Topic: Dear Environmentalists, please stop ranting about global warming - page 3. (Read 3068 times)

Frankly, I wish the deniers were right. 

Thank you for putting your foot in your mouth. If the new technology which mankind puts to use is part of the self regulating system, then please refrain from ever pointing to events prior to the technological age as analogies for climate change.

The bottom line is we are the only species which advances our tools at a rapid pace, thus constantly creating a change in the level of our effects. This rapid change is exactly the kind of thing which can throw a self regulating system out of balance. And that especially applies to the short term - i.e thousands of years.

You assume that humanity is not part of that self-regulating system. We are not outside of nature. We are part of nature. Therefore anything we do is part of that self-regulating system. You complain about the environment not having time to adjust. Imagine what would happen if we suddenly changed directions just as the environment started to adjust?

Put another way, which is worse, inflation, or inflation, then deflation?

What happens when we reduce our global footprint - i.e stop trying to fuck with the self regulating system. I'm awaiting your answer from my last post. And let me point out that it was you who just advocated that we should indeed reduce the level of fucking we do with the Earth's natural self regulation.

I dislike being 'preached at' as much as anybody.

But if people don't hear about global warming from pushy environmentalists, they'll hear about it from fruitloops like Alex Jones, the right wing press, the left wing press (which is usually pretty inaccurate too), silver tongued representatives of the oil and coal lobbies, people who believe that global warming won't happen because God promised Noah there wouldn't be a second flood (Republican congressmen), people who say que sera sera, car salesman and travel agents. Actually who needs a list, let's just say every group which has an investment in the current economic system which is based on carbon expenditure and ever expanding production and consumption.

In this situation it doesn't much matter who brings the problem up or how, so long as it's being discussed as a problem. Solutions will be embraced once we widely recognise warming to be a problem within our power. Anyone who recognises it as a problem and raises awareness is alright with me.

P.s. Here is a great Ted Talk on the importance for cattle grazing for global warming. The speaker argues that if we use cattle to reverse desertification, then we can begin to reverse climate change!

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

OK, maybe this will get you to understand. What happens when water boils?

If you didn't seal the tanks, you wouldn't have a valid experiment, as it would simply mix with the outside environment.

I don't see it. Is it sealing the tanks? That is just so the air won't float away. Not the same seal as the earth, gravity does that IRL. But basically we live on a wet rock with a bubble around it, so the sky is sequestered.  

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Al Gore have a hand in creating some sort of stock exchange, thus creating, of sorts, a flow of money to stop global warming.

In regard to the meteor that hit Península de Yucatán eons ago, thanks to plate tectonics, the peninsula's current location is no longer near its location when the meteor hit, let alone its shape.

Speaking of plate tectonics, the climate of the Earth would have been much different a billion plus years ago even if then the relative conditions we have today were the same, simply due to a larger disconnect ocean interacting with the sun and moon (as in tides), coupled with the conveyor system being completely different.

Then we should stop fucking with the self regulating system, shouldn't we?

Obviously, the extreme of not fucking with the self regulating system would be the absence of any humanity induced output. Something between our current output and no output would be less fucking with the self regulating system, no?

And my point is that She can do that Herself. Trying to fuck with a self-regulating system is only going to cause problems.

There's the flaw in your experiment.

Bet you can even guess why.

Way to sidestep the points and give a useless answer. We know the Earth isn't going to disappear. That isn't the point of the efforts against AGW. To point out the obvious, the point is to bring things back to a state where the Earth's natural climate changes are the norm.

But again, how is it possible that one can add CO2 to the atmosphere without driving up heat retention. You can try it at home. Get two fishtanks and seal them. In one put some air, in the other put some air and some extra CO2. Now place a thermometer in both and shine a lamp on them. Within an hour you will notice that the CO2 tank is heating up more.
In the past it has been warmer and colder. That is perfectly natural. But so is the death of 90% of all life on Earth. It has happened at least 5 times before.
My concern is that even though I love nature, it does not love me. There is no reason to think that the warming will stop before our extinction. In fact it may be to late. The permafrost is now melting and that is very worrying. The methane that is now being released could dwarf the effect humans directly have on the sky. At the same time the oceans are soaking up less and less CO2 as the reefs die. With all this evidence I consider anything less than alarm to be a weak response.

