Global Warming takes a break?
AZDuffman
than global cooling in the 1970s because we have better models, know
more, yadda yadda yadda. Well, looks like the models were off:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
So before we pass cap-and-tax and destroy more of the economy, can we
take a look and realize CO2, a natural compound, is not a culprit?
Scaly Lizard
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Earlier this year people here said global warming now was different
>than global cooling in the 1970s because we have better models, know
>more, yadda yadda yadda.
Fucking idiot. In the past decade, sea level has risen 4 cm
and the global mean temperature has risen 0.4� celsius.
If you don't think those things are going to fuck up the
economy, then you are, to put it curtly, a fucking idiot.
SL
John Passaniti
> So before we pass cap-and-tax and destroy more of the economy, can we
> take a look and realize CO2, a natural compound, is not a culprit?
Last I checked, dog shit and arsenic are both natural too. Natural is
good, right? Lick both and get back to me on that.
So I went to the article you linked, read it, and then did the work
you refuse to do to educate yourself. It's easy, but you're
intellectually lazy. But more importantly, you probably know the
usual pattern by now: Respected climatologist makes statements that
taken out of context seem to contradict prevailing scientific
consensus. Lazy reporters who either don't understand that the
scientific method (which involves constant review and revision) or who
simply thrive on artificial conflict report out-of-context
statements. Then, Conservatives who ironically are against...
conservation... take that artificial conflict and use it to push
forward an agenda that strangely favors short-term profits of
corporation. Then, at some point the original respected climatologist
that the Conservatives hold up as an example of a break in scientific
consensus gets fed up with his research being misused and tells the
idiots off.
In this specific case, the climatologist was pointing out that
temperatures over the past decade or so have been somewhat steady.
But the same climatologist doesn't say that means global warming has
stopped. He only reports that the trend for the past decade didn't
match the expectations. As he points out (and as the article you
helpfully provided demonstrates), we've been in a period of warming
above a baseline taken from 1900 since 1930. So even if you believe
that global warming is complete nonsense, the actual measurements of
temperature-- cited in an article you presumably respect-- show a
clear and dramatic warming trend. And that has resulted in real-world
changes, such as rising ocean levels, increased acidification of
oceans, increased desertification, and others.
The problem for most people is that these primary effects of global
warming are just too abstract for them. What does a rise in ocean
levels matter when you don't live on the coast? What does increased
desertification matter when you don't live in a desert? It's when
people start thinking of the secondary effects that they start to
connect with the issue. There are real-world costs that are rising
now because of climate change, and that is already having effects on
the economy.
But when all this is thrown at people like you, their sudden respect
for climatologists and other scientists who on a superficial level
seem to reflect your agenda disappears. And in your case, you'll
shift to a "we don't know so we should bury our head in the sand" wait-
and-see approach. And if that doesn't work, you'll bring out the
"it's a natural process and we have no influence or control over it"
argument. Both are stupid. You don't have to believe in global
warming to see climate change is having effects and working towards
mitigation of those effects. You don't have to believe in global
warming to see the huge market for alternative energy sources. You
don't have to believe in global warming to see that old money fortunes
made from fossil fuels can't possibly be sustained in the future and
that investment in alternatives is what is going to build future
fortunes and drive entire economies.
And that's the fundamental difference between people like you and...
rational people. We look at the trends and plan for the future.
You... apparently have a lot of stock in Exxon and care only about
what happens now.
AZDuffman
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:00:45 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
> >Earlier this year people here said global warming now was different
> >than global cooling in the 1970s because we have better models, know
> >more, yadda yadda yadda.
>
> Fucking idiot. In the past decade, sea level has risen 4 cm
>
> If you don't think those things are going to fuck up the
> economy, then you are, to put it curtly, a fucking idiot.
We have no idea what they will do to the economy, other than your
average surfer-dude has to run a few inches less to hit the waves.
The temperature increase in barely noticible and historically warmer
has been better anyways. Sea-level has never been constant nor has
mean temperature.
We do, however, know that taxing "carbon" will be a huge drag on the
economy all -around. I care about the next generation and don't want
to leave them growing up in poverty just because some people don't
loke Exxon-Mobil.
And look, I made a point without name calling or foul language. I
wish liberals like yourself could do the same.
AZDuffman
> On Nov 20, 2:00 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this specific case, the climatologist was pointing out that
> temperatures over the past decade or so have been somewhat steady.
> But the same climatologist doesn't say that means global warming has
> stopped. He only reports that the trend for the past decade didn't
> match the expectations.
And there is the point. So-called envrionmenalists say we must "do
something based on these trends." Well, the model is now shown to be
flawed. So before we destroy our economy and way of life for both us
and our kids, lets realize change is normal and to think we can stop
what the sun is doing is just arrogant.
Today's "envrionmentalists" are kind of like a watermellon--green on
the outside, red on the inside.
As he points out (and as the article you
> helpfully provided demonstrates), we've been in a period of warming
> above a baseline taken from 1900 since 1930. So even if you believe
> that global warming is complete nonsense, the actual measurements of
> temperature-- cited in an article you presumably respect-- show a
> clear and dramatic warming trend. And that has resulted in real-world
> changes, such as rising ocean levels, increased acidification of
> oceans, increased desertification, and others.
We don't have accurate measurements in the USA since before the mid
1800s and most of the rest of the world does not go back that far.
I've seen the "trendlines" everyone talks about and they seem to
mirror more accurate temperature readings. A trend over 100 years on
a planet 4.5 billion years old is a useless blip.
> And that's the fundamental difference between people like you and...
> rational people. We look at the trends and plan for the future.
> You... apparently have a lot of stock in Exxon and care only about
> what happens now.
No, I care more about the next generation who will grow up poor and
unfree if we pass nonsense liek "cap and trade" on a maybe. Read
George Will's article this week about "running out of oil." Back in
the 1970s the trend on that said we'd run out in 10 years. Since then
we pumped more than existed then and we have more reserves now than
then.
So much for "trends" in nature. You can read Algore, I'll stick to
science.
Scaly Lizard
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>We have no idea what they will do to the economy
Ask a Maldivian.
SL