Global Warning?Not true?

Well, I think its false...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

Nice to see that some scientists are honest and have some common sense and not just off chasing grants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius Flaminius

Well, I think its false...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

---

No offense, Brother Caius, but we already have two threads on global warming. Besides, a mere statement such as yours does not add to the debate we are having. Your link certainly does, though. I think this should be merged into the Lemur's thread.

@Caius: are you trying to drive the thesis that global warming is a fake by quoting that article, or trying to bring forth the actual message of the article? If it's the latter, your thread title is confusing since it suggests it's the former. The article says:
"Both men are highly respected across the world and hold the mainstream view on climate change - that human activity is the cause. [...] they think catastrophism and [...] "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind."
To which I too agree. Those who fail to clearly express when they are referring to possible and to inevitable consequences of global warming may work towards increasing the denial of the problem among some people, which would be disastrous since it would mean the problem wouldn't be solved now, when it can be solved by investing merely 1% of BNP, rather than 100% of BNP in 60 years or so from now.

Misleading title but interesting information. Personally I think that everyone affected by hurricanes should be for global warming. If the sea level rises enough then the Sahara will turn back into a salt marsh cooling the place down.

Call me gullible for this post, yet a while ago I believed that man made global warming was something to be feared and would in the end destroy the planet. However, recently, a program on Channel Four, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", caused me to doubt the whole thing was really man-made and was more some theory that came up a while ago and is just being kept up by the UN now to prevent third world country development and the loss of thousands of jobs. The evidence shown in that program clearly showed that in the past the amount of CO2 in the environment actually followed temperature and not the other way round. It also clearly showed that nature, volcanoes and rotting, caused more CO2 emissions than industries and that the amount of sun-spots showed positive correlation between the number of them on the sun and the temperature. According to the program the reasoning behind all this CO2 and Global Warming facts was due to the amount of jobs and businesses that would be lost through the end of the theory of global warming. I now take up an un-biased outlook on Global Warming and believe that there may be a little bit of truth in both sides hypothesis.

BTW, sorry for going rather off-topic.

Quote:

---

The evidence shown in that program clearly showed that in the past the amount of CO2 in the environment actually followed temperature and not the other way round. It also clearly showed that nature, volcanoes and rotting, caused more CO2 emissions than industries and that the amount of sun-spots showed positive correlation between the number of them on the sun and the temperature. According to the program the reasoning behind all this CO2 and Global Warming facts was due to the amount of jobs and businesses that would be lost through the end of the theory of global warming. I now take up an un-biased outlook on Global Warming and believe that there may be a little bit of truth in both sides hypothesis.

---

Now dont go around spouting the truth. Some here dont like it:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

BTW, sorry for going rather off-topic.

---

Not at all off-topic. I have heard of the documentary and will try to get a copy or organise a screening in The Neds. Some of the information in it is apparently out-dated (such as the notion that volcanoes contribute substantially to greenhouse effects) because the makers have been trying for almost ten years to get enough funding and a decent tv slot.

The idea that global warming is a mere 'swindle' calculated to 'destroy jobs' defies belief, though. Just more rhetoric, methinks.

Quote:

---

The idea that global warming is a mere 'swindle' calculated to 'destroy jobs' defies belief, though. Just more rhetoric, methinks.

---

More like the west handicapping itself. Do we have a death wish? How much guilt is western man supposed to accept? Thats the real question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

Call me gullible for this post, yet a while ago I believed that man made global warming was something to be feared and would in the end destroy the planet. However, recently, a program on Channel Four, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", caused me to doubt the whole thing was really man-made and was more some theory that came up a while ago and is just being kept up by the UN now to prevent third world country development and the loss of thousands of jobs. The evidence shown in that program clearly showed that in the past the amount of CO2 in the environment actually followed temperature and not the other way round. It also clearly showed that nature, volcanoes and rotting, caused more CO2 emissions than industries and that the amount of sun-spots showed positive correlation between the number of them on the sun and the temperature. According to the program the reasoning behind all this CO2 and Global Warming facts was due to the amount of jobs and businesses that would be lost through the end of the theory of global warming. I now take up an un-biased outlook on Global Warming and believe that there may be a little bit of truth in both sides hypothesis.

BTW, sorry for going rather off-topic.

---

Omanes, you should read a response to the Channel 4 programme from one of the scientists featured before setting much store by what was presented.

