Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[maure 1]

Ah and so above we see the forum's self-proclaimed 'second coming of Socrates' getting in his daily blunder-before-breakfast. Don't think we don't notice you changing the subject. Not such a big believer in GW now, are we Maure? What's wrong - your beloved peer review process hasn't proven there will be a mass extinction of paupers around the world? The politicians were in cahoots with some lying scientists? Well we did tell you but you just _smiled_ and walked. Fortunately this forum operates with greater transparency than the nether regions of the scientific community and everyone can go back and see all the exaggerated claims about dying Bangladeshis you were making only a few weeks ago. Shame on you.

What the fck are you going on and on?

[maure 1]

Here is an article from the Register that tells more than it says:

MPs to Climategate boffins: Keep Calm and Carry On

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/31/climategate_carry_on/

Do consider the Register's "bootnote" carefully:

Compare the following two statements:

i) "The Prime Minister conspired to send British armed forces into Iraq on false premises"

ii) "The Prime Minister sent British armed forces into Iraq on false premises"

The argument is the premises: the lack of evidence of a conspiracy does not make a false premise true. This is disappointing, and by making such a mistake, the Committee showed a lack of thoroughness.

Amussing. A few weeks back I came across a fellow researcher that was denied a grant (for research on yak wool) until she included the words "global warming" in her proposal. Having done so, fund opportunities suddenly popped up. On hearing this, another fellow researcher is now busting his nuts considering how to include "global warming" in his proposal for a grant dealing with the fossilization of epenthesis (the insertion of a vowel or consonant into a word to make its pronunciation easier)...

It's risible, in a global warming kind of way.

[maure 1]

I can't tell what the Italian (or Spanish, Rumanian, or whatever) have to say but they appear to be translations of quotes from "A Little Green Book: of Environmental Quotes and Comments":

http://www.desdeelexilio.com/2008/08/29/cambio-climatico-y-ecofascismo-10-razones-para-la-sospecha/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+desdeelexilio%2FBPuO+%28Desde+el+exilio%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Here you go. Enjoy. I have.

EDIT: The original English quotes are included. Otherwise, wtf.

[AleHop 0]

I can't tell what the Italian (or Spanish, Rumanian, or whatever) have to say but they appear to be translations of quotes from "A Little Green Book: of Environmental Quotes and Comments":

http://www.desdeelex...t=Google+Reader

Here you go. Enjoy. I have.

EDIT: The original English quotes are included. Otherwise, wtf.

The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.

That quote is debatable but it would be certainly scary if that cheap and abundant energy were controlled by a bunch of green nazis.

[maure 1]

One can only hope that the quotes are so out of context that are literally meant to be mean the opposite.

Yet, the unfortunate truth is that they are not and those fanatical morons are the bigwigs that decide where millions upon millons of dollars get pocketed day in day out by unscrupulous greenies, namely, themselves.

[Piotr 0]

Awww, it's not the same without shrill ravings of Cav... But then again, I was the one who did not respond to his last post re my post (sorry, had better things to do).

However, here is something for some light entertainment - and the "Hide the Decline II" video as a bonus, compliments of Climateaudit.org.

http://climategate.tv/?p=924

OOPs, video link on that page does not work (funny article though).

Here is an actual youtube link - hurry up before they shut it down:

[Piotr 0]

here is the original - still on youtube!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UhykvGaD0&feature=related

and this is just precious

[maure 1]

The satire in the videos is amusing... but the millions upon millions upon millions and upon more millions of dollars stolen by Gore and fellow swindlers, the careers made by gouger academics and politicians, and so on, are not amusing. Pity humanity, pity.

This insane swiz is running out of juice, as many previous legerdemains eventually and always do too, but it must be acknowledged that Gore et al. have accomplished a hell of a hustle.

[Piotr 0]

The satire in the videos is amusing... but the millions upon millions upon millions and upon more millions of dollars stolen by Gore and fellow swindlers, the careers made by gouger academics and politicians, and so on, are not amusing. Pity humanity, pity.

