Turns Out That Global Warming Isn't Just A Liberal Conspiracy After All

[Extra Stout]

Did I miss something? Seems to me that you've yet to prove conclusively that Climate Change and Hurricane strength are not inter-related. If you could do that, I'm sure you could do a lecture tour. In fact, all you've really manage to do is muddy the political water you so much complain about.

As far as getting a response, well, since this thread is on page 4, I would say it's gotten a pretty decent response.

No, Dan, debate doesn't consist of you making wild-ass statements and declaring them valid unless they are conclusively disproven.

Stop trying to frighten people with hurricanes and explain to them what is actually going on and maybe you'll get a response.

That's the frustrating thing with Dan. There are plenty of people waking up to the fact that this is a real problem with real consequences, but that doesn't matter to him at all. You've got a bunch of people who have some knowledge on the subject, taking a realistic tack on what we could be facing, and he's fighting these people in favor of his baseless emotional arguments from questionable sources. What he wants to do is throw every doomsday scenario up like spaghetti against the wall, then come back and claim how smart and superior he is when one comes true.

He has no interest in solving any actual problems. He's interested in feeling morally superior when some catastrophe comes.

But that's typical of those of his political persuasion.

[Sec24Row7]

I wish they would stop fishing out the Oceans too... that would be nice...

Get the Japanese and Koreans onto that ... Kyoto meh..

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, you can go to Alaska and they've got that one glacier you can walk up the ravine where it's receded and they have signs where it was in 'x' year......dating all the way back to ..........uhmmmm.....the 1800's. *cough*

Golbal warmon and berd floo ......RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !!!!!

<begin rant>

There has been global warming ever since they've been recording temperature. The earth heats and cools in cycles. Surprise surprise.

People are fools. Every generation always thinks the world is coming to an end. Now, we're on this kick of it's our fault and by OUR'S I mean the US.

The fact is, the US did not, and never will or should sign Kyoto. Of the industrialized nations we are the only non-signatory AND the only nation that has reduced their emissions voluntarily, exceeding what Kyoto would have asked for. Every other major industrialized nation that signed Kyoto has failed to meet it's requirements.

Kyoto isn't about the environment. It's about redistrubuiton of wealth, requiring some countries to limit emissions while allowing others to double and triple their emissions. Developing countries can sell their emission credits to the industrialized nations therefor it becomes a system of taxation which is a system of redistributing wealth.

Kyoto has all to do with the environment and mankind has little to do with global warming. Further, who's to say global warming is bad. It could possibly open up a northwest passage and make development of the artic region a of a lot easier.

Oh yeah, the caribou...can't forget about the caribou....

Rather then being concerned about golbal warmon and berd floo I wish they'd stop fishing the oceans out, for example. I don't care what the temperature outside is, I still want to eat.

<end rant>

You got it my man. It's all about money and the Socialist of the world.
Canada our friends to the North have actually increased their output of
CO2. The big deal is "give me your money". You are just too rich to be
on the face of this earth. Mother Earth, as they like to call it, will do
what it always has: what it damn well wants to. Nothing we do, puny
man, will change that. You may mess up a small portion of YOUR earth,
but you aren't going to mess all of it up. Don't believe me, just visit
some of mans projects where they have moved on and see what
Mother Nature has done to correct the problem.

[Nbadan]

No, Dan, debate doesn't consist of you making wild-ass statements and declaring them valid unless they are conclusively disproven.

So making statements that are supported by a large, some would say, predominant, segment of the scientific community is 'making wild statements' now?

[Nbadan]

There are plenty of people waking up to the fact that this is a real problem with real consequences, but that doesn't matter to him at all. You've got a bunch of people who have some knowledge on the subject, taking a realistic tack on what we could be facing, and he's fighting these people in favor of his baseless emotional arguments from questionable sources. What he wants to do is throw every doomsday scenario up like spaghetti against the wall, then come back and claim how smart and superior he is when one comes true.

Manny wants us to look past all the bad stuff and concentrate on only the good things to come from future global warming? (sound familiar?). That's not realistic. No one is insinuating that Manny shouldn't argue his point in this forum, he just gets bent when anyone has the audacity to question his sources or claims. Blah, that's not debate, that someone thinking they know better than everyone else on this subject and trying to lecture to the rest of us monkies. That don't fly here for long.

[MannyIsGod]

[MannyIsGod]

Ah man, just for fun, let me lay out in plain text so that Dan can understand.

The problems I have with the climate change "debate" today:

1. There is absolutely no proof linking last years or the previous years hurricane seasons in anyway to CO2 emissions. The studies that have been posted in this forum show a possible increase down the line, but that increase is hardly substantial.

In other words, don't like Katrina to global warming.

2. Political Bias in the IPCC leadership. There is an agenda at work with the IPCC which causes them to ignore a) possible positive benefits of a warmer global mean tempature, but also b) causes them to focus on one possible cause for climate change. They give very little time to solar warming and the like.

3. The inability for people to correctly establish what is fact and what is theory and just how sound some of those theories are.

But yes, I want everyone to believe that 2040 will consist of gigantic wheat fields in Siberia because of global warming and that world hunger will be solved.

[Sec24Row7]

It's just not doom and gloom and that drives people nuts.