If you do a search, you can find more disappointment with the hatchet job C4 did, from both sides of the debate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4

Our credibility as scientists rests on being protective of our authority and expertise

Published: 15 March 2007

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the "climate wars" because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are based so firmly on well understood principles, or on such clear observational records, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: a Mid-western US megadrought in 100 years; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I've focused more on the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of those who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.

When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. This seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown.

I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that must run unconstrained by observations for decades to thousands of years. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal about the mechanisms of climate to be learnt from models. With effort, all of this ambiguity is explicable to the public.

In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value - a great error.

As a society, we need to take out insurance against catastrophe in the same way we take out homeowner's protection against fire. I buy fire insurance, but I also take the precaution of having the wiring in the house checked, keeping the heating system up to date, etc.How large a fire insurance premium is it worth paying? How much is it worth paying for rewiring the house? $10,000 but perhaps not $100,000? Answers, even at this mundane level, are not obvious.

How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions - will that guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidise insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions where often the science is not mature enough give definitive answers, much as we would like to be able to provide them.

Scientifically, we can recognise the reality of the threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity to elucidate some of this ambiguity and complexity. The outcome is sad.

The writer is Professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT

Those who deny Global Warming are either too lazy/greedy/ignorant too do something about it and wants to just leave the problem to their children and grandchildren.

Granted their are many sources that try to refute global warming, but their evidence is all either taken out of context, misused, or just wrong. Take a look at Holocaust Denial. If you listened to their arguments without any prior knowledge of the Holocaust, you would probably say they have some very convincing arguments such as population statistics from the World Almanacs and logistics regarding the concentration camps, but most people know at least some things about the Holocaust and thus can see through the arguments of the deniers.

Quote:

---

Those who deny Global Warming are either too lazy/greedy/ignorant too do something about it and wants to just leave the problem to their children and grandchildren.

---

No one denies theres global warming. Everyone ignore the benifits of it however. And many just get carried away with it and thats the problem.

Quote:

---

If you listened to their arguments without any prior knowledge of the Holocaust, you would probably say they have some very convincing arguments

---

But there is no prior knowledge of man made global warming so this analogy is not a good one.

Is the earth warming? YES

Is man a cause of it Probably


Are we ruining the earth forever? I doubt it.

What I've come to understand that the Apotyolitic version of Global warming is far overhyped. The version I've heard is that the earth is warming up a couple degrees from average although those couple of deggrees can throw some ecosystems out of whack but will not result in the next ice age, new york underwater or a venus like atmospher oven.

The thing is, stopping global warming is not easy to put it lightly. Even if we start trying to minimize our impact on global warming and reduce emissions, it will take at least many decades to undo the damage that we have already done. In the immediete decade or two, the consequences are not very serious, but global warming will not be something that we can just say one day that we will stop it, but will continue for decades or centuries at which the consequencies pile up and becomes severely more dangerous. Having sea levels rise by an inch or a centimeter isn't that bad, but if that occurs continuously for a century, those people living below sea level or even at it won't be that happy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Those who deny Global Warming are either too lazy/greedy/ignorant too do something about it and wants to just leave the problem to their children and grandchildren.

Granted their are many sources that try to refute global warming, but their evidence is all either taken out of context, misused, or just wrong. Take a look at Holocaust Denial. If you listened to their arguments without any prior knowledge of the Holocaust, you would probably say they have some very convincing arguments such as population statistics from the World Almanacs and logistics regarding the concentration camps, but most people know at least some things about the Holocaust and thus can see through the arguments of the deniers.

---

You are contributing to the hype in your own way.

The Holocaust is a historical event. The discussion over global warming centers on scientific prognoses based on models. Doubts are raised by reputable scientists, not just by outsiders, and on scientific grounds, not on hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

Call me gullible for this post, yet a while ago I believed that man made global warming was something to be feared and would in the end destroy the planet. However, recently, a program on Channel Four, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", caused me to doubt the whole thing was really man-made and was more some theory that came up a while ago and is just being kept up by the UN now to prevent third world country development and the loss of thousands of jobs. The evidence shown in that program clearly showed that in the past the amount of CO2 in the environment actually followed temperature and not the other way round. It also clearly showed that nature, volcanoes and rotting, caused more CO2 emissions than industries and that the amount of sun-spots showed positive correlation between the number of them on the sun and the temperature. According to the program the reasoning behind all this CO2 and Global Warming facts was due to the amount of jobs and businesses that would be lost through the end of the theory of global warming. I now take up an un-biased outlook on Global Warming and believe that there may be a little bit of truth in both sides hypothesis.

