Ive finaly found the truth about Global Warming thanks to Algore [Archive]

Gawain of Orkeny

06-25-2007, 21:23

Yeah yeah, it's all an oil conspiracy suppressing magical electromagnetic free energy... Where did I put my tin foil hat again?

Once more why do these companies bother denying global warming if were soon to run out of oil any way. How come prices arent sky rocketng? They play both sides of the fence. When oil finally does go it will still be the same companies as now providing this new energy. Nice way to ignore my point however

All you ever hear are the worst doom and gloom scenarios. How come you never hear the truth?

GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals (http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html)

Should warming become apparent at some time in the future and should it create more difficulties than benefits, policy makers would have to consider preventive measures. Based on history, however, global warming is likely to be positive for most of mankind while the additional carbon, rain, and warmth should also promote plant growth that can sustain an expanding world population. Global change is inevitable; warmer is better; richer is healthier.

Global Warming: Enjoy it While You Can (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html)

Thus, far from being a self-induced disaster, global warming is the result of natural changes in the Earth's climate that promises to yield humanity positive benefits. In the geological scheme of things, the warming is not even that dramatic compared to the more pronounced warming trends that occurred during the Agricultural Revolution and the early Middle Ages. Moreover, there is strong evidence that this long-needed warming is moderating. All things considered, global warming should be viewed for what it is: A gift from the often fickle force of Nature. Enjoy it while you can.

Like I keep saying enjoy the summer while it last because sooner or later Winter will return and humankind will be longing for these day.

KafirChobee

06-25-2007, 23:00

For those that remain entrenched in the belief that global warming is a myth, here is another group that believe as you do. Only they still persist the earth is flat.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

What the hey. If one is going to live in the world of denial - go all the way, don't be some halfwayer.

Be all you can really be (or not be):
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

:logic:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-25-2007, 23:04

Nice try mate but nobody i know of here denies that global warming is happening

I guess you will just have to find another windmill to attack .:laugh4:

KafirChobee

06-25-2007, 23:39

So the idea is that global warming is somehow a good thing?

You jest, right?

I listened to some oil company rep argue how wonderful the warming is going to be. Ignoring the increase of bad vegetation (ragweed and such) and the decline of areas that provide food sources. Every time he made a plus side arguement for it, 10 other question were presented that demonstrated the negativity of it that he couldn't answer. He kept going back to the wonderful idea that warmth regardless of its adversity is better than cold.

The Icecaps melting good, because it will open up new shipping lanes; and do we really need polarbears? Or, the sea animals there in general? The new algies may find cures for cancer, the new deserts will open up land for development, and so on.

A short time ago I read where for the first time in history the Amazon River dried up to the point where it did not reach the sea - in 2006. Now no doubt someone can put a good spin on this as well, but it ought to scare H out of you since it is the first time ever. How do they know - geology, another of those ignored sciences the global warming enthusiasts like to pretend doesn't exist (except when it comes to searching for oil).

So, actually, I think the Flat Earth Society and those making an arguement that global warming is a good thing have more in common than not.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-25-2007, 23:46

So the idea is that global warming is somehow a good thing?

You jest, right?

Its a proven fact.

Marshal Murat

06-26-2007, 00:03

I would also point out that many of the areas where glaciers are receding from are revealing human settlements. Switzerland is one of them if I remember correctly Canadian Iceman (http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/lostwome.htm)

If humans could have lived in those areas before the Ice Age, then why can't people live there now? It's probably the melting of glaciers and ice caps that flooded the Black Sea, filled the Mediterranean, and established current sea levels as they are today.

Even if there is global warming, the great thing about humans is that we can adapt. I just hope some volcanoes erupt and save us (oxymoron right?)
The volcanic ash from erupting volcanoes prevents much of the heat from actually entering the atmosphere, and bounces most of it back out. The world cools (in some places).

Read State of Fear

master of the puppets

06-26-2007, 01:23

I listened to some oil company rep argue how wonderful the warming is going to be. Ignoring the increase of bad vegetation (ragweed and such) and the decline of areas that provide food sources. Every time he made a plus side arguement for it, 10 other question were presented that demonstrated the negativity of it that he couldn't answer. He kept going back to the wonderful idea that warmth regardless of its adversity is better than cold.

The Icecaps melting good, because it will open up new shipping lanes; and do we really need polarbears? Or, the sea animals there in general? The new algies may find cures for cancer, the new deserts will open up land for development, and so on.

(except when it comes to searching for oil).

so what would those ten things be hmm? I could easily give you 10 good reasons to bring back DDT, does that make me a plant for industry?

i love how people always say “icecaps”, in reality the south pole has gotten colder over the past century, and of the hundreds of thousands of glaciers world-wide very few are melting. anyway polar bears are a very specialized species and specialized species routinely go extinct due to routine climate change. And i know this may shock you but it the sahara has been shrinking since the 80s :bigcry: anyway other deserts like the Gobi have been growing mostly due to deforestation.

*shock* 0h no, big oil advocates bending the truth, it can't be! well at least our freindly enviromentalists won't engage in such deceit... BULL. scientists don't bite the hands that feed them, a researcher sponsered by Hollywood do-gooders will spout crap about the dangers to the earth as readily as industry spouts the opposite. THAT is why we have so little knoledge about global warming, because every bit of it is laced with bias.

Tribesman

06-26-2007, 01:35

Its a proven fact.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then Gawain , forget what you think might be facts .
Concerning the theories about global warming , what will happen to your anticipated glorious summertime if it is accompanied by intense rainfall and very high winds ?
What effect does heavy rain have on the crops that you expect an abundance of ?
What happens to the soil that you think is going to enriched ?

master of the puppets

06-26-2007, 01:40

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then Gawain , forget what you think might be facts .
Concerning the theories about global warming , what will happen to your anticipated glorious summertime if it is accompanied by intense rainfall and very high winds ?
What effect does heavy rain have on the crops that you expect an abundance of ?
What happens to the soil that you think is going to enriched ?

i'll let my grandchildren worry about that when the world starts warming up in a hundred years. i hear that the ice caps may be gone in as little as a thousand

Gawain of Orkeny

06-26-2007, 01:51

Now then Gawain , forget what you think might be facts .

Facts are facts and man has always done better in the warmth.

What will happen to your anticipated glorious summertime if it is accompanied by intense rainfall and very high winds ?
What effect does heavy rain have on the crops that you expect an abundance of ?
What happens to the soil that you think is going to enriched ?]
And what if Im right. All this the sky is falling is crap. Why is it that only the gloom and doom scenarios get any press? Because as always bad news sells.

Csargo

06-26-2007, 02:02

Gore is a noob.

Slyspy

06-26-2007, 04:50

Some facts, of course, are actually just theories. Or in same cases simply made up.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-26-2007, 05:27

Some facts, of course, are actually just theories. Or in same cases simply made up.

Its not a theory that most plants grow better in a warm climate. Same thing with people or we would all be heading north or south.

Slyspy

06-26-2007, 14:30

If you say so, my knowledge of agriculture is limited. I would have thought that the wetter weather would be damaging, but then I'm no expert.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-26-2007, 15:02

I would have thought that the wetter weather would be damaging, but then I'm no expert.

Your right nothing grows or lives in the rain forests.:laugh4:

CrossLOPER

06-26-2007, 16:33

Facts are facts and man has always done better in the warmth.
Yeah, the Sahara Desert is the most profitable place on Earth.

Husar

06-26-2007, 16:34

Yeah, the Sahara Desert is the most profitable place on Earth.
Not to forget the siesta is the most productive phase in certain countries.

Tribesman

06-26-2007, 19:32

my knowledge of agriculture is limited.
Don't worry Slyspy , clearly so is Gawains .

Your right nothing grows or lives in the rain forests.
Rain forests are noted for their high arable crop yield :dizzy2:

Husar

06-26-2007, 21:05

The ground underneath rainforests is very different, it sonsists of only about 10-30 cm of fertile soil and the whole ecosystem relies on recycling dead plants that fall on the ground and provide nutriments to the rest. If you take away the trees and their roots, the rain will wash away the upper layer of fertile soil and all you're left with is some infertile dry land. That's why cutting down so many trees there is considered so bad because it takes very long to reverse the whole process. Longer than it takes to cut the trees. some tribes can live by burning small parts and planting stuff there, then let the area recover for many years until they come back, but this only works because they don't need large areas.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-26-2007, 21:16

Yeah, the Sahara Desert is the most profitable place on Earth.

Do to lack of water not heat.

Rain forests are noted for their high arable crop yield

Their known for their diversity of plant and animal life

The ground underneath rainforests is very different, it sonsists of only about 10-30 cm of fertile soil and the whole ecosystem relies on recycling dead plants that fall on the ground and provide nutriments to the rest. If you take away the trees and their roots, the rain will wash away the upper layer of fertile soil and all you're left with is some infertile dry land. That's why cutting down so many trees there is considered so bad because it takes very long to reverse the whole process. Longer than it takes to cut the trees. some tribes can live by burning small parts and planting stuff there, then let the area recover for many years until they come back, but this only works because they don't need large areas.

Because all those trees have been there for so long. If you put down deccent top soil there things will grow just fine. Also better than at the north or south pole. You cant say that the equator isnt far more freindy to life than those either. Warm in GENERAL is better.

Don't worry Slyspy , clearly so is Gawains .

Yeah im no genius like Tribsey. Now his knowledge is unlimited. How can I hope to compete.:smash:

Tribesman

06-27-2007, 00:13

Do to lack of water not heat.

Due to degradation which means the surface cannot hold water .

Because all those trees have been there for so long. If you put down deccent top soil there things will grow just fine.
If you put down decent top soil the heavy rain washes it away:idea2:

Yeah im no genius like Tribsey. Now his knowledge is unlimited. How can I hope to compete.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hey Gawain it doesn't take a genius to know about farming , I suppose it depends on your location and life though:yes:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-27-2007, 00:39

Due to degradation which means the surface cannot hold water .

Deserts occur all over the world. There not there because its hot. It is from a large number of factors. Theres plenty of places as hot as a desert where things grow fine.

If you put down decent top soil the heavy rain washes it away

You really thing so.
Do you know that there are lost civilizations there that had huge agricultural field supporting miliions of people?

Now be real the whole equator isnt desert its not even close. If colder were better more people would live by the poles not the equator.. Its a no brainer.

Tribesman

06-27-2007, 00:58

You really thing so.
Do you know that there are lost civilizations there that had huge agricultural field supporting miliions of people?
Really ????? I had never heard of that:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

So then Gawain which decline of which huge agricultural civilisation would you like to discuss ?
Common things are found in most , namely soil degredation and the linked deforestation . Hey the trees didn't neccesarily have to be cut down for land clearance , a fetish for quicklime to make things pretty can do the job .

Did you know that the sahara used to full of trees till Beirut took his axe to it:laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-27-2007, 02:02

Common things are found in most , namely soil degredation and the linked deforestation .

Exactly not because it was warm.

Husar

06-27-2007, 02:04

Spain was supposedly a forested area many moons ago until the Romans and Spanish built a lot of wooden ships and other things, now most of Spain resembles a desert.
Deforestation can become quite a big problem and like tribes said, the heavy rain in tropical regions will wash away any fertile soil that is not supported by lots of trees and other plants. Lots of landslides are results of deforestation. Also keep in mind that a lot of water doesn't even reach the soil if those big trees are in the way.

And I don't know about any big agricultural civilizations in tropical regions either.
Like I said, they can have a few isolated fields surrounded by rainforest which are maybe 50x50m, but that's hardly sufficient to get enough food for more than one family.

Slyspy

06-27-2007, 02:22

What about pastoral farming? Is that helped or hindered by a warm and wet climate?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-27-2007, 02:26

Spain was supposedly a forested area many moons ago until the Romans and Spanish built a lot of wooden ships and other things, now most of Spain resembles a desert.

Because as you say they cut down the trees not because it got warmer

Deforestation can become quite a big problem and like tribes said, the heavy rain in tropical regions will wash away any fertile soil that is not supported by lots of trees and other plants. Lots of landslides are results of deforestation. Also keep in mind that a lot of water doesn't even reach the soil if those big trees are in the way.

Again did the heat burn the trees down?

And I don't know about any big agricultural civilizations in tropical regions either.
Like I said, they can have a few isolated fields surrounded by rainforest which are maybe 50x50m, but that's hardly sufficient to get enough food for more than one family.

Well let me enlighten you then

Amazon jungle soil may not be so barren after all (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/09/MNGPVAMDQ61.DTL)
Archaeologists find evidence of incredibly fertile farms

(01-09) 04:00 PDT Iranduba , Brazil -- High along bluffs overlooking the confluence of the mighty Negro and Solomoes rivers, super-sized eggplants, papayas and cassava spring from the ground.

Their exuberance defies a long-held belief about the Amazon. For much of the last half-century, archaeologists have viewed the South American rain forest as a "counterfeit paradise" whose inhospitable environment precluded the development of complex societies.

But new research suggests that prehistoric people found ways to overcome the jungle's natural limitations and thrive in large numbers.

I mean just how many of you would rather live in Siberia

The earth and its climate go through constant and drastic changes. Learn to live with it as we have always done.

Husar

06-27-2007, 02:39

Gawain of Orkeny

06-27-2007, 03:18

Well, prehistoric it says, according to what I learned, the fertility has to do with degradation of rocky surfaces in the earth, they degrade and minerals make their way to the top. This is happening very deep down in rainforest regions so mineral supply for plants from the ground is low unlike other regions, where there are enough minerals still that there is no need to rely on recycling of old material.

Again what has this to do with the temperature? Ive shown you that the soil there was very fertile in the past.

Yes, but to plant crops you usually cut down the trees first because the crops need sunlight.

Again nothing to do with the temp.

Again, do you want to eat trees?

As long as they have bananas, Peaches, pears, cocanuts and all the other fruits on them sure. But again what has this to do with the temp. If we made it colder there suddenly vegatables would start to grow? Do you think you would get better results again in Siberia? How about the south pole? Wake up warm is better. Or do you think it will get so hot as to scorch the earth?

Again why do most people live in a the warmer climates and most plants? This is a no brainer yet you never even hear one word about it. Its all what if the sky falls tomorrow as if thats the only possibility.

Tribesman

06-27-2007, 07:30

Again did the heat burn the trees down?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Exactly not because it was warm.

~:doh:
Hey Gawain are you trying to dodge the issue ?

what will happen to your anticipated glorious summertime if it is accompanied by intense rainfall and very high winds ?

