Climate Change? (Little Upsilon)

I have been reading the CRU e-mails today. Anybody else been reading them?

No takers on the subject, uh?

Reading the e-mails really makes one wonder about the integrity of the system, and why these people did not want people to have access to their data.

It seems to me that we are definitely in an era when it is not safe to question the scientific orthodoxy of the times. It reminds me of the Inquisitors afraid to look into Galileo's telescope to see the phases of Venus.

Science should free us from intellectual straight jackets and allow the pursuit of Truth wherever it may be found.

Some people do not like the truth,
especially if it hurts their bottom line.
So they just make up there own truth and believe if they say it louder and longer it will become true.
Science be dammed hand out the straight jackets.

Is an government investigation coming? Or will the Democrats kill it in committee?

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Senator-James-Inhofe-vows-investigation-of-IPCC

Hey Nix, here is a resurrected thread. I couldn't get any takers back then.

Hi Plato.

I think that due to capitalism requiring evidence of profit, alot of pharmaceutical scientists and now Universities have been forced to bow down to their pay masters instead of knowledge.
But leaving room for questions in science defeats the point of science so maybe thats why there is a cloak of secrecy. Time is knowledge. But time is also money. Try telling the capitalists that knowledge is more important than money
Does anyone know everything about anything?

The Environment, like swine flu, is a bit different.
Most of the time man only acts out of fear. Unfortunately if we wait for the truth to scare us into action it will be too late. Hence the holes in the science.
A bit like smoking. I might die, but then again I might not. But with smoking only I die(I always smoke outside), with the environment its our future that dies.

If we had the proof and evidence that we are destroying the Eco system then its already too late. It's like looking at your petrol gauge. Its telling you the fuel tanks empty but the car/motor bike is still running. Do you trust the evidence and keep going, detour your route to find a petrol station or stop the car to make sure no damage is done to the carb and phone a friend?

The scientists know theres a problem, as does anyone who cares about our environment. How big a problem will only be known in the future.
And who are we to risk a problem for the future generations? Did our forefathers not sacrifice their lives to ensure our futures?
All we have to do is sacrifice our desires.


Capitalism destroys everything in its path. Even common sense/science.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

But leaving room for questions in science defeats the point of science...<!-/Quote-!>

Clearly you do not understand the "point" of science.

Isn't the point of science to clear up questions?

The point of science is to provide a framework of understanding and interpretation of the wider universe, based upon hypothesis and factual extrapolation, resulting ultimately in theorem and implication.

The pursuit of understanding through question.

Nix,

Your argument seems illogical to me. Basically, it seems to me that you are saying that it doesn't really matter if there is or isn't Global Warming, because if there is real evidence for it is already to late.

But if there isn't really in human induced change, then we are impoverishing 10's of millions by slowing growth in standards of living for many in the undeveloped world. It is at this point that the radical environmentalists scare me, b/c to many of them the "real" problem is that humanity is a parasite killing its host.

Personally, I believe that science can answer the question of whether or not there is human induced global warming, but I am cautious when science becomes the handmaiden to any political agenda. Theoretically, this is the point of tenure in the university system, but that is another debate. Politics even exists in the pursuit of pure mathematics.

Surly an answer is fact? And if the destruction of our Eco system becomes fact, then it is too late, because its already happened. Dont we want to stop the destruction before it happens?
If so, there will be no fact of what was going to happen because we stopped what was going to happened from happening.

The amount of money the western world has spent on wars and bank bailouts could have many times over, paid for the undeveloped world to have clean water and adequate sewer systems.

Also if the destruction of our Eco system does'nt become a political agenda, nothing will be done about it.

Well the basic science of greenhouse effect and the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing should give any thoughtful person concern. Unfortunately, climate science has become dominated by a clique of activists who have let their judgment about how society should be acting corrupt their scientific work, and cast doubt on many of their findings.

Scientists should do the science straight up, and report their findings with appropriate uncertainties, which are large. "Society" should deal with the results as best as we can, largely as a long-term economic problem.

The costs of drastically reducing CO2 emissions now are huge and immediate, and doing so would also involve even larger costs to future generations. If I were a child of 2100 I would rather face sea level rises of 1.0 m with the resources of an economy that has been growing at a compound rate of a few percent each year for the previous century, than to face sea level rises of 0.80 m with the resources of an economy that has stagnated or regressed for the past century. Change the numbers in any realistic way, the principle still holds.

So you would rather a child of 2100 live life without the natural world around them, natural food to eat and the ability to go outside and feel the sun on their face as-long as they have the ability to buy what they desire?

It's not just about rising sea levels.

