49 ex-Nasa scientists including two former directors distantiated themselves from the greatest scientific hoax since the last greatest hoax that is acid rain. Of course we are talking about having to be absolutely terrified of CO2. Oh yay lucky us I mean we survived having our faces washed of by acid rain, the hole in the ozon layer isn't burning us to death, and nature in general doesn't care about manmade laws. The ancient Egyptians had 10 plagues, what is finally going to KILL us ALL?
Down with religion, especially manmade global warming. You idiots, yes you. No apocalyps you apocalyptoloco's.
gaelic cowboy 12:23 04-12-2012
Usually someone posts a reply like "link or it didnt happen"
I find it amusing though that you feel that this even if true would then disprove an entirely different theory though.
Your trying too hard Frag you need to let go or you will give yourself an ulcer.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Usually someone posts a reply like "link or it didnt happen"
I find it amusing though that you feel that this even if true would then disprove an entirely different theory though.
Your trying too hard Frag you need to let go or you will give yourself an ulcer.
I was kinda thinking you would be happy since you are not going to be washed away by nature's wrath, even if it means you get to live longer in Scotland, being alive is always better than nothing. Why ask for a link, did I ever lie to you?
"Lie" is such a harsh, unforgiving word. Couldn't we instead say, "Operated from an alternate factual system wherein causality is inoperative"?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Down with religion, especially manmade global warming. You idiots, yes you. No apocalyps you apocalyptoloco's.
I don't know about that. As people are starting to develop farming ... in Greenland ... I find myself unable to dismiss the idea of global warming. Forget the yearly temperature measurements, forget the current fluctuations and just take a look at Greenland.
In the 80s it was an icebox through and through. Nowadays you have this, at least in the south of it
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...434356,00.html
Originally Posted by
rvg:
I don't know about that. As people are starting to develop farming ... in Greenland ... I find myself unable to dismiss the idea of global warming. Forget the yearly temperature measurements, forget the current fluctuations and just take a look at Greenland.
In the 80s it was an icebox through and through. Nowadays you have this, at least in the south of it http://www.spiegel.de/international/...434356,00.html
That's the thing...
Farming on Greenland happened during the Viking age, but was discontinued due to global freezing in the late 13th century. Normalization would be a better term for Global warming.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
That's the thing...
Farming on Greenland happened during the Viking age, but was discontinued due to global freezing in the late 13th century. Normalization would be a better term for Global warming.
Call it what you will, Normalization, Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever. Whether it's manmade or not is also irrelevant, because either way it must be stopped. Why? Because the modern civilization has been built around the 19th-20th century climate with its rainfall patterns, ocean levels, hurricane seasons, etc. A significant change in climate will be a catastrophe for about half of the world's population: they won't care if the climate change is natural or man made, as they'll be facing the prospect of droughts in some places and going below sea level in others. Manmade or not, this process must be stopped.
gaelic cowboy 14:10 04-12-2012
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I was kinda thinking you would be happy since you are not going to be washed away by nature's wrath, even if it means you get to live longer in Scotland, being alive is always better than nothing. Why ask for a link, did I ever lie to you?
Well Ireland would survive even a total melting which I have heard is about a 65m rise, but the country would be then 50% smaller due to the shannon alone.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Call it what you will, Normalization, Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever. Whether it's manmade or not is also irrelevant, because either way it must be stopped. Why? Because the modern civilization has been built around the 19th-20th century climate with its rainfall patterns, ocean levels, hurricane seasons, etc. A significant change in climate will be a catastrophe for about half of the world's population: they won't care if the climate change is natural or man made, as they'll be facing the prospect of droughts in some places and going below sea level in others. Manmade or not, this process must be stopped.
lmao, desperate man...just desperate. Funny how humans have survived much more drastic climate change over the years. Wouldn't you think that a smarter thing to do than trying to force an entire planet to do what we want, would be to restructure our civilization around it? Which is easier, restructuring our society, cities, and way of life, or restructuring an entire planet? In the scheme of things, humans are pretty insignificant. It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
lmao, desperate man...just desperate. Funny how humans have survived much more drastic climate change over the years. Wouldn't you think that a smarter thing to do than trying to force an entire planet to do what we want, would be to restructure our civilization around it? Which is easier, restructuring our society, cities, and way of life, or restructuring an entire planet? In the scheme of things, humans are pretty insignificant. It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
To adapt is good, to control is better. Human civilization has been at the mercy of the elements for its entire lengths of existence. It is time to run the tables imho. Technological progress is here for a reason: if we are to survive and thrive, we have to be able to exert control over our environment. More control == safer environment. Furthermore, as the population grows, any sort of natural disaster will result in very high casualties. More control will allow us to prevent or at least reduce the casualty rate.
Rhyfelwyr 14:33 04-12-2012
Originally Posted by Vuk:
It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
Not the entire planet, just its surface. We already did it in Africa without any modern technology, humans made the savannahs.