This insane swiz is running out of juice, as many previous legerdemains eventually and always do too, but it must be acknowledged that Gore et al. have accomplished a hell of a hustle.

Agreed. But bear in mind that humor is a very potent weapon. Why do you think Tina Fey is so encouraged to potrait Sarah Palin? OK, so it's name calling, but if we make Mann and Jones and Al and Hansen a laughing stock, nobody will pay them any attention, and that means that we'll be able to protect those millions from global warming swindlers, and that makes it worth it.

[maure 1]

Oh yeah.

[yurp 0]

You can tell the forum's getting dull when I venture into the cafe zone.

Funny thread.

I always admire the ignorance of people when they think that temperature is all that climate change is about. They feel that if they can show the temperature isn't rising, then they've proved it's all a crock.

I don't really give a flying **** if the temperature's going up down or staying the same. The biggest mistake was to brand this issue 'global warming', like it's a purely a matter of going out with a thermometer and reassuring ourselves.

There is indisputable proof (measured, recored and published) that:

Fish stocks are declining dramatically.

Coral reefs are dying off.

Species are becoming extinct at an ever increasing rate.

Several major rivers are no longer reaching the sea for several months out of the year.

Glaciars are melting.

Ice caps are disappearing.

Sea levels are rising.

Incident rates of large scale natural disasters are increasing (floods, droughts, tornados etc).

Polution is increasing.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

Rain forests are being destroyed.

Soy beans, corn and palm oil don't replenish oxygen nearly as efficiently as those rain forests they are replacing.

Feeding cows for meat is about 10,000 times less efficient than growing potatoes in terms of water usage for weight.

Oil is a finite resource.

The demand for power is increasing.

The human population is expanding.

Water tables are dropping.

Wells are drying up.

Desertification is increasing.

...the list goes on.

Whether or not the temperature is rising or not is a conversation for imbeciles (scientists and sceptics alike).

Talk of predicting the future is equally daft.

It's plainly obvious that humanity is ****ing things up in an unsustainable way.

There are 2 things that are debatable as far as I can tell...

a ) will this result in a slow, managable cull of humanity or a fast, tragic one?

b ) when will that cull start and will it be controlled by us (i.e. setting limits on birthrates and laws on energy usage etc)?

[Piotr 0]

You can tell the forum's getting dull when I venture into the cafe zone.

Funny thread.

I always admire the ignorance of people when they think that temperature is all that climate change is about. They feel that if they can show the temperature isn't rising, then they've proved it's all a crock.

I don't really give a flying **** if the temperature's going up down or staying the same. The biggest mistake was to brand this issue 'global warming', like it's a purely a matter of going out with a thermometer and reassuring ourselves.

There is indisputable proof (measured, recored and published) that:

Fish stocks are declining dramatically.

Coral reefs are dying off.

Species are becoming extinct at an ever increasing rate.

Several major rivers are no longer reaching the sea for several months out of the year.

Glaciars are melting.

Ice caps are disappearing.

Sea levels are rising.

Incident rates of large scale natural disasters are increasing (floods, droughts, tornados etc).

Polution is increasing.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

Rain forests are being destroyed.

Soy beans, corn and palm oil don't replenish oxygen nearly as efficiently as those rain forests they are replacing.

Feeding cows for meat is about 10,000 times less efficient than growing potatoes in terms of water usage for weight.

Oil is a finite resource.

The demand for power is increasing.

The human population is expanding.

Water tables are dropping.

Wells are drying up.

Desertification is increasing.

...the list goes on.

Whether or not the temperature is rising or not is a conversation for imbeciles (scientists and sceptics alike).

Talk of predicting the future is equally daft.

It's plainly obvious that humanity is ****ing things up in an unsustainable way.