The above quote sums up beautifully my entire position on global warming, anthropogenic or not.

Gaea is a big girl. She can take care of herself.

In response to your statements:

#1: And... ?

#2: If you're not using your political ideology, then what are you using? Apparently not science.

#3: Please share the source which makes you think your body of disagreeing scientists is 'large'.

#4: You're not assimilating the data or ramifications of the data effectively.

#5: Scientists have been predicting warming for fifty years. And let me remind you that the consensus back then pointed towards warming. It was only a small subset back then that was predicting cold.

#6: If we're saving ourselves from an ice age, we're going too fast, and it's the rapid pace which doesn't allow for proper adaptation.

#7: You totally missed the point, as you did on all points. If scientists can be bought (some can be), then how come Big Oil isn't effectively buying them to the point of creating more than a tiny fraction of theories and papers which are against AGW?

Finally: why do you suppose the Oregon Petition exists?

I assume that was pointed at me, since you used your favorite "political ideology" argument...

Point #1:
Not calamities. the planet was naturally warmer than it is now.

Point #2
I'm not using my political ideology for anything here. That's your bias talking.

Point #3
Scientific consensus requires consensus. A large body of scientists disagree, ergo, no consensus.

Point #4
And those very same data support my statement: It was warmer before, and it will be warmer again. Quit panicking.

Point #5
When your climate model fails to predict the climate, it means you need to rework the model.

Point #6
So, you're saying that AGW is saving us from an Ice Age, and if we stop, Detroit will be under ice again? Seems like an argument for turning up the furnaces.

Point #7
And if you trace the money from the Pro-AGW studies, they all lead back to people who have a vested interest in it being proven. Surprise! Scientists can be bought.

Point #1:

It's irrelevant that calamities caused hot temperatures in the past and that sea levels rose, etc., etc., etc. We already know that there are other ways in which climate change can occur besides being caused by humanity. It's exactly equivalent to arguing that since natural events such as earthquakes and volcano eruptions cause damage to human built infrastructure, there's no reason not to set off bombs indiscriminately.

Point #2:

Using your political ideology to make judgements about what's going on in the environment is about as stupid as you can get. It's exactly like arguing that the Earth is 6,000 years ago because it's inconvenient for your religion to admit otherwise.

Point #3:

Anybody arguing there is no scientific consensus on AGW is sourcing their information from sites written by idiots as described in point #2.

Point #4:

Just because mankind has only been around for a small amount of time relative to the geologic scale does not mean we don't have temperature records which go back further. It's called taking samples from ice cores, tree rings, etc., to help us accurately build a temperature record through correlation and using one set of data to predict others which allows validation and verification of climate theory through the scientific method.

Point #5:

The temperature rise in the past 200 years far exceeds any prediction from a climate model in light of all natural phenomena which has occurred in that time period.

Point #6:

Milankovich Cycles, the leading theory for the cause of ice ages, predict that we have been entering into a new ice age for thousands of years. Milankovich Cycles correlate strongly with the data for past ice ages. Despite that, temperatures have been rising fast and steady for the last two hundred years.

Point #7:

Scientists get a lot of credit for debunking theories. And if you think there's a lot of money out there to fund science which seeks to validate AGW, just know that there's a huge supply of money out there to fund science which seeks to disprove it. It's called Big Oil. And if you happen to check the funding sources of any (and every, by the way) piece which makes claims that AGW is not happening, the trail of money leads back to Big Oil. Every time.

So, during a time period that:
1. The sun is increasing output
2. The climate is recovering from an Ice Age
3. Humans are adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere

It's a FACT that the third input is to blame, and should be punished?

No one is denying that but anthropogenic climate change is also scientifically proven fact according to current laws of physics and models. Both truths exist at once it is not an either / or proposition.

Might be time to dust off the tin foil hat