Earth is coming out of an ice age (which was only 10,000 years ago), global warming SHOULD be happening. I think we should be keeping the environment clean, no water pollution or eco-destruction. I don't believe we should ruin our economy or lifestyle to reduce CO2 which has been WAYYYYY higher in the past, for which there is no evidence of temperature change. Last month we had a blizzard in north Texas. 3 weeks later there was more snow still on the ground than I've seen in years. the temperature is changing, it's going down. Last October was one of the coldest on record. The summer of 09 was the coldest in almost 50 years for the U.S.

Nix, you're right, it's not just about sea levels. We know how to handle that, since sea levels have been rising in parts of the world for a long time. Other things we'll have to figure out. Don't you think we will?

Imagine on the other hand what life would be like tomorrow if we stopped burning fossil fuels. Most of the problems we worry about happening in the far future would be here right now. Widespread famine and mass migrations to start with. We'd all be poorer, all of us. Why would anyone want that?

I do not know how old any of you are, but when I was young the Cayuga River caught fire, you could see black smoke belching out of chimneys, and the rivers were so full of phosphates that they were sudsy. When you turned your car off, you could smell gasoline percolating in the carburetor.

You see we have made great strides in controlling pollution in the last 40 years.

Society is forcing industry to clean up and has been for decades, but not for any imagined Armageddon of Global Warming that only exists as a possibility.

123. As you said. We are coming out of an ice age, which means for 10,000 years life has been evolving at a steady rate to compensate for the climate change. Have you heard of the march of the trees? species of trees that used to be common in the south of England are now living in the north of Scotland and no longer in the south. Same goes for life. So if the climate changes too quick and plants, insects ect haven't the time to adapt or re-settle, they will die out. Which in turn will kill everything else.

As for the weather. Weather systems are mostly independent from one another. But what happens on one side of the world can affect what happens on the other side of the world.

Natural global warming over the next 5,000 will put England under a blanket of snow most of the year round. Why? It's due to the cold water from the melting North ice cap doing one of two things.
1) The cold water reduces the influence of the gulf stream that gives England the warm seas need for today's climate.

2) The cold water brings the gulf stream to a complete stop.

So natural global warming will effect different parts of the planet in different ways, but at a rate that the Natural world can keep up. So in 5,000 years the trees that live in the north of Scotland will again reside in the South of England.

The problem is when you add mans effects into the equation. Death due to pollution, destruction due to consumption. And then theres the increased levels of CO2 and other gasses to 'WAYYYYY higher' levels than to what life has become adapted to today. All of which will naturaly force life, inc plants, to adapt unnaturaly faster to these unnatural/natural changes of conditions. But if the climate changes too quick for them to adapt and they die out, we could see the collapse of the Web of life/Eco system/Gaia, and inturn the destruction of all Natural life on Earth. Leaving humans alone, without freedom and only able to survive inside.

Now, You talk about your lifestyle. If we leave the future generations with a lifestyle of only life or death because we killed off the Natural world, trust me Each of future generations negative energies towards those who chose to put their own lifestyles above the futures survival will be so intense, it might even be enough to raise the killers from the dead and into a state of constant regrete. LOL

Nix, there are so many holes in your science that it is difficult to know where to start.

Firstly, you're ignoring population migration. Species do not simply stay in one place and die out. Population trends amongst species often demonstrate that they follow the movement of their specific climatic bands. For example, seasonal migration.

In your own very narrow example, you're citing a regional "extinction" rather than a species-wide issue - in which case, it is the narrowing of a given climatic niche at issue, not the geographically local fluctuations.

Secondly, you are generally ignoring the fluidic nature of the relationship of and between both fauna and fauna, and their place within inter-related ecosystems.

Thirdly, you are making sweeping assumptions regarding the North Atlantic Drift, and completely ignoring its place within global oceanic currents. It is not a stand-alone mechanism, subject to the effect of temperature alone. It takes great influence from other factors, such as energy gradients, oxygen content, salinity, landmass deviations, inherent pressures, etc.

Fourthly, your assumptions regarding the adaptability of life to natural climate change are clearly erroneous. If you are correct, and "global warming" is indeed a man-made factor in the current climatic cooling trend, then logically it follows that this ought to be the beginning of the first mass extinction event. Why? Because, by your reasoning, life would adapt to natural environmental changes and fail to survive human-created ones.

This is clearly an erroneous assumption. Flood Bassalt Events, for one, have been a major cause of extinctions. Indeed, the most severe extinction event - the Permian-Triassic - was of this nature. Go look it up.

Fifthly, you sre ignoring entirely vast swathes of information which contradict your assumptive "fact" base. Notable theories with much factual basis include global dimming effects, oceanic saturation, solar-climatic interactions, and so on. Man-made "global warming" is but one possible extrapolation of current observations.

But, much like the plumb-pudding model of the atom back in 1904, it fails to explain many of the finer points within its supposedly logical framework. Or, worse, trips over its own logical toes.