There are 2 things that are debatable as far as I can tell...

a ) will this result in a slow, managable cull of humanity or a fast, tragic one?

b ) when will that cull start and will it be controlled by us (i.e. setting limits on birthrates and laws on energy usage etc)?

You are showing a typical anthropocentrist (i.e. arrogant) point of view. What's make you think that a;

a) Humanity is "effing things up?" what makes you think that whatever influence we have on Earth is "bad" from the perspective of all the other species? Is it worse than the oxygen "pollution" caused by early plants? I mean oxygen is way more corrosive than anything humanity has ever produced. Sure, the oxygen breathers thrived, but it killed off almost all early non-oxygen organisms on Earth. It simply depends on your perspective.

why do you think that anything humanity does represents changes at "unsustainable" rate? I think the changes may or may not be permanent/temporary. Again, what is your timeframe? a single human life? Look at any timescale showing the existaence of humanity versus the age of the planet. If you think that ANYTHING that humans accomplished/caused since the beginning of humanity is in any way significant when taken from the perspective of the entire planet, you are trully one arrogant human.

I suggest you read a two-page diatribe Michael Critchton included in the Jurassic Park about whata sum total of human activity means in the scale of the planet, never mind the solar system. It will give you a certain perspective.

[yurp 0]

You are showing a typical anthropocentrist (i.e. arrogant) point of view. What's make you think that a;

a) Humanity is "effing things up?" what makes you think that whatever influence we have on Earth is "bad" from the perspective of all the other species? Is it worse than the oxygen "pollution" caused by early plants? I mean oxygen is way more corrosive than anything humanity has ever produced. Sure, the oxygen breathers thrived, but it killed off almost all early non-oxygen organisms on Earth. It simply depends on your perspective.

You're totally right. If we want to create a world perfect for insects and algae, we're doing a fantastic job. How very specieist of me. Perhaps it's time for us to commit mass suicide and ring in the changes around here.

why do you think that anything humanity does represents changes at "unsustainable" rate? I think the changes may or may not be permanent/temporary. Again, what is your timeframe? a single human life? Luook at any timescale showing the existaence of humanity versus the age of the planet. If you think that ANYTHING that humans accomplished/caused since the beginning of humanity is in any way significant when taken from the perspective of the entire planet, you are trully one arrogant hman.

I don't. I find it bizarre that you think I do. Almost all human activity is totally sustainable.

The planet will survive happpily long after we're gone. Try reading my post and you'll notice I was talking about a cull of humanity, not the death of Earth.

Has maure been teaching you in the art of (mis)reading?

I suggest you read a two-page diatribe Michael Critchton included in the Jurassic Park about whata sum total of human activity means in the scale of the planet, never mind the solar system. It will give you a certain perspective.

There are two very easy comebacks...

1 - He is totally correct and it has absolutely no bearing on the survival of humanity (but then I'm being specieist again, since I'm interested in humanity's survival).

2 - If you're constructing your reasoning on the words of an author (and not even a very good one), then I'm not surprised at the nature of your arguments. Quick question - Is Jurassic Park was (i) a scientific thesis (ii) a comic strip (iii) a soap opera script or (iv) a work of fiction? Not that that's pertinent, I just want to be sure.

Come on people - can't we do better than this?

*considers all past "debates" he's seen on the TF1 forums*

hmm - that'll be a 'no' then.

*sigh*

For once, I'd really like to have a decent debate with someone without them making up my arguement as they go along to suit their own unrelated rebuttals.

It's just so pointless.

Andres - where are you?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

For once, I'd really like to have a decent debate with someone without them making up my arguement as they go along to suit their own unrelated rebuttals.

It's just so pointless.

Dear Twatface,

Bollocks!

There... better?

[yurp 0]

Dear Twatface,

Bollocks!

There... better?

much!

[Piotr 0]

You're totally right. If we want to create a world perfect for insects and algae, we're doing a fantastic job. How very specieist of me. Perhaps it's time for us to commit mass suicide and ring in the changes around here.