Originally Posted by rvg:
To adapt is good, to control is better. Human civilization has been at the mercy of the elements for its entire lengths of existence. It is time to run the tables imho. Technological progress is here for a reason: if we are to survive and thrive, we have to be able to exert control over our environment. More control == safer environment. Furthermore, as the population grows, any sort of natural disaster will result in very high casualties. More control will allow us to prevent or at least reduce the casualty rate.
Controlling the world around us is better up to a point. That is, point where you would spend more resources controlling than you would adapting. For instance, it is a good investment to build up higher banks around a river that keeps flooding, rather than rebuilding each year. It is not, however, smart to try to control an entire planet's weather patterns (which we do not even understand) over the course of thousands of years, to try to stop gradual changes that happen over the course of every couple hundred years. Forgetting feasibility, it is just not cost-effective (and therefore, hardly the better option).
Even if we wanted to though, who is to say that we could? The earth is a force a lot bigger than us. It is great that we can play around with clouds and get it to rain when we want, but the amount of control we have over this earth is extremely limited, with even the best of our technology. (and probably always will be)
It is not feasible, and even if it were, it would not be cost-effective. Why then should we do it when we have a feasible, and comparatively cheaper way of dealing with it? (slowly adapting our way of life over time)
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Controlling the world around us is better up to a point. That is, point where you would spend more resources controlling than you would adapting. For instance, it is a good investment to build up higher banks around a river that keeps flooding, rather than rebuilding each year. It is not, however, smart to try to control an entire planet's weather patterns (which we do not even understand) over the course of thousands of years, to try to stop gradual changes that happen over the course of every couple hundred years. Forgetting feasibility, it is just not cost-effective (and therefore, hardly the better option).
Even if we wanted to though, who is to say that we could? The earth is a force a lot bigger than us. It is great that we can play around with clouds and get it to rain when we want, but the amount of control we have over this earth is extremely limited, with even the best of our technology. (and probably always will be)
It is not feasible, and even if it were, it would not be cost-effective. Why then should we do it when we have a feasible, and comparatively cheaper way of dealing with it? (slowly adapting our way of life over time)
The problem with the cheaper approach is that it puts billions of lives in jeopardy. That's provided that the tension amongst nations caused by the climate change does not spark a global conflict for resources and unflooded living space.
That would be putting the civilization itself in danger.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Not the entire planet, just its surface. We already did it in Africa without any modern technology, humans made the savannahs.
Managing the flora and fauna is one thing, changing long-term weather trends is something else entirely.
Originally Posted by rvg:
The problem with the cheaper approach is that it puts billions of lives in jeopardy. That's provided that the tension amongst nations caused by the climate change does not spark a global conflict for resources and unflooded living space. That would be putting the civilization itself in danger.
Oh, come on, isn't that a bit dramatic? First of all, the long term trends we are talking about happen gradually, giving people plenty of time to adapt their way of life to the area they are living in, or to move to another area. Most of the landmass on earth is unsettled. I think the apocalysm is hardly called for.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Oh, come on, isn't that a bit dramatic? First of all, the long term trends we are talking about happen gradually, giving people plenty of time to adapt their way of life to the area they are living in, or to move to another area.
Yes, but we're talking about a couple of billion people migrating. It'll be Hell.
Originally Posted by :
Most of the landmass on earth is unsettled. I think the apocalysm is hardly called for.
Most of the unsettled lands are less than suitable for human life. The suitable lands are rather limited.
We can and should be control the environment or at the very least its effects on us. Look at the Dutch, they've been giving rising sea levels a finger for centuries now. They have a country where the North Sea should be.
That is control over the environment. We can do that now on a grander scale if we take the problem seriously enough.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Yes, but we're talking about a couple of billion people migrating. It'll be Hell.
Most of the unsettled lands are less than suitable for human life. The suitable lands are rather limited.
We can and should be control the environment or at the very least its effects on us. Look at the Dutch, they've been giving rising sea levels a finger for centuries now. They have a country where the North Sea should be. That is control over the environment. We can do that now on a grander scale if we take the problem seriously enough.
Except that with warmer weather in many cold, formerly unsuitable climates, a lot of that land will become suitable for human life. Also, we are not talking about a mass migration of billions of people. IF (and that is a big if), scientists have predicted trends correctly, it is going to happen over a long period of time, and not over night. Which means you will have a bunch of really small migrations over a long period of time. Hardly as hectic as billions of people just pulling stakes and moving.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Except that with warmer weather in many cold, formerly unsuitable climates, a lot of that land will become suitable for human life.
Except that it's not as easy as packing up and leaving. We have countries, societies. So, maybe Arabian Peninsula becomes a lush rain forest. Does that mean that people there will let the refugees in? Unlikely. They are far more likely to tell 'em to take a hike. Same deal with, say, Russia. Suppose Siberia becomes more hospitable, you think Russians will let outsiders settle there? Why should they? Why would they? Don't forget that just about every coastal country will have its own refugees to deal with. Will India take in 150 million Bangladeshis who are already getting flooded on a yearly basis?
Global warming will be a disaster.
Wow. 49 former NASA employees. And they have about a 1000 years combined professional experience!