But thats OK , try another angle .....its very warm and there isn't the acsompanying heavy rainfall , hey there isn't even much rainfall ,soooo...irrigation , what is the result of irrigation in hot weather in a warm climate due to evaporation ?
Soil degredation due to salination :yes:
So what does that do to your woohooo bumper crops because it hot "fact" ?

Oh yeah , and your link to the amazon story , thats the one with the lime fetish isn't it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: But hey you could have gone closer tohome with the peublos , nice fertile soil there wasn't it ....till it wasn't anymore .

Xiahou

06-27-2007, 08:01

Hey Gawain are you trying to dodge the issue ?

what will happen to your anticipated glorious summertime if it is accompanied by intense rainfall and very high winds ?
When did that become the "issue"? Must've missed that one. :coffeenews:

Husar

06-27-2007, 11:48

Again why do most people live in a the warmer climates and most plants? This is a no brainer yet you never even hear one word about it. Its all what if the sky falls tomorrow as if thats the only possibility.
The Netherlands will drown.
If the amount of rain won't increase by a lot, the crops will die.
Rainforests cannot just be planted anywhere, I already said they take ages to recover.

In the last very hot summer period, the following things happened:
A lot of people died directly related to the heat.
Southern european countries faced a severe lack of water.
Some nuclear powerplants had to be shut down due to lack of cooling water.
People were told to stay inside at certain times because the heat would render exhaust gases into something poisonous.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-27-2007, 15:09

The Netherlands will drown.

Yes and many places will be destroyed AGAIN by volcanoes because people insist in living in unsafe regions. Like near the water and below sea level. I got news for you. Its going to under no matter what we do.

If the amount of rain won't increase by a lot, the crops will die.
Rainforests cannot just be planted anywhere, I already said they take ages to recover.

This is the point. Theres a whole lot of ifs in this scenario but you guys always and only bring up the bad ones. Once more nobody here even has ever even brought up that warmer is better. Have you ever heard it from main stream media? Sure IF the earhs temp went to say 100 degrees avg we would be fooked. Or IF it rained so hard it flooded all the crops. But these are awfully big IFs. What IF a asteriod hit us tomorow or 20 years from now? All these IFs would be meaningless. Again man had always learned to adapt and thats what we should concentrate on now. Not some silly witch hunt. What IF the Sky falls?

Husar

06-27-2007, 17:48

I think we're vringing bad and serious things up because they're the ones that cause a lot of trouble. Yeah, we can then sunbathe all day until we starve! What a happy time it will be!:dizzy2: ~;)

Reminds me of skin cancer...:inquisitive: :thumbsdown:

Tribesman

06-27-2007, 17:54

When did that become the "issue"? Must've missed that one.
well obviously you must have missed it:dizzy2: pay more attention:whip:

Theres a whole lot of ifs in this scenario but you guys always and only bring up the bad ones.
Where you try and paint a rosy picture and call it fact .
The thing is Gawain your rosy picture doesn't stand up to even the briefest scrutiny

master of the puppets

06-27-2007, 18:34

while your bad scenarios are nothing more then speculation.

Tribesman

06-27-2007, 20:17

while your bad scenarios are nothing more then speculation.
congratulations ~:pat:
and the prize for genius of the month goes to puppet .
Have a :balloon2:
What gave it away ? was it the word theories or was it something else :inquisitive:

In case you havn't noticed , there is only one person dressing speculation up as fact in this topic ...Its a proven fact.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Lehesu

06-27-2007, 22:20

Hey, until someone proves to me that littering and pollution is actually good for the Earth, I am willing to believe that the excess crap our civilization pumps out is bad for long-term health. It's all gotta go somewhere and do something, and I sure as hell have seen some of the nastier consequences of human activity.

Tristuskhan

06-27-2007, 22:42

Again did the heat burn the trees down?

Forest manager answering here: yes it did: pedunculate oaks (Quercus robur) are still diying today from the consequences of 2003's heat and lack of water. In southern france Alep pines (Pinus alepensis) are also in very bad health, and the remaining stands of Beech (Fagus sylvatica) are slowly collapsing. Trees are (for most) hard living, but they can die of climate changes. They just take long time to die. Where I live we are considering planting Atlas Cedars (Cedrus atlantica), a morrocan species, to replace the Beech on southern-exposed slopes, since those slopes get dry much faster that they used to do. A rise of the temperatures also make various tree diseases much harder to control (Nectria sp on Beeches, again..). And so on....

Gawain of Orkeny

06-27-2007, 22:48

well obviously you must have missed it pay more attention

Yes Tribesman set the rules here. Its about the effects of warmth not rain.

Forest manager answering here: yes it did: pedunculate oaks (Quercus robur) are still diying today from the consequences of 2003's heat and lack of water

And if there were no lack of water. Remember their claiming its going to rain more?

Hey, until someone proves to me that littering and pollution is actually good for the Earth, I am willing to believe that the excess crap our civilization pumps out is bad for long-term health. It's all gotta go somewhere and do something, and I sure as hell have seen some of the nastier consequences of human activity.

So breathing out is polluting. Nobody favors pumping toxins into the air,

congratulations
and the prize for genius of the month goes to puppet .
Have a
What gave it away ? was it the word theories or was it something else

Your such a riot. Ive been saying that since we started. But again we should only believe the gloom and doom ones. And again the facts are if you go back and check that we do better when the climate is warmer. Look what happened during the mini ice age. A slight drop in temp caused deaths all around the world. Why did the Vikings leave Greenland?

Tristuskhan

06-27-2007, 23:28

And if there were no lack of water. Remember their claiming its going to rain more?

"And if...." is a little bit short. No matter water amounts double, it's pretty useless if the rainfall occurs in autumn or winter. When you have a two months per year overheat with no rain the stress created is incredible. It's like having more food per year, but two consecutive months of starvation: you'd die anyway. You seem to know very few about ecology, dude. An adult oak will dry a 4 feet deep wet soil in a two weeks period in summer. And then.... dry himself to death.
In eastern France we had a very wet winter with warm temperatures, followed by a very dry and hot April, just at the moment trees begin to make their leaves. I was astonished how fast the ground became dry as stone. I even dug to see how it was underground: dry as my girlfriend when she does not want me!
Then it began raining hard and it's still raining, the vegetation's growth is impressive. But if it stops raining, as I told before: two or three very hot and dry weeks and we're done. Trees recover. Once, twice... but the cumulative effects of stress periods are very destructive.

Rain forests are noted for their high arable crop yield :dizzy2:

Not so true... in the short term they do, but the fast cycles of -darn poor english I have- matter recycling result in poorly structurated and very thin soils, most of the mineral nutrients lie IN the vegetation. Once vegetation is destroyed (deforestation followed by agricultural cycles that leave the ground uncovered), nutrients get washed away very fast. Former civilisations that flourished in tropical areas relied on long cycles: burn the forest, grow crops for one or two years and then get further and let the environment recover for long periods. These civilisations had no massive heards that would have prevented vegetation to come back. Overgrazing in order to provide cheap meat for McDonald is the bane of tropical areas.

Husar

06-28-2007, 00:00

I think Tribesman's comment was ironic, but your explanation is great anyway, tristuskhan.:2thumbsup:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-28-2007, 00:02

"And if...." is a little bit short

Another big if . And also this IF would have to be a world wide IF.

Also Ive shown that the amazon used to be farmed and supported millions of people. Besides do you think global warming is going to turn the whole world into a rain forest? Or is that another big IF.

Tribesman

06-28-2007, 00:04

And again the facts are if you go back and check that we do better when the climate is warmer.
Gawain that is not a fact . If you add a hell of a lot of ifs and buts it can become more factual , but at present it is a "fact" of the bollox variety .

Remember their claiming its going to rain more?
You should know by now gawain ~:doh: read the words used , not the words you think you would like people to have used

Its about the effects of warmth not rain.

Yes Gawain~:rolleyes: silly me thought that climate covered lots of things and they were all related , So when truski talks about trees what part of the tree and its condition shold he stick to ?should he venture into soil and subsoil , or perhaps only talk about leaves .

Why did the Vikings leave Greenland?
Good question ,twist it around and ask why did they go there in the first place ?:idea2:
Hey we could turn this into an immigration topic:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Slyspy

06-28-2007, 00:21

Sorry Gawain, but your "facts" are no more facts than any other theory. In fact I venture to suggest that they are mere opinion, and not very soundly based.

Xiahou

06-28-2007, 00:26

Sorry Gawain, but your "facts" are no more facts than any other theory. In fact I venture to suggest that they are mere opinion, and not very soundly based.
It's not really speculation or opinion to claim that Europe was very productive during the MWP. It's pretty well-documented.

master of the puppets

06-28-2007, 01:14

GLORIOUS!!! So we have now established the fact that there are no solid facts that dictate man thrives in general heat nor have we cemented any argument towards the contrary, we have also come to understand that thanks to IFs and BUTs the future shall remain unknown. What truly eludes us are any direct parallels that link mans production of C02 to general warming of the entire earth... the original purpose of this thread...:dizzy2:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-28-2007, 01:20

Every change in our living conditions creates gains and losses, winners and losers, advantages and disadvantages. Throughout history, people have responded to change like Cassandras or Pollyannas, pessimists or optimists. The use of fear to sway public opinion, coupled with people's natural aversion to change and media amplification of the problems it brings, has brought us to our current focus on the negatives, the problems and the disadvantages of global warming.

Just 300 years ago, a Little Ice Age would have precluded agriculture as practiced in Canada today. In fact, just 30 years ago, global cooling was the scientific consensus, transmitted to the public by the same transmission belt, the popular press.

We were told in 1976 by libertarian radio host Lowell Ponte in his book The Cooling: "This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000." Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, and that event caused a 1C drop in global temperature in 1992, resulting in a late, poor harvest in Canada and close to no harvest at all. Cooling is a much greater problem for Canadians.

What happened in Canada as it emerged from under the ice? Fifteen thousand years ago, flora and fauna quickly moved in. In more recent times, the treeline has moved north an average of 200 kilometres in northern Manitoba since the nadir of the little Ice Age, a period of global cooling that followed what's called the "medieval climate optimum." That's about one kilometre per year. Aboriginal people moved north to capture the opportunities provided by warming 6,000 and again 1,000 years ago. Contrary to what you hear, historic evidence shows that warming offers plants, animals and people greater chances for development and survival.

Man this is scary

Just a brief list of the benefits to our coldest province, Manitoba, and the coldest city, Winnipeg, illustrates the positive potential of global warming:

- Reduced heating costs.

- Reduced fuel bills for travel.

- A longer growing season, allowing a greater variety of crops.

- Less frost damage and crop loss.

- A greater variety of plants for gardens and other uses.

- More rapidly growing forests and an increased rate of reforestation.

- Less frost damage to streets and roads.

- The potential for direct access to world markets through northern ports.

- Reduced construction costs in an ameliorated climate.

- A longer summer season for tourism, and for cottagers and campers.

As for mosquitos, Winnipeggers at least have been dealing with the pesky bugs since long before David Suzuki even heard of global warming.

A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let's hope so.

LINK (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aeb40fd9-f370-4057-8335-bc7345bf2e10)

OK – there are multiple climate lessons from their work: (a) climate has varied quite a bit over the past 6,000 years, and the fluctuations can be rapid, (b) the variations are strongly controlled by our wonderful, but imperfect Sun, (c) the Little Ice Age is a clear signal in the data collected at two sites in China, (d) there are many times in the past when China was warmer than today, and (e) warmer times are better for civilizations than cooler periods. Warmer is simply better!

World Climate Report (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/24/for-peats-sake-warmer-is-better/)

Indeed, far from joining the calls for action, some now warn that trying to prevent climate change could prove far more catastrophic than learning to live with it. Nor is this cheery vision based solely on questionable computer models. Analysis of past episodes of dramatic - but entirely natural - climate change repeatedly shows the benefits of a warmer world.

"If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one," says Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Cold is nearly always worse for everything - the economy, agriculture, disease, biodiversity".

According to Prof Stott, times of historical prosperity have often been tied to unusually warm periods, such as the so-called Medieval Warm Period between 1100 and 1300. In contrast, the Little Ice Age between 1450 to 1890 was characterised by famines, pandemics and social upheaval. "We should be glad we've left that behind," he said.

The possibility that a warmer future could bring further benefits has long been noted by climate-change scientists, albeit reluctantly. The draft of the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - regarded as the voice of mainstream scientific opinion - conceded that many developed nations could make "net economic gains", at least for moderate levels of warming. This rare glimmer of optimism was watered down when the final report emerged in 2001.

Since then, however, studies by researchers in a host of fields have cast doubt on the relentlessly gloomy forecasts. The heat-wave that struck much of Europe in 2003, killing more than 11,000 in France alone - was seized on by ecoactivists as proof-positive of the lethal effects of global warming.

Yet a review published last year by scientists at the University of London pointed out a basic medical fact: in many countries, cold kills far more people each year than heat. For the kind of temperature rise predicted for the UK over the next 50 years, the team estimated that heat-related deaths would rise by about 2,000 a year - but that this figure would be dwarfed by a cut in cold-related deaths of 20,000.

Warmer, wetter and better (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/12/nwarm12.xml)

Lehesu

06-28-2007, 04:14

And there are an equal number, if not more, sources pointing out the link between global warming, human activity, and the ramifications of both (bad). I don't have the time, however, to track each and every person's hand to see which pocket they are drawing from (for either source, as it may be). However, data shows that the correlation between CO2 production now and the warming of climate is certainly unmatched anywhere in history. Now, there may be lurking variables involved (and, in fact, there are other variables bound to be involved) but you cannot dispute the rise in both factors, just argue the relationship between the two.

(And I am not going to even address the pointless argument debating whether cold or warmth is bad for people. Clearly, the extremes of either spectrum are bad for humans and global warming is making the claim that such an extreme in temperature will be reached because of human activity. Not a comfortable five degree climb in temperature but a significant increase. Debating the veracity of that claim is far more profitable than debating how much heat or cold it takes to make people die and which one we would prefer.)

Gawain of Orkeny

06-28-2007, 04:45

And there are an equal number, if not more, sources pointing out the link between global warming, human activity, and the ramifications of both (bad).

Ive never denied it, In fact ive pointed it out over and over. But again they never address this point. They only give you worst case scenarios. Its as obvious as the nose on you face. People do not seek cold climates . Neither do most plants or animals.