Such as;
Yearly natural CO2 emission is greater than human contributions over the past 150 years.

Radical temperature spikes contrary to theoretical precedent offered by "global warming" theory.

Global dimming contributions.

Solar luminosity fluctuations.

Heightened late 19th/early 20th century vulcanism.

The list does go on.

Lastly, though, you are fulfilling the radical environmentalist stereotype. You pursue an agenda without fully grasping basic and fundamental concepts, arguing your case with a disturbingly religious vigour. In seeking to enforce your beliefs you are completely missing out on the important facts.

Nature is change. Science is hypothesis and theorem supported by fact.

Presumption is a most dangerous mistress.

Do you mean fauna and flora? Like the bee and the flower?

I understand that we are coming to a new age and that this could have major solar influence over life on Earth. Whats out of mans hands is just that. I'm concerned about what is in mans hands. (Bigg up to my fellow water carriers)

What makes you think than the cold water from the melting North pole would'nt be enough to influence or colapse the North Atlantic drift(Gulf Stream)?

Do you not know that the damage man has done to the planet over the past 150 years cannot be measured as it has not yet taken full effect? Let alone the last 50 when we started to do the damage that we continue to do today. And today man around the world destroys, consumes and pollutes on a greater scale than he has ever done before.

What happens when scales have the same weight on either side? What then happens when you add a little more weight to one side?

As I said, life needs some time to adapt to their changing 'specific climatic bands'. Natural Climate change + Man made climate change = Maybe to much for Mother Nature to handle. Have you heard of the straw that broke the camels back?

You do not give any reason to why man is not affecting Mother Nature in a bad way. And why our effects wont be the cause of tipping the scales of life to death.

Scenario:
You spend your days sitting in a room/office/pub full of cigarette smoke (Natural environment) and your aware of the effects of consuming the smoke (Natural climate change). Someone offers you a cigarette. Would you say no thanks because killing yourself would be stupid? Or would you smoke it because whats one cigarette gonna do compaired to all the smoke thats already in the room?

Scenario MK2:
You spend your days sitting in a room/office/pub full of cigarette smoke (Natural environment/Natural CO2) and your aware of the effects of consuming the smoke (Natural climate change due to the Natural CO2).
Someone offers you a cigarette (CO2). Would you say no thanks because killing yourself would be stupid? Or would you smoke it because whats one cigarette gonna do compaired to all the smoke thats already in the room? (Man made climate change)

(self made climate change)

I've been incapasitated for the past month. Not been able to go outside. I with the help of my friend over the past week have been able to take my dog for a walk. Tonight me and my crutches have hoped it down to the pub with out my dog. Now he knows I've been out the front door and now all he wants to do is go out the front door. Outside is freedom. Dont risk our actions for our futures freedom. If it has to be it has to be. If not, we should'nt allow it. Where is our basic instinct of survival?

PS. I'm a wee bit drunk ;) I could'nt even drink over Christmas Made up for it tonight

And now I've let him out the front is he happy?.......NO. Freedom is without bounderies..

Anyway....Forget my Environmental dribble. There is a Pagan movement out there which is in tune to the frequences of life its self.
They will do anything to balance out this frequency in the search of harmony. And what is the frequency of lifes biggest complicator? Man.
At least the Environmentalist respects all life.

We either become peasant farmers again or our masters might cull us to safe gaurd their blood lines.

What would you do if you where ruler?
Is'nt the point of life survival?

BOOOOOOOOOO. We can show our leader that together we can become one. The only thing thats getting in our way is desire......But without our desire our leaders would'nt be our leaders.......I need a cup of tea......

You need an education, Nix. Rarely is it that I meet somebody who says so little with so many words.

Education? What, like College, University, Training Schools, self imposed research, Teachings from fellow humans?
But I see you dont like answering questions.
Anyways, your right. I have one thing to say. Stop man made destruction of Nature and Man made climate change. Simple.
This is not something where in 50 years you can turn around and say, oppps got it wrong, oh well.
How many ways are there to make the same point?
You have been around for ages. You have seen me on many threads about the Environment. You have seen me make my points with facts, figures and scenario. I'm not sure which part of, it is wrong for man to destroy Nature through pollution, destruction and consumption you aren't getting.

Could it be that you are all scared of a little personnal sacrifice?

All we need is Love, water, food, cloths, heat, shelter and medicines. All free. So this little personnal sacrifice of desire means nothing really anyway. I dont know what you are holding on to is so strongly for?

Hey Klarina, do me a favour and have a look at my web site http://www.mothernaturesarmy.biz/
Its titled The Forces of Nature and I think its only on Google.
There I try and use less words to make my simple point of survival. Do any stand out to you?