Global warming

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Do any of you realise that the unpresended growth in the Human population is partialy because of global warming? Its good for us and plants. Would you prefer another Ice age? Its not like its going to get so how we will go extinct. You may have to move. But it wont happen over night. Maybe your grand kids will have to move. We cant put a thermostat on the earth. It will always fluctuate . Always has always will. Look at it this way. Enjoy the summer while you can because thats all this is in the greater scheme of things. Winter will return someday and they will be longing for such a wonderful and warm climate as we enjoy today.

only the most alarmist are saying that the whole human species will be wiped out, its very unlikely but millions or even billions could die as the fertility of agricultural regions fluctuates

this isnt like you have a greenhouse thats just getting a bit warmer yeah sure some plants might like warmer conditions if they are adapted for them but other plants would prefer it was colder or wetter, the fact is that most plants have themselves sorted perfectly for the condidtons they are in, so any fluctuation they are not adapted for is likely to be harmful, no-one is talking about stopping natural paterns but reducing our Co2 emmissions isnt stopping natural patterns the accepted theory (the gaia hypothosis) is that earths temperature is kept relatively stable normally and so does not fluctuate like it is now, naturally

a bit of info on the gaia hypothosis
http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_jim.html

[Gawain of Orkeny]

ts very unlikely but millions or even billions could die as the fertility of agricultural regions fluctuates

Very unlikely is being generous. Its highly doubtful in my book.

Listen ask and botanist and they will tell you the earth is producing more food now than at any time in history. Much of this is because of global warming. Again enjoy summer while it lasts because winter shall return with a vengance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

One funny thing: you know how windows task bar sometimes cuts off half the title of a window? Well in my setup, the text for this window says "global war...". I think that's quite fitting. Did you know that American and EU defense expert analysts both agree that global warming is the most dangerous threat to society in the future, ranked far ahead of terrorism, communism, fascism or anything else?

[Xiahou]

(especially if the gulf stream fails)

That's a myth. The gulf stream is only a minor contributor to Europe's warm climate. You can read about it here or in any other number of places.

Are you, with this cut and paste job from some right wing extremist page, trying to say that global warming is incorrect because you've found 100 places and times where temperature has been lower than average? If so, you've misunderstood global warming. The theory doesn't claim temperature increase everywhere, but an average temperature increase over the world. 100 places and times with lower temperature doesn't outweigh 1,000,000 places and times where temperatures are increasing. Here's a beginner's tutorial to calculating average:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Ah-ha!
And did we have these 1,000,000 temperature readings 200 or even 100 years ago? What is the global average temperature, really? And how can we compare it with temperatures from earlier decades, centuries, and millennium using different sets of data?

[Rodion Romanovich]

And did we have these 1,000,000 temperature readings 200 or even 100 years ago? [...] And how can we compare it with temperatures from earlier decades, centuries, and millennium using different sets of data?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...l_Organization
"It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873."
From one of the meteorological organizations in your country you can probably be able to get hold of this data for a small sum of money. It shows millions of sites where temperature has indeed increased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."

Somewhat related are also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.

[Xiahou]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...l_Organization
"It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873."
From one of the meteorological organizations in your country you can probably be able to get hold of this data for a small sum of money. It shows millions of sites where temperature has indeed increased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."

Somewhat related are also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.

I guess I have to spell it out again. We did not have the large number of temperature sensors 50, 100, or 200 years ago that there are today. Additionally, many sensors in growing urban areas can't be considered because of heat islands. Again, how do you accurately determine the global temperature? My point was that the comparisons don't always line up as well as you seem to be suggesting. It's not accurate to combine data from 100,000yrs ago that is based on an ice core with averaged data from "1,000,000" locations all over the world in recent years. Regardless, it's tangential, since most would agree that there's been an at least slight warming trend in recent years.

I'm glad you brought up the ice cores though, since they show that temperature increases actually precede CO2 increases by as much as 800yrs.

The burden of proof lies on the pollution supporters: you need to prove that it is harmless to continue polluting, if you want to continue despite all research indicating that it is with 99% certainty going to destroy the planet.

What, 'climate change denier' doesn't adequately demonize your opposition, so it's now "pollution supporter"?
As to the burden of proof, you're obviously wrong- it's on the affirmative position. You say it's a looming disaster, it's not up to us to disprove it- it's up to you to prove it. Lastly, I can only assume you've pulled that 99% figure out of thin air- it's nonsense.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I guess I have to spell it out again. We did not have the large number of temperature sensors 50, 100, or 200 years ago that there are today. Additionally, many sensors in growing urban areas can't be considered because of heat islands. Again, how do you accurately determine the global temperature? My point was that the comparisons don't always line up as well as you seem to be suggesting. It's not accurate to combine data from 100,000yrs ago that is based on an ice core with averaged data from "1,000,000" locations all over the world in recent years. Regardless, it's tangential, since most would agree that there's been an at least slight warming trend in recent years.

This shows you don't hold these scientists in high regard. There are measurement in which current ice core data is compared with old ice core data. There are other measurements using paleontological data. There are other measurements using different methods. All combinations are used, compared and evalutated. This is unlike pollution supporters, who keep quoting only single, unconfirmed and unchecked sources.

I'm glad you brought up the ice cores though, since they show that temperature increases actually precede CO2 increases by as much as 800yrs.

This may be valid for some previous scenarios, but the current CO2 increase is caused by pollution.

What, 'climate change denier' doesn't adequately demonize your opposition, so it's now "pollution supporter"?

We can do everything we do today without polluting, yet you insist on keeping the pollution. I don't think global warming denier is an adequate title for someone who insists on keeping the very pollution.

As to the burden of proof, you're obviously wrong- it's on the affirmative position. You say it's a looming disaster, it's not up to us to disprove it- it's up to you to prove it. Lastly, I can only assume you've pulled that 99% figure out of thin air- it's nonsense.

No, you must argue why it's harmless to continue a pollution which is known to be causing global warming, when we can do everything we do with pollution without it if we just impose laws for it now. The only damage it can do is to increase expenses for some industries by some percent, whereas continued pollution, according to all sources except a small minority (which are so few that they might be considered within the measurement error margin), is likely to cause massive death through direct effects such as impaired supply situation, as well as through indirect effects, by making the resource competition more intense, and increasing political tensions all over the world.