die in 10 years if we don't listen to them. They try to convince through fear, and it gets old when they already said we'd be dead by now.


So simple but obviousy of such complexity that you cannot understand it .

Where did I say he wasn't retired from teaching? :book:
And what is a usual amount of headlines for retired professors?
And how does the relative rate of headlines-to-retired-professors affect this story?


They may not be scientists but there's enough nutters around.
Oh. Dear. Goodness. What was it Einstein said aobut the universe and human stupidity? I hope it's all an elaborate joke.

Crazed Rabbit

[Banquo's Ghost]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/index.php

They may not be scientists but there's enough nutters around. :dizzy2:

Now that is an absolute gem of a website. Thank you for brightening my day immeasureably!


Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"

A: Well, it looks that way up close. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy.

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA are part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture."

It's wonderful! Exactly the same methodology as creationists.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I must say, though I have been involved in the environmental movement for many years, I tend towards supporting Xiahou in this.

It has to be noted that Professor Gray was talking to a group of people who wanted to hear his message.

Having said that, the worst excess of many environmental groups is to stifle debate, and the climate change issue is rapidly getting to this point. The overwhelming body of scientific opinion is that human activity is contributing to a more rapid acceleration of global warming that can be accounted for from our knowledge of natural warming/cooling cycles.

However, that's pretty much where the consensus stops, and even a consensus deserves to be tested frequently and with vigour. Science requires challenge and rational debate. If Professor Gray or others provide compelling evidence, the community's consensus may change. They must be listened to and debated, not scorned. The effects of such a rapid change appear to range from extreme flooding to extreme freezing via flip-flopping. Our best models are getting better, but the very complexity of climate modelling means there will always be doubt.

Underlying this confusing uncertainty is the absolute certainty that humanity is incapable of preventing whatever is coming. Kyoto was not even a band-aid, it was a complete con and PR exercise. At least President Bush (and I don't say he did it for informed reasons, but he may well have) treated it as the useless diversion it was. Look how many countries have managed to even come close to those incredibly soft targets, apart from those that were already there.

I came to the realisation some years ago, as did many serious environmentalists, that once China and India (and all the other rapidly industrialising countries) started approaching even Europe's individual carbon footprint, let alone the USA's, we'd be royally screwed. They were never going to put back their growth for the world's benefit when their competitors (the West) had reaped the profits of cheap energy for so long. Why would they pay for our excess?

In any case, humanity has hardly ever evolved a better model of society without a catastrophe to provoke change. We're not that grown up yet to co-ordinate and build a global solution without immediate and pressing need. We can't even do it in regard to terrorism, which is actually killing people now.

If climate change causes us enough anguish, we'll do something about it. It's interesting to note that some of the biggest lobbyists for political action behind the scenes are the insurance companies who are footing the new bills. And to be brutal, no-one in the developed world actually cares a tinker's cuss about whether the Maldives or Bangladesh sink underwater. When Washington or London have new boating lakes, there may be some interest, but not until.

Having said all that, there are also huge opportunities for business to develop more efficient energy models - and then sell them to China and India. There will be a time when fossil fuels become uneconomic, and we have real issues with political dependence on the sources of our energy. We have therefore a business imperative to address the problem - not to solve global warming (which may be a nice side effect) but to be more efficient and profitable in our business.

Whatever our take on the final effects of global warming, we should not let those views interfere with improving energy efficiency, which I imagine is a desirable goal whatever one's political spectrum.

[Rodion Romanovich]

IRT topic: Well, I guess we'll never find out about the cause of global warming as long as state sponsored science declines in favor of heavily biased industry-sponsored science. Even most of the university science of today needs monetary support from companies.

Besides, “I’m sure that’s it.” is not a very strong argument.

No matter how it is, we know that we're capable of polluting significant amounts of poisonous substances to cause harm and significant enough amounts of non-poisonous substances to upset natural circulation, especially if all countries including both western countries and China and India keep expanding industrially and pollution-wise. Whether a disaster will happen now, in 50 years, or much later is the only matter that's up for debate. What we should be worried about isn't this single problem instance, but the fact that our society structures and the world community is of a kind where we can't stop anything of this type due to cultural problems, lack of trust problems, and the competition atmosphere world wide, which makes it more desirable to kill half of earth's population and one fourth of your own people in order to not be weaker than someone else could be if he would do the same thing. Society is simply built up in a system of global competition not seen any time previously in history, due to the increased globalization procedure and our still arcaic administrations, society systems and international discussion forums such as the UN (which hasn't been anything close to what it was intended to be). Earth has no own will or agenda to remain inhabitable, it's life that is at the mercy of earth not the opposite. Remember that earth wasn't inhabitable to human beings in the first billion years or more, for instance, due to exactly the reverse of CO2 pollution. The main issue that environmentalists wish to take up for discussion is thus how to change world community in a way so that this pre-programmed built-in self-destruction is avoided. It's a difficult problem but it concerns everybody, especially in the long run. Among more balanced environmentalists and experts, there are no requirements for anybody to reduce pollution until a solution has been found where all countries at the same time can agree to reduce pollution, so that being environmental-friendly doesn't weaken you politically. The Kyoto protocol was a good attempt, but since it didn't involve the third world, China, or the USA it was doomed to failure from start. I'm confident that if a new attempt would be made, that includes all these countries, it would be a lot more successful.

