Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Udacha]

.Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.

[bustermaw]

Originally Posted by Foozinator

I must misunderstand what you mean by "host", then. If you didn't mean the Earth, what did you mean?

Well, as I remember from my school days , we homo sapiens live on earth which is our host. It's like a cancerous cell which continues to multiply until it or the host dies.

Anyway , I'm too tired and emotional to continue.
I'm on my way to bed hoping that I don't have bad dreams about the NSA or GCHQ reading these emails.
What ! they do ?

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by bustermaw

95% , well I don't know about that number.

Do you have a source?

Originally Posted by bustermaw

What I do know is that probably that figure rely on Government and Corporate funding

Funny you should mention that, because the funding for those who are strongly denying climate change is pretty blatant. Big oil has a big stake in this argument, and you bet they have been spending millions to give their side PR.

As for government control, never attribute conspiracy to something when incompetency could easily explain it.

NASA (granted, govt. funding) says the number is actually 97%

There are other sources, as well.

Maybe it's really only 91% ... or not

Can we just round it to 9-out-of-10, like the dentist cliche?

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by bustermaw

Well, as I remember from my school days

No need to be condescending.

Originally Posted by bustermaw

we homo sapiens live on earth which is our host. It's like a cancerous cell which continues to multiply until it or the host dies.

So you did mean kill the Earth, which I took to mean kill all life on the planet. Or did you mean actually somehow make the Earth not a planet any more?

[jwcolby54]

There's two kinds of people, those who divide people into two kinds, and those that don't.

[bustermaw]

Originally Posted by Foozinator

No need to be condescending.



So you did mean kill the Earth, which I took to mean kill all life on the planet. Or did you mean actually somehow make the Earth not a planet any more?

I'll try once more.
We , Homo Sapiens live on a host called planet earth.
I said that we , Homo Sapiens, would likely become extinct before our host.
How do you equate the extinction of man with the death of the host ( earth )

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by Udacha

.Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.

What about feedback mechanisms, like the Arctic permafrost (Alaska, etc), and changes in albedo for the retreating Antarctic glaciers?

Small changes can end up causing a big difference.

Look at it this way:

If you're right, and we act like I'm right, then we've wasted some money and effort trying to make the world a better place. If you're right, and we do nothing, then no harm done. It's just business as usual.

If I'm right, and we act like I'm right, then we could say we did what we could, and hopefully see results in both species count and billions spent in infrastructure. If I'm right and we do nothing, then the sixth extinction event really is just getting started.

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by bustermaw

I'll try once more.
We , Homo Sapiens live on a host called planet earth.
I said that we , Homo Sapiens, would likely become extinct before our host.
How do you equate the extinction of man with the death of the host ( earth )

There are two things that I can think of that you would mean by "death of the host (Earth)"

1. We somehow wipe the planet clean of all life. The Earth truly becomes a dead rock with no life whatsoever. This was my initial understanding of what you meant. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.

2. Destruction of the Earth as a planet. This is most likely going to be due to the Sun growing into a red giant, or the subsequent explosion when the Sun falls back into a white dwarf. If this is what you mean, the bar is still pretty high (about 4 billion years, IIRC). That's a long time to develop a real space program, even at US Congressional funding rates.

[Udacha]

The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines

I'm pretty sure I don't like that very much

[dazbys]

It doesn't really matter if you believe in anthropogenic global warming or not. It's simple really:

- what's the worst case if we do nothing and it is a real thing
- what's the worst case if we do nothing, and it wasn't a real thing
- what's the worst case if we try to do something, and it is a real thing
- what's the worst case if we try to do something, and it's not a real thing.

So, of all these combinations, the very worst case is do nothing, and experience real global warming consequences. Even if we do something, and can't change the catastrophic course of events, at least we've mitigated impact. If we spend billions, and nothing happens, at least the world is a nicer place to live.

[Udacha]

It's not billions it's trillions, billions everyday!!!

I don't really care how you want to spin it, I strongly disagree

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Foozinator

Careful not to pick a range that specifically supports your argument

Full Wood for Trees dataset

And your point is?

The claim was that the last 5 years were "the hottest evah". I provided graphs of the last 20 years showing that that claim was false and that in the last 20 years there were several years hotter than the last five.

Your 30 year plot shows exactly the same thing, and also disproves the contention. It just has an additional 10 irrelevant years tacked on at the start.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Mark Stillwell

I'm one of those guys who reads some of the research in a variety of science journals. The best summarized source of information I have found is:

Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. Dec 21, 2010 by James Hansen

Hansen summarizes the research data and his conclusions in narratives that most can understand.

The words "best" and "Hansen" just don't go together in any way shape or form. He's an arch-alarmist at the level of Gore and Mann.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by holtjp

When more than 95% of scientists agree on any topic I think we can honestly dispense with the "conflicting opinion" arguments. Anyone still confused has simply studied far too little of the subject.

Anyone who uses (or just believes) the "more than 95%" (or 97%) meme has simply studied far too little of the subject.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Foozinator

Funny you should mention that, because the funding for those who are strongly denying climate change is pretty blatant. Big oil has a big stake in this argument, and you bet they have been spending millions to give their side PR.

Meme after meme after meme

Just waiting now for a link to the "anti-tobacco deniers"