UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[thegreekdog]

And what about all the "There are so many hurricanes because the ocean temperature is rising, and the hurricanes are getting bigger because of global warming!"

And this year there almost was not a single hurricane here

Ok. If you intend that to mean anything, your sample size, presumably among other things, is too small.

Whats tragic about this situation is that many uneducated or in denial, would possibly be more inclined to believe that a man walked up into a mountain, talked to God, and brought down tablets explaining that extreme whether is coming.

Ill admit this....you guys sometimes prove natural selection isn't as plausible as it might be sometimes....however unwittingly.

Again, you're completely confusing the resistance to global warming science. The resistance doesn't come from any basis other than concern about what the response is. People say "Global warming science is bad." What they really mean is "I don't want to (1) pay carbon tax; (2) lose my job; (3) make major changes in my lifestyle to "fix" global warming." Instead of making reasoned arguments about those three (and other) things, they make arguments against the science.

I've tried to have this discussion with PS and Night Strike but they don't really pick it up (mostly because they are listening to people who reinforce the concept of "bad science" rather than the people who talk about the implications of any changes).

Im sorry. I honestly read this as one quote from phatscotty. I didnt even understand this till i saw you were originally quoted. I said you guys, and by that it looks like I mean you and him...but honestly I just meant overly crazy religious people who ignore science...certainly not you, and to be perfectly honest....not even completely fully scotty.

Personally Im fully aware that fighting global warming in every possible way may very well not be the best course of action. Mostly my point is of course that denying it at this point is just...well, its just phatscotty.

History is littered with scientists, fixing problems by making them much worse, so that is not lost on me. Arguing the exact course of action is admittedly and obviously above my pay grade. However, the ones arguing that nothing should be done because Jesus.....are just fucking stupid....Jesus or no Jesus notwithstanding.

In the end, if climate change ends up resulting in the catastrophes that seem very much possible, if not inevitable at this point....Im almost sure people wont be saying, well, sure, were gonna die now, but at least we had a job until now! I mean seriously, its like arguing that thank god we made and sold asbestos for so long. It would have killed the economy if we made it illegal any sooner. Its fucking ridiculous, and the root of the problem of pure capitalist thinking.

I want to address the last paragraph (becasue I'm not sure I understand the point of the first two paragraphs). I trust the science behind climate change and I have no reason to disbelieve it, so it must not be relevant to me.

But the last paragraph is. The "take care of myself now" model is not "pure capitalist thinking." Pure capitalist thinking would take into account costs (e.g. future catastrophes) to determine current plans. I don't think it's an economic model that affects peoples' actions in light of scientific evidence of potential catastrophe; I think it's laziness (and I don't mean "teh libtardz = lazy" argument). I mean it's hard to change one's activities for a cost that is not imminent. For example, you and Mets still use the internet and I would expect that you guys have made no great changes in your life to reduce your own carbon footprints. And spare me the "it needs to be everyone" argument.

[Metsfanmax]

But the last paragraph is. The "take care of myself now" model is not "pure capitalist thinking." Pure capitalist thinking would take into account costs (e.g. future catastrophes) to determine current plans. I don't think it's an economic model that affects peoples' actions in light of scientific evidence of potential catastrophe; I think it's laziness (and I don't mean "teh libtardz = lazy" argument). I mean it's hard to change one's activities for a cost that is not imminent. For example, you and Mets still use the internet and I would expect that you guys have made no great changes in your life to reduce your own carbon footprints. And spare me the "it needs to be everyone" argument.

Why should we spare you that? Can you imagine any way for us to solve this problem through individuals cutting down on their carbon footprints?

The point of a carbon tax isn't to induce everyone to lower their carbon footprint -- that's an indirect goal. The direct goal is to influence industry to invest more in alternative energy sources, making them cost-competitive with fossil fuels. It's obvious that asking people to change their lifestyles is a lost cause. Instead what we need to do is find a way to make their current lifestyle fueled by something other than oil.

[DoomYoshi]

I agree. When 99% of us die, its very possible there may be some incredible adaptation. Cant wait!

It's actually a eugenicist's dream. The ones that do survive will be the technologically most sophisicated.

If I was allowed to research it, there would be human GE within 5 years. Natural timescales aren`t a problem.