And I am not going to even address the pointless argument debating whether cold or warmth is bad for people.

Of course not as their is no argument to be made. History has shown that warmer is always better for most life on earth. I defy you to show otherwise.

Tribesman

06-28-2007, 08:15

Gawain you sound like the proffesor

If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one," says Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Cold is nearly always worse for everything - the economy, agriculture, disease, biodiversity
Sooooooooo...how many scientific papers has the proffesor written on climate ? Isn't one of those groups he publishes opinion pieces for (as opposed to science papers)the same group that spent years insisting that cigarettes are not really bad for your health .

Xiahou

06-28-2007, 09:19

Gawain you sound like the proffesor

Sooooooooo...how many scientific papers has the proffesor written on climate ? Isn't one of those groups he publishes opinion pieces for (as opposed to science papers)the same group that spent years insisting that cigarettes are not really bad for your health .
Wow, that's possibly the most blatantly obvious attempt at guilt by association that I've seen.

"Gawain's position sounds similar to person x. I can discredit person x. Therefore, Gawain is discredited." Not. :wink:

Ive never denied it, In fact ive pointed it out over and over. But again they never address this point. They only give you worst case scenarios. Its as obvious as the nose on you face. People do not seek cold climates . Neither do most plants or animals.I dont know that I'd say I outright "deny" a correlation between human produced CO2 and global warming- but I would say that I have a very healthy skepticism of it. Historical data shows that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. Computer modeling predicts warming, but they're designed to do so from the start. I'm not aware of any that can accurately predict the current climate when seeded with data in the past, yet we're supposed to believe their predictions for the future. The ones that do come close to current data also predict mild climate changes in the future when compared to what the fear-mongers are spouting.

It's a complex subject that deserves lots of study- but to be sure, the drivel that Gore is spouting is absolute rubbish.

Husar

06-28-2007, 10:43

Well, without the scaremongering noone would discuss it until it's possibly too late, as always. Maybe in Hollywood they can dodge every catastrophe in the last minute, but in reality, it's usually a bit harder.
It's not really productive to push it aside now and discover in 50 years that the worst case scenario was actually true because then our only option will be to accept defeat and die.:oops:

If someone tells you: "this road ends at a steep cliff, so drive carefully" would you speed up and call him a scaremonger who just wants to spoil your fun? After all, the available data of roads you've driven on before suggests that there will be no cliff.:dizzy2:

Tribesman

06-28-2007, 11:45

Wow, that's possibly the most blatantly obvious attempt at guilt by association that I've seen.

"Gawain's position sounds similar to person x. I can discredit person x. Therefore, Gawain is discredited." Not.
Gawain position is discredited because he cites sources that lack credibility to back up his claims . If Gawain didn't draw his conclusions from questionable sources or use those sources to back up his comnclusions then you might have a point , but as he didn't then you have no point to make .

It isn't hard to work out Xiahou look he even bolded it....According to Prof Stott, times of historical prosperity have often been tied to unusually warm periods, such as the so-called Medieval Warm Period between 1100 and 1300. In contrast, the Little Ice Age between 1450 to 1890 was characterised by famines, pandemics and social upheaval. "We should be glad we've left that behind," he said.
that is so full of holes it is unbelievable that anyone could cite that at all

And this bit ...
Yet a review published last year by scientists at the University of London pointed out a basic medical fact: in many countries, cold kills far more people each year than heat. For the kind of temperature rise predicted for the UK over the next 50 years, the team estimated that heat-related deaths would rise by about 2,000 a year - but that this figure would be dwarfed by a cut in cold-related deaths of 20,000.is such a pile of crap it is almost laughable .
But here , two simple questions that display how much rubbish Gawains sources write .
When you travel do you have to take more health precautions if you go to a warmer region or a colder one ?
With things like germs do they thrive in a warmer atmosphere or a colder one ?

Husar

06-28-2007, 14:01

You should know that all those diseases come from the southpole Tribesman, tu us it may look like they come from the equator, but in reality they just have to cross the equator coming from the southpole.:dizzy2: and the cold makes people kill eachother, that's why Africa is such a peaceful region. Warmer is always better, we should go live on the sun IMO.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-28-2007, 16:32

Gawain position is discredited because he cites sources that lack credibility to back up his claims . If Gawain didn't draw his conclusions from questionable sources or use those sources to back up his comnclusions then you might have a point , but as he didn't then you have no point to make .

Any scientist who in any way says your alarmists are wrong is discredited in your eyes. These are facts. When it is warmer over the entire planet things do better. Do a little research on your own. When it gets colder more things start dying. Are you going to tell me the things I listed for Canada are not only possible but likely if the temp goes up? That once when it was warmer Greenland was actually Green and good support a good population? The only thing discredited here is your lack of civility as usual .

When you travel do you have to take more health precautions if you go to a warmer region or a colder one ?
With things like germs do they thrive in a warmer atmosphere or a colder one ?

Thanks Because even friggin germs cant live in the cold.

NEXT

Tribesman

06-28-2007, 16:57

Any scientist who in any way says your alarmists are wrong is discredited in your eyes.

Nope , anyone who makes such glaringly obvious mistakes in their claims is discredited by their own words .

These are facts:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
No Gawain they are not facts , not unless you add a lot of its and buts , and even then the factuality is open to challenge in most cases .

When it is warmer over the entire planet things do better.
No they don't . Some places benefit , other place suffer .

Are you going to tell me the things I listed for Canada are not only possible but likely if the temp goes up?
Would you like to do a comparable list for Florida ?:inquisitive:
All the things you listed (well that you posted someone elses list of) are conditional , they need lots of ifs and buts added , until then the list is of the bollox variety .:yes:

That once when it was warmer Greenland was actually Green and good support a good population?
Hey Gawain , there was this question once , long long ago in a far distant sentance , through the power of the force I shall bring it forth for you to peruse at your leisure , then perhaps try and answer it....Good question ,twist it around and ask why did they go there in the first place ?

Thanks Because even friggin germs cant live in the cold.

Errrrrrr....that isn't true is it :oops: So that would be another Gawainsian fact then :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What was it again ...oh yeah ...NEXT

CrossLOPER

06-28-2007, 17:05

Any scientist who in any way says your alarmists are wrong is discredited in your eyes.
So if Vasya says that the world is flat, you would seriously consider it?

These are facts. When it is warmer over the entire planet things do better.
Depends on how much warmer.

Yes, yes, I know, water source. Keep in mind that water does not come from nowhere. Rivers that flow from mountain ice caps will dry up if the ice caps melt. The area will then turn into a desert.

Do a little research on your own. When it gets colder more things start dying.
Things also die when it is hot.

Are you going to tell me the things I listed for Canada are not only possible but likely if the temp goes up?
Global warming does not work the way you think it does. Even if everything does just warm up, the US will turn into a dry, blighted desert.

That once when it was warmer Greenland was actually Green and good support a good population? The only thing discredited here is your lack of civility as usual .
There is a difference between natural climate cycles that change over centuries and cycles induced by man that change over decades.

Thanks Because even friggin germs cant live in the cold.
Yes they can.

NEXT
One war at a time.

Xiahou

06-28-2007, 17:43

Yes, yes, I know, water source. Keep in mind that water does not come from nowhere. Rivers that flow from mountain ice caps will dry up if the ice caps melt. The area will then turn into a desert.Why's that? Melted ice caps should mean higher sea levels and more water, yes? Higher termperatures would mean evaporation, which you'd think would lead, in turn, to higher precipitation. Colder would mean more water locked up in ice, and less evaporation- suggesting less precipitation, no?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-28-2007, 18:44

All of you take a trip from the equator to either pole. You will see in general that there is more and greater diversity of life near the equator the further north or south you go the less there is. Thats why even though Canada is just as big and probably just as good a resources, other than farming, as we do if not better. When you reach the poles almost nothing lives. If the temp goes up more of the north and south will teem with life. Yes some other regions may suffer. But that is how it always works. I though you people respected science and facts. Show me once more an instance where the earths temp dropped and created an abundance of life since mammals walked the earth. I again defy you to. Since no one has yet taken up the challenge. What is the theory of how life started? In the antartic?

Lehesu

06-28-2007, 19:40

I didn't catch the part where having more life on Earth is a good thing. Or that increased population is a good thing. Even if I were to not dispute your rather broad claims on the effects of weather on environment, I would certainly have to dispute your simplistic decision to call some effects "good" and some "bad".

Slyspy

06-28-2007, 19:49

Apparently here in the UK the pea crop is in deep trouble this year due to excessive rainfall and flooding. Last year it suffered due to drought.

Tribesman

06-28-2007, 21:14

I though you people respected science and facts.

Would that be facts or Gawainsian facts ? It appears there is an ever so slight difference in the two things :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Even if I were to not dispute your rather broad claims on the effects of weather on environment, I would certainly have to dispute your simplistic decision to call some effects "good" and some "bad".
Now that is just about the best thing written so far in this topic:2thumbsup:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-28-2007, 21:49

I would certainly have to dispute your simplistic decision to call some effects "good" and some "bad".

Good then we wont have to listen to any more bad effects out of you. There are no bad or good ones. Thats my whole point. Whats good for one region maybe bad for another, Ive shown where the earth has warmed and life has florished in the past. Ive shown that when it got colder things died off. Ive asked you to show me one contrary instance where this is not the case. No one has either attempted to do so or they cannot because it is so damn obvious. More life and diversty is worse?

Would that be facts or Gawainsian facts ? It appears there is an ever so slight difference in the two things
At least I present mine instead of making snide remarks always as my post. Come on genius prove me wrong.

At the moment we are living in the most productive period in human history, Conditions are pretty much Ideal. There are more of us and more of us doing better than ever. Its a soert of camelot. People dont want to loose but it will go away as surely as Arthurs did. Going off on these quests for the holy grail of global warming to nothing to prevent this end and indeed may well hasten it.

Husar

06-28-2007, 21:52

Why's that? Melted ice caps should mean higher sea levels and more water, yes? Higher termperatures would mean evaporation, which you'd think would lead, in turn, to higher precipitation. Colder would mean more water locked up in ice, and less evaporation- suggesting less precipitation, no?
A lot of salty water on the seaside is of no use to agriculture. Or do you want to desalinate it and pump it uphill to keep the rivers going?

All of you take a trip from the equator to either pole. You will see in general that there is more and greater diversity of life near the equator the further north or south you go the less there is. Thats why even though Canada is just as big and probably just as good a resources, other than farming, as we do if not better. When you reach the poles almost nothing lives. If the temp goes up more of the north and south will teem with life. Yes some other regions may suffer. But that is how it always works.
So you're saying within the next years we should all migrate to Canada and Russia and just leave the deserts behind? Did you always dream of a life in the tropical regions of Canada? And do you think Russia wants to host all those Chinese and Indians whose homes turned into deserts?

Tribesman

06-28-2007, 22:20

Good then we wont have to listen to any more bad effects out of you.
Wow since it was his first post in the topic and has made no comments on bad effects only pointed out that your approach is flawed I must take it that you are having a bad day:shame:
Or was it that you didn't read what was written ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

There are no bad or good ones. Thats my whole point.
Damn I could have sworn for the whole topic you have been saying that there are good ones:dizzy2:

Ive shown that when it got colder things died off.
Oh yes ...like germs:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

At least I present mine instead of making snide remarks always as my post. Come on genius prove me wrong.

errrr...Gawain I have shown that your approach is flawed and what you present as "fact" is not factual . Nothing snide about it at all , its all there openly and plainly
Didn't you notice:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Lemur

06-28-2007, 22:27

If Earth heats up, it will be easier to keep brie cheese at the correct temperature. Therefore, I, for one, welcome our new global warming overlords.

Tribesman

06-28-2007, 22:40

If Earth heats up, it will be easier to keep brie cheese at the correct temperature. Therefore, I, for one, welcome our new global warming overlords.
Ah But Lemur if it heats up too much the cheese will over ripen and its flavour diminish .

Xiahou

06-28-2007, 23:48

A lot of salty water on the seaside is of no use to agriculture. Or do you want to desalinate it and pump it uphill to keep the rivers going?Like I said, more moisture and more heat should mean more precipitation. And most rivers are fed by precipitation.

I don't really think this is a fruitful line of discussion though. We don't know for certain how much warming there will be (if any), and what the driving force of it is. I do think the Gawain's original point that doom and gloom "worst case" scenarios are just that. And the nonsense that Gore is getting rich off of goes beyond even that.

Byzantine Mercenary

06-29-2007, 00:22

generally the amount of living material is not nearly as important as the range, biodiversity is a better marker of the enviromental health of an area then sheerly the amount of a particular group of organisms there.

changing conditions damage biodiversity as every organism has a precise niche so if the globe got warmer it would be bad...

Gawain of Orkeny

06-29-2007, 00:27

I do think the Gawain's original point that doom and gloom "worst case" scenarios are just that. And the nonsense that Gore is getting rich off of goes beyond even that.

And thats all Ive really been trying to say. You dont get both sides of the story, When you try to present it you get insults. This includes the scientists. Their predictions are no more based in fact than mine. Even less. At least I can go back and show again how in times of warmer temps people grew taller an lived longer. Nobody has yet even tried to dispute it, Just make fun of me.Hw much can you grow on a sheet of Ice. It would have to get hotter than at anytime again since mammals walked the earth to make this planet unhospitable to man.And thats a pretty damn long time. Again I expect another asteriod to hit and wipe out most of life again long before this will happen. It has far better odds and is a proven fact.

Tribesman

06-29-2007, 01:24

At least I can go back and show again how in times of warmer temps people grew taller an lived longer.
You just keep digging your hole .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Somew simplequestions to explore the "facts" you present .
Right , is Canada warmer or colder as a whole than the USA ?how about scandanavia ?
Are people in those areas taller or shorter on average than Americans ?
Are the alps warm or cool ?
But hey lets go historical if you like , in the times of the cool period where were the tallest people ? Did the europeans that moved to the tall peoples region also grow taller than those that stayed in europe ? have they got shorter since it got warmer ?

Again I expect another asteriod to hit and wipe out most of life again long before this will happen. It has far better odds and is a proven fact.
Gawain do you understand the meaning of the word fact ? You keep on using it but appear to have little understanding of the word .

Gawain of Orkeny

06-29-2007, 02:44

Right , is Canada warmer or colder as a whole than the USA ?how about scandanavia ?
Are people in those areas taller or shorter on average than Americans ?