I don't. I find it bizarre that you think I do. Almost all human activity is totally sustainable.

The planet will survive happpily long after we're gone. Try reading my post and you'll notice I was talking about a cull of humanity, not the death of Earth.

Has maure been teaching you in the art of (mis)reading?

There are two very easy comebacks...

1 - He is totally correct and it has absolutely no bearing on the survival of humanity (but then I'm being specieist again, since I'm interested in humanity's survival).

2 - If you're constructing your reasoning on the words of an author (and not even a very good one), then I'm not surprised at the nature of your arguments. Quick question - Is Jurassic Park was (i) a scientific thesis (ii) a comic strip (iii) a soap opera script or (iv) a work of fiction? Not that that's pertinent, I just want to be sure.

Come on people - can't we do better than this?

*considers all past "debates" he's seen on the TF1 forums*

hmm - that'll be a 'no' then.

*sigh*

For once, I'd really like to have a decent debate with someone without them making up my arguement as they go along to suit their own unrelated rebuttals.

It's just so pointless.

Andres - where are you?

Sorry, I thought it was YOU who made up ad hoc arguments, considering they seemed to be taken out of some leftist, anti-human, anti-western civ , greenpeace propaganda brochure. Again, I'm sorry, but you get a 3rd grade rebuttals for a 3rd grade questions.

Now, assuming you are only arrogant (forget "human" part) and not necessarily innane, do you care to present some scientific argument, or are you going to quote some 2nd-rate troll from a leftist blog again?

Your choice, buddy!

[yurp 0]

I made this stuff up? You want a scientific argument? Okay...

Here are my original statements and here are just a few of the many many MANY scientific papers / reports based on research papers that back me up...

I'll provide just one or two for each right now - but if you want more on any item, I'll be happy to oblige.

Sources => Nature, Science, BBC, NASA, Cambridge, Stanford, MIT, Reuters, Scientific American and a few direct papers by various achedemics and research institutes

none from greenpeace, friends of the earth or any idiotic scare-mongering sites with a 'green' agenda - I have as little time for those people as you do.

Fish stocks are declining dramatically.

http://wikisdis.inrs.../3c/Article.pdf

Coral reefs are dying off.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/6936634.stm

http://www.nature.co...ature02691.html

Species are becoming extinct at an ever increasing rate.

http://www.reuters.c...253331920070523

Several major rivers are no longer reaching the sea for several months out of the year.

http://www.larouchep...sbee_water.html

http://scholar.simmo...dle/10090/13429

Glaciars are melting.

http://www.reuters.c...E62302A20100304

https://www.panna.or...eisz%202008.pdf

Ice caps are disappearing.

http://www.nasa.gov/...ic_thinice.html

http://md1.csa.com/p...0&setcookie=yes

Sea levels are rising.

http://epic.awi.de/e...try_dn=Chu2001a

http://74.125.155.13...o=2000&as_vis=1

Incident rates of large scale natural disasters are increasing (floods, droughts, tornados etc).

http://www.google.co...sasters&f=false

Polution is increasing.

http://www.esajourna...ournalCode=ecap

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

http://www.pik-potsd...in_2004_gcb.pdf

Rain forests are being destroyed.

http://www.eeescienc...0/Fearnside.pdf

http://www.sciencema...ct/297/5583/999

Soy beans, corn and palm oil don't replenish oxygen nearly as efficiently as those rain forests they are replacing.

http://www.scientifi...and-rainforests

Feeding cows for meat is about 10,000 times less efficient than growing potatoes in terms of water usage for weight.

http://journals.camb...ine&aid=1618412

http://kar.kent.ac.uk/8727/

Oil is a finite resource.

duh

The demand for power is increasing.

http://www.sciencedi...14b667de6cc0ca3

http://www.springerl...474r3t375m32h6/

The human population is expanding.

http://www.google.co...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Water tables are dropping & Wells are drying up.

http://hol.sagepub.c...stract/17/2/217

http://www.informawo...92058232&db=all

Desertification is increasing.

http://www.sciencema...ct/316/5826/847

http://earthobservat...esertification/

Now - let's get a few things straight - in your first post I was "anthropocentrist" and "arrogant", now I'm "anti-human" and "leftist".