EDIT: and spare me the "playing God" argument. Like all Protestants, I know God better than he does. Go Baptists!

[BigBallinStalin]

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it.

That's an interesting assumption. What reasoning does Mets use to demonstrate its soundness?

if humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

Is genetic adaptation the only form of adaptation? No, so...
Would changes in technology affect this reasoning of his? Yeah.

So, his claim is not sound.

"Not enough time." How does he know?
"'Cleanly' adapt." What's his criteria for 'clean' adaptation? And why should 'clean' adaptation be the only desirable route of adaptation?

As a geneticist, I support this post.

I agree. When 99% of us die, its very possible there may be some incredible adaptation. Cant wait!

How do you know?

[thegreekdog]

But the last paragraph is. The "take care of myself now" model is not "pure capitalist thinking." Pure capitalist thinking would take into account costs (e.g. future catastrophes) to determine current plans. I don't think it's an economic model that affects peoples' actions in light of scientific evidence of potential catastrophe; I think it's laziness (and I don't mean "teh libtardz = lazy" argument). I mean it's hard to change one's activities for a cost that is not imminent. For example, you and Mets still use the internet and I would expect that you guys have made no great changes in your life to reduce your own carbon footprints. And spare me the "it needs to be everyone" argument.

Why should we spare you that? Can you imagine any way for us to solve this problem through individuals cutting down on their carbon footprints?

(1) Because asking someone (or telling someone) to change their own lifestyle without changing your own is ineffective as a tool to convince. (Do as I say, not as I do tends to be inneffective).
(2) Because if all of the people who believe others should change actually changed their own lifestyles, we would see an incremental benefit with respect to climate change. (If the people flying around in corporate jets who bitched about climate change actually stopped flying around in corporate jets, there would be some benefit, no?)
(3) Because changing one's own lifestyle may provide the individual with some perspective on others changing their lifestyles. (If a person decided to stop driving a car and start riding a bike, which necessitated finding another job (which is hard), perhaps he or she would be less inclined to complain about others)
(4) Because individuals can have a great effect on the marketplace. If a group of like-minded individuals decided to take public transportation or to stop using fossil fuels for electricity generation, it would force companies to take steps to adapt.

I would say (3) is the least important of the reasons (and probably least valid). I'm a big believer in (1), (2), and (4). Especially (4).

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, TGD, but prices are still very influential which is why carbon taxes seem to be the superior way in diverting resources to areas which the central planner deems best. (Of course, if we ask how does the central planner know that this way is best--given the net benefits of expected environmental changes (which are unknown), then this kind of reasoning falls apart.


In a more civilized society, you'd have people relying much more on persuasion (marketing, 'do as I do', moral sanctions, attitudes, etc.) in order to get people to view fossil-fueled goods as more 'costly' relative to non-fossil-fueled-related goods (blerg: n-f-f-r goods). In response to these changes, market behavior would change, thereby enticing sellers to invest more heavily in the n-f-f-r sector and less in the f-f sector.

In a less 'civilized' society, a group can largely bypass the civilized method by clamoring for the state to exercise its power in order to coerce others into behaving in a manner deemed suitable to that one group. I'm a big fan of the more civilized route; people like Mets and AAFitz in this circumstance are not in favor of the more civilized route for various reasons, and rent-seekers love people like Mets and AAFitz.

Their argument boils down to: Given the expected net benefits of our current path of production/exchange/technology, we conclude that market-induced order would not be significant enough; therefore, state-induced order must be more heavily pursued. (This presumes that some optimal amount of n-f-f-r goods is known, so have fun asking them what that amount is--hint: they don't know). We're being steered into the direction of the unknown while rewarding and reinforcing the rent-seeking element of our government (i.e. crony capitalism).*


*This is problematic because then you get outcomes like the Kyoto Protocol and other arrangements. Political heads come together to agree on a plan which none of them will enforce upon each other, so after some years, you'll find those politicians conveniently excusing themselves from the initial agreement by saying something like 'because of reasons x, y, and z, we can no longer abide by the original plan of reducing C02 emission and what have you'. In the meantime, this usually pleases voters who are concerned about the environment, but since most voters don't value spending enough resources to remain informed, we'll continue to get half-assed public policy. Rent-seekers will profit, and crony capitalism becomes further entrenched.