At this point theirs not much difference . How about eskimos? Again if its so nice in Canada and its so big why do so many more people live here? It couldnt be because its warmer Nahhh. talk about shooting yourself in the foot. You took off the whole leg.

But hey lets go historical if you like , in the times of the cool period where were the tallest people ? Did the europeans that moved to the tall peoples region also grow taller than those that stayed in europe ? have they got shorter since it got warmer ?

I posted graphs showing the corealation between these things .Obviously you didnt bother to read the links. You just laughed them off as usual. More warmth equals more plants equal more food equal better nutrition equal taller and healthier people. We continue to warm and guess what the average height continues to climb. These are facts. You should use some sometimes.

About 30,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer or Cro-Magnon humans reached their peak height. These are the true "giants" who once stalked the Earth, as the Genesis passage refers to the rather dubious offspring of male angels and female humans. Male hunter-gatherers were roughly 174 to 178 centimetres at this time (men have always been 10 to 15 centimetres taller than females).

"Cro-Magnon men were about the same height as modern men," said Professor Henneberg. But the subsequent Ice Age dealt a blow to the anatomy. "Big game became scarcer and many populations switched to agriculture in which food supply was limited, while great body strength was not necessarily at a premium any more . . . agriculture is bad-quality food and that causes the shrinkage in stature."

From the Neolithic Age, about 5000 years ago, to the 18th century, humans attained small stature. Allowing for statistical wobble of two centimetres either way, men were on average 165 centimetres, about that of former Bulldogs' rover Tony Liberatore.

master of the puppets

06-29-2007, 04:53

...eh Tribesman... [*snip*]
Simply insulting, even disproving another is worthless unless you can give the truth... its the blind argueing with the blind. at least Gawain has attempted credible discussion.

And the fact remains, Global warming theory states that CO2 in the upper atmosphere will trap heat and eventually the heating of the upper atmosphere will increase global tempuratures on the earths surface. To date there has been no noteworthy increase in the tempurature of the upper atmosphere. We have also seen NO consistent rise in general heat worldwide. We have seen many areas increase in heat, we have also noted as many instinces of decreased tempurature in other areas.

gentlemen we simply do not have consistent facts to prove, or disprove the theory of global warming.

p.s. i'll post my sources tommorow, its late and i got to get up early.

Tribesman

06-29-2007, 07:51

...eh Tribesman... STFU UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Errrrrr....yes my lord:dizzy2:

At this point theirs not much difference .
Are they taller or shorter ? You made the issue , how about Mexicans are they taller or shorter , is mexico warmer or colder ?
hmmmmm....dinka ....pygmies ....what does that show , it shows that height is not a good measure:laugh4: when it comes to hot or cold, there are many causes for variations , dressing it up as a simple heat correlation without lots of ifs and buts is a flawed approach .

Obviously you didnt bother to read the links. You just laughed them off as usual.
Thats a rather silly thing to say, I always read your links Gawain , they often give me a good laugh .:2thumbsup:

More warmth equals more plants equal more food equal better nutrition equal taller and healthier people.
Nope , once again you make simple deductions from complex things , if what you wrote were true then death valley would be inhabited by giants and grow more food than holland .

These are facts. You should use some sometimes.

Gawain , will you stop insisting that what you write is fact , please look the word up , fact has a specific meaning , a meaning that apparently is as lost on you as it is on Gore .

Ironside

06-29-2007, 09:45

Why's that? Melted ice caps should mean higher sea levels and more water, yes? Higher termperatures would mean evaporation, which you'd think would lead, in turn, to higher precipitation. Colder would mean more water locked up in ice, and less evaporation- suggesting less precipitation, no?

Depends on conditions, but generally it gets tendencies to come more concentrated with heated climate (causing floods and increases the risk for draughts).

Gawain, the direct link between heat and size is that the colder it is, the larger the animal. It has to do with the abillitiy to maintain the internal heat (the polar bear and the siberian tiger for example). Food can be the limiting factor, but if you see a map over the larger agricultural areas you'll see that they aren't exactly close to the equator. Humans don't get food from biodiversity.

I'm also interested how the colder climate made people switch from big game to agriculture due to colder climate, as the easiest access to food in colder climates are just big game.

We have also seen NO consistent rise in general heat worldwide. We have seen many areas increase in heat, we have also noted as many instinces of decreased tempurature in other areas.

Source on the bolded part?

Husar

06-29-2007, 10:08

Gawain of Orkeny

06-29-2007, 15:48

I'm also interested how the colder climate made people switch from big game to agriculture due to colder climate, as the easiest access to food in colder climates are just big game.

Read what it said. No more big game they had to switch to something.Oh and thats a direct quote from the introduction to earth science.

Nope , once again you make simple deductions from complex things , if what you wrote were true then death valley would be inhabited by giants and grow more food than holland .

No your not paying attention. Do you understand what in general means? It means there are exceptions which is all you ever point out. Then you give yourself a pat on the back and throw in some smileys. It gets quite boring after a while.

Gawain , will you stop insisting that what you write is fact , please look the word up , fact has a specific meaning , a meaning that apparently is as lost on you as it is on Gore .

Your right things grow best in the cold. this is crazy. Look around you. Yes if you have bad soil, no rain, no water or heavy winds things wont grow no matter what the temperature. In general:wall:

Tribesman

06-29-2007, 18:12

No your not paying attention. Do you understand what in general means? It means there are exceptions which is all you ever point out.
Ah I get it now , so when you write things that are very specific , and call them facts , you really mean they are generalisations that are not quite factual , and when someone points out that the specific "facts" are indeed generalisations that is called being insulting and snide .
It's so much clearer now :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: almost like a mist had lifted ....hmmmmm...mist ....thats moist isn't it , Xiahou and Husar had a little moistness going earlier , precipitation if I recall correctly , which funnily enough is what I entered this topic with .
So a general question in 3 parts , general as in to anyone at all , not someone specific who may or not be that person specified...

Precipitation , hot or cold , which is faster ?
By faster I mean does water that falls as rain on a hill run off into the sea in a shorter period than water that falls as snow ? Why would the difference be important ?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-29-2007, 18:17

Ah I get it now , so when you write things that are very specific , and call them facts , you really mean they are generalisations that are not quite factual

Your just so clever with the english langauge. Facts are that most things thrive better in the warm. Yes again there are exceptions. You can obfuscate all you like as its all you seem capable of . But that is a fact.

Tribesman

06-29-2007, 18:23

You can obfuscate all you like as its all you seem capable of . But that is a fact.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hey gawain , can I readress the general question specificly to you ? and by specificly you I mean you not some generally gawainsyish person who isn't really you .:inquisitive:

Byzantine Mercenary

06-29-2007, 18:47

Gawain, if warmth is a limiting factor in plant or animal growth then an increase in temperature will indeed result in increased growth but that isnt the point.

Scientists dont fear global warming as such, its climate change in any direction that they seek to avoid, if it was getting colder they would be just as worried.

When i say it would be bad for the climate for to get warmer it doesnt mean i want the climate to get colder, i think (from my current knoweldge of the area) that any change would be detrimental to the earths biodiversity.

Xiahou

06-29-2007, 18:50

When i say it would be bad for the climate for to get warmer it doesnt mean i want the climate to get colder, i think (from my current knoweldge of the area) that any change would be detrimental to the earths biodiversity.
But the climate has never been static and it's arrogant to think that we can somehow prevent it from ever changing. We also have no way of knowing whether or not our current climate is even the optimal one.

Byzantine Mercenary

06-29-2007, 19:20

But the climate has never been static and it's arrogant to think that we can somehow prevent it from ever changing. We also have no way of knowing whether or not our current climate is even the optimal one.
im not saying that we can prevent it that remains to be seen, and of course it hasnt been static, what i mean is that we have a planet built for the current climate paterns if they change then biodiversity will suffer

Gawain of Orkeny

06-29-2007, 22:13

what i mean is that we have a planet built for the current climate paterns if they change then biodiversity will suffer

What the hell is this. Man has always adapted. Biodiversity is no more static than the climate. As Ive been trying to point out you dont know it will suffer it can just as well improve. It certainly will in Canada. You still hang onto only the gloom and doom scenarios and dont even seem to want to admit theres even a chance your wrong.

Gawain, if warmth is a limiting factor in plant or animal growth then an increase in temperature will indeed result in increased growth but that isnt the point.

Yes it is the point all things being equal warmer is better. It can easliy get to cold to grow things in fact there are places on earth where little or nothing grows because its too cold. Were talking huge areas with plenty of water and good soil. Get rid of the cold and things grow there. Nothing else is needed. Cold is the limiting factor as well and far harder to cope with.

Use your common sense again if cold were better people would be moving to the poles. The population of Canada would be bigger than that of the US. And siberia would be a resort.

Byzantine Mercenary

06-30-2007, 00:43

What the hell is this. Man has always adapted. Biodiversity is no more static than the climate. As Ive been trying to point out you dont know it will suffer it can just as well improve. It certainly will in Canada. You still hang onto only the gloom and doom scenarios and dont even seem to want to admit theres even a chance your wrong.

i have catagorically not hung onto doom and gloom scenarios you will not find me stating them as fact and i do not apreciate you transposing this onto what i have said.

i have already explicitly stated that the views i currently hold are to use my own words ''from my current knoweldge of the area'' that is more then admitting theres a chance im wrong its saying i would even change my mind if evidence to the contrary was to be found

beside the point any good person should never rule out the possibility that they are incorrect this is why i try to use soft language and avoid stating certanties unless i am confident in them, it is the truth and not whether or not i was right that matters to me

Yes it is the point all things being equal warmer is better. It can easliy get to cold to grow things in fact there are places on earth where little or nothing grows because its too cold. Were talking huge areas with plenty of water and good soil. Get rid of the cold and things grow there. Nothing else is needed. Cold is the limiting factor as well and far harder to cope with.
i find this model far to simplistic, yes the right temperature range is important but what range this is will be dependant on the species and the ambient conditions. i work with the presumption that all species are adapted to their current conditions, therefore any change in said conditions will damage global biodiversity as the new conditions will not be those that they are adapted to

Use your common sense again if cold were better people would be moving to the poles. The population of Canada would be bigger than that of the US. And siberia would be a resort.
i am categorically not stating that colder is better i have never said that and would happily point out that conditions getting colder is bad too

However the fact is despite the inhospitable conditions at the poles there are many organisms adapted to them, if it was to get warmer the conditions would not be those that they are adapted to and global biodiversity will be reduced, now there may be colonization of this area by species from warmer climbs but that will do little to help global biodiversity were it to occur

Tribesman

06-30-2007, 01:30

Yes it is the point all things being equal warmer is better.
But all things are not equal are they , so what is your point?

It can easliy get to cold to grow things in fact there are places on earth where little or nothing grows because its too cold.
~:doh: just as there are places where little or nothing growing because it is too hot .

Use your common sense again if cold were better people would be moving to the poles.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Use your common sense if hot was better then people would be moving to the sahara .

As Ive been trying to point out you dont know it will suffer it can just as well improve. It certainly will in Canada.
Will it ?
Is that a certainty ?
Is it a fact or a "fact" ?
George Washington and Cockney Rebel were certainties last week , the odds showed it just like your asteroid odds . What happened to the "factual" certainties ?
BTW Gawain , that last quote of yours shows exactly what the problem is with your approach throughout this topic , that simple line shows it up perfectly .
Can you see it ?:magnify: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

i find this model far to simplistic
You are not alone ...and that is what is known as a fact:2thumbsup:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-30-2007, 01:46

However the fact is despite the inhospitable conditions at the poles there are many organisms adapted to them, if it was to get warmer the conditions would not be those that they are adapted to and global biodiversity will be reduced, now there may be colonization of this area by species from warmer climbs but that will do little to help global biodiversity were it to occur

So evolution doesnt continue. And whats all this nonsence about global biodiversity will be reduced? How many species have gone extinct? Almost all and were still discovering new ones and have no lack of diversity. Maybe you would like it if Dinosaurs still walked the earth. Things as you say adapt.

But all things are not equal are they , so what is your point?

Does that really require an answer.? Ive explained until Im blue in the face. I guess you dont understand the meaning of the phrase. Of course you do but again your playing your silly games.

Will it ?
Is that a certainty ?
Is it a fact or a "fact" ?

If it gets warmer more will grow there thats a fact

just as there are places where little or nothing growing because it is too hot .

Name one where heat is the only factor?

Use your common sense if hot was better then people would be moving to the sahara

It seems you have none. many people live in the desert. A lot more than live at the poles. And besides its not just the heat but the lack of rain and topsoil.

Again you have too use the exception while I use the rule. Your hopless.

Tribesman

06-30-2007, 02:03

If it gets warmer more will grow there thats a fact

No Gawain , that is not a fact .

Name one where heat is the only factor?

Hmmmmm ....you are the only one taking heat as the only factor when you declare your "facts"::dizzy2:

Again you have too use the exception while I use the rule. Your hopless.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I have to repeat this , just to see if you might possibly understand on a second attempt .....As Ive been trying to point out you dont know it will suffer it can just as well improve. It certainly will in Canada. ......
Can you not see why your approach throughout this topic is complete bollox ?:inquisitive: you keep taking little steps in the right direction , then retreat back to the position of sillyness you started out with .

Gawain of Orkeny

06-30-2007, 02:42

I have to repeat this , just to see if you might possibly understand on a second attempt .....As Ive been trying to point out you dont know it will suffer it can just as well improve. It certainly will in Canada. ......

My point from the begining was to show there are two sides of the story and that all we ever here is gloom and doom. You have done nothing but reinforce that point. It seems you like I dont always post what you believe but what you want your opponents to respond to. Yes I posted articles that warm is always better but Ive also always admitted there are exceptions.Exceptions you constantly pointed out You people act so smug like only your truth is so. Then when it comes down to it you finally admit your as clueless as the next guy and that includes the scientists . That has always been my position on global warming that it beyond human comprehension with the tools we available today and to spend all this money and make all these regulations on such a basis is counter productive.

Again unless there is a very dramatic rise in temperatures across the planet larger than ever in the history of life nothing that bad will happen and besides t will change sooner or later no matter what we do. This is all about feeling we are in control. I got news for you . Were not, not even close.

Tribesman

06-30-2007, 08:53

Ah there you have it Gawain , we are all to a greater or lesser extent clueless , there are many variables and conditionals .
Yet persistantly you have (despite apparently knowing that) gone on about certainties and facts where there is not certainty or facts .
You managed to go all Gore on the subject but from the opposite perspective .