BTW, sorry for going rather off-topic.

---

Are you talking about this Ch4 programme?

C4’s debate on global warming boils over

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

March 15, 2007
C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Sam Coates andn Mark Henderson

Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

The tirade has caused Dr Leroi to withdraw his cooperation from another Channel 4 project with Mr Durkin on race, The Times has learnt.

The programme, broadcast by Channel 4 last Thursday, featured a number of scientists who disputed the consensus on the causes of global warming.

Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut.

Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: “To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.” He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: “You’re a big daft cock.” Less than an hour later, Mr Singh, who has worked for the BBC, intervened to urge Mr Durkin to engage in serious debate. He wrote: “I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather than just resorting to one-line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/ right and how do things better/ even better in the future.” Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: “The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.

“Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

“Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.”

Last night Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkin’s reply.

“It was rather a shocking response,” Dr Leroi said. “It was my intention to make a film with Martin Durkin and [the production company] Wag, but that is something I am seriously reconsidering now. I am no climate scientist, but I was very concerned at the way that flaws in these data were brushed over.”

He said that the global warming film had glossed over flaws in data that it used to make its case, and that it was critical that a documentary about a subject as controversial as race and biology did not make similar mistakes.

“As the subject of our proposed film was race, it is such a sensitive topic that it requires great care and great balance. That he has shown so little respect for scientific consensus and such little nuance is a cause for great concern. I cannot imagine it will go ahead now.”

The film would have addressed Dr Leroi’s thesis that race is a biologically meaning-ful and medically valuable concept, a view that is highly controversial among scientists.

Last night Mr Durkin apologised for his langauge. “As far as I was concerned these were private e-mails. They arrived when I was quite tired having just finished the programme in time for transmission,” he said.

“Needless, to say, I regret the use of intemperate language. It is so unlike me. I am very eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas and have asked Channel 4 if they will stage a live debate on this subject.”

Where Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change

Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before

Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on

Claim: Temperatures in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, have not risen as predicted by the models

Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected

Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide

Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain

Source: Mark Henderson, Science Editor

Most of the refutations on global warming quoted from credible scientists have been either proved to be wrong or have a minimal impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Most of the refutations on global warming quoted from credible scientists have been either proved to be wrong or have a minimal impact.

---

So have some claims about man-made global warming. In either case, your comparison with the Holocaust is irrelevant, counterproductive and needlessly offensive.

Quote:

---

No one denies theres global warming. Everyone ignore the benifits of it however. And many just get carried away with it and thats the problem

---

Oh yeah.
What benefits?Yes, your sons and grandsons wont have a place where to live, because rains will make the zone inhabitable.

50000, yes 50000, cows and other animals are under water by the flood of the Parana river.That should never happened.But happened...

Quote:

---

Are we ruining the earth forever? I doubt it.

---

I think yes

And sorry for making a foruth thread about the same

I think the idea that we are causing permenant damage is way out there. Once we're gone the Earth will settle back down. This planet is very good at bouncing back.

As to the whole "Waterworld" thing, consider, when was the last time the Earth was completely covered in water?

Is the climate changing? Yes, I've seen it myself in my geologically short lifetime.

Are we a contributing factor? Almost certainly?

Is it going to get worse if we don't try to minimise out impact? Yes, I expect so.

Does that mean we should shut down civilisation and go back to the stone age? No, of course not.

What we need to do is to reduce our impact on our environment, but we need to do it in a way which does not destroy our society.

Quote:

---

What we need to do is to reduce our impact on our environment

---

Of course

If we stop now, 45 years must pass between the athmosphere (sp?) can disipate the toxins we emanate.

Adrian- My reference to Holocaust Denial was just thought of in a sec and I could see how it may be irrelevant, but I wanted to point out how refutations of global warming may seem very convincing to those who are not extremely well versed in science and do not know that much about the history of the debates.