[Metsfanmax]

But the last paragraph is. The "take care of myself now" model is not "pure capitalist thinking." Pure capitalist thinking would take into account costs (e.g. future catastrophes) to determine current plans. I don't think it's an economic model that affects peoples' actions in light of scientific evidence of potential catastrophe; I think it's laziness (and I don't mean "teh libtardz = lazy" argument). I mean it's hard to change one's activities for a cost that is not imminent. For example, you and Mets still use the internet and I would expect that you guys have made no great changes in your life to reduce your own carbon footprints. And spare me the "it needs to be everyone" argument.

Why should we spare you that? Can you imagine any way for us to solve this problem through individuals cutting down on their carbon footprints?

(1) Because asking someone (or telling someone) to change their own lifestyle without changing your own is ineffective as a tool to convince. (Do as I say, not as I do tends to be inneffective).

I'm not asking anyone to substantially change their lifestyle. See the part of my quote that you cut out of this response. I believe that we can maintain our current standard of living -- we just need to transition to a different fuel to do so.

(2) Because if all of the people who believe others should change actually changed their own lifestyles, we would see an incremental benefit with respect to climate change. (If the people flying around in corporate jets who bitched about climate change actually stopped flying around in corporate jets, there would be some benefit, no?)

Actually no, there wouldn't be. Global warming is a collective problem. If any individual drops their carbon footprint to zero, global warming will continue to occur. Talking about some incremental benefit in this case is basically meaningless. You can't point to any one individual and say that their life was improved because you changed your lifestyle. This makes it quite different from many other ethical decisions, where you can meaningfully say that you altered someone's life for better (or for worse). If I stop driving a car tomorrow, I can't legitimately claim that I have directly done anything about global warming, since the same impacts will occur either way (my individual contribution is a vanishingly small cut of the total impact).

(3) Because changing one's own lifestyle may provide the individual with some perspective on others changing their lifestyles. (If a person decided to stop driving a car and start riding a bike, which necessitated finding another job (which is hard), perhaps he or she would be less inclined to complain about others)

See my answer to #1. My goal is not to get people to change their lifestyle - just to get the market to offer more renewable energy products at competitive prices.

(4) Because individuals can have a great effect on the marketplace. If a group of like-minded individuals decided to take public transportation or to stop using fossil fuels for electricity generation, it would force companies to take steps to adapt.

Now it sounds like you are advocating a change in lifestyle to make a point.

The crucial point you are missing here is that I am not asking for anything that is not already part of standard market theory -- I am asking for a correction to the market. There is an externality associated with carbon dioxide emissions that means we are not paying the correct price for fossil fuel products. If we pay the correct price (including the damage from our emissions), then the market will naturally bring other products into better competition, since they don't have the externality associated with them. Support of the status quo is not support of the market working as it should -- it's support for a sub-optimal market outcome.

[thegreekdog]

You make some good points Mets (unfortunately for my argument), especially the last one. I need to think on this some more, but for now you've convinced me.

[hotfire]

There is an externality associated with carbon dioxide emissions that means we are not paying the correct price for fossil fuel products. If we pay the correct price (including the damage from our emissions),

what is the correct price of damage from c02...can it be calculated?

[Metsfanmax]

There is an externality associated with carbon dioxide emissions that means we are not paying the correct price for fossil fuel products. If we pay the correct price (including the damage from our emissions),

what is the correct price of damage from c02...can it be calculated?

It can, but it's a very complicated calculation that strongly depends on the assumptions you make. An obvious one is that the uncertainties in future climate damage are not yet small. Also, when considering the optimal gasoline tax you should not only consider the global warming damage but also other externalities such as traffic accidents and road congestion. This meta-analysis suggests that the optimal gasoline tax is $2.10 per gallon (in 2006 dollars when this was published; as of 2013 we charge about 50 cents per gallon in total gasoline taxes). Also, this tax should rise in time, as the marginal cost of carbon emissions increases -- the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the more damage we do, and it's a non-linear effect. So one reasonable approach here is a steadily rising tax that starts off small and gives the industry time to adjust, but that gradually rises to compensate for future damages. For example, we could start with a $1 tax and have it increases by 10 cents per year for 10 years.