This is all about feeling we are in control. I got news for you . Were not, not even close.
Yep .
An interesting parallel would be attempts made at controling coastal erosion , the costs and efforts involved and the effects it has both when sucessful and unsuccessful , in areas where it is done and areas near where it is done .

Husar

06-30-2007, 11:19

Things as you say adapt.
I always thought things need time to adapt, so if we really speed up the change, the adaption might be too slow and things die. And no, I don't think that's a fact, it's just what I thought.

Name one where heat is the only factor?
There was this planet in chronicles of Riddick... ~;)

It seems you have none. many people live in the desert. A lot more than live at the poles. And besides its not just the heat but the lack of rain and topsoil.
I think if it gets too hot, there can be even less rain in some areas, so the heat causes the lack of rain, due to that, the top soil will degrade as well IIRC.

It seems you like I dont always post what you believe but what you want your opponents to respond to.
I like that, I do it myself.:2thumbsup:

Byzantine Mercenary

06-30-2007, 12:00

So evolution doesnt continue. And whats all this nonsence about global biodiversity will be reduced? How many species have gone extinct? Almost all and were still discovering new ones and have no lack of diversity. Maybe you would like it if Dinosaurs still walked the earth. Things as you say adapt.
this is you only point about my whole post?

well its simple realy, yeah evolution happens, but slowly, evolution will solve this problem, in around a million years, im not gonna wait that long, so in this sense i consider global biodiversity finite if we lose a species its reduced and that is that. If we discover a new species global biodiversity does not increase, only our understanding of it does, i dont want dinosaurs walking around their not suited to this enviroment a foreign species like that would either fail or worse damage existing species, incidentally where have i given an indication that i want to ''save'' dinosaurs?
or not admit theres a chance im wrong?
or hang onto only the gloom and doom scenarios?
or want the world to get colder?
or think that the coditions at the poles are good for all life?

this is a very good topic to disscuss but its realy rather pointless if your going to insist on responding to points i havent made :wall:

Rodion Romanovich

06-30-2007, 15:03

Let me add something to Byzantine Mercenary's point: a rapid, and extremely large change will destroy biodiversity. Remember, we're talking about 5 times greater change, happening at 20 times faster rate, than any previously known event in geological history, and with the effects remaining for a foreseeable future, possibly continuing to increase even more. That's what we're worried about. Evolution simply isn't fast enough to allow the persistence of humans or other animals. It's not only the problem of too hot climate killing people by heart attacks, but problems getting clean water (as hotter climate results in dried water sources and proliferation of poisonous algae, amoebae, and other parasites), as well as proliferation of a lot of diseases (that are also a lot more effective in hotter climate, for example malaria) that would be logistically infeasible to handle for an unprepared western world. The economical shocks resulting from suddenly, with a year's notice or less having to produce vaccines for new epidemias, for example, as well as the problems of not being able to massproduce the vaccine quickly enough (remember, vaccine isn't produced the same way as electronical products, but often requires waiting for the slow growth of living organism to extract the substances from), are big problems. The lack of clean water is however what I think will be the worst problem. Most people in Europe and America may end up going around with constant diarrheas, amoebas and other diseases that are everyday diseases in the tropical parts of the world today. Food supply is another issue. Higher climate may result in better growth up to a certain point, but the ground also becomes much more sensitive, to the point that a small amount of deforestation easily runs amok into desertification or large forest fires, which contribute to even more CO2 emissions, creating a dangerous loop. The third world doesn't have the education or money to prevent such desertification, meaning that only large forests in very isolated areas can remain, whereas the small forests (which together account for more CO2 reduction than the few large forests), will succumb.

Nobody is afraid of the natural changes (which we know how to adapt to), but people are afraid of a change that is human-caused, is 20 times faster than anything else, 5 times more extreme than anything else, and unlike temporary disasters such as volcano eruptions, it has persisting effects.

Tribesman

06-30-2007, 16:38

The lack of clean water is however what I think will be the worst problem. Most people in Europe and America may end up going around with constant diarrheas, amoebas and other diseases that are everyday diseases in the tropical parts of the world today. Food supply is another issue.
Who needs to go to tropical parts of the world for that , come to the west of Ireland .
There are of course many factors in why the water here makes you sick , among them are the recent intense rainfall and changes in food production .

JR-

06-30-2007, 21:31

cracking vids, thanks.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-30-2007, 23:20

cracking vids, thanks.
Your welcome :laugh4:

Ah there you have it Gawain , we are all to a greater or lesser extent clueless , there are many variables and conditionals .
Yet persistantly you have (despite apparently knowing that) gone on about certainties and facts where there is not certainty or facts .
You managed to go all Gore on the subject but from the opposite perspective .

Thank you . My purpose here then has been served. So you recogines that all this the sky id falling is just scare tactics.:2thumbsup:

It seems you like I dont always post what you believe but what you want your opponents to respond to. Yes I posted articles that warm is always better but Ive also always admitted there are exceptions.Exceptions you constantly pointed out You people act so smug like only your truth is so. Then when it comes down to it you finally admit your as clueless as the next guy and that includes the scientists . That has always been my position on global warming that it beyond human comprehension with the tools we available today and to spend all this money and make all these regulations on such a basis is counter productive.

How does it feel to be led around by the nose yourslef for once.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-01-2007, 18:10

Thank you . My purpose here then has been served. So you recogines that all this the sky id falling is just scare tactics.:2thumbsup:
the general consensus (from the scientists i have heard speak on this subject) is that global warming is a reality, we dont know the degree to which it will occur but in some senarios there will be very serious reprocussions (this is aside from al gores video which i havnt had the chance to see in full) that is the general consensus now, barring any new discoverys.

There is no great reason for the scientific comunity whose goal is the truth to scare us, now some may use global warming as a scare tactic (again i do not know whether al gore is doing this) but that does not not mean that it is not still a very serious issue

Tribesman

07-01-2007, 18:25

Thank you . My purpose here then has been served. So you recogines that all this the sky id falling is just scare tactics.
Oh I get it now , so when you write that something is a fact you don't mean it , when you go on to try and back up your "facts" you are not trying to back them up .
when you say you are being insulted by people saying your "facts" are not facts you are not being insulted at all because you know they are not facts that you are really not trying to prove in the slightest .
Yeeeeessss Gawain :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-01-2007, 18:54

Oh I get it now , so when you write that something is a fact you don't mean it , when you go on to try and back up your "facts" you are not trying to back them up .

Yes just like all those who claim were doomed and its a fact. Im just countering their stupidy with my own.:yes:

the general consensus (from the scientists i have heard speak on this subject) is that global warming is a reality, we dont know the degree to which it will occur but in some senarios there will be very serious reprocussions

There it is . Its not in some its in all. You never hear it could make things better other than from me now have you?

There is no great reason for the scientific comunity whose goal is the truth to scare us, now some may use global warming as a scare tactic (again i do not know whether al gore is doing this) but that does not not mean that it is not still a very serious issue

Its called funding.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-01-2007, 22:45

Yes just like all those who claim were doomed and its a fact. Im just countering their stupidy with my own.:yes:
so you dont agree with what you have said earlyer?

There it is . Its not in some its in all. You never hear it could make things better other than from me now have you?
well if scientists arnt saying it will make things better then it probably wont!

Its called funding.
then almost the entire scientific cumunity would have to be part of such a fraud, but it would seem that in america at least i would guess that the guys understating global warming would be more likely to be better funded! :laugh4:

there have been complaints even from scientists from nasa that information that they have found has cut their budgets i strongly recommend you check out the novermber 8th 2006 episode of the scientific american podcast, the relavent story is 10mins and 10seconds in

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/index.cfm?e_type=W

(its near the bottom of the november 2006 page)

for information on the consensus reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change check out the febuary 7th 2007 podcast the relavent story there is right at the beggining of the podcast

Here is another exelent source from doctor karl on abc, i find that he is very reliable when it comes to science, take a look at the short article here.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1938551.htm

also available as a podcast, i found it a very balanced summary of climate change

Byzantine Mercenary

07-01-2007, 22:59

double post sorry

Papewaio

07-02-2007, 02:43

That's especially interesting since he said it's easier to grow things in warmer climates.

True and that is the rub. Fungus grows easier in mild climates too and even better in wet ones.

So until modern pesticides came along wheat crops for instance could be wiped out by fungus blooming.

Wheat rust (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050924/food.asp)

Until a half-century ago, many popular wheat varieties were vulnerable to many variants of P. graminis. Mention of their sighting would trigger terror in the hearts of farmers, since an infection could rapidly render a healthy field of wheat into "a black tangle of broken stems and shriveled grain," the CIMMYT report says.

These fungal blights periodically triggered disastrous epidemics until breeders began intense efforts to select and breed wheat lines with genes resistant to black-stem disease. Indeed, CIMMYT and its predecessor organization, created in 1943, owe their origins to global campaigns aimed at countering this wheat rust.

The success of those breeding efforts "has led to complacency throughout the wheat community," observes Norman E. Borlaug, the 91-year-old Nobel prize winner credited with launching the "green revolution." It harnessed intensive plant-breeding programs to improve the yields of wheat, maize, and other plants that serve as dietary staples in developing countries.

Xiahou

07-02-2007, 21:43

Here's (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/manmade_global_warming_the_rea.html) an interesting Gore-related story I came across recently.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-03-2007, 18:01

an interesting article though it only cites two scientists that i can see, if the current theroys so wrong id expect more detractors but you never know...

Tribesman

07-03-2007, 19:08

an interesting article though it only cites two scientists that i can see
One of those scientists says we are entering a new ice ige .

I like this article from the thinkers~;)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/dont_be_so_sure_there_were_no.html

PanzerJaeger

07-03-2007, 19:28

Ah global warming.. the rallying cry for pseudointellectual leftists the world over. In the 70s, the earth was freezing! Thank God we solved that one... :laugh4:

Xiahou

07-03-2007, 19:48

an interesting article though it only cites two scientists that i can see, if the current theroys so wrong id expect more detractors but you never know...
I wasn't aware that any write-up on the subject has to list every scientist who holds a similar view. Reid Bryson is certainly no lightweight in the field though. :shrug:

Byzantine Mercenary

07-03-2007, 20:14

I wasn't aware that any write-up on the subject has to list every scientist who holds a similar view. Reid Bryson is certainly no lightweight in the field though. :shrug:
''has to''? of course not, but when your going against the general consensus you want backup,

i might also point our that albert einstien was no ''lightweight'' in physics and yet still died dissagreing with a lot of todays physics, stuff we now see as fact, im not saying that Reid Bryson is wrong, but that he could be (and that i currently believe him to be)

again i realy dont see the big bonus in (especially american) scientists exagerating global warming, all they do is risk budget cuts, makes me wonder why they are so many scientists supporting co2 related global warming, maybe scientists have more principles then you give them credit for!:laugh4:

Xiahou

07-03-2007, 21:59

''has to''? of course not, but when your going against the general consensus you want backup,'Consensus' there's that word again.....

again i realy dont see the big bonus in (especially american) scientists exagerating global warming, all they do is risk budget cuts, makes me wonder why they are so many scientists supporting co2 related global warming, maybe scientists have more principles then you give them credit for!:laugh4:
Are you kidding? Global warming hysteria is where almost all the money is at. Just ask Al Gore- he's made millions off it. It's much easier to get funding if you can tie your study to global warming. Want to study the mating habits of squirrels? Good luck. But, want to study the effects of global warming on the mating habits of squirrels? Ah, we can fund that. :dizzy2:

Marshal Murat

07-03-2007, 22:39

The Turbine Threat. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6259516.stm)

Global Fears are Over-Hyped (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm)

:gathering:
Discuss. If you want to. :computer:

Byzantine Mercenary

07-03-2007, 23:18

'Are you kidding? Global warming hysteria is where almost all the money is at. Just ask Al Gore- he's made millions off it. It's much easier to get funding if you can tie your study to global warming. Want to study the mating habits of squirrels? Good luck. But, want to study the effects of global warming on the mating habits of squirrels? Ah, we can fund that. :dizzy2:

there have been complaints even from scientists from nasa that information that they have found has cut their budgets i strongly recommend you check out the novermber 8th 2006 episode of the scientific american podcast, the relavent story is 10mins and 10seconds in

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/index.cfm?e_type=W

(its near the bottom of the november 2006 page)

where the moneys at? really :inquisitive: id also point out that al gore is not a scientist doing reasearch, how much his video or any asociated talks may have earned him (i wouldnt know how much that would be) has little relation to the funding provided by the goverment for reasearch into climate change, take a look at the podcast i linked to, seriously...

'Consensus' there's that word again.....
its the right term, thats what it is thats why i use it :dizzy2:

for information on the consensus reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change check out the febuary 7th 2007 podcast the relavent story there is right at the beggining of the podcast

Here is another exelent source from doctor karl on abc, i find that he is very reliable when it comes to science, take a look at the short article here.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1938551.htm

also available as a podcast, i found it a very balanced summary of climate change
consensus is most not all and most scientists in the field agree that man is causing climate change

Gawain of Orkeny

07-04-2007, 19:24

consensus is most not all and most scientists in the field agree that man is causing climate change

LINK (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/author/shapiro/)

More Dissent on Global Warming
Kevin Shapiro - 6.11.2007 - 5:05PM

Though the fear of man-made global warming has come to dominate our cultural discourse, the science behind the scare is looking increasingly uncertain. David Evans is representative of scientists who have become disillusioned with the theory that industrial carbon dioxide emissions are the root cause of global warming: as he points out, the computer models don’t seem to fit the data, while at the same time evidence is mounting in favor of alternative hypotheses, like the idea that climate change may be caused in large part by fluctuations in solar radiation. A series of articles by Lawrence Solomon, who has profiled prominent climate-change dissenters, demonstrates that Evans is hardly alone—and calls into question the often-parroted assertion that there is some sort of scientific “consensus” on the issue (whatever that might mean).

One of Evans’s interesting asides is that “the integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads.” Although this is true in the long run, it’s a bit simplistic. Once a theory gains ascendancy, it may take years or even decades before its adherents are willing to abandon it, even in the face of contradictory data. (See Thomas Kuhn’s landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a picture of this phenomenon.) At the most basic level, scientists have their jobs and reputations to think about; it’s only natural to resist the suggestion that one has spent one’s career trying to prove, or solve, a nonexistent problem. No doubt this would be true even in the absence of external pressure. But with the political stakes now so high, scientific integrity is at a decided disadvantage.

