Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

[scargi01]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Damn Scientists lying to us again....

Violent storms, water shortages in store for Canada: report

Canada can expect to see more devastating storms and extreme weather because of climate change, a yet-to-be released federal report concludes.

The report, prepared by more than 100 Canadian scientists on behalf of Canada's Department of Natural Resources, was released Friday, but CBC News learned Thursday what it contains from several people involved in compiling the report.

The report focuses on the impact climate change will have on the country, in terms of the weather it will generate, and the effects on areas like infrastructure, energy production and drinking water.

The report, the first of its kind done for the federal government in 10 years, says Canada can expect more ice storms, torrential downpours, floods, droughts and landslides, as well more days of extreme heat and smog........

Good thing the weather forecasters are never wrong, I guess.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by scargi01

You should take the time to read some of timbikes posts, and you will know what I mean by the "science isn't there" comment. Concocting conclusions that fit your desired circumstances is a common folly of man, and I think many have observed some climate data and then jumped to the "man is the cause" conclusion because they want to use the issue to implement changes they think are desirable (many of which I would agree with). Only problem is that "under further review", many of these said conclusions aren't holding up to continued study.

And yes, it is arrogant to try to impose change on a society based on fraudulent science and fear because you think that change is desirable, no matter the means used to achieve it. All because you know better than the rest of us knuckle draggers, right?

I think you may be the one jumping to conclusions. If we understand how CO2 effects longwave radiation and we understand that humans are putting a lot of it into the atmosphere how do you consider that jumping to conclusions? If we have a wealth of knowledge on past climates including data on earths tilt, wobble, and variable distance from the sun and all of this fits well with the current theory of global warming how can you assume this is jumping to conclusions? No, there is enough scientific data to back up the current conclusions on global warming. Of course they could all be wrong but with so much data pointing in the same direction it would be simply wrong to assume they have not done the research to back up their opinions. Have you ever talked to any of these people yourself? They seem quite educated and sane to me.

Knuckledraggers may be very useful for fixing my drywall or mowing my lawn but when I need medical attention or advice on how to send a satellite into orbit I'm not going to ask a non-scientist. One common misconception is that scientists look down on the uneducated, that's not true except in cases where the uneducated toss out opinions on a scientific subject of which they seem to know very little yet do it with a fierce conviction that can only be driven by politics, religion, or their underlying embarassment of not being educated. I was one of the later for quite some time.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by scargi01

Good thing the weather forecasters are never wrong, I guess.

They are predicting overall climate shifts. Not specific weather on specific dates and times.

Could it be wrong? Of course, if ocean currents are disrupted or hadley cells shift then we would likely see much different weather patterns. Id rather they tell us something may happen and be better prepared for some kind of climate shift rather than assume it's all a big conspiracy theory and do nothing and not be prepared. Regardless of climate change predictions based on global warming, many areas will see their local climate change as it has done so VERY often in the past every 50yrs, 100yrs, 200yrs, etc.. As a nation we are not prepared for any of it. We continue to overuse water, build on flood plains, drain aquifers, dam up rivers, etc. Collectively we act so irresponsibly that I'm amazed we have survived this long.

[richard schumacher]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Hmm. Is that so? Then why does the NAS (click on the "page image" link for a gif image) characterize as "very low" the scientific level of understanding for 3/4ths of the known radiative forcing elements?

That same graph states that far and away the strongest forcing is warming caused by greenhouse gases, and that it is understood with high confidence. Even if all the other forcings proved to be cooling at the extremes of their respective uncertainties they would barely overcome the greenhouse gasses; and the odds that all those uncertainties do go that way and that far are virtually nil.

[scargi01]

Originally Posted by F8L

...

Knuckledraggers may be very useful for fixing my drywall or mowing my lawn but when I need medical attention or advice on how to send a satellite into orbit I'm not going to ask a non-scientist. One common misconception is that scientists look down on the uneducated, that's not true except in cases where the uneducated toss out opinions on a scientific subject of which they seem to know very little yet do it with a fierce conviction that can only be driven by politics, religion, or their underlying embarassment of not being educated. I was one of the later for quite some time.

Ok - we get that you look down on those that don't drink the kool-aid, but my point is that GW is bieng used as a tool to drive social change by those with a specific agenda, such as


"When you have a society that tolerates very rich people having "a lot" and a substantial number of people who are forced to do and live and consume in poverty, there is something wrong. I'm not a socialist, but I do think that a healthy society cares for the least among us. I don't consider us very healthy.", as written in another post.