[DoomYoshi]

It`s 25 Saxibucks per mol. Duh.

[Phatscotty]

I've tried to have this discussion with PS and Night Strike but they don't really pick it up (mostly because they are listening to people who reinforce the concept of "bad science" rather than the people who talk about the implications of any changes).

Lmao! when and where was this?

Bad science??

[karel]

the world is lAzy,and needs a kick in the balls,wake up and clean up after your selves,no need to speed up things you lazy SOB'S,i agree with the un for once

[Lootifer]

Now that I was NOT expecting...

[hotfire]

There is an externality associated with carbon dioxide emissions that means we are not paying the correct price for fossil fuel products. If we pay the correct price (including the damage from our emissions),

what is the correct price of damage from c02...can it be calculated?

It can, but it's a very complicated calculation that strongly depends on the assumptions you make. An obvious one is that the uncertainties in future climate damage are not yet small. Also, when considering the optimal gasoline tax you should not only consider the global warming damage but also other externalities such as traffic accidents and road congestion. This meta-analysis suggests that the optimal gasoline tax is $2.10 per gallon (in 2006 dollars when this was published; as of 2013 we charge about 50 cents per gallon in total gasoline taxes). Also, this tax should rise in time, as the marginal cost of carbon emissions increases -- the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the more damage we do, and it's a non-linear effect. So one reasonable approach here is a steadily rising tax that starts off small and gives the industry time to adjust, but that gradually rises to compensate for future damages. For example, we could start with a $1 tax and have it increases by 10 cents per year for 10 years.

why should the government get enormous amounts of money for environmental damages..we all know they wont use much of that money for environmental restorations like reforestation, grasslands restoration or wetlands management....they will use the majority of it for bombs, unmanned drones and homeland serveillance....plus they already tax the oil companies here and now they get to heavily tax the consumer for buying oil...seems like they would be out of craptons of money to get off oil which would only make them want to keep oil flowing here even more would it not?

[DoomYoshi]

Not my hurricane post!!!

[oVo]

urp... this slow storm season isn't over

Atlantic Storm #11 formed west of Cuba this week
and is heading north towards the Gulf Coast.

Tropical storm Karen with 60 mph winds is expected
to reach Hurricane strength late today.

Warmer Ocean temperatures do not mean more storms,
but has the potential to generate more bigger storms.

[Nobunaga]

I've tried to have this discussion with PS (Nobunaga) and Night Strike but they don't really pick it up (mostly because they are listening to people who reinforce the concept of "bad science" rather than the people who talk about the implications of any changes).

As I've been mentioned specifically (after clarification), I guess I'll respond.

You say I am claiming the science behind climate alarmism is bad. I am not saying that. I am saying that other, much more qualified individuals & groups are saying the science is bad. Unfortuantely, they don't get a lot of press coverage.

"But those people you're talking about are hardly expert", you might say. Well, when you get the opportunity, please take a look at this Op-Ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal. 16 scientists actually signed off on the piece to show their agreement.

Take a look at who they are and make your own judgements.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21366.html

But on the question of qualifications to be expert, can somebody tell me how it is the IPCC Chief is a trained electrical engineer? Does that qualify him to lead studies on climate change?

I'm not saying it doesn't actually, I don't know. But maybe somebody should ask. Maybe an investigative piece into the IPCC, the accuracy of their predictions and the qualifications of the membership (contributing scientists) should be done. Have you, or has anybody here seen such a piece done by a major (big-4) network or major newspaper (NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune)? I challenge anybody here to show me a big media investigative report on this.

All we get is the usual blind, nodding acceptance.

Please keep in mind that this is the UN we're talking about here. Are you familiar with the UN's Council on Human Rights? Ever taken a look at that members' list? That information alone should tell you to what degree we can trust anything from them. Their models have proven themselves false or flawed on more than a few occasions - criticism of this latest report and the blatant spin put on it is such that its criticism might even see the light of day in a real news story someplace. I remain hopeful.

But they make excuses for the inaccuracy of their models' predictions, and always the populace blindly accepts them. I mean, "these are scientists!", with powers of reason and understanding beyond we mere mortals... How can we even question them?

Well, let's take a quick look at the track record of climate alarmists, with serious scientific support/consensus on their side through the years. I'll just stick to the highlights. There's a lot more to see if anybody cares.

Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event."

- - Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years.

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect will be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."

- - Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

"Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000."

- - Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010."

- - Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

- - Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

- - Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

> Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets."

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."

- - Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970


Here's one completely unrelated to climate, but the statement, and the man who made the statement should, I think, demonstrate how dangerous it is to so blindly follow the findings of "experts", and the ensuing policies based on those findings.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”

- - Albert Einstein, 1932

Ok, you might be thinking, but science back then was nothing like what we have now. Sure, that's true. But to the people living then, that science was every bit as awesome and beyond question as what we tend to think rates that same status today. And in 25 years, what will that science and technology look like to us?

My final two, and most important points. Check out this quote from the IPCC.

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated".

- – Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official

http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-and-pover ... in-cancun/

And the last:

The World Bank Sees Money in Emissions Trading (CASH FROM "THIN AIR")

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/19264

And that's pretty much all I have to say on the topic.

...

[Metsfanmax]

As I've been mentioned specifically (after clarification), I guess I'll respond.

You say I am claiming the science behind climate alarmism is bad. I am not saying that. I am saying that other, much more qualified individuals & groups are saying the science is bad. Unfortuantely, they don't get a lot of press coverage.

Sure they do. Pretty much every global warming denial piece that gets passed around quotes the same few people (Judith Curry, Anastasios Tsonis, etc.). These are smart people, but they're the same ones every time because there's just not that many respected climate scientists that disagree with the consensus on this issue.

"But those people you're talking about are hardly expert", you might say. Well, when you get the opportunity, please take a look at this Op-Ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal. 16 scientists actually signed off on the piece to show their agreement.

Take a look at who they are and make your own judgements.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21366.html

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

But on the question of qualifications to be expert, can somebody tell me how it is the IPCC Chief is a trained electrical engineer? Does that qualify him to lead studies on climate change?

The IPCC's assessment reports are not scientific research studies -- they are reviews of the literature and the current state of scientific knowledge.

I'm not saying it doesn't actually, I don't know. But maybe somebody should ask. Maybe an investigative piece into the IPCC, the accuracy of their predictions and the qualifications of the membership (contributing scientists) should be done. Have you, or has anybody here seen such a piece done by a major (big-4) network or major newspaper (NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune)? I challenge anybody here to show me a big media investigative report on this.

There's plenty of places to read online about the authorship list of the IPCC. The authors are listed right there on the first page of every report. And a number of organizations have reviewed the IPCC's structure (I'm not familiar with anything by the major media organizations, but a review of the entire IPCC structure is way too massive for them to take on, presumably).

Here is one by the InterAcademy Council:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.n ... lease.html

I note, in response to your comment about the IPCC chair, that they intentionally recommend having some executive committee members from outside the climate science community, so as to limit the possibility for conspiracy, etc. (Remember that the individual chapter chairs are working climate scientists, though.)

Please keep in mind that this is the UN we're talking about here. Are you familiar with the UN's Council on Human Rights? Ever taken a look at that members' list? That information alone should tell you to what degree we can trust anything from them. Their models have proven themselves false or flawed on more than a few occasions - criticism of this latest report and the blatant spin put on it is such that its criticism might even see the light of day in a real news story someplace. I remain hopeful.

We're not actually talking about the UN. The IPCC is a UN-led effort but the people who actually write the reports are volunteer scientists from around the world. None of the information in those reports is written by some nameless UN bureaucrat.

But they make excuses for the inaccuracy of their models' predictions, and always the populace blindly accepts them. I mean, "these are scientists!", with powers of reason and understanding beyond we mere mortals... How can we even question them?

Climate scientists are very upfront about the uncertainty in the predictions of the models. It's one of the keys to good science. You can't get every prediction right -- the uncertainties are too big. It would be amazing if there had never been an incorrect prediction.

Well, let's take a quick look at the track record of climate alarmists, with serious scientific support/consensus on their side through the years. I'll just stick to the highlights. There's a lot more to see if anybody cares.

Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event."

- - Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years.

What exactly is your argument here? That one major snowfall event in 20 years does not count as a "rare and exciting event?"

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect will be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."

- - Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Have you actually read this book, or did you just find this quote somewhere without even actually reading it? Because this is not actually a direct quote from that book. The actual quote mentions one possible projection and doesn't say that this is the guaranteed scenario.

"Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000."

- - Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

Global warming as a scientific hypothesis was in its infancy in 1972. A 30-year projection with a 'may' attached to it, given the crudeness of the models back then, is pretty harmless.

"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010."

- - Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Do you have a source for where this was printed, and what the context was? Do we know who the researchers were, or what nation it was? And the "researchers" weren't that far off: the average temperature has increased by something like 1.5 degrees (Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.

"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

- - Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

Who the hell is Kenneth Watt?

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

- - Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

> Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets."

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."

- - Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

You should probably take a look at who Paul Ehrlich is. These statements have absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

[Nobunaga]

You should probably take a look at who Paul Ehrlich is. These statements have absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that.

[PLAYER57832]

There have been modern, historic, and pre-historic evidence of hurricane/storm damage which was not, ostensibly, caused by humans. Does human-made climate change cause both hurricanes and rising sea levels? Do rising sea levels intensify the damage from hurricanes?

Perhaps. Yes. Yes.

[PLAYER57832]

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it.

That's an interesting assumption. What reasoning does Mets use to demonstrate its soundness?

if humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

Is genetic adaptation the only form of adaptation? No, so...
Would changes in technology affect this reasoning of his? Yeah.

So, his claim is not sound.

"Not enough time." How does he know?
"'Cleanly' adapt." What's his criteria for 'clean' adaptation? And why should 'clean' adaptation be the only desirable route of adaptation?

Here's it in a nutshell....

These problems came about because we humans fail to understand or even really care about the impacts of changes we make. When we do care, we often misunderstand until long after damage is done, sometimes uncorrectable. It took the loss of the passenger pigeons and many other species to get people to think about species extinctions seriously. It took rivers in such bad shape they burned repeatedly, plus losses of huge fish stocks to get people to think about clean water, and millions of kids poisoned from lead to get any limits at all on its use.

So what makes you imagine that some new technological fix will improve things instead of just making it worse? What makes you think that relying on ANY "technological advance" -- be it genetic change or a new device will improve things?

And, with all your talk of letting the market talk, etc, etc.... why are you so in favor of continued market manipulation to heavily favor current petroleum based technology.

[PLAYER57832]

You say I am claiming the science behind climate alarmism is bad. I am not saying that. I am saying that other, much more qualified individuals & groups are saying the science is bad. Unfortuantely, they don't get a lot of press coverage.

"But those people you're talking about are hardly expert", you might say. Well, when you get the opportunity, please take a look at this Op-Ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal. 16 scientists actually signed off on the piece to show their agreement.

"16 scientists" -- versus the roughly 2 thousand that signed off on the document stating that the earth is warming and almost certainly in part because of human activity? ... I see.



To everyone else. This is EXACTLY why while the internet CAN give good information, lead to more informed people.. it too often doesn't. You have to be willing to actually investigate facts, not just pick out the bits and pieces that agree with what you think you already know.

[Nobunaga]

You say I am claiming the science behind climate alarmism is bad. I am not saying that. I am saying that other, much more qualified individuals & groups are saying the science is bad. Unfortuantely, they don't get a lot of press coverage.

"But those people you're talking about are hardly expert", you might say. Well, when you get the opportunity, please take a look at this Op-Ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal. 16 scientists actually signed off on the piece to show their agreement.

"16 scientists" -- versus the roughly 2 thousand that signed off on the document stating that the earth is warming and almost certainly in part because of human activity? ... I see.



To everyone else. This is EXACTLY why while the internet CAN give good information, lead to more informed people.. it too often doesn't. You have to be willing to actually investigate facts, not just pick out the bits and pieces that agree with what you think you already know.

16, in this single particular case given as an example. Honestly, is that what you took away from this?

[Metsfanmax]

Here's one completely unrelated to climate, but the statement, and the man who made the statement should, I think, demonstrate how dangerous it is to so blindly follow the findings of "experts", and the ensuing policies based on those findings.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”

- - Albert Einstein, 1932

And one more thing, regarding this point. It is certainly possible that there will be a revolution in physics soon, that will upheave everything we know about atmospheric science. But you shouldn't bet on it. If you saw 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you have cancer, you'd be a great fool to not start treatment.