Isn't 'Scientific Consensus" anti-scientific?

Byzantine Mercenary

07-04-2007, 23:40

LINK (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/author/shapiro/)

Isn't 'Scientific Consensus" anti-scientific?

no why would it be? everyone accepts that its only the current consensus and if evidence comes up that challenges it, then that consensus will change, like any field, science has had fraud and people who have clung to ideas beyond reason but they are a group of professionals like any other, science is a field that is generally entered through an interest in the subject is it not?

i fail to see why the community would lie in order to have their budgets cut by the american goverment! :laugh4:

but dont tale my word for it here is a link from the royal society an independant academy of science in the UK.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

this link should be very interesting to those who question global warming it ansers most of the points raised on this thread a lot better then i can

Gawain of Orkeny

07-05-2007, 00:14

no why would it be?

Because its based on conjecture and not facts.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-05-2007, 00:16

Because its based on conjecture and not facts.
what did you think of the royal society article i linked to?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-05-2007, 03:28

Seen the same a million times before all easily reffuted but you will say not peer reviewed.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-05-2007, 15:38

Seen the same a million times before all easily reffuted but you will say not peer reviewed.
humour me

Marshal Murat

07-05-2007, 21:37

Live Earth Hypocritical (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1)

Some artist decry the 'Live Earth' Concert because of the resources that are devoted to it.

Warmer Life on Earth? (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1)

Oldest DNA recovered from a plant may indicate a warmer Earth.

KukriKhan

07-06-2007, 11:07

I've often heard of women's hemlines being predictive of economic patterns; who knew unmentionables could fortell climate?

https://jimcee.homestead.com/gWarm.jpg

Papewaio

07-06-2007, 13:03

With that proof, crank up the thermostat. :sweatdrop:

Byzantine Mercenary

07-06-2007, 13:22

Live Earth Hypocritical (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705025637.vyh5u7g0&show_article=1)

Some artist decry the 'Live Earth' Concert because of the resources that are devoted to it.

very interesting, i think they have a point although from what ive heard the concert will try and be as enviromentally freindly as possible and lets face it there are many people that wouldnt watch a documentary on climate but would watch a concert raising the prifile of this issue. I think its particularly interesting that the arctic monkeys main complaint is that they arnt expert enought in the field, a very good point...

Warmer Life on Earth? (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1)

Oldest DNA recovered from a plant may indicate a warmer Earth.

may well have been, the climates changed a lot in earths history

Seen the same a million times before all easily reffuted but you will say not peer reviewed.
if you can so easly refute the royal society, i invite you to (and im sure they would to)

Marshal Murat

07-06-2007, 17:13

may well have been, the climates changed a lot in earths history

So why is this current warming trend any more or less dangerous than the previous warming-cooling cycles on the Earth?

Tribesman

07-06-2007, 17:52

So why is this current warming trend any more or less dangerous than the previous warming-cooling cycles on the Earth?
Well to put it simply , if some of those warming theories do turn out to be true the major difference from any earlier cycles is population level .

Banquo's Ghost

07-06-2007, 19:08

Mr Gore does have his uses (http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0706/gore.html), however. :laugh4:

Paddy Power pays out over Gore arrest

Friday, 6 July 2007 16:06

Bookmaker Paddy Power, which offered 14 to 1 odds that Al Gore would be the next high profile American to be arrested, paid out today.

Of course, it was the former vice president's son, Al Gore III, who was arrested by California police earlier this week, but the bet did not specify which Al Gore it had to be.

Some of the 50 or so people who placed their bets on Al Gore were quick to claim the more than €10,000 payout in this 'bizarre coincidence', according to a Paddy Power statement.

'We got a good stoning thanks to the Vice President's son,' the statement said in an apparent pun given the nature of his arrest.

The 24 year-old Al Gore was stopped for speeding on Wednesday and arrested for drug possession after a sheriff's deputy smelled marijuana and searched his car.

Paddy Power offered odds this week that made Paris Hilton the 2/1 favourite to be arrested.

It had ranked President George W. Bush and Bill Gates among the outsiders on odds of 33/1 and 50/1 respectively.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-06-2007, 23:48

So why is this current warming trend any more or less dangerous than the previous warming-cooling cycles on the Earth?
I think Tribesman has it right, also the speed of this proposed change could cause problems

Tribesman

07-06-2007, 23:59

Byzantine , add a couple of "ifs" to that statement .
Remember the speed and extent of any changes that may happen are not fact .

Byzantine Mercenary

07-07-2007, 00:09

Byzantine , add a couple of "ifs" to that statement .
Remember the speed and extent of any changes that may happen are not fact .
whoops,

i did intend my statement to be more vaugue,

thanks

Rodion Romanovich

07-07-2007, 14:21

So why is this current warming trend any more or less dangerous than the previous warming-cooling cycles on the Earth?
Compared to any previous geological events, this is 20 times faster, has a 5 times greater magnitude, and the effects are lasting, not temporary. That accounts for a quite significant difference. Additionally, all models, even those presented by the sceptics, show that CO2 increase will cause warming, but with a delay - i.e. the effects of today's CO2 emissions will not become apparent until in years, decades, centuries or even millenia from now. Depending on how great the delay is, we could be in really serious irreversible trouble.

Secondly, very few, even among the most sceptical, are arguing the following statements:
1. currently we have a global warming that is 20 times faster and with 5 times greater magnitude with lasting effects than any known event in the geological past

2. the CO2 levels are currently increasing towards levels present far back in time, when earth was unsuitable to human life, especially life for people with white skin

3. higher CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) levels in the atmosphere will alone, if we assume this is the only change made, cause higher temperature equilibrium on earth than without it. This means unless a CO2 increase is coupled with a counter-effect, temperature will increase as CO2 emissions increase. Here, plenty of global warming sceptics are speculating wildly with little evidence and incomplete models. One example:
"When trees are chopped down and desertification increases, this will give the earth surface a different color where the desert arises, and this could perhaps reflect light better than does a forest, and therefore perhaps the deforestation could, to some extent, compensate part of the global warming effect caused by less CO2 being bound as the trees are chopped down. "
However this is pure speculation. Unless it can be proven that the effect of desert colored ground compensates the less CO2 bound fully, this won't solve the problem.

4. in the earliest days of earth, when most coal was unbound and free in the air, temperatures were incredibly higher - earth was a hell of lightnings, fires and lava. The most complex form of life that could exist, were RNA strings without capsules, i.e. an organism more primitive than one-cell organisms, difficult to at all call a life form.

The binding of the coal to living organisms who would die and be bound below earth surface as sediment is what crucially decreased temperatures enough to allow the appearance of plants and animals. Additional crucial coal binding below earth surface was required before human beings could live on earth.

Now we're digging up that bound coal, and freeing it into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

5. evolution allows humans and other species to adapt to changes, including climate changes, but there's no way evolution can cope with a massive change in temperature over less than 1,000 years, without resulting in mass death with very small survival chances for most species, including humans. Human beings, despite technology, has no advantage over other animals in this case: our evolution is no faster than for other animals.

6. in cold weather, we can use heating mechanisms (that emit greenhouse gases and increase earth temperature) and clothes to compensate for the cold. In hot climate, we have no way of colding ourselves except by air conditioning, which increases CO2 emissions even more, and increases the temperature even more ad absurdum.

7. pollution is strongly correlated to temperature increase. This correlation is significant, because of the 20 times faster rate of increase than in any geological event seen in the past, it's 5 times greater magnitude, and the fact that the correlation fits so closely.

8. sun cycles, which were taken as a counter-example to global warming a few years back, have been counter-proven. In fact, we are currently in a low activity part of the sun cycle, and that would suggest a temperature decrease. Despite this, the temperature continues to increase rapidly. This suggests that the sun cycles account for very little of the climate changes.

9. a provably higher percentage of CO2 and other greenhouse gases than the pre-industrialization levels have been emitted into the atmopshere.

Currently, we anually emit around 2% of the entire amount of CO2 already present in the atmosphere. That means we double the amount of CO2 in the atmopshere in 50 years.

Additionally, there's almost 0% SF6 in the atmosphere without human emissions, and it's 22,200 times more potent than CO2.

The massive increase in human population size requires increased amounts of meat production to feed all people. This has led to extinction of many non-ruminant animals and a massive increase in the population of ruminant animals. These animals, especially cows, are notorious emitters of CH4 (methane) through their digestive systems, and CH4 is also an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Human activities have multiplied the emissions of these gases. CH4 is difficult to bind again to remove from the atmosphere, especially with the deforestration and extinction/significant reduction of populations of non-ruminant animals and replacing them with ruminant cattle.

Added together, human impact accounts for not just a lousy percentage of greenhouse gas amounts in the atmopshere, but for a significant portion of it. The human emitted tonnage is a significant portion of the existing amounts in the atmopshere - the human emitted tonnage is even more significant compared to the amounts polluted by the natural cycles themselves. Every year we are emitting more than 100% of what the natural cycles themselves emit.

10. already today, plenty of European and American communities have problems with amobae due to the high temperatures and high amount of rain. Many of these communities are provided with bottled water or other drinks produced by clean water to be able to survive. If increased temperature and moisture reaches the areas that are currently suppliers of clean drinking water so they too get amobae and poisonous algae in their water, even the industrialized world will have problems supplying itself with clean water.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-11-2007, 15:20

Who's Afraid of CO2?
View as PDF

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader Get Adobe Reader
Friday, January 23, 1998
For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature (see Figure I), environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming. In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for "carbon taxes," stating that "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants . . . is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world."

The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is tasteless, colorless, nontoxic to humans at concentrations up to 13 times present levels and is essential to life. Plants breathe CO2, and as they grow and reproduce they exhale oxygen, making the earth habitable for humans. Instead of a disaster, the expected doubling of CO2 due to human activities will produce a number of benefits over the next century.

The Role of CO2. CO2 is a "greenhouse gas," one of several that partially trap solar radiation in the atmosphere. Without these gases the earth would be uninhabitable - at least by humans. CO2 occurs naturally and accounts for 2 to 4 percent of the greenhouse effect (water vapor is responsible for virtually all of the rest). Most of this CO2 is used by or stored in oceans, plants and animals. However, over the past 150 years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased approximately 30 percent, rising from 280 to 360 parts per million (ppm).

CO2 and Global Warming. Ground-level temperature measurements indicate that the earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1850, but human-generated carbon dioxide could have been only a small factor because most of the warming occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused CO2 emissions. Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.

Plants Need CO2. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in an atmosphere of much more concentrated CO2. Indeed, some scientists have argued that, until quite recently, many plants were starving for CO2.

CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to produce carbohydrates - the material of which their roots and body consist. Increasing CO2 levels speeds the time in which plants mature and improves their growth efficiency and water use. Botanists have long realized that CO2 enhances plant growth, which is why they pump CO2 into greenhouses.

In addition, higher CO2 levels decrease water loss in plants, giving them an advantage in arid climates and during droughts. In 55 experiments conducted by U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso, increased levels of CO2 dramatically enhanced plant growth. For example, Idso found:

* With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.

* With a 600 ppm CO2 increase, plant growth increased 51 percent under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of water shortage (see Figure II).

Also, CO2 enrichment causes plants to develop more extensive root systems with two important results. Larger root systems allow plants to exploit additional pockets of water and nutrients. This means that plants have to spend less metabolic energy to capture vital nutrients. Additionally, more extensive, active roots stimulate and enhance the activity of bacteria and other organisms that break nutrients out of the soil, which the plants can then exploit.

Farmers Need CO2. Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32 percent across species. Controlled experiments have shown that:

* Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20 and 50 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.

* Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25 and 64 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 levels.

* Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10 to 55 percent at elevated CO2 levels.

* Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18 to 75 percent under elevated CO2 conditions.

* Legumes including peas, beans and soybeans post increased yields of between 28 and 46 percent when CO2 levels are increased.

Trees Need CO2. International research has demonstrated that trees also benefit from increased CO2 levels. In research from the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, doubling CO2 from current levels helped orange trees accumulate 2.8 times as much biomass in the first five years of the tests and yield 10 times as many oranges in the first two years of orange production. Other U.S. studies confirm these findings. For example:

* Since 1890, high-altitude conifers in the Cascade Mountains of Washington have increased in mass approximately 60 percent from previous growth trends.

* In New England, a study of 10 tree species showed an average growth enhancement of 24 percent from 1950 to 1980, a period when CO2 levels were rising.

European studies have also demonstrated that elevated CO2 levels benefit tree growth. For example:

* Stands of Scotch pine in northern Finland have experienced growth increases of 15 to 43 percent since 1950.

* Forest growth rates in Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany, have increased 20 percent in the past 20 years.

Scientists have discovered no environmental factor other than the CO2 increase that could explain the higher growth rates found in forests around the world.

Ecosystems Need CO2. The earth's ecosystems should benefit from higher levels of CO2. Increased crop yields mean that humans will not have to convert more fragile forests, savannas and deserts into crop lands to feed growing populations. Wildlife will get a respite from the development of their habitats. As forests increase, many currently fragmented ecosystems will regenerate - as many already have in Europe and the eastern United States. Since trees will put on more mass under higher CO2 conditions, fewer trees will have to be cut to supply humanity's demand for timber.

Finally, many scientists contend that outside of human society the availability of food is a primary inhibitor of population growth. Therefore, as plants increase in size and number, so should animals - more herbivores due to increased edible vegetation and more omnivores and carnivores due to increased herbivore populations.

Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.

Currently, we anually emit around 2% of the entire amount of CO2 already present in the atmosphere. That means we double the amount of CO2 in the atmopshere in 50 years.

Even if this is true its pretty obvious there we are but a small contributer. How is it not only that our small 2% is sending us over this cliff but merely the increase in this small percentage. And again co2 emissions trail temp increase not the other way around.

Rodion Romanovich

07-11-2007, 15:32

Even if this is true its pretty obvious there we are but a small contributer. How is it not only that our small 2% is sending us over this cliff but merely the increase in this small percentage.

If you put 0.00000% of cyanide in a glass of water, it's still lethal. Concentrations are of no significance, if the element is very potent.

And again co2 emissions trail temp increase not the other way around.

Only after ice ages, and reinforced by the effect of CO2 rising over the ice towards younger age in the ice cores. Ice cores are vastly inaccurate, as I believe you have yourself argued before numerous times.