Philipvs - What most enviormentalist and those who want to reduce man made emissions, is not to put us back to the stone age, but merely increase standards. Take the Kyoto Protocol, it doesn't say that all cars must not emit greenhouse gases and the buring of oil and coal must stop, but that emissions must be reduced. Many top energy executives and President Bush just ignored it saying that it costs too much. The truth is it will cost much to fix global warming once it becomes serious. What costs more? Taking high blood pressure and heart disease medicine every day or have a serious heart attack and end up in a coma for several months or having emergency surgery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Adrian- My reference to Holocaust Denial was just thought of in a sec and I could see how it may be irrelevant, but I wanted to point out how refutations of global warming may seem very convincing to those who are not extremely well versed in science and do not know that much about the history of the debates.

---

Fair enough. :bow:

However, this works both ways. Various claims about man-made global warming also appeal to less-informed people, and for all sorts of extraneous reasons.

Quote:

---

Oh yeah.
What benefits?Yes, your sons and grandsons wont have a place where to live, because rains will make the zone inhabitable.

---

Thanks for proving my point. Wht do you think were in the nidst of such a population surge? Why do you think we can produce so much food? Its because of global warming. Go back to the miniice age and see how it affected people. Just because it gets worse for people in ine region dosent mean it wont be better in other regions. No one here including scientists can predict any of this stufff with any certaintity. If it werent for global warming what would Europe look like? Most would still be under galciers as would most of north america. The earth and its land as sea masses will change drasticly and theres nothing we can do about it. Man is obsessed nowdays with his own power. In reality he has very little when it comes to suchthings.

Quote:

---

I think yes

---

I think not and that your very naive to believe so. We are no more than a parasite that the earth will shake off when its damn good and ready. We may be able to destroy human life on earth but the earth will go on with no concern for us anymore than it did for the dinosaurs.Again I m far more afraid of gettting hit by an asteriod than the earth going to pot because of global warming. Anyway most scientists agree golbal warming will bring on global cooling. Whats all the bru haha?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain

Why do you think we can produce so much food?

---

Sorry, but I live in a farmer country(If you dont know, i will tell you im from argentina), and the global warning didnt helped us.Now, its killing us.The last year, im my zone, 8 milimeters of rain in 6 months...and this year, there are too many rains.The provinces of Formosa, Jujuy and Chaco are flooded.

Quote:

---

Sorry, but I live in a farmer country(If you dont know, i will tell you im from argentina), and the global warning didnt helped us

---

How do you know? And what global warming are you speaking of?

Quote:

---

its killing us.The last year, im my zone, 8 milimeters of rain in 6 months...and this year, there are too many rains.The provinces of Formosa, Jujuy and Chaco are flooded.

---

And of course you can prove this is from man made global warming.

Again western man is responsible for all thats wrong with the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Again western man is responsible for all thats wrong with the world.

---

Almost true. You forget their gods. The western man and his gods are responsible for all that's wrong with the world.

Better, definitely better.

Like it or not most pollution is done by the western man. You can't deny that fact.

Quote:

---

Almost true. You forget their gods

---

Oh no here we go of topic. And Mohamed is better? Thats right hes not a god even the easterners worship the western god i guess if you believe their rehtoric.

Quote:

---

Like it or not most pollution is done by the western man. You can't deny that fact.

---

I am not sure about that, China and India aren't bound by the same limitations as many western countries because their classifed as developing countrys. In fact china sends clouds of polution over to the states.


Kind of an interesting article. If something needs to be done, it should be bringing china under the same limits as western countries. They're a bigger problem then the U.S.
Link

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(CBS) In this CBS News World WeatherWatch report Correspondent Barry Petersen tells us why when China smokes, you might get a cough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is easy to see the pollution problem in an industrial city like Yinchuan in northwestern China but it is hard to realize this is typical across the world's most populated country.

The culprit is sulfur dioxide from coal, which is burned for everything from making electricity to cooking dinner. China produces twice the sulfur dioxide as America does, and by some estimates China may one day generate five times more than what we see today.

That's why just breathing is making Dr. Jiang's patients sick. He knows of only one cure, and it's not medicine.

The best cure is to leave for the countryside, he says.

If China's air pollution seems like a problem just for that country, think again. The stuff spewing out in China has now been detected in the United States, and some suspect it's beginning to affect the U.S. climate.

In California, Professor Tom Cahill tracks pollution across the Pacific, and a lot of what he sees these days comes from China.