Since you're intent on name-calling rather than debate, here are some facts about me so you can use the right names...

I have as little time for ignorant green lobbyists as I do for ignorant climate change denialists. I have equally little time for quackery, religion, unicorns or homeopathy.

What ties these things together?

They all rely on their ignorant adherants believing unsubstantiated garbage and never questioning its validity.

Why do they do this?

Because the reassurance they get from belonging to a group of likeminded idiots who cooperate in multi-lateral ego-stroking is more important to them than finding out if they're actually right or not.

I have little time for anyone who ignores evidence or simply doesn't bother doing the work involved to find out about a subject before spewing yet more misdirected babble into the arena.

Do a bit of reading and you'll see that even the oil lobbyists agree with what I've said - none of this is under debate. They would simply insist that it isn't down to our use of oil (personally I think in part it is down to oil, as well as other contributing factors such as over-population, intensive agriculture, meat-rich diets, unnessesary mass transportation etc).

Here's what I am...

I am pro-evidence.

I am anti-stupid.

and yes Grinmore the Honeysucker, I am a twatface

Now, it's only fair that you show me the evidence against my original points...

Fish stocks are declining dramatically.

Coral reefs are dying off.

Species are becoming extinct at an ever increasing rate.

Several major rivers are no longer reaching the sea for several months out of the year.

Glaciars are melting.

Ice caps are disappearing.

Sea levels are rising.

Incident rates of large scale natural disasters are increasing (floods, droughts, tornados etc).

Polution is increasing.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

Rain forests are being destroyed.

Soy beans, corn and palm oil don't replenish oxygen nearly as efficiently as those rain forests they are replacing.

Feeding cows for meat is about 10,000 times less efficient than growing potatoes in terms of water usage for weight.

Oil is a finite resource.

The demand for power is increasing.

The human population is expanding.

Water tables are dropping.

Wells are drying up.

Desertification is increasing.

I won't hold my breath

[pabloh20 1]

I made this stuff up? You want a scientific argument? Okay...

Here are my original statements and here are just a few of the many many MANY scientific papers / reports based on research papers that back me up...

I'll provide just one or two for each right now - but if you want more on any item, I'll be happy to oblige.

Sources => Nature, Science, BBC, NASA, Cambridge, Stanford, MIT, Reuters, Scientific American and a few direct papers by various achedemics and research institutes

none from greenpeace, friends of the earth or any idiotic scare-mongering sites with a 'green' agenda - I have as little time for those people as you do.

Fish stocks are declining dramatically.

http://wikisdis.inrs.../3c/Article.pdf

Coral reefs are dying off.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/6936634.stm

http://www.nature.co...ature02691.html

Species are becoming extinct at an ever increasing rate.

http://www.reuters.c...253331920070523

Several major rivers are no longer reaching the sea for several months out of the year.

http://www.larouchep...sbee_water.html

http://scholar.simmo...dle/10090/13429

Glaciars are melting.

http://www.reuters.c...E62302A20100304

https://www.panna.or...eisz%202008.pdf

Ice caps are disappearing.

http://www.nasa.gov/...ic_thinice.html

http://md1.csa.com/p...0&setcookie=yes

Sea levels are rising.

http://epic.awi.de/e...try_dn=Chu2001a

http://74.125.155.13...o=2000&as_vis=1

Incident rates of large scale natural disasters are increasing (floods, droughts, tornados etc).

http://www.google.co...sasters&f=false

Polution is increasing.

http://www.esajourna...ournalCode=ecap

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

http://www.pik-potsd...in_2004_gcb.pdf

Rain forests are being destroyed.