And again, I must ask you why you defend pollution itself? We can do everything we do now without pollution with minimal implications, but still you defend the pollution itself. Why?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-11-2007, 15:53

If you put 0.00000% of cyanide in a glass of water, it's still lethal. Concentrations are of no significance, if the element is very potent.

Now you are comparing co2 to cyanide :laugh4:

And ignoring the fact that some one else is also putting in 49 times as much as you.

Rodion Romanovich

07-11-2007, 17:56

No, human annual emission of CO2 is now greater than the annual CO2 emission from natural cycles. Unless you don't count Europeans and Chinese as humans, humans are emitting more than nature.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-11-2007, 18:18

No, human annual emission of CO2 is now greater than the annual CO2 emission from natural cycles.

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

Rodion Romanovich

07-11-2007, 18:29

Do you think laughing will make the bad truth go away? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-11-2007, 19:14

Do you think laughing will make the bad truth go away

Do you think your saying it makes it so. Its ludicrous on the face of it

Who posted this?

Currently, we anually emit around 2% of the entire amount of CO2 already present in the atmosphere.

Now back up your statement.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-11-2007, 20:36

talking of backing up statements...

Seen the same a million times before all easily reffuted but you will say not peer reviewed.

humour me

if you can so easly refute the royal society, i invite you to (and im sure they would to)

with your peer review statment you are right in a way i guess, but it would still need to be quite a credible source to lead you to dissagree with the royal society surely? (even if it wasnt good enough for the scientists in the field)

another interesting article maybe carbon dioxide does effect things...
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0308-oceans.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308220426.htm

Rodion Romanovich

07-11-2007, 21:07

Do you think your saying it makes it so. Its ludicrous on the face of it

Who posted this?

Currently, we anually emit around 2% of the entire amount of CO2 already present in the atmosphere.

Now back up your statement.
Backing it up is quite easy! :2thumbsup:

Annual human emission is about 2% of natural percentage, 50 years of human emission doubles the natural percentage.
Annual human emission is larger than annual natural emission.

Your move :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-11-2007, 21:33

Annual human emission is about 2% of natural percentage, 50 years of human emission doubles the natural percentage.
Annual human emission is larger than annual natural emission.

Now back it up with something other than your mouth and watch out for those left wing bloggers.

Banquo's Ghost

07-11-2007, 22:23

I don't know about global warming but we're experiencing a surge of thread warming here and in the other climate thread.

Can I ask for an international agreement to calm down intemperate emissions and get back to the nice, stable debating environment that we were inhabiting a page or so back?

:bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-11-2007, 22:53

Byzantine Mercenary

07-12-2007, 00:34

Xiahou

07-12-2007, 03:55

i understand it may take a while but i would realy like you to give some more reasons for your response to the royal society article i posted http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229 (im not just doing this to make a point i want to bring this debate back to the evidence)
It'd be tough since they really don't do much to refute the "misleading arguments" they claim to debunk. For example:

Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.

What does the science say?

Carbon dioxide only makes up a small amount of the atmosphere, but even in tiny concentrations it has a large influence on our climate.That's essentially saying that CO2 can't be insignificant in affecting the climate because it is significant. I understand they were trying to keep it simple, but they may have gone too far- much of their refutations seem to boil down to a "nu-uh". But, if there's something particularly compelling, I'd be happy to at least respond with my take on it. I don't really have the time or interest in typing up a voluminous response to all points listed, though.

Meanwhile, here's (http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf) some food for thought from Dr. David Evans, who used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Feel free to address his two challenges if you feel up to it.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2007, 05:03

Meanwhile, here's some food for thought from Dr. David Evans, who used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Feel free to address his two challenges if you feel up to it.

Phew I just checked and he wasnt in the movie :laugh4: But he says almost the same thing word for word so other than me I dont think you will convince many here :laugh4:

Rodion Romanovich

07-12-2007, 09:05

Certainly if people stop calling me and those who dont agree with their stand on global warming names all the time. Then claiming their neutral names and use at least something other than just their say so. Ill even look at a right wing blogger. I promise however not to attack the source as many here do but to address the point it makes.Unlike many here.
Well, that would require that people start calling you names first, doesn't it? If you reread my post, I called those who needed to read a certain basic introduction text to the subject less experienced in the field. I haven't stated whether you belong to that group or not, but apparently you feel like you're a part of it?

I agree with Banquo and I think this thread needs to lower its emission. The first step to succeed in that is to realize that it exists! The second step, is to realize it isn't caused by the natural cycles or sun spots (especially as sun spots are now going through a low-activity period). The third step is that all parts are prepared to reduce emissions, and that they realize that such a reduction in emissions won't adversely affect the discussion in any way. Whereas the consequences of remaining emission are huge, the negative consequences of stopped emissions are almost non-existent!

Now back it up with something other than your mouth and watch out for those left wing bloggers.

Careful with that emission! My source is an oral one, coming from a panel of my country's around 10 most renowned climate researchers. I have better things to do than searching for their names.

Rodion Romanovich

07-12-2007, 09:33

Meanwhile, here's (http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf) some food for thought from Dr. David Evans, who used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Feel free to address his two challenges if you feel up to it.
Some quotes from his text:
"I am not a climate modeller"
"Since I left, field trials have verified that our estimates from the Office in Canberra are nearly always right to within 10% for any given site."
"I resigned in 2005 for personal reasons that had nothing to do with my lack
of belief that carbon emissions caused global warming."
"Second. We now know that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled [...] solar effects would predict a cooling over those same years."

His article is interesting for several reasons:
1. he ignores the fact that today, the earth is heating while solar effects would predict a cooling. However, he doesn't hesitate to state the solar effects predicted a cooling earlier in the 20th century, where solar effects and temperature happened to be correlated for a short period of time.

2. he ignores the role of CH4, and only speaks of CO2. From arguing with weak arguments that CO2 emissions wouldn't affect temperature, he tries to conclude that there's no human caused global warming, a great fallacy. He doesn't even mentioned CH4 even once!

3. without evidence, sources or even motivations of the form "someone else said that", he unfoundedly claims that reducing emissions would cause poverty. Leading economists have however published reports that global warming will cause orders of magnitude greater economical problems than reductions in emissions, when you average the effects of the drawbacks and advantages in each system. The best case global warming scenario requires almost the entire BNP to solve basic food and water supply problems. The worst case pollution reduction requires at most 1% of BNP to achieve acceptable pollution goals.

4. he claims there are political gains from reducing emissions, yet fails to mention even a single example. He ignores the fact that oil, coal and gas companies make tons of money out of continued emissions, and that practically every production company in Europe and North America get up to 0.01 - 1% more annual income in the short term (<10-20 years ahead) out of not reducing emissions.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2007, 15:54

Well, that would require that people start calling you names first, doesn't it?

Its already been done would you like some quotes?

Careful with that emission! My source is an oral one, coming from a panel of my country's around 10 most renowned climate researchers. I have better things to do than searching for their names.

There must be something on the internet to back up your outragous claims.

1. he ignores the fact that today, the earth is heating while solar effects would predict a cooling.

Does it show me. But its fine for you to ignore that CO2 increases follow temp increases not the other way around .

. he ignores the role of CH4, and only speaks of CO2. From arguing with weak arguments that CO2 emissions wouldn't affect temperature, he tries to conclude that there's no human caused global warming, a great fallacy. He doesn't even mentioned CH4 even once!

Because he is addressing the claim that CO2 is whats causing warming :wall:

3. without evidence, sources or even motivations of the form "someone else said that", he unfoundedly claims that reducing emissions would cause poverty.

There is no doubt of this.

Leading economists have however published reports that global warming will cause orders of magnitude greater economical problems than reductions in emissions, when you average the effects of the drawbacks and advantages in each system. The best case global warming scenario requires almost the entire BNP to solve basic food and water supply problems. The worst case pollution reduction requires at most 1% of BNP to achieve acceptable pollution goals.

Only if your worst case scenarios are correct. Otherwise as Ive said a little global warming will increase productivity.

. The best case global warming scenario requires almost the entire BNP to solve basic food and water supply problems. :laugh4:

The best case requires a little more warming :laugh4:

he claims there are political gains from reducing emissions, yet fails to mention even a single example

He sighted himself. Again watch the movie. This is a political thing not a scientific one. I just hope I live long enough to see this crap proven wrong.

Slyspy

07-12-2007, 17:46

I don't quite understand how one side's predictions are wrong and the other's are facts. Unless someone owns a time machine.

If this is the case please share winning lottery numbers with other Orgahs. Thanks in advance!

Rodion Romanovich

07-12-2007, 20:14

I don't quite understand how one side's predictions are wrong and the other's are facts. Unless someone owns a time machine.

I agree! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: A few years ago, when the ice cores were supporting global warming, all pollution supporters kept saying they were so unreliable. Then the resolution of samples was increased, temporarily showing that CO2 would lag temperature. Suddenly, ice cores became incredibly accurate :dizzy2: Then, it was found that CO2 traces have a tendency to move upwards in the ice cores, and additionally that the CO2 rises occuring after temperature rises after the end of ice ages were completely irrelevant, and actually expected by the global warming theories but not by the models presented by the pollution supporters, and that the rise in CO2 seen now is uncorrelated to this data because of different causes of CO2 release (melting ice releasing held CO2 after ice ages, but current CO2 caused by emissions from sub earth surface layers)! Suddenly, ice cores became unreliable again :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-12-2007, 22:31

Yet you still think we are responsible and something drastic needs to be done LOL.

Byzantine Mercenary

07-13-2007, 01:02

It'd be tough since they really don't do much to refute the "misleading arguments" they claim to debunk. For example:
That's essentially saying that CO2 can't be insignificant in affecting the climate because it is significant. I understand they were trying to keep it simple, but they may have gone too far- much of their refutations seem to boil down to a "nu-uh". But, if there's something particularly compelling, I'd be happy to at least respond with my take on it. I don't really have the time or interest in typing up a voluminous response to all points listed, though.

Meanwhile, here's (http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf) some food for thought from Dr. David Evans, who used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Feel free to address his two challenges if you feel up to it.
thanks, i found the part you have highlighted

''The properties of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide mean that they strongly absorb heat a fact that can be easily demonstrated in a simple laboratory experiment. While there are larger concentrations of other gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen, because they do not have these heat trapping qualities they have no effect on warming the climate whatsoever.''

its saying a bit more then that although i agree more evidense would be better

i found your link interesting and he may well have a point, then i saw who he was talking to

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

could it be that there is a gravy train for retired academics to dispute global warming and then recieve money giving talks to groups funded by the coal industry?

im assuming this man was paid directly for his talk? well it strikes me that this is even more likely to produce skewed results then merely funding academics , i am not an expert but there are at least things like Tenure to help stop academics being frightened into silence?

(i have also shown examples of funding being cut when the results supported the greenhouse effect)

i am skeptical of what this guy has said, especially given the audience

the science of what he is saying doesnt persuade me either, the idea that carbon dioxide would function so differently in the natural environment would need more evidence to persuade me, and his second pillar

''that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric
carbon increased.''

is challenged as he even points out by global dimming

as for the ice cores
''The modern ice core data neither supports, nor rules out, the idea that atmospheric
carbon can have a significant effect on global temperature.''

and thats his side of it? not reason enough for me (for now) even if i agreed with him

as for the challenges?

''So the first challenge is this: Show us your evidence. Make any evidence that supports
the notion that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming public. Let’s all
have a look.''
i cannot complete such a challege

''Here’s the second challenge: Make the climate models public. Make a leading climate
model, used to make predictions, fully public, with all the working computer code and
all documentation, so that I can run it on my computer.''
i cannot complete such a challege either

Rodion Romanovich

07-13-2007, 10:34

Yet you still think we are responsible and something drastic needs to be done LOL.
I don't know of any other species on this earth that does massive deforestation and brings up loads of bound coal from thousands of meters below earth surface. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-13-2007, 15:25

I don't know of any other species on this earth that does massive deforestation and brings up loads of bound coal from thousands of meters below earth surface.

And yet even according to you only puts out 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Seems there must be many other things other than us we could look at to reduce these emisions. Only our CO2 is bad.

Rodion Romanovich

07-13-2007, 19:33

And yet even according to you only puts out 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Don't forget to state what these 2% are: they are the annual human emission and it's percentage of the entire current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That means we double the CO2 concentration in 50 years. Another interesting figure is that our annual pollution is larger than the natural annual pollution in the natural cycles.

Seems there must be many other things other than us we could look at to reduce these emisions. Only our CO2 is bad.
So, you think we should concentrate on removing the less than 50% of annual CO2 emissions that aren't human-caused? Would you care to explain how this is supposed to be done? Don't you think it's easier to stop the human caused CO2 emissions, than the nature-caused CO2 emission?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-13-2007, 22:56

That means we double the CO2 concentration in 50 years.

If everything else remains as it is maybe. Even if we do that doesnt spell gloom and doom. Its been ten times higher and life florished.

So, you think we should concentrate on removing the less than 50% of annual CO2 emissions that aren't human-caused?

How does our 2% make an increase of 50%. It makes no sense.

Rodion Romanovich

07-14-2007, 09:22

If everything else remains as it is maybe. Even if we do that doesnt spell gloom and doom. Its been ten times higher and life florished.

When it was 10 times higher, earth was a lava hell.

How does our 2% make an increase of 50%. It makes no sense.
You got to be kidding :wall: Human annual emission is larger than the natural annual emission. Thus, human emission accounts for more than 50% of the total annual emission. Thus, natural emission is less than 50% of the annual emission. Was that really so hard? Now, back to the question:

Seems there must be many other things other than us we could look at to reduce these emisions. Only our CO2 is bad.

So, you think we should concentrate on removing the less than 50% of annual CO2 emissions that aren't human-caused? Would you care to explain how this is supposed to be done? Don't you think it's easier to stop the human caused CO2 emissions, than the nature-caused CO2 emission?

Husar

07-14-2007, 12:12

You got to be kidding :wall: Human annual emission is larger than the natural annual emission. Thus, human emission accounts for more than 50% of the total annual emission. Thus, natural emission is less than 50% of the annual emission. Was that really so hard? Now, back to the question:
No, the way you described it at first was either wrong or very complicated since I thought it made no sense either.

Redleg

07-14-2007, 13:10

Careful with that emission! My source is an oral one, coming from a panel of my country's around 10 most renowned climate researchers. I have better things to do than searching for their names.