"And these things...are coming from manmade sources in China, and laced in those materials are things like arsenic, lead and zinc," Cahill says.


Global WeatherWatch
View the rest of the series. Click here.



China's far-reaching dust and soot cloud traveling to the West Coast hits Hawaii first, and that may be why temperatures in Hawaii are rising.

A lot of early-computer modeling of Chinese pollution's effects on the global climate is turning out to be just plain wrong. This is why a massive new study with ground and air monitoring across Asia starts next year.

"We don't really know what the Chinese aerosol does. If it's full of soot, then it may actually heat the Earth. So until we know a better number on what those things are, we can't even do the calculations," Cahill says.

China is trying to clean up its air, but for the moment the pollution is changing the weather, experts say. Some blame it for the worst flooding that China has seen in its recent history - taking 4,000 lives.

For China and America, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How do you know? And what global warming are you speaking of?



And of course you can prove this is from man made global warming.

Again western man is responsible for all thats wrong with the world.

---

You claimed that global warming improved crop yields, he pointed out that this is not necessarily the case.

Strange how everyone becomes an expert when typing on the internet.

Quote:

---

You claimed that global warming improved crop yields, he pointed out that this is not necessarily the case

---

For the most part it is or do you think you get more plant growth in the cold? Just as global warming doesnt mean the earth will become uninhabitable. Its global warming that accounts for the abundance of food today.

Quote:

---

Strange how everyone becomes an expert when typing on the internet.

---

It only takes common sense. No expertise is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius Flaminius

Sorry, but I live in a farmer country(If you dont know, i will tell you im from argentina), and the global warning didnt helped us.Now, its killing us.The last year, im my zone, 8 milimeters of rain in 6 months...and this year, there are too many rains.The provinces of Formosa, Jujuy and Chaco are flooded.

---

Just as one cold winter doesn't disprove global warming, neither does one particularly wet year prove global warming. If I understand it correctly, global warming isn't something that goes BOOM and is all of a sudden there, it is a gradual process. If it floods for 10 years in a row when before flooding was rare, then something is changing. If it floods a few times and then stops, then that is just normal weather patterns.

Throughout history we've had various cycles of extreme hot/cold without the exisistence of mass man-made interference.

Nothing to see here, folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

For the most part it is or do you think you get more plant growth in the cold? Just as global warming doesnt mean the earth will become uninhabitable. Its global warming that accounts for the abundance of food today.

---

The problem is the transitionary state were we get "environmental refugees" (and the people that doesn't move but are forced to adapt quickly into new conditions) and that it takes a few centuries to get high quality soil over vast areas.
To put it differently, the worlds food production will go down for a few decades before the new adoptations makes it possible to get good harvests in new areas, when encountering a global temperature rise.

Quote:

---

The problem is the transitionary state were we get "environmental refugees" (and the people that doesn't move but are forced to adapt quickly into new conditions) and that it takes a few centuries to get high quality soil over vast areas.
To put it differently, the worlds food production will go down for a few decades before the new adoptations makes it possible to get good harvests in new areas, when encountering a global temperature rise

---

So it has been since the dawn of man. Your point?

Edit by Ser Clegane: no trolling, please! :stop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So it has been since the dawn of man. Your point?

---

That if things go nasty atleast 50 million Mexicans will come accross the border. And they won't stay in Texas.

Quote:

---

That if things go nasty atleast 50 million Mexicans will come accross the border. And they won't stay in Texas.

---

Their already here :laugh4:

A thread on global warming somehow transforms into a thread on mexican immigrants, give me bovine flatulence at least...

Crop yields and even the variety of crops available to grow would improve in certain regions due to global warming though this would probably be more than negated by lesser crop yields in the resulting drought regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

For the most part it is or do you think you get more plant growth in the cold? Just as global warming doesnt mean the earth will become uninhabitable. Its global warming that accounts for the abundance of food today.



It only takes common sense. No expertise is needed.

---

It isn't just about hot or cold though is it? What about rainfall. Excessive rainfall can destroy crops faster than it can make deserts fertile.

Also don't you suspect that intensive farming, the use of pesticides, global transport systems and so on have anything to do with food production and availability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I have heard of the documentary and will try to get a copy or organise a screening in The Neds.

---

Look no further, you can see it here.