http://www.eeescienc...0/Fearnside.pdf

http://www.sciencema...ct/297/5583/999

Soy beans, corn and palm oil don't replenish oxygen nearly as efficiently as those rain forests they are replacing.

http://www.scientifi...and-rainforests

Feeding cows for meat is about 10,000 times less efficient than growing potatoes in terms of water usage for weight.

http://journals.camb...ine&aid=1618412

http://kar.kent.ac.uk/8727/

Oil is a finite resource.

duh

The demand for power is increasing.

http://www.sciencedi...14b667de6cc0ca3

http://www.springerl...474r3t375m32h6/

The human population is expanding.

http://www.google.co...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Water tables are dropping & Wells are drying up.

http://hol.sagepub.c...stract/17/2/217

http://www.informawo...92058232&db=all

Desertification is increasing.

http://www.sciencema...ct/316/5826/847

http://earthobservat...esertification/

Now - let's get a few things straight - in your first post I was "anthropocentrist" and "arrogant", now I'm "anti-human" and "leftist".

Since you're intent on name-calling rather than debate, here are some facts about me so you can use the right names...

I have as little time for ignorant green lobbyists as I do for ignorant climate change denialists. I have equally little time for quackery, religion, unicorns or homeopathy.

What ties these things together?

They all rely on their ignorant adherants believing unsubstantiated garbage and never questioning its validity.

Why do they do this?

Because the reassurance they get from belonging to a group of likeminded idiots who cooperate in multi-lateral ego-stroking is more important to them than finding out if they're actually right or not.

I have little time for anyone who ignores evidence or simply doesn't bother doing the work involved to find out about a subject before spewing yet more misdirected babble into the arena.

Do a bit of reading and you'll see that even the oil lobbyists agree with what I've said - none of this is under debate. They would simply insist that it isn't down to our use of oil (personally I think in part it is down to oil, as well as other contributing factors such as over-population, intensive agriculture, meat-rich diets, unnessesary mass transportation etc).

Here's what I am...

I am pro-evidence.

I am anti-stupid.

and yes Grinmore the Honeysucker, I am a twatface

Now, it's only fair that you show me the evidence against my original points...

I won't hold my breath

Soooo, basically you're an everything-and-everyone-a-phobic twatface??

[Quiet One 15]

Andres - where are you?

You might have noticed that this thread has been being a one sided monologue for long. And for a reason!

Good luck with this!

[yurp 0]

Soooo, basically you're an everything-and-everyone-a-phobic twatface??

I think anti-everything pretty much sums it up.

I'm one of those angst-ridden teenagers who knows he hates everything but doesn't really know why.

'Because it's Sh#t'.

'But why is it Sh#t buttercup?'

'Because it is. It's all Sh#t.'

'In what way deary?'

'In a Sh#t way.'

'And how could it be better?'

'It can't. It's Sh#t.'

That's me.

You might have noticed that this thread has been being a one sided monologue for long. And for a reason!

Good luck with this!

I'm waiting for someone to jump in and tell me anything but FOX news is communist propaganda and that I'm a tree-hugging, nazi, socialist, dictator-loving, greenwashed, long haired, stalin-supporting, cocaine dealing, bigotted, British, American, Chinese, Indian, Argentinian, Thatcherite, Blairite, Hugo Chaves-admiring, JFK-killing, crazy, old, out of date, young, uneducated, overeducated, fact-hating, science-loving, metrosexual, redneck twatface.

Another victory for rational dialogue. Yay!

Oh - and as for you "wanting to get a freak on" with Donatella Versace - That's just so wrong.

[Medilloni 6]

I think anti-everything pretty much sums it up.

I'm one of those angst-ridden teenagers who knows he hates everything but doesn't really know why.

Indeed Adam

Here, take one of these and lay down for a spell:

.......Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should..... twatface

[yurp 0]

Indeed Adam

Here, take one of these and lay down for a spell:

wwwwwwwwooooaaaaahhhh - shroooms.