Not a logical follow-up on a discussion sources and the creditablity of that source. This type of arguement is a cop-out that one normally concludes that one's information is either not credible or is made up by the debater.

Careful on broaching arguements with such statements because it leaves doubt concerning the data that you are expousing.

Don't forget to state what these 2% are: they are the annual human emission and it's percentage of the entire current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That means we double the CO2 concentration in 50 years. Another interesting figure is that our annual pollution is larger than the natural annual pollution in the natural cycles.

I find this math interesting given that in the equation that one must discount the natural scrubing process that occurs. What is important to remember in my opinion is what percentage above the natural scrubing cycle that is done by the planet is being emmitted.

Rodion Romanovich

07-14-2007, 15:17

I find this math interesting given that in the equation that one must discount the natural scrubing process that occurs. What is important to remember in my opinion is what percentage above the natural scrubing cycle that is done by the planet is being emmitted.
That's funny, because the first figure (the one you doubt), is the figure that is used by the global warming deniers! The second figure (the one both you and I have stated is the most relevant one) is what the objective scientists use, and it certainly tells us a lot more: human annual emission has now surpassed the amount of annual net emission from the natural cycles - a figure that most global warming deniers try to hide behind comparing annual human emission with the total CO2 in the atmosphere, instead of annual natural emission, to make the figure look smaller (>50% becomes an innocent-looking 2%), through an irrelevant comparison of apples and oranges. Global warming exaggerators too like to use similar cheats, but to twist the data in the other direction - luckily nobody has introduced these measures in this thread yet.

Not a logical follow-up on a discussion sources and the creditablity of that source. This type of arguement is a cop-out that one normally concludes that one's information is either not credible or is made up by the debater.

Careful on broaching arguements with such statements because it leaves doubt concerning the data that you are expousing.

This isn't a scientific paper. My own experience from writing such, is that searching for sources for what you already know comes from reliable sources, accounts for more than half of the work time. Finding a very good source could take days or weeks, including searching in various archives, and even more so since I'm not a researcher within this field, thus have little to no knowledge of which are the major and crucial papers within the subject. However, I could provide a wiki (or similar reliability level) source for annual natural and human CO2 emission, and perform the trivial calculation. However, due to the immense effort required for it, I won't do this unless specifically asked for it. More interesting, is the fact that every time I've been able to provide sources when asked for it, those who asked for it start claiming the source was incorrect or ignore that I found a source, meaning it is usually a waste of time to provide a source for any statement in a debate in this backroom. Usually I go for a more casual discussion form where neither side bothers to provide sources, unless you want to prove that a figure shown by the other debater is wrong.

Redleg

07-14-2007, 16:20

That's funny, because the first figure (the one you doubt), is the figure that is used by the global warming deniers! The second figure (the one both you and I have stated is the most relevant one) is what the objective scientists use, and it certainly tells us a lot more: human annual emission has now surpassed the amount of annual net emission from the natural cycles - a figure that most global warming deniers try to hide behind comparing annual human emission with the total CO2 in the atmosphere, instead of annual natural emission, to make the figure look smaller (>50% becomes an innocent-looking 2%), through an irrelevant comparison of apples and oranges. Global warming exaggerators too like to use similar cheats, but to twist the data in the other direction - luckily nobody has introduced these measures in this thread yet.

Although annual human emissions vs total CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant, total emissions vs total CO2 in the atmosphere is interesting: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

your making a fundmental error in your response to me. When you figure it out try again without the condensending approach and you might get a response and then again you might not. I will give you a slight hint you would you not find me in the global warming denying camp - what you will find is that I question how much is man made and how much is the natural cycle of things - attempting a straight line math answer to the increase of
CO2 in the atmosphere is the failure of both extremes on the issue.

This isn't a scientific paper. My own experience from writing such, is that searching for sources for what you already know comes from reliable sources, accounts for more than half of the work time. Finding a very good source could take days or weeks, including searching in various archives, and even more so since I'm not a researcher within this field, thus have little to no knowledge of which are the major and crucial papers within the subject. However, I could provide a wiki (or similar reliability level) source for annual natural and human CO2 emission, and perform the trivial calculation. However, due to the immense effort required for it, I won't do this unless specifically asked for it. More interesting, is the fact that every time I've been able to provide sources when asked for it, those who asked for it start claiming the source was incorrect or ignore that I found a source, meaning it is usually a waste of time to provide a source for any statement in a debate in this backroom. Usually I go for a more casual discussion form where neither side bothers to provide sources, unless you want to prove that a figure shown by the other debater is wrong.

A question was asked about sources - you refused to answer because you claim it was an oral discussion - do you not remember the names of the scientific councel that discussed the issue - its really rather a simple question with a simple answer - if a scientific council meet - then as with such meeting a record was kept, if you attended such a council or read the transcprit of said council you should have the ability to remember at least one name from that council. Your rebuttal is just more of the same rethoric as before, you make a claim about information from a scientific source, but can not demonstrate what that source is. And I believe Gaiwan was asking for said source to demonstrate just what you pointed out with your last sentence - to bad I have seen you attempt this tactic in a backroom debate once before and the techinque should be seen for what it is.

So while this is not a scientific paper a question was directly asked and you directly refused to answer it. The question was based upon your bringing up the point, so once again - you have demonstrated why the peer review of global warming continues to have problems - the scientists are entrenched in their own theories and refuse to allow others to review the findings to determine how accurate the data really is.

So all that is left is the same emotional appeal arguements that normally are inflicted upon this discussion - the earth is warming and its all man's fault, or the other position that yes indeed the earth is warming but its a natural cycle of events.

The most likely answer is that the earth is warming from the natural cycle of the earth, but man is having a expontential effect on this natural cycle due to our impact on the environment. What that factor exactly is I don't know, but I am willing to hear logical and well founded discussion on the subject. However I don't accept fuzzy math and refusal to answer simple questions about who and where did the information come from as a valid arguement about the subject.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2007, 17:58

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
If everything else remains as it is maybe. Even if we do that doesnt spell gloom and doom. Its been ten times higher and life florished.
When it was 10 times higher, earth was a lava hell.

Really?

In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.

The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.

Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.

Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.

Who said warmer was better?

The global warming scam (http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshiretimes.co.uk/Scam.html)

Rodion Romanovich

07-14-2007, 18:13

your making a fundmental error in your response to me. [...] I will give you a slight hint you would you not find me in the global warming denying camp

I didn't hint anything about your stance in my response.

A question was asked about sources - you refused to answer because you claim it was an oral discussion - do you not remember the names of the scientific councel that discussed the issue

There were several occasions. The name of the "scientific council" would be a lecture in a course in technology effects on environment, and a number of occasions of tv sent discussions between government politicians and experts they had invited for the occasion.

And I believe Gaiwan was asking for said source to demonstrate just what you pointed out with your last sentence - to bad I have seen you attempt this tactic in a backroom debate once before and the techinque should be seen for what it is.

Attempt this "tactic" before? Do you mean when I referred Pindar into the direction of any basic textbook he could find on the subject of propositional logic? And after numerous complaints that I couldn't show an explicit source, I found at least 10 sources supporting my position, but you and Pindar kept saying the sources were invalid?

So while this is not a scientific paper a question was directly asked and you directly refused to answer it.

I see no reason for me to find scientific paper quality sources when the opposition hands over no sources at all or biased right wing extremist blogs which don't cite their sources. If you give an extremist blogger that doesn't cite his sources as your source, it's no better than giving no source at all. So what - someone else who doesn't quote his sources agree with you. Who cares? I can find 1 million such sources that support my own standpoint, if I just have the time to look for it. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

the scientists are entrenched in their own theories and refuse to allow others to review the findings to determine how accurate the data really is.

Do you have any source for this statement? It seems pretty unfounded. There are plenty of scientific papers released, once they've passed the peer response and the theses have been defended, as is the normal procedure in science. You can't expect to get to see work in progress papers with the stuff currently in research until in a few years.

The most likely answer is that the earth is warming from the natural cycle of the earth, but man is having a expontential effect on this natural cycle due to our impact on the environment. What that factor exactly is I don't know, but I am willing to hear logical and well founded discussion on the subject.

Here's a graph that should answer you pretty direct question in a pretty direct way:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

And one of the most comprehensive summaries of the subject I've seen so far:

Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the “carbon cycle” (Figure 2). The movement (“flux”) of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Here's an article about earlier geological periods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archean
This period had about 8 times higher CO2 than today, plus almost no forests to compensate the CO2 effect. At this time we had a hell-like earth (the name Hadean derives from this), way over 100 degrees C air temperature, i.e. uninhabitable beyond doubt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterozoic
During the period after this, CO2 decreased to some extent, but was still more than today. However, huge forests with much larger trees than we have today compensated most of the warming effects. Still, temperature was way higher than today, slightly above what is good for humans, but acceptable with air conditioning and similar, however clean water would be an issue - most water sources are stinking swamps.

About 200 million years later, we have slightly less trees due to the deforestation problem, but we have more CO2 bound below earth surface due to sedimentation. Temperature is perfect for humans and supply of clean water and food.

The problem of CO2 could theoretically be compensated almost completely by planting enough trees. However, there are fundamental difficulties with finding ways of planting enough trees to completely compensate the amounts of CO2 emissions:
1. we have undermined soils and pure desert that can't be made capable of growing forest quickly enough
2. the amount of extra forest needed is huge
3. the huge world population needs deforestation to grow food
4. most of these forests would need to be located around the equator where the growth is best and they can thus tie up most atmospheric CO2. However, there the third world people with their large populations keep increasing the amount of deforestation to fulfill their short term needs
5. we have no means of enforcing an end to deforestation around the equator, even less do we have any means of enforcing a massive increase in forests there. It's likely the third world people will think about short term survival and cut down trees to get a few acres of farming land that lasts for a few years of harvest, than thinking about the long term effects and being willing to sacrifice their lives to compensate for the bad CO2 effects caused by the emissions of the industrialized countries.

What is important to realize is that this is not a purely climatological problem (and saying so is not emotional appeal), but a cultural-political problem. We already have several possible solutions, but many of them interfere with culture and politics. Planting trees alone will not help, if the people just cut them down right away. We have to find a solution that will be sustainable. A combination of cutting down trees and reducing (and above all not increasing) CO2 emissions is a compromise that is politically feasible. The other suggested alternatives forget important factors such as the impossibility of enforcing massive forest planting in a short period of time. To be able to do that, we must solve the problems that cause too rapid population growth in the third world, and have military power to enforce an end to deforestation, for example.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-14-2007, 18:23

We have to find a solution that will be sustainable.

Yup as ive pointed out according to your theory as soon as we run out of fossil fuels to burn the earth will start to cool again. Is that what you want? Do you really believe cooler is better? There is no solution. Learn to live with it as we have always done. There is no great catastrophe on the way that any one can prove. As I said its been much warmer with far higher CO2 levels and life has done better than ever.

Rodion Romanovich

07-14-2007, 19:34

Yup as ive pointed out according to your theory as soon as we run out of fossil fuels to burn the earth will start to cool again.

That is, if you're prepared to wait 200+ million years for the sedimentation to happen.

Is that what you want? Do you really believe cooler is better?

We need an average temperature below or equal to something like 30 degrees C, and peak temperature below or equal to something like 60 degrees C, to be able to survive.

There is no solution. Learn to live with it as we have always done.

I take it you have a solution to how to survive in a Hadean-style scenario?

There is no great catastrophe on the way that any one can prove. As I said its been much warmer with far higher CO2 levels and life has done better than ever.
Yes it's been far warmer: 230°C during the Hadean period. The Hadean period is what is expected with 100% deforestation and 100% release of sedimented coal into the atmosphere.

The Proterozoic eon is what is expected to be the result if we release 8 times more sediment than the current CO2 amount in the atmosphere, but compensate for most of this effect by having huge forests. However, large enough forests of this type can't - even with human help - be grown in the mere 50-80 years that the heating process with current emission rates take. They take maybe 50 million years or more to grow. We wouldn't just need growing one generation of trees, but we would need a way of speeding up the natural process of successive improvement of soil quality through sedimentation - a process that takes maybe 1-100 million years in nature. But we would also need to wait for evolution to again spawn new tree species that can bind enough coal quickly enough. Larger trees generally also take longer to grow, redwoods and similar can be 500-1,000 years old. So even if we manage to find gene manipulation techniques to create Proterozoic style trees, we will have to wait a long time for them to grow up (plus additional time for the process of soil improvement). This would achieve Proterozoic eon climate, which is far from ideal for humans, in fact it is barely survivable conditions for human beings, even with things such as air conditioning and not yet existing technologies for cleaning water and finding ways of solving the likely disease pandemias it is likely to cause.

It is also expected by agricultural experts that it would be logistically infeasible to support a human population size even close to the one we have today. To achieve the necessary amount of forest growth compared to today, a lot of humans would have to die because much of the deforested land is deforested for living and growing food. I've heard the figure that 1/3rd of all ground on earth that could potentially be used for it (with an optimistic measure), is used for growing food. Of the remaining 2/3rds, much is desert which is theoretically possible to turn into farming land, but practically not as it takes a long time (1,000 - 1 million years at best) to turn the soil quality good enough. Some is also cities, factories, mines and similar. To reduce the amount of land used for food, in order to allow for tree planting, the third world needs to become industrialized, and the human world population drastically reduced in population numbers. And this would merely achieve proterozoic eon climate, which is on the verge of uninhabitable for any human being. Additional problem in food supply is caused by the heat: fertilizers literally burn the herbs up if they are applied during too hot air temperature. The entire post-19th century agriculture in the western world relies on the ability to use artificial fertilizers for food growth. Artificial fertiziliers increase the agricultural output by orders of magnitude. If the climatologists' predictions about increased raining are correct, we can expect further problems by erosion of soils, undermining their quality even more. It's difficult to give an exact figure for how much our food supply capability would be reduced by this scenario, but a human world population above 100 million would be really challenging to keep alive.

Ideally, we need to aim for something better than Proterozoic Eon climate. If we increase emissions to 8 times the current, but grow huge forests, we will make it as a species, but a lot of us will die, probably painfully. If we cut emissions now, and make sure no further deforestation takes place, we will be slightly better off than Proterozoic climate, but have large enough food and water supply problems to be able to talk about disaster. Politicaly instability is very much expected. If we do even better on cutting emissions and finding ways of decreasing deforestation, we may get through this almost unscathed.