It's cause for interest... but not concern.

[Extra Stout]

It's just not doom and gloom and that drives people nuts.

It's cause for interest... but not concern.

My concerns would be as follows:

1) Deluge of low-lying areas. Developed coastal lands below elevation 15 are vulnerable to rising seas. Coastal lands vulnerable to tropical cyclones are even more at risk. Even if hurricanes aren't much stronger, if someplace that used to be 25 feet above sea level becomes only 10 or 15 feet, it will be inundated by the storm surge from a much weaker hurricane.

Now, sea level isn't going to jump 10 feet overnight, so the impact on coastal infrastructure can be managed, but it still will be expensive to move buildings, roads, etc., inland, or raise them.

2) Migrations. Inhabited coral reef islands may become submerged. Flood-prone areas like Bangladesh may become uninhabitable.

Besides these coastal impacts, climate change in and of itself will cause disruption. Many human settlements and their economies are built upon having a particular climate. We have ample archaeological evidence of past climate change causing the abandonment of settlements.

If you have an area that depends on growing a certain crop, and the climate becomes too hot, cold, dry, or wet for that crop, you have disruption. If the condition of a body of water changes, that can have a major impact. Flora and fauna will be affected by changes in their habitat, and though life is resilient, the short-term impacts could be unpleasant and disruptive for us.

I'm sick of hearing that human impact on the climate is going to destroy the earth, though. This planet has been so hot in the past that all the ice melted, and half of North America was covered by an inland sea. In fact, geologically speaking, that condition is normal. Glaciation is abnormal. Even with this warming trend, we're still in the vestiges of an ice age.

Beyond that, it's once been so hot, due to asteroid impact, that rock vapor seared the entire face of the earth, and boiled off all the oceans. Also, this planet has been so cold that the ice caps met at the equator. Life has persevered through all of that.

I'll concern myself with the human impacts of climate change ONLY.

[word]

Glad we got that settled.

[word]

You got it my man. It's all about money and the Socialist of the world.
Canada our friends to the North have actually increased their output of
CO2. The big deal is "give me your money". You are just too rich to be
on the face of this earth. Mother Earth, as they like to call it, will do
what it always has: what it damn well wants to. Nothing we do, puny
man, will change that. You may mess up a small portion of YOUR earth,
but you aren't going to mess all of it up. Don't believe me, just visit
some of mans projects where they have moved on and see what
Mother Nature has done to correct the problem.

Nature does some pretty nasty as well and is in violation of EPA laws every day. See the La Brea tar pits, for example. Yellowstone and all those sulfer pools....

BERD FLOO !!!!

[Sec24Row7]

My concerns would be as follows:

1) Deluge of low-lying areas. Developed coastal lands below elevation 15 are vulnerable to rising seas. Coastal lands vulnerable to tropical cyclones are even more at risk. Even if hurricanes aren't much stronger, if someplace that used to be 25 feet above sea level becomes only 10 or 15 feet, it will be inundated by the storm surge from a much weaker hurricane.

Now, sea level isn't going to jump 10 feet overnight, so the impact on coastal infrastructure can be managed, but it still will be expensive to move buildings, roads, etc., inland, or raise them.

2) Migrations. Inhabited coral reef islands may become submerged. Flood-prone areas like Bangladesh may become uninhabitable.

Besides these coastal impacts, climate change in and of itself will cause disruption. Many human settlements and their economies are built upon having a particular climate. We have ample archaeological evidence of past climate change causing the abandonment of settlements.

If you have an area that depends on growing a certain crop, and the climate becomes too hot, cold, dry, or wet for that crop, you have disruption. If the condition of a body of water changes, that can have a major impact. Flora and fauna will be affected by changes in their habitat, and though life is resilient, the short-term impacts could be unpleasant and disruptive for us.

I'm sick of hearing that human impact on the climate is going to destroy the earth, though. This planet has been so hot in the past that all the ice melted, and half of North America was covered by an inland sea. In fact, geologically speaking, that condition is normal. Glaciation is abnormal. Even with this warming trend, we're still in the vestiges of an ice age.

Beyond that, it's once been so hot, due to asteroid impact, that rock vapor seared the entire face of the earth, and boiled off all the oceans. Also, this planet has been so cold that the ice caps met at the equator. Life has persevered through all of that.

I'll concern myself with the human impacts of climate change ONLY.

There is just all we can do about it so I don't worry about it.

If the sea rises, move. (You don't think the ancient egyptians, greeks and Mesopotamians built all those cities in 15 feet of water do you?)

The Flora and Fauna on earth will move just as rapidly as the oceans. Look at the huge forrests in Canada and tell me that life doesnt adapt quickly when 14,000 years ago there was two miles of ice on top of where they are now.

We preserve animals and habitat for our own personal enjoyment, nothing more. The earth isn't going to die if something as meaningless as a 20 foot sea level increase happens.

People just need to get used to the idea that we are Microbes clinging to a rock that is hurtling 10,000 miles an hour through space and there is pretty much nothing we can do to the rock short of strip mining 800 feet that is going to be visible on the surface 200,000 years from now.

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert ... Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works ye mighty and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-- Percy Bysshe S ey

[Sec24Row7]

back to the top... where it should stay instead of all this namecalling bull