[spitfire 0]

Adam. SO much of what you cut and paste is old news and really has little or nothing to do with the social engineering exercise that has become known as AWG/co2 greenhouse gas theory. It's true many changes on this planet are connected to human activity in the past nano second of earth history. However many of those changes that you cite as supposed "proofs" are temporary, or localised, or just plain normal change on this little old planet where change is the only real constant!

If you really believe that a cull of humanity is needed or that we shoud try to shrink the population of the planet then I offer the same advice I gave Dr Suzuki. Lead by example - you go first! ahhhh too big a step, well then run don't walk to the nearest Urologist and get yourself snipped!

I mean neither of these suggestions to be taken seriously but only offer them to show where you line of thinking inevitably leads!

peace out dude and enjoy the interglacial while you can!

[yurp 0]

Adam. SO much of what you cut and paste is old news and really has little or nothing to do with the social engineering exercise that has become known as AWG/co2 greenhouse gas theory. It's true many changes on this planet are connected to human activity in the past nano second of earth history. However many of those changes that you cite as supposed "proofs" are temporary, or localised, or just plain normal change on this little old planet where change is the only real constant!

Thanks for some slightly more enlightened discussion. Kudos. I will not treat you like a dumb a## since you've obviously thought about the subject and your stance.

The pink bit is all I'm really after - as long as we accept this simple fact, we can see the sense in living more sustainably.

The fact that you are man enough to write this indicates to me that you aren't just giving a knee jerk reaction akin to so many.

You deserve a more detailed answer though...

I'll take all the main points of your paragraph...

"old news"

The papers and scientific journals I cited are all post 2000. They're not old. If you want newer, I'll find some.

"localised"

This is fairly obvious - we don't have rainforests in the UK, icecaps aren't melting in the UAE, mudslides aren't common in antarctica, desertification isn't an issue in Iceland and penguin colonies aren't a big thing in Morocco. Any research papers on climactic/habitat conditions are inevitably local in nature. I would accept local data that refutes the evidence I gave, but so far no one's given any.

"temporary changes"

I'm not sure what you mean by the changes being temporary? Ice caps melting is not a temporary thing unless we're talking in the timescale of the planet. I don't think any of the papers measured a change (i.e. melting ice-caps) that then reversed it's trend.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you write. I would agree that they would be temporary changes if the habitat was given time to recover - i.e. when fishing is limited to a rate at which fish stocks can recover or selective felling of trees. These are the kind of common-sense practices that would allow the currently unsustainable model of civilisation to become sustainable again. Most human activity is perfectly sustainable, it's generally just a matter of scale and method.

"change is the only real constant..."

This is your best argument and I totally agree. It's important how we assess the data collected - and this is a tricky distinction...

I would urge you to do what I do - look at anomolous data incidence.

If we just look at raw data then natural cyclical changes aren't accounted for - this is the data that is used by the green lobby to scare people.

But if we use the data to assess the incidence and amount of deviation from the average, then we allow for natural changes. Using these methods we can see a marked increase in erratic patterns across all manner of data sets over the last half century.

Put simply - A good scientist when looking at climactic conditions will be assessing difference from the mean change, not the difference from the the day before.

If you really believe that a cull of humanity is needed or that we shoud try to shrink the population of the planet then I offer the same advice I gave Dr Suzuki. Lead by example - you go first! ahhhh too big a step, well then run don't walk to the nearest Urologist and get yourself snipped!

I mean neither of these suggestions to be taken seriously but only offer them to show where your line of thinking inevitably leads!

Sorry - but I never said 'needed'. I think it's an inevitability. The human population will decline. Probably not in our life times, but it will.

The issues are (i) whether we control that decline and smooth the population peaks (i.e. by controlling births) and (ii) whether or not we're able to support the max possible population (by bringing civilisation back to a sustainable model).

