Um...yeah. Which global calamity are we on this year?

Quote:

Read the sunspots
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

...

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

---

Quote:

At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

---

psilocyberin said:

I beg to differ that there is credible scientific data that shows humans have an impact upon the earths climate. I do not currently have the time to go find articles, though I will when I get home, because they are aplenty....

---

psilocyberin said:

As far as DDT goes, i witnessed the decline of the brown pelican population firsthand, as well as their comeback over the years since DDT was taken from use. now, Im not saying that lack of brown pelicans = DDT's fault.... directly..... but it is considered a moderately toic chemical which isnt soluble in water, and was so widely used that it had to have some adverse effect upon the ecology, even the slightest disruption in the amount of mosquitos which affects the spiders and frog population, which in turn affects another species and up and up until biological magnification of toxins starts to affect bigger species in greater quantities.
As far as malaria goes... well, I think human evolution, like sickle cell anemia took up a lot of slack. Was our goal to wipe out all mosquitos? if so that is ridiculously short-sighted as a solution to a problem. Killing of a majority of mosquitos in africa isnt going to stop malaria... all it takes is just one mosquito to transmit it.... and it isnt like malaria is some great catasrophic epidemic that has caused the tribal nations of africa to remain an underdeveloped continent.

---

psilocyberin said:

Im not up to current medical trends, but since the banning of DDT, hasnt the rate of thalidomide stricken infants decreased to almost nothing? and during that time, the rate of those babies rose so quickly that it could not be contributed to a freak genetic occurence?

---

psilocyberin said:

once again, I ask you where is the motive? where is the financial gain? where is this huge campaign of misinformation stemming from? who is to gain from all this conspiracy to go "green"?
because I can easily find the motive of large corporations and chemical manufacturers to disuade the public and make such harsh, unbacked statements such as yours regarding psuedo-science and whatnot.
This is my point: I can see the motives behind the republicans and anti-green people... but I cannot see the motives behind the entire "pro-green" group.

---

Astral Piper said:

My statements are not "unbacked" unlike the ad hominem nonsense you are perpetuating.

Political posturing is nothing new, and attempting to swing the discussion by referencing unconnected issues under the broad canopy of questioning whether there is a "conspiracy" tells me that you are intellectually bankrupt

---

Although i'm more ataraxic about the whole deal... nice call out

DieCommie said:

Im thinking Godwin's Law at any moment

---

Nice reference!!  I'm sure I'll be accused of being a Brownshirt in short order! 

Quote:

Political posturing is nothing new, and attempting to swing the discussion by referencing unconnected issues

---

xxetniesxx said:

The basic idea of the year is based on who produced the best documentary of our doom that year and running with it. Awhile back it was El Nino and La Nina, Then it was guns and fast food, then it was terrorists, then global warming, then a new ice age, then a meteor... what's next?

---

Quote:

Produce them please. Credible scientific data may mean different things to different people, but if your sources contain references to actual published studies that have been peer-reviewed and critically analyzed, then you definitely do have evidence. I am anxious to see this.

---

Quote:

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

---

Quote:

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

---

Quote:

If you are seriously doubting the effects of the mosquito problem in Africa, then you need to do some research. I have lived in Africa (both northern and sub-Saharan) so rather than belabor the point to you, please learn more about this issue on your own. I know firsthand about the problems this insect has caused, and if you are keen to live by an infested body of standing water, then be my guest.

---

Astral Piper said:

There is no credible scientific evidence that human activity has had any effect on climactic change whatsoever. Yet various pundits, politicians, media and celebrity personalities have pronounced this as "established science" and beyond debate.

THAT is the problem.

I realize that people see churning smoke erupting from trucks and buses, or pictures of stagnant air enveloping entire cities in China, and they extrapolate that to mean the demise of all life as we know it.

Yet there is no evidence to support this at all.

But, as in the aforementioned article from the Financial Times, various governmental agencies and NGOs are demanding the reallocation of resources to address a "problem." People are being told that their lifestyles are complicit in killing the environment, and that to ignore calls for radically modifying the entire economies of the nations which comprise the modern industrialized is bordering on criminal collusion. Absolute nonsense.

The standard of living we have in the modern world today is directly tied to the modern market economies of the powerhouses of our globe - namely The United States and several large nations in Europe. That standard of living has extended human lifespan while at the same time increasing the quality of our lives UNIVERSALLY - both in the modern industrialized world and in those nations still in the developmental stages of their respective economies.

One radical environmentalist in the 1960s declared that anecdotal evidence showed that DDT was responsible for numerous birth defects and genetic damage. This message was celebrated by a sympathetic media and gained momentum, leading to eventual legislation that banned the production and use of one of the most effective weapons in the fight against mosquitoes (and the malarial disease they transmit) - subsequently, MILLIONS of lives in Africa have been lost to that nefarious disease when they could possibly have been saved.

This is the result of people's inability to see beyond their own political predilections, and their desire to pronounce scientific proofs without the benefit of actual hard empirical evidence.

So while you are trying to find "middle ground" in an area that is being propounded ceaselessly by a complicit media, some of us refuse to acknowledge the pseudo-science and mindless nonsense spouting from the peanut gallery.

The real root of this problem is ignorance. So many people today who believe they are educated really display the same proclivity for repeating slogans and neologisms that are based in their own fantasies simply because these "fit" with their preconceptions.

