Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

[xyzer]

Hey thx..

Ok what would you propose we do? We can argue about the causes until we die, but it's is happening, so what should we do about it?

The answer is adapt! The earths species have had to adapt to climate change in the past...and will have to in the future! It's the Darwinian thing ..survival through adaptation or perish.
Instead of assuming we can change climate we should use our (advanced) technology to adapt!

What Pooey and other are suggesting is first that anthropogenic created C02 is the culprit and then designing a strategy to reduce it? That relationship is created by comparison of trends and . It ignores natural influences which the records show have driven climate change throughout the past. We know climate has been warmer and colder many times in the past....well before humans had any influence.

It's really as simple as that! Sure pollution should be reduced for health reasons if no other! Sure there is a trend towards warmth in the last couple of decades but there has been before(1930s) . Sure the earth has grown a little warmer than it was in the Ice Age? Whiy is called the Ice Age if there wasn't a warmer cycle before and after it?

[thx1138]

The answer is adapt! The earths species have had to adapt to climate change in the past...and will have to in the future! It's the Darwinian thing ..survival through adaptation or perish.
Instead of assuming we can change climate we should use our (advanced) technology to adapt!

This I agree with.

[Pooeypants]

Hey thx..
The answer is adapt! The earths species have had to adapt to climate change in the past...and will have to in the future! It's the Darwinian thing ..survival through adaptation or perish.
Instead of assuming we can change climate we should use our (advanced) technology to adapt!

We're not assuming that we can change climate, we know that as a fact for local climate. Are you really going to deny that?

What Pooey and other are suggesting is first that anthropogenic created C02 is the culprit and then designing a strategy to reduce it? That relationship is created by comparison of trends and . It ignores natural influences which the records show have driven climate change throughout the past. We know climate has been warmer and colder many times in the past....well before humans had any influence.

I didn't suggest anything, I am merely expressing the conclusions by all known scientific institutions that have looked into climate change. I shall give you a challenge, show me definitive evidence that only natural changes have caused the recent warming.

[xyzer]

Come on pooey..

didn't suggest anything, I am merely expressing the conclusions by all known scientific institutions that have looked into climate change. I shall give you a challenge, show me definitive evidence that only natural changes have caused the recent warming.

Define the difference? Is not repeating conclusions suggesting that you agree with them and they are correct? Does not defending a theory indicate you agree with it?

I'll reply to your challenge with a challenge..show me definitve, unquestionable evidence that anthropogenic C02 creation has influenced world climate? The conclusions? you mention are routinely qualified with words like 'could', might, may, and conditional phrases like 'if this trend continues"? There is an admitted uncertainty in most prognostications of what may, might, could, happen.

There is a plethora of evidence available that climate warming and cooling has taken place over the life of this planet....well before humans populated the planet..and one can logically conclude that those climate influences(cycles) were natural..that is, not influenced by human activity? We humans weren't around? I think most of us have to agree with that. In this latest case of human alarmism, politicians, opportunists, the media and even some scientists have taken scientific studies and manipulated them to prove a very uncertain hypothesis!

I'll repeat, is it prudent to spend the money and effort to change climate by cutting the use of our cheapest energy resource when there is no real proof it will work? Is it prudent to penalize the poorer and growing nations by hindering their reliance on energy which society needs for industrialzation and economic growth? It is an immense gamble with the lives and futures of many humans which is a long way from certainty? Don't we already know that climate and weather vary for all sorts of reasons and from all sorts of natural influences? Why do we fixate on a solution that might not address the cause?

I'm not convinced. And a lot of others have the same skepticism.We fear rushing down the trail that alarmist demagogiues like Gore lay out for us will be costly, damaging and futile.

We saw what the panic caused by the book "Silent Spring". It resulted in DDT being outlawed and the result was a resurgence of malaria and as a result millions are again dying from that disease? Millions of lives that should not have been curtailed?There are all sorts of costs from human imprudence!!!!

[Pooeypants]

Come on pooey..
Define the difference? Is not repeating conclusions suggesting that you agree with them and they are correct? Does not defending a theory indicate you agree with it?

I'll reply to your challenge with a challenge..show me definitve, unquestionable evidence that anthropogenic C02 creation has influenced world climate? The conclusions? you mention are routinely qualified with words like 'could', might, may, and conditional phrases like 'if this trend continues"? There is an admitted uncertainty in most prognostications of what may, might, could, happen.

That is scientific language, if you have picked up and read ANY scientific paper recently, you will see that is the EXACT language that is used to describe the results of an experiment or conclusion of the study. I have told you this MANY times before but yet you cannot seem to get it through your thick skull.

There is a plethora of evidence available that climate warming and cooling has taken place over the life of this planet....well before humans populated the planet..and one can logically conclude that those climate influences(cycles) were natural..that is, not influenced by human activity? We humans weren't around? I think most of us have to agree with that. In this latest case of human alarmism, politicians, opportunists, the media and even some scientists have taken scientific studies and manipulated them to prove a very uncertain hypothesis!

There is no question about the climate's variability but that does not in any way automatically remove the possibility of a change induced by human activity. That's a completely ludicrous analogy, again, it's like saying just because cancer has been around since the first multicellular life existed, that smoking cannot increase its risk. That's utterly preposterous.

I'll repeat, is it prudent to spend the money and effort to change climate by cutting the use of our cheapest energy resource when there is no real proof it will work? Is it prudent to penalize the poorer and growing nations by hindering their reliance on energy which society needs for industrialzation and economic growth? It is an immense gamble with the lives and futures of many humans which is a long way from certainty? Don't we already know that climate and weather vary for all sorts of reasons and from all sorts of natural influences? Why do we fixate on a solution that might not address the cause?

Again, I will point to the Stern report that the cost of adapting to these changes will outweigh what we need to spend now to change our course. Furthermore, I'll ask again how becoming more energy efficient can be detrimental to anyone in the long term when it saves you money because you WASTE LESS.

I'm not convinced. And a lot of others have the same skepticism.We fear rushing down the trail that alarmist demagogiues like Gore lay out for us will be costly, damaging and futile.

Here's your fear scaremongering again, becoming more energy efficient can only benefit us in the long term. I think you're just afraid of change.

We saw what the panic caused by the book "Silent Spring". It resulted in DDT being outlawed and the result was a resurgence of malaria and as a result millions are again dying from that disease? Millions of lives that should not have been curtailed?There are all sorts of costs from human imprudence!!!!

Very bad example, DDT wasn't outlawed because of that book. DDT is just like any other pesticide, if you over use it then the bugs will become resistant and it'll lose its efficacy. This did happen, I implore you to look it up.

[Technosoul]

How funny it is that the three people on this blog that are pro-war also have their heads in the sand about global warming.

Is there a link?

Yes, the link is big oil.

War is being used to grab more oil, and Global Warming advocates using less oil as fosil fuel.

[Technosoul]

In rebuttle to some of the missguieded remarks in this thread.

Those who advocate doing something about global warming are not proposing that we change or control the weather. They are suggesting that we STOP changing the weather with fosil fuels.

Big Oil is running lots of advertisements on TV to decieve people into thinking that they are 'green' and environmentally friendly, that the "Human element" (Hu) is all about nature rather then about the chemicals they produce.
All those ads is proof that Big Oil and related chemical companies are out to sway public opinon about the hazards of those products relative to our environment and global warming,
To suggest that Big Oil is not involved in attempting to downplay the findings of concerned scientists is to have your head in the sand.
(or else you do not watch TV anymore).

You might as well say that it is okay for China to use lead based paint on the toys you buy for your kids, and pets. You might as well make a claim that our kids and our pets should "adapt" to lead in paint so that they can evolve in a natural way. Such logic does not put safty first and it threatens our future. Wake up and smell the roses.

[xyzer]

Huh?

Those who advocate doing something about global warming are not proposing that we change or control the weather. They are suggesting that we STOP changing the weather with fosil fuels.

Haven't you missed the point Techno?
Humans can't even change the weather, much less the global climate!!!!! You admit that and then turn right around and imply that humans have affected weather and climate with their production of C02? You agree humans should do something about C02 to change weather and climate?????? Your conclusion is antithetical to your suggestion?



Pooey..I asked you..

I'll reply to your challenge with a challenge..show me definitve, unquestionable evidence that anthropogenic C02 creation has influenced world climate?

What is your response? You avoid the question! Then launch into illogical stuff like this..

DDT is just like any other pesticide, if you over use it then the bugs will become resistant and it'll lose its efficacy. This did happen,

Durn it! The facts are DDT was banned and producution virtually ceased..then malarial deaths increased dramtically from several hundred thousand a year to millions! Don't duck the effects with nonsense. Did the deaths increase after its use was curtailed? Thats the issue.

This one reveals that I must be debating a "post"? How old are you?

Here's your fear scaremongering again, becoming more energy efficient can only benefit us in the long term. I think you're just afraid of change.

I'm protesting against climate scaremongering. I've just posted that reducing anthropogenic C02 is a valuable objective...However, we are discussing reduction as a means of changing climate, aren't we? Its really intellectually over the top to claim that I who have been cautioning against the scaremongering occuring about global warming am a scaremonger? Is that how you define someone who questions the alarmist tactics of Gore, the IPCC and Hansen?
I am aware you don't know the definition of ad hominem, but believe me your infantile logic does test my restraint?

[thx1138]

Huh?
Haven't you missed the point Techno?
Humans can't even change the weather, much less the global climate!!!!!

Don't tell that to these people...

Weather Modification, Inc. specializes and excels in all aspects of this water management technology. We have been conducting weather operations and research since 1961, and constantly strive to improve all aspects of these atmospheric water management tools.
Weather Modification, Inc. (Cloud Seeding, atmospheric research, rain enhancement, cloud physics)


Or these people...
The Weather Modification Association (WMA)
Weather Modification Association

The Weather Modification Association (WMA) was organized in 1950 to cultivate a better understanding of weather modification techniques, impacts, and expectations among program sponsors, program operators, and the scientific community, and to promote ethical professional conduct and a free exchange of information.

[xyzer]

Don't oversimplify the issue thx. Cloud seeding doesn't modify weather nor can it possibly alter climate? It's designed to make a cloud produce rain> Your are whistling 'Dixie" on that one! Ever consider what the word 'global' means when we talk about climate change? Do you think seeding a cloud in Kansas is going to make it rain in Arizona and change the weather?

Go ahead and seed a few clouds and see if it affects your local weather? Have you ever observed how clous so quickly form and disappate? Move with the upper air currents?

[Pooeypants]

Pooey..I asked you..
What is your response? You avoid the question! Then launch into illogical stuff like this..

No, you failed to answer my question first. You can't have it all your way, that you can ignore my questions but I have to answer yours.

Durn it! The facts are DDT was banned and producution virtually ceased..then malarial deaths increased dramtically from several hundred thousand a year to millions! Don't duck the effects with nonsense. Did the deaths increase after its use was curtailed? Thats the issue.

DDT is just like any other pesticide, resistance will build up to it. It is not a miracle cure to stop Malaria. Now, before I go into this further, you're definitely sure you want claim that the Silent Spring book was the primary reason for DDT's ban and the increase of Malaria, right?

This one reveals that I must be debating a "post"? How old are you?

Hey, I've been debating with a brick wall in the other global warming thread for the past few months!

I'm protesting against climate scaremongering. I've just posted that reducing anthropogenic C02 is a valuable objective...However, we are discussing reduction as a means of changing climate, aren't we? Its really intellectually over the top to claim that I who have been cautioning against the scaremongering occuring about global warming am a scaremonger? Is that how you define someone who questions the alarmist tactics of Gore, the IPCC and Hansen?
I am aware you don't know the definition of ad hominem, but believe me your infantile logic does test my restraint?

Erm, you said and I quote

I'm not convinced. And a lot of others have the same skepticism. We fear rushing down the trail that alarmist demagogiues like Gore lay out for us will be costly, damaging and futile.

Need I say more? Or are you going into denial again?

[xyzer]

There is no question about the climate's variability but that does not in any way automatically remove the possibility of a change induced by human activity.

Now your talking pooey? Lets see..... if its "possible" it can happen. Now does it follow that if it's possible it "will" happen? Is there certainty that it will happen if scientists say it "might","may, "could"?
Can we then add the fact that climate has warmed and cooled many times before humans were even around to affect it? Which leads us to a valid conclusion that it may be warming as a result of other than human influences? You admit there is a possibility either way?
Can we then go on to inject the idea of consequences to our actions by paraphrasing an analogy to Newtons Law of Motion? For every action there is a reaction. If we act from uncertainty the(reactions) consequences could be as harmnful as the current status of the problem we are trying to correct? Something has to react! It will cost us?

Considering this I conclude we may be attempting to punish an elephant with a fly swatter? Thats why I say trying to limit anthropogenic C02 may be costly and futile...and even damage the growth of third world societies which need cheap energy for economic growth and health progress. Thats not scaremongering...its using a little logic That elephant may be pink?