[Tribesman]

IRT topic: Well, I guess we'll never find out about the cause of global warming as long as state sponsored science declines in favor of heavily biased industry-sponsored science. Even most of the university science of today needs monetary support from companies.

Well Legio , it doesn't really matter if it is state or private funding since the state can also have its own bias .
Anyhow its not unusual for someone to go against the flow , for centuries "top" scientists were insisting about strange things on some really diverse subjects . How many went to great length and much expense to "prove" that despite the more widely held views of other scientists that smoking couldn't trigger cancer , or that asbestos is really safe .:shrug:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So, just to make sure I'm getting this straight, you don't believe any climatic shift in, say, the next century will have any effect on the seaboards? Let's break this down a little further -- do you believe that climate shift will be too gradual to have any effect, or do you believe that any shifts won't affect the seaboards?


Lets say that there will be a shift. Whos to say this will be a bad thing? It most likely will be bad for some and good for others. Global warming also causes many good things. Like more plentiful crops.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well Legio , it doesn't really matter if it is state or private funding since the state can also have its own bias .
Anyhow its not unusual for someone to go against the flow , for centuries "top" scientists were insisting about strange things on some really diverse subjects . How many went to great length and much expense to "prove" that despite the more widely held views of other scientists that smoking couldn't trigger cancer , or that asbestos is really safe .:shrug:

Cynical, but true.

Research can take many years to achieve a firm answer, and there will usually be much argument in the process.

This has been one of my pet peeves on this whole issue. Why should I embrace a radical alteration of lifestyle in response to something that is still under contention?

Would you agree to a heart transplant because your GP says its needed -- or might you want to see a few more test results a get a second opinion?

[whyidie]

Cynical, but true.

Research can take many years to achieve a firm answer, and there will usually be much argument in the process.

This has been one of my pet peeves on this whole issue. Why should I embrace a radical alteration of lifestyle in response to something that is still under contention?

Would you agree to a heart transplant because your GP says its needed -- or might you want to see a few more test results a get a second opinion?

So the only thing that would make you change your life style in a radical manner is a life threatening disaster ?

You need to have a heart attack first. Or see overwhelming evidence. You won't stop smoking, will still eat all the fattest foods, won't give a crap about exercising, won't do anything preventitive, much less get a heart transplant. Maybe you don't need to see the levees break or the towers fall...but I'm sure you'll do something once the evidence becomes overwhelming. A good old fashioned conservative. Ok, I can work with that. Really.

What about not so radical change ? So you won't take public transport. Won't ride your bike to work. Won't walk the half mile to the store instead of driving. Won't get up an hour earlier so you can commute with your wife. Won't buy an alternatively fueled car. Won't plant a tree, much less hug one. Ok. Allright. I can deal with that. I guess.

The danger isn't emminent. While a type 4 hurricane could hit, its unlikely. And I'm sure those guys in the middle east are angry, but Rambo was over there in Rambo III. He made some pretty good friends. Blew up a couple of commie helicopters with a bow and arrow. We can hold it down. Foreigners have very weak upper bodies.

So its not a danger. Not big enough for personal radical or minor change. Where does the environment rank then ? What about stewardship of the land ? Any of that worth changing for ? Maybe not personaly actionable but how about instilling a love or even healthy respect for the environment in our children ? Is that out as well ? Too granola ? How about all the hub-bub about geo-green ? Buy in to that at all ? Where do your interests converge with environmental interests ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Having said that, the worst excess of many environmental groups is to stifle debate, and the climate change issue is rapidly getting to this point. The overwhelming body of scientific opinion is that human activity is contributing to a more rapid acceleration of global warming that can be accounted for from our knowledge of natural warming/cooling cycles.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. I have a newfound respect for you on this issue. It seems we disagree, but you are open to change and realize the practical difficulties of your goals (China, India). ~:cheers:

The worst thing, to me, is the greenpeace types (coughAlGorecough) who insist we radically change our lives because of heavily disputed scientific conclusions.

I also agree the answer lies in better energy sources, because we will eventually run out of oil, or go so low that it becomes economically unviable. Though I'd say let private companies research it, as the gov't rarely does things right.

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

To chime in with Banquo and CR, it's bad for any scientific issue to become polarized and partisan. It kind of kills off any change of an intelligent discussion, since the partisans become more concerned with scoring points than finding the truth of the matter.

It's a problem that applies to way more than just climate change.

[Vladimir]

Meh. :shrug:

[Lemur]

Spam much?

[Xiahou]

To chime in with Banquo and CR, it's bad for any scientific issue to become polarized and partisan. It kind of kills off any change of an intelligent discussion, since the partisans become more concerned with scoring points than finding the truth of the matter.

It's a problem that applies to way more than just climate change.
I can't find the link now, but I read a story recently about a scientific journal that had several of it's editors resign after it ran a study critical of global warming. They had demanded to be able to write an accompanying editorial blasting the study and condemning it as a "mistake" for it being published and when they weren't permitted to do so they quit.

That's exactly the kind of polarization we don't need.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Though I'd say let private companies research it, as the gov't rarely does things right.

Agreed, though governments have a role in setting the business conditions to promote innovation through research - ie R&D is remarkably expensive and potentially leads to a loss-making dead end, so the tax environment can be adjusted to support research.

In addition, in Europe a great deal of university research (which should be where pure science lives heathily, but don't get me on that soap-box) is funded by government, and this should continue - otherwise scientists whore themselves for whatever is the current grant-giving fashion, much as we see now with climate change.