23 administrators
8 astronauts
7 engineers
5 technicians
4 scientists
Climate science experience: 0, nil, nada, zilch
But why am I being so picky when one of them has 16 years experience of being "Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention"
Originally Posted by rvg:
Except that it's not as easy as packing up and leaving. We have countries, societies. So, maybe Arabian Peninsula becomes a lush rain forest. Does that mean that people there will let the refugees in? Unlikely. They are far more likely to tell 'em to take a hike. Same deal with, say, Russia. Suppose Siberia becomes more hospitable, you think Russians will let outsiders settle there? Why should they? Why would they? Don't forget that just about every coastal country will have its own refugees to deal with. Will India take in 150 million Bangladeshis who are already getting flooded on a yearly basis?
Global warming will be a disaster.
Even if some countries don't, others will. Why would Russia let refugees in? Hmmmm, maybe so they can have people to work the recently opened farm land, or people to work in their factories. If you haven't noticed, Russia's population is in steep decline, and they are in pretty desperate need of immigrants.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Even if some countries don't, others will. Why would Russia let refugees in? Hmmmm, maybe so they can have people to work the recently opened farm land, or people to work in their factories.
Russia has the same anti-immigrant sentiment as the rest of Europe. They're not gonna just open up and let everyone in: those fields may lay fallow, they aren't hurting anyone.
Originally Posted by :
If you haven't noticed, Russia's population is in steep decline, and they are in pretty desperate need of immigrants.
They already have all the immigrants they'll ever need or want.
Sasaki Kojiro 16:26 04-12-2012
Originally Posted by CBR:
Climate science experience: 0, nil, nada, zilch
But why am I being so picky when one of them has 16 years experience of being "Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention"
How much do you have?
gaelic cowboy 16:36 04-12-2012
Originally Posted by Vuk:
It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
The fine agricultural land in America begs to differ Vuk if left alone it will revert the wild in a few years.
That by the way is an awful lot of land which would affect local climate.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
How much do you have?
How much do you need to recognize that agriculture in the former icebox known as Greenland is a sign that things are changing?
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
How much do you have?
With the Pogo stuff? Was that not a computer game from the late 70's? In that case a lot.
Apart from going through a few of the claims made by deniers, I have absolutely no experience. Which is why I prefer to listen to scientists and even prefer having a whole bunch of scientist agree on stuff. Yes, I know I'm being silly and I should just listen to conspiracies, gut instinct, minority opinions, and even opinions from people who have not demonstrated why I should listen to them in the first place.
This is just yet another case of
Argumentum ad verecundiam (oh boy he goes for fancy Latin to sound important!) : they are NASA dudes (some even landed on the Moon!) and therefore must know a lot of stuff and we should listen to them.
Sasaki Kojiro 17:26 04-12-2012
Mostly their letter was objecting to NASA getting involved in the debate.
I wouldn't mock them unless I knew a ton about climate science myself.
Originally Posted by CBR:
This is just yet another case of Argumentum ad verecundiam (oh boy he goes for fancy Latin to sound important!) : they are NASA dudes (some even landed on the Moon!) and therefore must know a lot of stuff and we should listen to them.
Hey, it works in commercials!
Fred Thompson likes reverse mortgages... m-must g-get one! N-now!
Tellos Athenaios 18:01 04-12-2012
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Mostly their letter was objecting to NASA getting involved in the debate.
I wouldn't mock them unless I knew a ton about climate science myself.
If that is their main point of contention then they just don't get it. Research on Earth is proxy for research on planet X: know how climates work on Earth and you're able to spot & explain similar patterns on planets such as Jupiter, Saturn. Clearly within NASA's scope.
Not to mention that they're one of the very few science outfits with both the brains and the satellites to spare for the task.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
The fine agricultural land in America begs to differ Vuk if left alone it will revert the wild in a few years.
That by the way is an awful lot of land which would affect local climate.
That is a complete and total myth. Indians had been working the land all across the current United States for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived. Following a sharp population decline after the first Europeans arrived (due mostly to diseases that were accidently transfered), much of North America was unmanaged for a short amount of time, but what came in that time period was a direct result of earlier Indian settlement and agriculture. There is no such thing as a 'natural' or 'wild' state for land to revert back to, because since before we have history it has been shaped by humans, and no matter what happens later, it will be the result of human influence.
I am not denying that humans have the power to affect the land they are living in, by reshaping the land, irrigating, transporting soil, digging canals, etc, etc, but that is a far step from controlling global weather patterns.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
I am not denying that humans have the power to affect the land they are living in, by reshaping the land, irrigating, transporting soil, digging canals, etc, etc, but that is a far step from controlling global weather patterns.
We can try. For instance, large volcanic eruptions that that spew a whole bunch of ash into the atmosphere are known to significantly reduce global temperatures for a year or two. We can at least attempt to do something similar it the need arises. Heck, remember when Saddam lit up all those oil wells in Kuwait back in 1991? Kuwait didn't have much of a summer that year. Now that's a local example of course, but the point is that it can be done.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO