Originally posted by deviliscious

LOL! sure you can quote me.

Sweet!   Thanks- that actually made me laugh.  My fiance will appreciate the "jackass" reference.

Quick question: Did you get the medical analogies or was I misremembering your background? They were primarily for you in any case.

Also, found pretty good evidence against the solar hypothesis (Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke is pretty credible):

-----

The Misconception:   Recent global warming is caused by the sun.
The Reality: The output of energy from the sun has been monitored by satellites for thirty years and has not increased during this period of rapid global warming.

It’s true that the sun provides the energy (both light and heat) that drives the Earth’s climate; without the sun, the Earth would be a chilly place indeed! When the amount of energy coming from the sun changes, the climate responds in proportion to the change. However, scientists have been observing the sun with sophisticated satellites for three decades—during the period of greatest warming—and have observed no trends in solar activity.

Satellite observations clearly show the well-known 11-year solar cycle, during which the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface varies by about 0.1 percent. This cycle causes the global temperature to fluctuate up and down by about 0.2° F, much less than the observed warming of about 1° F in the past 50 years. More importantly, the solar cycle causes an up-and-down cycle, not an upward trend similar to the trend in the global temperature. The sun’s output has not increased over the past three decades (Figure 1).

Recently, two NASA scientists concluded that the solar effect on climate was “negligible” during the last 25 years and that “none of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures.”1 After analyzing several different types of data for solar activity (i.e. sunspot number, open solar flux, cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance), two respected solar physicists found that “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”2 Similarly, after compiling the available evidence from many different studies, the U.S. Global Change Research Program concluded that “direct satellite measurements of solar output show slight decreases during the recent period of warming.”3

How do we know that the sun isn't causing the warming? We've been measuring the output of energy from the sun for thirty years from space and there's no net change.
Prof. Bill Chameides
Dean, Nicholas School of the Environment
Duke University

One VERY realistic thing we could do is stop all tropical logging and start planting a shitload of trees like the CCC did back in the 30's.

Originally posted by Enkindu

One VERY realistic thing we could do is stop all tropical logging and start planting a shitload of trees like the CCC did back in the 30's.

An example of the millions of Green jobs Obama planned to create ^^

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by Enkindu

One VERY realistic thing we could do is stop all tropical logging and start planting a shitload of trees like the CCC did back in the 30's.

 

An example of the millions of Green jobs Obama planned to create ^^

Wish he would.  By all accounts the CCC was a win-win for everyone.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

LOL! sure you can quote me.

 

Sweet!   Thanks- that actually made me laugh.  My fiance will appreciate the "jackass" reference.

Quick question: Did you get the medical analogies or was I misremembering your background? They were primarily for you in any case.

Also, found pretty good evidence against the solar hypothesis (Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke is pretty credible):

-----

The Misconception:   Recent global warming is caused by the sun.
The Reality: The output of energy from the sun has been monitored by satellites for thirty years and has not increased during this period of rapid global warming.

 

 

 

 

It’s true that the sun provides the energy (both light and heat) that drives the Earth’s climate; without the sun, the Earth would be a chilly place indeed! When the amount of energy coming from the sun changes, the climate responds in proportion to the change. However, scientists have been observing the sun with sophisticated satellites for three decades—during the period of greatest warming—and have observed no trends in solar activity.

Satellite observations clearly show the well-known 11-year solar cycle, during which the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface varies by about 0.1 percent. This cycle causes the global temperature to fluctuate up and down by about 0.2° F, much less than the observed warming of about 1° F in the past 50 years. More importantly, the solar cycle causes an up-and-down cycle, not an upward trend similar to the trend in the global temperature. The sun’s output has not increased over the past three decades (Figure 1).

Recently, two NASA scientists concluded that the solar effect on climate was “negligible” during the last 25 years and that “none of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures.”1 After analyzing several different types of data for solar activity (i.e. sunspot number, open solar flux, cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance), two respected solar physicists found that “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”2 Similarly, after compiling the available evidence from many different studies, the U.S. Global Change Research Program concluded that “direct satellite measurements of solar output show slight decreases during the recent period of warming.”3

How do we know that the sun isn't causing the warming? We've been measuring the output of energy from the sun for thirty years from space and there's no net change.
Prof. Bill Chameides
Dean, Nicholas School of the Environment
Duke University

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

From my understanding it works like this:
 

Quiet Sun- reduced magnetic &thermal flux= reduced solar wind- geomagnetic field drops- Galactic cosmic ray flux- more snow and low level clouds- more heat reflected (more albedo effect)= colder climate.

Active sun - enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind- geomagnetic shield response- less low level clouds- less heat reflected ( more albedo effect)= warmer climate

There are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean modulated by sunspot peak frequency. When the waves are close together the planets warm, when the waves are wider spaced the planets cool.

The cause of the magnetic cycle may be in the Sun- Jupiter center of gravity.

With our current technology there is not much we can really do about that. We can however, better prepare our people to adapt and survive the conditions that lie ahead.

I will discuss this further when i have time, I have business to attend to in the meantime. I hope that clarifies it at least a bit in the meantime

Originally posted by Enkindu

All good ideas devil, and sorry if my tech speak was annoying to you.  I figure anyone qualified to tell me that global warming doesn't exist is also able to read and understand the primary literature on the subject.  There was nothing esoteric there, and there wasn't anything in that passage that couldn't be deciphered with a few trips to google in any case.  Also the same post would have been three times as long in layman's terms.. you missed quite a few salient points in your synopsis.

To say that global warming due to "man-made" carbon dioxide is not occurring is an irresponsible oversimplification.  At the very least, we have identified the greenhouse mechanism related to carbon dioxide and we have identified a steadily climbing concentration of carbon dioxide.  How that increase in heat trapping is being "buffered" or "absorbed and mitigated" we do not know.

I think I've read that you are a nurse.. so you'll understand the oncology analogy I made- and here is another medical analogy:

Amphetamines cause increase in heart rate at lower doses.  In overdose however, you can see reflex bradycardia or SLOWING of the heart rate by the baroreceptor reflex.  Pressure gets too high, reflex reduces cardiac output by slowing heart rate.  This would be considered a PARADOXICAL or OPPOSITE than expected response.

Complex environmental systems are often analogous to biological systems.  It is quite possible that the short term COOLING cited by so many in this thread is the result of a thermal negative feedback loop initiated by rapid rise in temperature (or hell even carbon dioxide levels- we DON'T KNOW).

We DO know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that we are seeing levels unprecedented in the past million years:

 

 

So back to my medical analogy.  If I have a patient with elevated (or low, or even IRREGULAR) heartbeat I'm not going to give him a drug that I know affects heart rate.  If I have a climatological system that I KNOW is out of thermal balance, EVEN IF I don't fully understand the system I will not introduce an excess of a substance that I KNOW causes temperature elevations.  This is nothing more than prudent thinking.

I do not claim that we fully understand the thermal and carbon mechanics of our planet.  As a matter of fact I'm well aware that we DON'T.  But we DO understand one part of it well enough to know that we are adding a potentially destabilizing element in unprecedented quantities.

And the point I never got to in my post above:

What if the negative feedback loop keeping temps steady/ cooling is a seawater density shift controlled by freshwater runoff from melting ice sheets?  If that is the "protective" mechanism, then running out of melting ice will very possibly be like running off of a CLIFF... or it could be any of a hundred mechanisms that we don't fully understand... and we might not know that we are at the very edge of exhausting that buffer until it is gone.

So after all of this rambling, I hope you will forgive me for being irate when people OVERSIMPLIFY the situation by saying things like GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE.

I agree that some of the suggestions for reducing carbon emissions may be absurd, and that there may be better options.  But people saying that our carbon footprint does not matter are speaking directly out of their asses.

There is a LOT more evidence indicating that carbon dioxide levels ARE important than evidence to the contrary.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 Edit- by the way devil do you mind if I put the following in my sig:

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

 I will credit the author of course : )

The prpblems with medical analogies is that the body is well understood. thge climate history of a planet that is billions of years old is not. Also, medical clinical studies can be done, we can't study different planets.

To all those who say better safe then sorry -- I say EXACTLY -- that is why we should do nothing, and if the planet warms, enjoy the longer growing seasons.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

From my understanding it works like this:
 

Quiet Sun- reduced magnetic &thermal flux= reduced solar wind- geomagnetic field drops- Galactic cosmic ray flux- more snow and low level clouds- more heat reflected (more albedo effect)= colder climate.

Active sun - enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind- geomagnetic shield response- less low level clouds- less heat reflected ( more albedo effect)= warmer climate

There are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean modulated by sunspot peak frequency. When the waves are close together the planets warm, when the waves are wider spaced the planets cool.

The cause of the magnetic cycle may be in the Sun- Jupiter center of gravity.

With our current technology there is not much we can really do about that. We can however, better prepare our people to adapt and survive the conditions that lie ahead.

I will discuss this further when i have time, I have business to attend to in the meantime. I hope that clarifies it at least a bit in the meantime

Yup, that jives with what I have read over the years. I also think that natural global warming is a "net good" for humanity. A warmer planet could support a larger population, all other things being equal.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

From my understanding it works like this:
 

Quiet Sun- reduced magnetic &thermal flux= reduced solar wind- geomagnetic field drops- Galactic cosmic ray flux- more snow and low level clouds- more heat reflected (more albedo effect)= colder climate.

Active sun - enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind- geomagnetic shield response- less low level clouds- less heat reflected ( more albedo effect)= warmer climate

There are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean modulated by sunspot peak frequency. When the waves are close together the planets warm, when the waves are wider spaced the planets cool.

The cause of the magnetic cycle may be in the Sun- Jupiter center of gravity.

With our current technology there is not much we can really do about that. We can however, better prepare our people to adapt and survive the conditions that lie ahead.

I will discuss this further when i have time, I have business to attend to in the meantime. I hope that clarifies it at least a bit in the meantime

 

Yup, that jives with what I have read over the years. I also think that natural global warming is a "net good" for humanity. A warmer planet could support a larger population, all other things being equal.

You crazy kids...

: )

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by deviliscious

Yes, I fully understood everything you have said thus far. LOL Your data appears to be older than mine.
 

There are OTHER factors than just the CO2 emissions, and the suns energy readings to take into consideration, The gaping hole in our elctromagnetic field, the speed at which our poles are moving, the earths core  and mantle activity, the changes in the rotation of the earth , our gravitational pull, and many other factors that are not all being included in the assessment that we will continue on a path of global warming.

 In Fact ,NASA has had a few things to say about the suns  recent activity and other issues that affect our climate that may shed some new light on the subject:

Deep Solar Minimum

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

New Solar Cycle Prediction
 

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
 

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD 

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
 

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational and Gravitational Changes
 

 

These are all interesting articles but I don't see anything here that I would particularly connect with global temperature variation.  Which were you looking at? God knows space weather and geodesy are not my specialties.

From my understanding it works like this:
 

Quiet Sun- reduced magnetic &thermal flux= reduced solar wind- geomagnetic field drops- Galactic cosmic ray flux- more snow and low level clouds- more heat reflected (more albedo effect)= colder climate.

Active sun - enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind- geomagnetic shield response- less low level clouds- less heat reflected ( more albedo effect)= warmer climate

There are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean modulated by sunspot peak frequency. When the waves are close together the planets warm, when the waves are wider spaced the planets cool.

The cause of the magnetic cycle may be in the Sun- Jupiter center of gravity.

With our current technology there is not much we can really do about that. We can however, better prepare our people to adapt and survive the conditions that lie ahead.

I will discuss this further when i have time, I have business to attend to in the meantime. I hope that clarifies it at least a bit in the meantime

 

Yup, that jives with what I have read over the years. I also think that natural global warming is a "net good" for humanity. A warmer planet could support a larger population, all other things being equal.

You crazy kids...

: )

LOL.

However, let's say we could control our planet's climate? wouldn't it be better for us if we could warm it a bit?

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

LOL.

 

However, let's say we could control our planet's climate? wouldn't it be better for us if we could warm it a bit?

Don't  you remember the old Parkay  Margarine commercials?  It's not nice to fool mother nature...

As you have already stated we do not fully understand climate/ biosphere interactions.  I'd be very concerned about unanticipated  consequences of warming, whether intentional or not.  Organisms tend to adapt to a pretty narrow window of environmental conditions during periods of relative stability.  One of the reasons the fossil record is full of mass extinction events is that most living things do not fare well with change.  And honestly, I kinda like glaciers.  Glad I got to see some while I had the chance.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

LOL.

 

However, let's say we could control our planet's climate? wouldn't it be better for us if we could warm it a bit?

 

Don't  you remember the old Parkay  Margarine commercials?  It's not nice to fool mother nature...

 

As you have already stated we do not fully understand climate/ biosphere interactions.  I'd be very concerned about unanticipated  consequences of warming, whether intentional or not.  Organisms tend to adapt to a pretty narrow window of environmental conditions during periods of relative stability.  One of the reasons the fossil record is full of mass extinction events is that most living things do not fare well with change.  And honestly, I kinda like glaciers.  Glad I got to see some while I had the chance.

I don'yt believe in Mother Nature. We own this planet it is up to us to make it a paradise. I am trying to think outside the box here. This planet has been MUCH hotter, and MUCH colder in the course of human existence. What is the optimum mean temperature for us?

My point is, IF we are doing it incidentally, there is no reason to assume it is a bad thing for us. How many are you willing to starve so you can have more glaciers?

Again I am still VERY skeptical, knowing where the money is in this and what people are recommending as a suposd solution (worldwide economic dictatorship and permanent depression).

However IF it is true than WE are warming the planet, so what? The mass extinctions in the past show taht such things occur without us, and again doesn't help your argument. What caused those mass extinctions? Not global warming.

More likely global cooling, or catastrophic changes taht have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

You brought up the law of unintended consequences? that is what I am talking about. every solution proposed is going to KILL PEOPLE. EVERY one will cause massive depressions and recessions. THEY KILL PEOPLE. how many people do you want to kill in order to supposedly prevent something that may not even be preventable?

Again better safe than sorry. Encourage capitalism, encourage the society of abundance which we should have reached already were it not for all the socialism that destroys economies. This ludditism has it all so very backwards.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

LOL.

 

However, let's say we could control our planet's climate? wouldn't it be better for us if we could warm it a bit?

 

Don't  you remember the old Parkay  Margarine commercials?  It's not nice to fool mother nature...

 

As you have already stated we do not fully understand climate/ biosphere interactions.  I'd be very concerned about unanticipated  consequences of warming, whether intentional or not.  Organisms tend to adapt to a pretty narrow window of environmental conditions during periods of relative stability.  One of the reasons the fossil record is full of mass extinction events is that most living things do not fare well with change.  And honestly, I kinda like glaciers.  Glad I got to see some while I had the chance.

 

I don'yt believe in Mother Nature. We own this planet it is up to us to make it a paradise. I am trying to think outside the box here. This planet has been MUCH hotter, and MUCH colder in the course of human existence. What is the optimum mean temperature for us?

My point is, IF we are doing it incidentally, there is no reason to assume it is a bad thing for us. How many are you willing to starve so you can have more glaciers?

Again I am still VERY skeptical, knowing where the money is in this and what people are recommending as a suposd solution (worldwide economic dictatorship and permanent depression).

However IF it is true than WE are warming the planet, so what? The mass extinctions in the past show taht such things occur without us, and again doesn't help your argument. What caused those mass extinctions? Not global warming.

More likely global cooling, or catastrophic changes taht have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

You brought up the law of unintended consequences? that is what I am talking about. every solution proposed is going to KILL PEOPLE. EVERY one will cause massive depressions and recessions. THEY KILL PEOPLE. how many people do you want to kill in order to supposedly prevent something that may not even be preventable?

Again better safe than sorry. Encourage capitalism, encourage the society of abundance which we should have reached already were it not for all the socialism that destroys economies. This ludditism has it all so very backwards.

What can I say.  I have great faith in the ecology of the planet to find balance and flourish (allowing us to flourish as well) while I have very little faith in the human collective terraforming brigade.

I'm not opposed to using our resources, advancing our technology, and getting out into the stars.  I just think we should learn a little more from systems that have been finding equilibria for billions of years before we decide that we are smart enough to do everything better.

And actually, I'm pretty sure that acting without thinking has killed a lot more people than observation and measured progress.

To MY mind we have already made large unintended changes to the biosphere and we do not fully understand the implications of those consequences.  I know you disagree, but i look at those imbalances as every bit as dangerous as any potential economic consequences.  All I can base my assessment on is the sum of my education and life experience.

I certainly do not know everything, and your assessment carries as much weight as mine does.  Yours is based on the sum of your education and life experience.  I respect where you are coming from and I am glad for the exchange of ideas.

Hehe.  It's a grudge match between Gaia and John Galt : )

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

LOL.

 

However, let's say we could control our planet's climate? wouldn't it be better for us if we could warm it a bit?

 

Don't  you remember the old Parkay  Margarine commercials?  It's not nice to fool mother nature...

 

As you have already stated we do not fully understand climate/ biosphere interactions.  I'd be very concerned about unanticipated  consequences of warming, whether intentional or not.  Organisms tend to adapt to a pretty narrow window of environmental conditions during periods of relative stability.  One of the reasons the fossil record is full of mass extinction events is that most living things do not fare well with change.  And honestly, I kinda like glaciers.  Glad I got to see some while I had the chance.

 

I don'yt believe in Mother Nature. We own this planet it is up to us to make it a paradise. I am trying to think outside the box here. This planet has been MUCH hotter, and MUCH colder in the course of human existence. What is the optimum mean temperature for us?

My point is, IF we are doing it incidentally, there is no reason to assume it is a bad thing for us. How many are you willing to starve so you can have more glaciers?

Again I am still VERY skeptical, knowing where the money is in this and what people are recommending as a suposd solution (worldwide economic dictatorship and permanent depression).

However IF it is true than WE are warming the planet, so what? The mass extinctions in the past show taht such things occur without us, and again doesn't help your argument. What caused those mass extinctions? Not global warming.

More likely global cooling, or catastrophic changes taht have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

You brought up the law of unintended consequences? that is what I am talking about. every solution proposed is going to KILL PEOPLE. EVERY one will cause massive depressions and recessions. THEY KILL PEOPLE. how many people do you want to kill in order to supposedly prevent something that may not even be preventable?

Again better safe than sorry. Encourage capitalism, encourage the society of abundance which we should have reached already were it not for all the socialism that destroys economies. This ludditism has it all so very backwards.

 

What can I say.  I have great faith in the ecology of the planet to find balance and flourish (allowing us to flourish as well) while I have very little faith in the human collective terraforming brigade.

I'm not opposed to using our resources, advancing our technology, and getting out into the stars.  I just think we should learn a little more from systems that have been finding equilibria for billions of years before we decide that we are smart enough to do everything better.

And actually, I'm pretty sure that acting without thinking has killed a lot more people than observation and measured progress.

 

To MY mind we have already made large unintended changes to the biosphere and we do not fully understand the implications of those consequences.  I know you disagree, but i look at those imbalances as every bit as dangerous as any potential economic consequences.  All I can base my assessment on is the sum of my education and life experience.

 

I certainly do not know everything, and your assessment carries as much weight as mine does.  Yours is based on the sum of your education and life experience.  I respect where you are coming from and I am glad for the exchange of ideas.

Hehe.  It's a grudge match between Gaia and John Galt : )

 

Note you say We, We, We. Your whole outlook is collectivist. That outlook will keep us in the mud, and cause mass starvation (it already has so far every time it has been tried, and it's been tried MANY times -- we have your clinical studies, AND we have peer review, and WE have accurate predictions made TIME AFTER TIME).

To MY mind we have had horrible unintended consequences (whole continents starving) simply due to embracing the social economic systems that the current crop of environmentalists are recommending. THOSE are dire unintended consequences we are seeing TODAY.

We are right now in a worldwide recession CAUSED by this path.  We have seen American industry destroyed by this path.

That is far, far worse, and real right NOW, not some climate theory.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Note you say We, We, We. Your whole outlook is collectivist. That outlook will keep us in the mud, and cause mass starvation (it already has so far every time it has been tried, and it's been tried MANY times -- we have your clinical studies, AND we have peer review, and WE have accurate predictions made TIME AFTER TIME).

To MY mind we have had horrible unintended consequences (whole continents starving) simply due to embracing the social economic systems that the current crop of environmentalists are recommending. THOSE are dire unintended consequences we are seeing TODAY.

We are right now in a worldwide recession CAUSED by this path.  We have seen American industry destroyed by this path.

That is far, far worse, and real right NOW, not some climate theory.

 

Dude, you win the day.  My head collectively exploded.  See you next visit....  o7

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

Note you say We, We, We. Your whole outlook is collectivist. That outlook will keep us in the mud, and cause mass starvation (it already has so far every time it has been tried, and it's been tried MANY times -- we have your clinical studies, AND we have peer review, and WE have accurate predictions made TIME AFTER TIME).

To MY mind we have had horrible unintended consequences (whole continents starving) simply due to embracing the social economic systems that the current crop of environmentalists are recommending. THOSE are dire unintended consequences we are seeing TODAY.

We are right now in a worldwide recession CAUSED by this path.  We have seen American industry destroyed by this path.

That is far, far worse, and real right NOW, not some climate theory.

 

 

Dude, you win the day.  My head collectively exploded.  See you next visit....  o7

LOL. I only care when liberty and human development wins. Thus far I am losing big time.

The government cannot have my dog!

Now these global warming fanatics are focused on our pets as climate criminals.

Dog owning is much worse than SUV driving for the planet

Cats (long known as the handmaidens of Satan) have roughly the ecological paw print of a Volkswagen Golf

So, with that said, will dog and cat owning be taxed because of their carbon footprint?  How much will the government invade our lives?  Where does it stop?  I am telling, you believers in this carbon footprint stuff, get a life and leave mine alone!

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that belief in, and concern for, climate change is evaporating. Belief in global warming dropped from 71% in April to 57% today; only 36% believe man is mostly responsible for climate change. Only 35% of respondents said it's a "very serious problem," down from 41%.

Originally posted by outfctrl

The government cannot have my dog!

Now these global warming fanatics are focused on our pets as climate criminals.

Dog owning is much worse than SUV driving for the planet

Cats (long known as the handmaidens of Satan) have roughly the ecological paw print of a Volkswagen Golf

So, with that said, will dog and cat owning be taxed because of their carbon footprint?  How much will the government invade our lives?  Where does it stop?  I am telling, you believers in this carbon footprint stuff, get a life and leave mine alone!

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that belief in, and concern for, climate change is evaporating. Belief in global warming dropped from 71% in April to 57% today; only 36% believe man is mostly responsible for climate change. Only 35% of respondents said it's a "very serious problem," down from 41%.

I think we need to accept the fact that both the psychotic neocons and the irrational radical liberal factions have deep cover agents doing REALLY STUPID SHIT under their opponent's flag.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by outfctrl

The government cannot have my dog!

Now these global warming fanatics are focused on our pets as climate criminals.

Dog owning is much worse than SUV driving for the planet

Cats (long known as the handmaidens of Satan) have roughly the ecological paw print of a Volkswagen Golf

So, with that said, will dog and cat owning be taxed because of their carbon footprint?  How much will the government invade our lives?  Where does it stop?  I am telling, you believers in this carbon footprint stuff, get a life and leave mine alone!

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that belief in, and concern for, climate change is evaporating. Belief in global warming dropped from 71% in April to 57% today; only 36% believe man is mostly responsible for climate change. Only 35% of respondents said it's a "very serious problem," down from 41%.

 

I think we need to accept the fact that both the psychotic neocons and the irrational radical liberal factions have deep cover agents doing REALLY STUPID SHIT under their opponent's flag.

I think it is far easier to believe and far more likely that people who believe in stupid shit simply flock to others who believe in stupid shit. People who want to control the lives of others for instance -- they seek out ideas that help them do that. Global warming is one of those ideas.

It is a semi-secular version of the Fundamentalist end-times idea: the world about to end, it is due to human sin, unless we change our sinful ways Mother Nature or whatever will punish all of us.  People who disagree or are even skeptical are attacked, ridiculed, and so on. If they doubt the gospel it is claimed they are in the employ of the Devil (Big Oil and so on).

Look at them closely and they themselves are living high off the hog on money given to them by fellow believers.

Sounds like the same crap to me, only using pseudoscience instead of pseudoBiblicalism. Watch 'em on TV -- I see the same cold-eyed fanaticism, the same maniacal faith in what they believe. Same nonsense, slightly different school of thought.

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

I think it is far easier to believe and far more likely that people who believe in stupid shit simply flock to others who believe in stupid shit. People who want to control the lives of others for instance -- they seek out ideas that help them do that. Global warming is one of those ideas.

It is a semi-secular version of the Fundamentalist end-times idea: the world about to end, it is due to human sin, unless we change our sinful ways Mother Nature or whatever will punish all of us.  People who disagree or are even skeptical are attacked, ridiculed, and so on. If they doubt the gospel it is claimed they are in the employ of the Devil (Big Oil and so on).

Look at them closely and they themselves are living high off the hog on money given to them by fellow believers.

Sounds like the same crap to me, only using pseudoscience instead of pseudoBiblicalism. Watch 'em on TV -- I see the same cold-eyed fanaticism, the same maniacal faith in what they believe. Same nonsense, slightly different school of thought.

Stay tuned for my well researched and completely convincing scientific deconstruction of your theory : )

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

I think it is far easier to believe and far more likely that people who believe in stupid shit simply flock to others who believe in stupid shit. People who want to control the lives of others for instance -- they seek out ideas that help them do that. Global warming is one of those ideas.

It is a semi-secular version of the Fundamentalist end-times idea: the world about to end, it is due to human sin, unless we change our sinful ways Mother Nature or whatever will punish all of us.  People who disagree or are even skeptical are attacked, ridiculed, and so on. If they doubt the gospel it is claimed they are in the employ of the Devil (Big Oil and so on).

Look at them closely and they themselves are living high off the hog on money given to them by fellow believers.

Sounds like the same crap to me, only using pseudoscience instead of pseudoBiblicalism. Watch 'em on TV -- I see the same cold-eyed fanaticism, the same maniacal faith in what they believe. Same nonsense, slightly different school of thought.

 

Stay tuned for my well researched and completely convincing scientific deconstruction of your theory : )

That simply will not do. The burden of proof is ON YOU. I am a skeptic and as such there is nothing to deconstruct.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

I think it is far easier to believe and far more likely that people who believe in stupid shit simply flock to others who believe in stupid shit. People who want to control the lives of others for instance -- they seek out ideas that help them do that. Global warming is one of those ideas.

It is a semi-secular version of the Fundamentalist end-times idea: the world about to end, it is due to human sin, unless we change our sinful ways Mother Nature or whatever will punish all of us.  People who disagree or are even skeptical are attacked, ridiculed, and so on. If they doubt the gospel it is claimed they are in the employ of the Devil (Big Oil and so on).

Look at them closely and they themselves are living high off the hog on money given to them by fellow believers.

Sounds like the same crap to me, only using pseudoscience instead of pseudoBiblicalism. Watch 'em on TV -- I see the same cold-eyed fanaticism, the same maniacal faith in what they believe. Same nonsense, slightly different school of thought.

 

Stay tuned for my well researched and completely convincing scientific deconstruction of your theory : )

 

That simply will not do. The burden of proof is ON YOU. I am a skeptic and as such there is nothing to deconstruct.

Hmm.. in that case, stay tuned and I will soon dazzle you with brilliance and baffle you with bullshit.

Originally posted by outfctrl

The government cannot have my dog!

Now these global warming fanatics are focused on our pets as climate criminals.

Dog owning is much worse than SUV driving for the planet

Cats (long known as the handmaidens of Satan) have roughly the ecological paw print of a Volkswagen Golf

So, with that said, will dog and cat owning be taxed because of their carbon footprint?  How much will the government invade our lives?  Where does it stop?  I am telling, you believers in this carbon footprint stuff, get a life and leave mine alone!

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that belief in, and concern for, climate change is evaporating. Belief in global warming dropped from 71% in April to 57% today; only 36% believe man is mostly responsible for climate change. Only 35% of respondents said it's a "very serious problem," down from 41%.

I found some bearded hippy with a chainsaw wandering around my garden yesterday.

"Deptmartment of the Envrioment" he said. His job was to cut down stuff and pile it up here. He said.

And there we have it. A bloke who should be unemployed, doing a job that didn't need doing. Damaging my nature reserve in the name of "the enviroment". Vandalising my property without my permission. Wandering about my private home without any invitation.

And the worst thing of all?  He thoguht he had a right to be there. It didn;t occour to him to ask me if me. Not eveen the slightest nod from him or his mates to acknowledge that he might be intruding on my private property and domain. Just total unshakeable confidence that he was saving the enviroment. That his purpose was righteous above all basic courtesies.

I was polite to him of course as he asked me what I was doing. (In the middle of my own field, clearing up a load of mess he'd made and left). 

After I'd checked with the rest of my house to see if they had been invited, I went back and ran him off the premissies. He looked pretty taken a back.

You see the thing is with these people, is that they think the planet is theirs. That it belongs to all of them. And their children etc.

They feel it is their moral duty to protect it all from us evil ones. Only the planet doesn't belong to them or their children. Only a very tiny bit of it belongs to them.

And the bit they own looks like shit.

I'll be damned if I let any of those half-wits screw it up for those of us (and our chidlren) who do keep their little patches well maintained. 

He climbed over the fence and into my garden a bit later on and I shouted at him to get out immediately. He did so without any further discourse. Just put his nose down and got away from the angry bloke as fast as he could (I'd just spent 2 hours clearing up after them).

It's the arrogance of them that offends me. They think the planet belongs to them. The whole planet! All of it theirs. (And their childrens).  If they had of asked, they would have got permission. But they didn't ask. They just treated everyone eleses property like they owned it. So I ran them off the premisses and if they return there will be violence. 

Interfering government agencies wasting my money to keep idiot hippies off the dole and in the process screwing up the countryside in the name of "saving the enviroment".

Violence. You can't verbally persuade these people to behave socially. So you just have to hurt them so much they stay away out of fear.