It's pretty well done from what I've seen. No doubt it has its own share of propaganda in it, like Gore's film- but I think it would serve as a nice balance to the poor school kids being forced to watch Gore's film in classes in the US. At least it lets them know there are two sides to the debate.

Also, here's a response to the responses posted earlier.... he attempts to address the charges levied by critics. You decide for yourself.

Quote:

---

The idea that global warming is a mere 'swindle' calculated to 'destroy jobs' defies belief, though. Just more rhetoric, methinks.

---

I think the argument is more that 'Global Warming' has become a lucrative industry for many involved and that people are dependent on it for their livelihoods and have vested interests in it, than its goal is to destroy jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Look no further, you can see it here.

---

Thanx! :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

A thread on global warming somehow transforms into a thread on mexican immigrants, give me bovine flatulence at least...

---

Well, Gawain had a breif period were he kept insisting on posting about the loss of the white people (aka blue eyed blondes in this case), due to interbreeding.

From what I gathered it had more to do with the loss of hot blonde chicks than with some dubious ideologies about human superiority sitting in the skin colour (not an issue for Gawain if blue eyes and blonde hair was dominant genes that is), the problem was that the articles he linked had some unwanted connections...

And as he seems to be running with the principle of:
"Men have died in disasters from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?"
I was trying a point were he might care a bit more on, althuogh as the subject was a bit touchy I might have been a bit too vague on it. ~;p
Complains about the future Canadian grain prices might also work. :book:

Edit: Cookie for the person who can figure out were I took the quote from (re-written a bit)

Quote:

---

Well, Gawain had a breif period were he kept insisting on posting about the loss of the white people (aka blue eyed blondes in this case), due to interbreeding

---

Are you calling me a Nazi? Because I never said any suchthing. Nice distortion.

Quote:

---

It isn't just about hot or cold though is it? What about rainfall. Excessive rainfall can destroy crops faster than it can make deserts fertile.

---

No its not about excessive rain fall no matter how hard they keep trying to hand you that crap. Weve been experiencing global warming for how long now? Im more afraid it will end. Where you all get the idea that man can manage the earths climate is beyond me. Better we figure out how to adapt than try to mess with it. The cure could be worse than the disease.

Quote:

---

I think the argument is more that 'Global Warming' has become a lucrative industry for many involved and that people are dependent on it for their livelihoods and have vested interests in it, than its goal is to destroy jobs.

---

Exactly . Its like in the old days when alchemists claimed they could make gold.

Quote:

---

It isn't just about hot or cold though is it? What about rainfall. Excessive rainfall can destroy crops faster than it can make deserts fertile.

---

Its all.Its a cycle we cant stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Are you calling me a Nazi? Because I never said any suchthing. Nice distortion.

---

No, I'm not calling you a Nazi. Unless you call personal preference on the looks of people a la "babe thread" style to be Nazi behavour.

It was a while since the threads were posted (rapidly closed iirc as the orignal articles had bad connections), so I might remember wrong on the person.

If thats the case then I apologize. :shame:

"Mutters something about "stupid brain" and wonder's who it was then" :thinking2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The cure could be worse than the disease.

---

The cure would involve limiting our impact impact on the environment, i don't see how that can make things get worse :huh2:

Quote:

---

The cure would involve limiting our impact impact on the environment, i don't see how that can make things get worse

---

No the cure is further messing with the enviorment. A task scientists are poorly equipped for Im afraid. Its like letting a veternarian perform brain surgury on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No the cure is further messing with the enviorment. A task scientists are poorly equipped for Im afraid. Its like letting a veternarian perform brain surgury on you.

---

What kind of fantasy scenario is that? The cure would be a stop of economic growth, or even diminishment, if that's what it takes to prevent expulsion of greenhouse gasses. CO2 levels would decrease as plant life absorbs it and produce oxygen without human intervention. For the record, I don't favour such a "cure".

Quote:

---

What kind of fantasy scenario is that?

---

Its no fantasy. Weve done it in the past. Importing prdeators to eliminate unwanted pest species and then being over run by the predators. These scientists are clueless on this matter yet speak as thought theve talked to god. Already there are signs were messing up the enviorment by trying to control these things Dont mess with mother nature or she will hurt you. Its one thing to stop polutants and poisons from entering our air ans water. Its another thing entirley to go calling CO2 and water vapor poisonous. Yes you inhale too much water and you will die. It must be a poison :laugh4: