Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It seems to me that more is being spent on solutions than problems.



https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...o-congress.pdf Table 1

Well there you go. Based on this and similar threads, and the media in general I wouldn't have thought so.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Has anyone proved we won't adapt?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Look at the last 20k years we have adapted quite well. I'm sure we will continue to adapt.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Has anyone proved we won't adapt?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Can anyone prove we and our food crops can adapt?

Rising carbon dioxide levels may reduce the nutritional value of important foods | Public Radio International

In most things in my life I tend follow the precautionary principle.

The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well there you go. Based on this and similar threads, and the media in general I wouldn't have thought so.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

And that is why I use none of those as primary sources of information.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Look at the last 20k years we have adapted quite well. I'm sure we will continue to adapt.

That was before we messed up natural cycles that used to work really well.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Can anyone prove we and our food crops can adapt?

Rising carbon dioxide levels may reduce the nutritional value of important foods | Public Radio International

In most things in my life I tend follow the precautionary principle.

The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The evidence shows that our food crops are not suited to higher levels of CO2.

And, please, we have discussed greenhouses already. Most food crops are not suited to greenhouses.

The increase in crop yields is more closely related in massive increases in pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation - none of which is sustainable.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The evidence shows that our food crops are not suited to higher levels of CO2.

And, please, we have discussed greenhouses already. Most food crops are not suited to greenhouses.

The increase in crop yields is more closely related in massive increases in pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation - none of which is sustainable.

Utter rubbish. Do we need to revisit GM again?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Utter rubbish. Do we need to revisit GM again?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Show us what GM crops can withstand higher CO2. No wishful thinking please. What currently exists?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But that is one of the serious problems with string theory (which is really five distinct string theories). It produces any number of outcomes, but nothing (so far) that is definitively testable.

Sort of like "climate science" then.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Show us what GM crops can withstand higher CO2. No wishful thinking please. What currently exists?

Let me get this straight. Humans will be unable to adapt because wheat may have a 15% lower nutritional value and may be attacked by more insects which means we will run out of pesticides?

Really?

M'kay.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Happer got caught offering to write an article, hide the funding and fake a peer-review.

When Peter Glieck got caught, he resigned his position - as he should.

Cuccunelli tried to discredit Mann, and failed.

Meanwhile in Canada and Alberta we elect governments that are takin a leading role in dealing climate change.

Merely repeating your assertions against Happer won't substantiate them, unless you have something more than the e-mail exchange you already linked us to. The only activity the e-mails appear to show is a Princeton physics professor who believes that more CO2 released into the environment is a good thing, and who in retirement established a nonprofit to advance that theory. A nonprofit, btw, which the IRS approved as having a valid educational purpose.

When approached by a (phony) energy company rep asking him to write a position paper that said that CO2 from fossil fuel emissions were not harming the planet, Happer agreed on the condition that he would also write that other, non-CO2 pollutants from those same emissions were in fact harmful. In exchange for what would be his normal fee as an expert, he requested that the money be donated instead to his nonprofit. Disclosure of the identity of donors is not required under US law because the govt. understandably does not want to discourage charitable giving. In this case, Happer wanted to advance his theory that CO2 emissions were not harmful, and disclosing that an oil co. had made a contribution to a nonprofit he founded would create exactly the type of bias that has obviously afflicted you. The paper was not subject to peer review because it was not intended as a scholarly article, but rather as a position paper advocating a particular theory and point of view.

Pretty sure this sort of annoying speech that is so disagreeable to you is constitutionally protected in the US. Again, if you have more on this incident then fine, but based on the e-mails alone I don't see the factual basis for anyone getting "caught," or anything being "hidden" or "faked." In other words, challenging Dr. Happer's scientific theory on CO2 (which you've also done) is much more effective than attacking his personal credibility, reputation, or motivations.

I don't know who these other guys are that you mentioned, or what the underlying facts are.

What are the costs and tangible benefits of your govt. taking its leading role in addressing climate change, or does that really matter to you?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Let me get this straight.

Really?

M'kay.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Let me get this straight.

Currently no GM food crops that you can name can adapt to the higher CO2 levels expected in 2050.

M'Kay.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let me get this straight.

Currently no GM food crops that you can name can adapt to the higher CO2 levels expected in 2050.

M'Kay.

Considering I asked about proof of humans being unable to adapt, you seam awfully hung up on wheat and rice.

But to loop da loop around a cul-de-sac,

My theory the reason no gm crops exist modified to a high co2 environment (which may or may not be the case) is....

.......


Wait for it

.......


There's no high co2 environment now or in the sufficiently near future to justify the effort.

Now regardless of the sky-is-falling claptrap you both choose to believe and desire to impress upon others, it is no secret that overall optimal atmospheric co2 concentration for plant life in general is around 1200 to 1300 ppm which, at the risk of repeating myself, is a few hundred years away at current levels of increase. Maybe wheat will be lower in iron and zinc. Maybe aliens will come save us, too.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't know who these other guys are that you mentioned, or what the underlying facts are.

Peter Gleick - the epitome of noble cause corruption. At the time of the incident he was the head of the Ethics Committee of the AGU

The best summary is probably this:

Today marks the one-year anniversary of ‘Fakegate,’ the day Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and reporters documents he stole from The Heartland Institute and claimed to have obtained from a ‘Heartland insider’ and later from an ‘anonymous source.’ The documents included Heartland’s annual budget, fundraising plan, and other confidential documents. Media outlets in the U.S. and around the world reported on the ‘leak’ of ‘secret plans’ by an anonymous ‘insider’ at the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming. “Gleick eventually confessed to being the ‘insider’ and explained that he had stolen the identity of another person – a member of Heartland’s board of directors, it soon became known – in order to steal the confidential documents. There was no ‘leak.’ Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute. Gleick denied he was the author of the fake memo.
“The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization, retained legal counsel to formally request that the U.S. Attorney prosecute Peter Gleick for the federal crimes of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Today, one year after the crime was revealed and nearly one year after Gleick’s confession, the U.S. Attorney still has not filed charges against Gleick.
“We urge everyone who has an interest in the global warming debate to review the ‘Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points’ presentation and decide for themselves whether Peter Gleick should be tried for his crimes. We ask the reporters and activists who were fooled by Gleick’s lies and who used the documents he stole and may have forged to attack The Heartland Institute, rather than come to our defense as the victim of a serious crime, to revisit their decisions and cover the story again, this time honestly. And we urge everyone to ‘look under the hood’ at the real science behind the global warming scare and recognize that man-made global warming is not a crisis.”


While nothing was ever proven, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Gleick was actually the creator of the fake document despite his protestations.