Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

[dalem]

Look Dale , i never bothered you in the 1st place , i gave my opinion upon which you commented and asked me to clarify , i gave you some facts ,and if you can not see the relevance , then you are really not understanding , go check em out for yourself if you can be bothered , i dont panic , and never have , you asked me why i was concerned about a clump of trees , i have answered , and i was perfectly rational , if you can,t see the emotional context of WHY im RATIONALY concerned and you only look at things in Black and White i reckon you should go and read what the EXPERTS have written on the subject ,but no doubt you will tell them they are wrong , after all what do they know , they are only the EXPERTS in their field .

Well my DEBATE with you is over .

Have a good day now , and watch out for falling tree branches , which just might knock some sense in to your narrow minded thick head .But if i had my way , that would never happen , now ,, see how i care ?

Bye Bye ......now where the F,cks the ignore button .

WTF?

Does anyone know what just happened here?

-dale

[ArmchairGeneral]

WTF?

Does anyone know what just happened here?

-dale

Uhh...

[CyberPredator]

If reducing green house gases was a cost neutral solution or even only marginally costly, it would be worthwhile. However the cost of low carbon energy sources is not nil or marginal. For that sort of commitment you want to have some sort of hard figures on the efficacy to make the pain worth it. Otherwise when you do have a global problem which needs buckets of resources to solve, you will find the bucket is half-empty. Doesn't anyone agree?

[tankie]

:)

That's a bold assertion, considering we currently have no idea how many species there are, let alone how many are going extinct.

.

IT isnt my assertion ,granted i put it on this site , but i qouted from a site with ref to the amazon rain forests , it comes from the EXPERTS in their field of which i have read , and the point you make as to the WE have no idea ,Thats exactly my point ???? We need to stop destroying with money in mind and take stock of what we have and learn from the people who have LIVED in their environment for years , and who know the values of their surroundings , and they LIVE with it , and value it .

But i think i will take the researchers at the value its presented at , and yes you are right , its only their research and opinion as well , but as i say we have only tested 1% of the forests to try to determine just what there is there ?

So , who do we believe , the experts , or ???????

the people who warned us about weapons of mass destruction ?

have a good day A/G :) .

[JAD_333]

[QUOTE=tankie;442242]:) We need to stop destroying with money in mind and take stock of what we have and learn from the people who have LIVED in their environment for years , and who know the values of their surroundings , and they LIVE with it , and value it .QUOTE]

I think that's a worthy proposition in the context of today's debate on the value of preserving natural resources. Money, or the accumulation of wealth, is indeed a major driving force in much of the depletion of natural resources in their present form. But that is the short view, or should I say the practical-sentimental view.

If we rachet up the debate to higher levels we could argue the proposition that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is perfectly in tune with an evolution that is hidden from us.

Is man's intelligence, which enables him to convert natural resources into things which ostensibly improve his living standard simply the overt aspect of what is in reality a step in his evolution or that of the earth? What if man's evolution depended on his denuding the planet of rain forests and making chemical compounds that affect his health? Is he unwittingly creating conditions that only the strongest of the species will survive and adapt to?

We can go farther and acknowledge that despite our king of the hill attitude we and the earth are not separate from the universe. The whole machine is in sync and that affects us in some way. The question is how.

Just food for thought. I know you don't like to getting embroiled in issues, but you stuck your hand into this one. So, you may as well take it all the way. Posit that we lose the rain forest and it's beneficial mysteries. Then what, and then what, and so on. Where do we end up? I need help here.

[ArmchairGeneral]

:)

IT isnt my assertion ,granted i put it on this site , but i qouted from a site with ref to the amazon rain forests , it comes from the EXPERTS in their field of which i have read...

Yes, I know. I've heard it many times before.

... , and the point you make as to the WE have no idea ,Thats exactly my point ???? We need to stop destroying with money in mind and take stock of what we have and learn from the people who have LIVED in their environment for years , and who know the values of their surroundings , and they LIVE with it , and value it .

Yes, but keeping in mind that the people in these countries need to make a living. Europe has done remarkably well with a horrible lack of biodiversity; not only have they killed off a lot of species, they had relatively few to start with. I would prefer to see a modern, peaceful, prosperous, but species poor Brazil/Indonesia/Congo/etc than to see them stuck in poverty for the rest of my life. Also, the sooner these countries grow prosperous, the sooner they'll be able to afford to preserve wild places.

It really come down to a matter of priorities. It takes money to save rainforests, money which could be spent elsewhere, say, preventing malaria. So how much are these rainforests worth?

But i think i will take the researchers at the value its presented at , and yes you are right , its only their research and opinion as well , but as i say we have only tested 1% of the forests to try to determine just what there is there ?

So , who do we believe , the experts , or ???????

There are no experts when it comes to species numbers. There are only people who truly understand their own ignorance. First off, we can't even agree on how many species are known. Estimates range from 1.4 to 1.75 million. That's 350 thousand species that we may or may not have cataloged, depending on who you ask. Second, we can't agree on what a species is. Is it determined by interbreedability? Reproductive isolation? Genetics? Physical characteristics? Depends on who you ask. Before one determines how many widgets one has, it's best to decide what a widget is. Third, the "expert" estimations in this field range from 2 to 100 million species. That's a bit of a range.

So then, we've got barely educated guesstimates of total species number, multiplied by barely educated guesstimates of yearly species loss, to get an impressively imprecise guesstimate of the percentage of species lost per year.

have a good day A/G :) .

And likewise. :)

[CyberPredator]

First part, spot on. But the main limiting factor to plant life in deserts and jungles is moisture, not CO2. However, the high CO2 levels in previous years may have changed the climate significantly, allowing for deserts and grasslands to bloom.

I think that your underlined sentence seems to be in error.

Your position seems to be that reducing CO2 emissions will work to stop global warming, and therefore the world's economies should spend billions of dollars achieving this and 3rd world countries should have their development-industrialisation programs held up by years and even decades, by forcing them to use low carbon energy solutions. Is that correct?

[ArmchairGeneral]

I think that your underlined sentence seems to be in error.

How?

Your position seems to be that reducing CO2 emissions will work to stop global warming, and therefore the world's economies should spend billions of dollars achieving this and 3rd world countries should have their development-industrialisation programs held up by years and even decades, by forcing them to use low carbon energy solutions. Is that correct?

Um, no. Read through a few of my posts on this subject and my position should become, if not clear, at least kind of hazy.

[tankie]

[QUOTE=JAD_333;442325]

:)

Just food for thought. I know you don't like to getting embroiled in issues, but you stuck your hand into this one. So, you may as well take it all the way. Posit that we lose the rain forest and it's beneficial mysteries. Then what, and then what, and so on. Where do we end up? I need help here.

I have taken it as far as i am going to JAD, the facts are there for anyone to read and make their own minds up , which is why this debate is ongoing , people have made their own minds up ,and are expressing their views , which is what i have done and tried to show my concerns , people can take em or leave em , its up to them , i have read the replies , some are good and thought provoking , others not so , but i have read them all ?

SO, after watching Sean Connery ( again ) discovering a cure for cancer with insects in the rain forest .;)

ITS

15000 feet ,bail out , count to ten , pull cord , float gently to ground . find the nearest pub , and

[CyberPredator]

Naw, there ain't much debate over the source of the CO2 anymore. The reduced C14/C12 ratio is hard to explain otherwise. That is, we have less C14 around in the air than in previous centuries, which would be explained by the release of C14 depleted carbon from fossil fuels.

Hey ArmChairGeneral, is there any evidence that lowering the levels of greenhouses gases mankind dumps into the air, that this will have a corresponding reduction in the overall world temperature?

[dalem]

If reducing green house gases was a cost neutral solution or even only marginally costly, it would be worthwhile. However the cost of low carbon energy sources is not nil or marginal. For that sort of commitment you want to have some sort of hard figures on the efficacy to make the pain worth it. Otherwise when you do have a global problem which needs buckets of resources to solve, you will find the bucket is half-empty. Doesn't anyone agree?

NO.

Nothing is worthwhile if it's pointless. There is no proof (nada zip nichevo) that any of this "greenhouse gas" crap means a damned thing as far as our industrial output is concerned. Until that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt no one should spend a thin dime on reduction. Spend the money on research to find a mechanism that backs your claim first.

-dale

[ArmchairGeneral]

Hey ArmChairGeneral, is there any evidence that lowering the levels of greenhouses gases mankind dumps into the air, that this will have a corresponding reduction in the overall world temperature?

Evidence? Meaning hard data? Of course not. We haven't done it, so there ain't no data. As for models, sure, but as far as I can tell (which is, admittedly, not too far) the models are way too primitive to place any confidence in their predictions.

That said, I'm still curious how my statement quoted in your previous post is in error. Especially since it was largely speculation on past climate, so there weren't many facts to be wrong on.

[ArmchairGeneral]

NO.

Nothing is worthwhile if it's pointless. There is no proof (nada zip nichevo) that any of this "greenhouse gas" crap means a damned thing as far as our industrial output is concerned. Until that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt no one should spend a thin dime on reduction. Spend the money on research to find a mechanism that backs your claim first.

-dale

I'm still kinda confused by this whole mechanism deal. The mechanism is there. We know how it works. The questions are first, how big is the effect, and second, do other mechanisms counter or increase the effect. What are the negative feedbacks? What are the positive feedbacks? And so on.

[reasonmclucus]

Hey ArmChairGeneral, is there any evidence that lowering the levels of greenhouses gases mankind dumps into the air, that this will have a corresponding reduction in the overall world temperature?

According to James Lovelock temperatures would still go up.

James Lovelock: Reducing emissions could speed global warming - Telegraph

[reasonmclucus]

Two years ago the Bush administration got into trouble when reporters discovered that the Pentagon had been planting stories in Iraqi newspapers and even paying Iraqi reporters. More recently FEMA conducted a "news conference"in which the questioners were actually FEMA employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/po...pagewanted=all

Steve McIntyre is reporting on Climate Audit that NASA has been using one of its employees in apparent violation of NASA regulations to operate an ostensibly private web site promoting NASA's claims about an alleged "global warming" threat.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2536

The employee, Gavin Schmidt, claims to be operating the web site RealClimate on his own, but NASA provides him the income that allows him to do so.

RealClimate » About

Schmidt is described as a climate modeler which is NASA's term for the glorified fortune tellers who claim they can predict what will happen in the distant future even if they cannot predict what will happen with hurricanes a few months in advance. One Florida business owner is attempting to sue those who falsely predicted an active hurricane season this past fall.



Schmidt's supervisor at NASA, James Hansen, is a known advocate of the Al Gore's global warming religion. The site allows Schmidt to criticize those who question IPCC and NASA claims about climate without it being apparent that the government is behind the site.

Democrats may have trouble taking advantage of the scandal because they support the claims of catastrophic climate change supported by Gore and Hanson.

For those who don't see anything wrong with NASA's incestuous relationship with the RealClimate site, what would you say if a high ranking military officer still on the Pentagon's payroll were operating an ostensibly nongovernment site supporting the Bush administration's handling of the conflict in Iraq?