[bredekamp]

I go from the premise that if we do not COMPLETELY understand the effects of CO2 emissions etc on the ecosystem then it's better to limit the emission of such gases. Just to be safe....

[F8L]

Originally Posted by scargi01

Ok - we get that you look down on those that don't drink the kool-aid, but my point is that GW is bieng used as a tool to drive social change by those with a specific agenda, such as


"When you have a society that tolerates very rich people having "a lot" and a substantial number of people who are forced to do and live and consume in poverty, there is something wrong. I'm not a socialist, but I do think that a healthy society cares for the least among us. I don't consider us very healthy.", as written in another post.

You're problem is that you are turning this into a partisan issue and it is not. Sure anyone can take an issue and turn it into an "agenda" but when you fail to examine the data and imediately make up your mind on an issue because it does not fit your mental frame then you are the one who appears to be "drinking the kool-aid". Remember, this is not a U.S. based issue and plenty of educted people around the world are in agreement.

Do you have any great evidence to back up dismissal of global warming or would you like to continue arguing ideologies?

[F8L]

Originally Posted by bredekamp

I go from the premise that if we do not COMPLETELY understand the effects of CO2 emissions etc on the ecosystem then it's better to limit the emission of such gases. Just to be safe....

It's called the Precautionary Principle or as one Native American speaker put it, "the DUH principle". lol

Nice to see someone from South Africa posting here. I was just playing Mandoza and Brenda Fassie a few minutes ago. lol

[icarus]

Originally Posted by scargi01

Ok - we get that you look down on those that don't drink the kool-aid, but my point is that GW is bieng used as a tool to drive social change by those with a specific agenda, such as


"When you have a society that tolerates very rich people having "a lot" and a substantial number of people who are forced to do and live and consume in poverty, there is something wrong. I'm not a socialist, but I do think that a healthy society cares for the least among us. I don't consider us very healthy.", as written in another post.

Since you chose to quote me with out attribution AND out of context, I will respond.

The question that I responded to raised the question of Jobs Vs the Environment. I was pointing out that it didn't have to be an either/or situation, and if we lived in a different society, perhaps we could expect different outcomes. My basic premise is that people act first out of self interest, and usually for short term self interest at that. If,,, as I stated in my first opinion in this thread, if, we were to pay the full cost of our actions, (environmental, social, etc) up front, we would be able to act in our short term self interest as is our nature, AND act in a way that has benefit to the many. To restate my point: If burning coal for grid power cost the consumer it full cost, (acid rain, habitat destruction, mine accidents, land reclamation etc.) then we might choose to use Pv solar, or better conservation or some un-invented magic system that can't get mainstream because it is not "cost effective"

So, in the future, feel free to quote me, but please attribute the quote so others can read the entire thought, AND, try not to quote out of context.

Thank you,

Icarus

[scargi01]

Originally Posted by F8L

You're problem is that you are turning this into a partisan issue and it is not. Sure anyone can take an issue and turn it into an "agenda" but when you fail to examine the data and imediately make up your mind on an issue because it does not fit your mental frame then you are the one who appears to be "drinking the kool-aid". Remember, this is not a U.S. based issue and plenty of educted people around the world are in agreement.

Do you have any great evidence to back up dismissal of global warming or would you like to continue arguing ideologies?

How have I turned this into a partisan issue? I don't favor a political point of view, because there are members of both parties in America that think "we have to do something" sbout GW. I don't even really doubt that GW is real to some degree (no pun intended ) , however the cause is very much in dispute, and the "solutions" even more so. If we are going to spend valuable resources on attempting to lessen our impact on GW, I want those solutions to be effective at actually reducing our impact, not a shot in the dark driven by a political agenda designed to set up a permanent funding source for enviromental groups to do whatever. That is why I think we should do the small things we know will have an effect, such as regulating lower emissions on vehicles (the biggest man made source), promoting and investing in alternative sources of energy, and developing technologies that can actually clean up the effect we have already had. There's three things that we can do right now that will reduce our CO2 emissions and , unbelievably, no need to spend money on wishful thinking solutions or "lowering our expectations" or dramatically harming our economy by signing on to dumb international treaties that won't do any good. Imagine that.