If we fail to control birthrates ourselves, then population decline will happen naturally through starvation - which won't be pretty, but it will have the same ends.

If we fail to cut out the unsustainable aspects of our civilisation, then we'll be looking at a far lower population than the Earth could potentially support.

If we fail to do both, we have a future involving cyclical mass starvation and an average popultion far below the Earth's potential.

If we succeed in controlling both birthrates and unsustainble practices, then we don't get any population-decimating famines and we get to support close to the maximum possible human population on the planet.

China has been successful with the 1 child policy. It's not pretty, it's not always fair or nice, but it acheives the end in a far better way than mass starvation (which was a regular occurance before the population limitations were introduced).

you go first!

I am...

My wife and I are having no more than 2 children, quite possibly just 1 (if everyone did this, the global population would decline).

Your assumption that I think we should kill people (or ourselves) is incorrect - I do think we need to gradually decrease the global birthrate though. The earlier we start, the less difficult that will be. The later we leave it, the more likely mass starvation becomes.

my line of thinking leads me inevtiably to...

I live next to where I work and use public transport when walking isn't an option when moving around the city or China. I don't own a car in China or the UK. We take a 10 hour overnight train rather than a 1/2 hour flight when we visit my wife's family.

We eat very little meat compared to the average western diet.

We recycle, reuse and repair as much as we can.

We limit our time spent using the computer each day.

We don't use the air-conditioners in our flat (and it gets really hot here), instead we make do with one fan.

We buy our food from the local market which is supplied by local farmers rather than the supermarket across the road.

We don't buy out of season food as it's usually flown in or grown with water wasting methods.

We make the above lifestyle choices for several reasons - it's cheaper, it's better for our health and it's better for the planet.

You don't have to be a tree hugger to live sensibly

Thanks for the good post, but I'd still like some evidence to the contrary of what I state. It's pretty one sided if I give you sources and you guys try to find reasons to ignore them. I'd like to see some evidence in support of your position. If we take the skeptic's line, then we should believe that god exists, the Earth is flat and disease is transferred through smell.

It's easy to ignore, far harder prove - so please - offer some evidence to the contrary, or accept the validity of mine.

peace out dude and enjoy the interglacial while you can!

you too

EDIT - long post, lots of typos

[Max Mosley 2]

Do we still let you vote in Britain, Strags? Labour are doing well these days. No gaffes and lots of votes - or did I get that the wrong way round? (If only Maure knew about Bigotgate!)

What we need in this debate right here is someone young, promising change, sitting on the fence and calling out the two 'old' views on this subject. You can't trust either the pro- or anti-AGW parties because they're not owning up to the painful details coming soon. Maure and his motley crew of rapscallions have so far failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that most experts think humans are changing the planet's climate. It's rather silly because hiding the truth detracts far more from their credibility than simply admitting that they disagree with most, but not all, experts.

That said, I disagree with some of the arguments on the other side too. The idea that pollution or human activity is self-evidently the greatest threat in our lifetime; that we should impose a 1-child per family policy; that we should buy local food from our subsidised farmers rather than Fairtrade stuff from Africa - none of this follows logically imho. The total concentration by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is now about 0.04% and before industrialisation it was about 0.03% - on the face of it, without a thorough scientific debate, it doesn't seem like this is the most pressing issue facing mankind, or that it merits the extreme policies that some activists advocate. Especially considering the figure has been 20 times higher for much of geological time, and considering also that it's going to cost us maybe 2-3% of GDP every year for the next 50 years to even make a modest impact on GW.

My point is not that we shouldn't worry about GW. But I'm not convinced by these attempts (eg from Andres or Adam) to cut through what is inevitably a complicated debate by arguing that 'pollution is just bad, end of'. We should look at what scientists say, then weigh up all our priorities. Personally I still think there are other more important issues but that on balance, the AGW theory is more likely than not correct, even if it does seem that there was more dishonesty than (even?) I expected in some parts of the scientific community.