Many people seem to have reached a point where their "book learning" has far exceeded their ability to think critically.

---

Visionary Tools said:

It's simple enough. The scaremongering is to condition people that further development and use of coal, oil and gas power stations is evil. This means that third world and developing nations will be kept impoverished, so their little exploited resources can be mined more cheaply.

Global warming has become a campaign to keep poor countries poor so we can live in cheap luxury. No one dares advertise the fact that climate on all planets in the solar system is heating up! We're warmer today because the sun is more active. We can no more change that than make water run uphill.

---

mr_kite said:

The rainforests form a precious cooling band around the equator, and they contain 50% of life on earth yet cover an area of only 7% of the planet's surface. Every year an area the size of the UK is destroyed.

---

Quote:

Fact: Covering less than 2 percent of the Earth's total surface area, the world's rainforests are home to 50 percent of the Earth's plants and animals.

---

rexmundi said:

Saying that modern market economies and human activity has increased the standard of living universally and had no negative impact on the planet is utter nonsense. The rest is just detail, like Ockham, we must recognize bullshit for what it is.

---

Kamin said:

The predictions for global warming are supposed to be like...a tenth of a degree per decade or something minute like that. I find it hard to believe that somehow, even though the earth has been around for billions of years, that people believe evidence from such a small fraction of the worlds history, could be used to claim such predictions. That is like me going and interviewing a single person on their beliefs, and claiming that it is a valid sample of the rest of the earth's population.

---

Quote:

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[29] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

---

Kamin said:

The predictions for global warming are supposed to be like...a tenth of a degree per decade or something minute like that. I find it hard to believe that somehow, even though the earth has been around for billions of years, that people believe evidence from such a small fraction of the worlds history, could be used to claim such predictions. That is like me going and interviewing a single person on their beliefs, and claiming that it is a valid sample of the rest of the earth's population.
On the other hand, there is no harm in trying to cause less pollution and advancing technology to rely less on oil and coal etc.
But the current 'crisis' mode that is going on now is overboard.

Wow, what a revival.

---

ApJunkie said:

What I don't understand is all these people who get so worked up over the possibility that Global Warming is just a hoax.
Even if it is, who gives a fuck? Does it really bother you that much to try to make less of an impact on the planet? We're not the only animals here you know.

---

Seuss said:

> Is the mass media controlling the scientific journals?

Yes, unfortunately. There is very little funding available for people that are doing research that contradicts "global warming". Scientists loose their jobs for stating their opinion on "global warming" being false. Anti-global-warming scientists have been prevented from presenting or attending global warming oriented symposiums. The list goes on and on. The pressure on science to be "pro-global-warming" is so great that data has been falsified to support the global warming crowd.

---

Quote:

yes, absolutely. We have people going nuts trying to save glaciers and the like. By trying to fix a problem that may not be a problem, we can actually create a worse mess than dynamic climate change will create on its own. One cannot beat mother nature; we have to adapt.

---

Seuss said:

> Does it really bother you that much to try to make less of an impact on the planet?

Yes, absolutely. We have people going nuts trying to save glaciers and the like. By trying to fix a problem that may not be a problem, we can actually create a worse mess than dynamic climate change will create on its own. One cannot beat mother nature; we have to adapt. I find it very frightening that we are trying to fix a problem that we do not fully understand.

---

Quote:

At the same time I have no problem with people trying to be more conservative. There is nothing wrong with this... but we should do it because we know it is the right thing to do, not because some shmuck decided to create a movie with made up science and scare us with the big bad global warming monster.

---

Seuss said:

> Is the mass media controlling the scientific journals?

Yes, unfortunately.  There is very little funding available for people that are doing research that contradicts "global warming".  Scientists loose their jobs for stating their opinion on "global warming" being false.  Anti-global-warming scientists have been prevented from presenting or attending global warming oriented symposiums.  The list goes on and on.  The pressure on science to be "pro-global-warming" is so great that data has been falsified to support the global warming crowd.

---

Ummm, I'm going to have to take issue with that, there are plenty of jobs availible for scientists willing to take a stand against global warming, and plenty of people who have vested interests in hearing scientists talk like that.  Oil companies and government experts come to mind.

If global warming is this big hoax as some are suggesting, why are most governments so agonizingly inadequate in their enivoronmental policies?

The discourse might get hyped up a little, but denying global warming seems like reactionary politics to me, akin to conspiracies of "global government" and the UN.

Quote:

Burning fossil fuels is probably one of the most important aids to the life cycle on this oxygen-rich, carbon-poor planet that man can do. Most of the primeval carbon is locked away in the oil and coal deposits formed over the ages by cell death of the phytoplankton (diatoms), which created the oxygen-rich environment by decarboxylating the CO2 in the primitive atmosphere. The limits placed on CO2 are unreasonable and impede the creation of wealth which benefits everyone, and are harmful to the plant life at the same time.

---

So now industrialization is actually good for the planet?!

Even Exxon-Mobil wouldn't go that far.  The idea that the earth actually needs us to burn fossil fuels is about the funniest thing I've heard in years.

Also, what he(and most other people) fails to get is that reducing carbon emissions is actually going to save us money, because less fuel consumption means less cost.