The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Report gives sobering view of warming's impact on US > Comments

Report gives sobering view of warming's impact on US : Comments

By Michael Lemonick, published 8/7/2009

Global warming is already affecting the US according to The United States Global Change Research Program

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Waiting on meme to refute this and this:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622103833.htm

Also seeing that he lives in Canada and they are the odd one out in proposals in keeping the temps below 2 degrees he is in bad company.
Posted by PeterA, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 12:13:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The differences between the U.S. and other countries could bear out Plimer’s suggestion that climate change is a local thing for locals to think about i.e. accept it as a natural change and do nothing, or follow the money and spend up big for nothing; don’t drag the entire globe into it.

Michael Lemonick (sounds a bit like ‘lemming’) still touts the unproven CO2/man-made theory, and says that the group to come with a new scary story have an ‘impeccable pedigree’, but gives no proof of this, and probably knows that most people will take his word for it and not bother to check.

“…significant changes are coming.” Significant changes have been threatened by the doom-sayers for millennia, and humans have survived, even prospered, in warmer times than now.

This bloke sees himself as having a “…mission is to communicate climate science to the public”, but he seems to be just preaching the same old bogey man stories.

The spell check on his name came up with ‘Demonic’.

Note that the German Chancellor has told Rudd during his world junket that her country will not be able to make any wild promises about emission reductions.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 2:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, as we have just seen ... you can lead an ass to water, but you can't make it drink. Apologies to donkeys.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 2:30:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the author wants to have any credibility he better point out that their are many places on the globe that have cooled in the last 30 years. Unfortunately that would not fit his wild conspiracy theories.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 3:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh

No-one, conversant with the ramifications of climate change (already occurring in case you hadn’t noticed) is taking Plimer’s suggestions seriously – particularly since he’s been exposed, obfuscating climate data. History will not be kind to the duplicitous and pathetic Plimer or the parasitical mining corporations which support his rubbish.

If the German chancellor claims she is unable to make any “wild” promises on climate change, she may be half forgiven, considering the appalling efforts by Australia to reduce their own emissions.

From the twenty Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol, Germany comes first in reducing per capita CO2 emissions.

To add insult to injury, between 1990 and 2008, Australia increased its per capita CO2 emissions by 2.3 tonnes while the planet’s grim reapers, Canada, increased theirs by 0.9 tonne - move over Canada!

In fact, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency reports Australia’s ignominious placing at number seventeen out of twenty, just in front of Iran, South Korea and China.

Third world environmental standards for a “first” world nation eh?

I'm sure that'll put a smile on your dial Leigh but the more enlightened, will not be smiling with you.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 4:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done runner you did not read it go back a grade.
It quite clearly states, that even my 10 year old grandchild can understand, that is was a report from the 'United States Global Change Research Program (USGCR), which by law is required to report to Congress every ten years on the causes, effects, and possible responses to climate change in the US'
So of course it would not mention other countries.
Say it again - it is USA only report.
leigh has not read it either just shoot the messenger and burn the message. Can 9 billion survive and prosper in warmer times perhaps we should get them to move to your back yard.
Posted by PeterA, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 4:27:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To summarise the article in ten words: the US is warmer than it was 30 years ago.

OK, but that's not in dispute. The points of dispute are a) what caused the increase? and b) will it continue? -- about which the article provides no arguments or evidence whatsoever.

One is reminded of Mark Twain's famous extrapolation: that if the Mississippi continued to shrink at its current rate it would be four miles long by 1997.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 4:42:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, the human species has not encountered temperatures this high and modern human civilization, ESPECIALLY as we try to feed 6.5 billion people, has not encountered anything like this. Just what do you think happens when 600 to 800 million people across Indian and China lose agricultural water because the winter glaciers that provide summer meltwater are just plain gone?

Why can we test Co2 in the lab like this? Watch from 1 minute 30. Eagerly awaiting your scientifically informed link to a peer-reviewed paper that deals with why the candle flame couldn’t be seen by the infra-red camera on the other side of a tube full of Co2.

(IE: WE KNOW WHAT CO2 DOES and can REPEAT THE EXPERIMENT AGAIN AND AGAIN!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=related

Would Leigh, Runner, and John J try and explain this? Watch it with your own eyes and “please explain”. Thanks.

John J, “The points of dispute are a) what caused the increase? and b) will it continue? -- about which the article provides no arguments or evidence whatsoever.”

Umm, the extra Co2 which is demonstrated in the link above to trap long wavelength heat energy, adding energy to the atmosphere, and the evidence is available to anyone in a lab that can run Co2 through a spectrometer.

It’s also easily calculable through the Radiative Forcing Equation as to how much energy is added by how much extra Co2.

QED.

Also sceptics, do you want to explain why all the INDEPENDENT climate bodies, full of skeptical scientists in lab coats, all agree? Forget your young radical dreadlock wearing hippie, why do the SCIENTISTS all agree?

Anyway, I’m off to see your friends in the “Moon landing hoax” and “Area 51” conspiracies to try and understand the conspiracy mindset. ;-)

Bye for now.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 5:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now, No its not the warmest period we have ever experienced. The Roman warming was hotter than now and, contrary to your predictions of doom it was a period of high crop growth and general prosperity. The Dark Ages and the plague on the other hand were during a cold period. Its a damn good thing that Alaska is warmer than it used to be though I doubt that information in the article is accurate.

Temperature increases actually increase rainfall. CO2 is a relatively unimportant greenhouse gas as 95% is due to water vapour. Humans produce very little of the total CO2.

Some of the Global Warming doomsayers were, in 1976, predicting Global Cooling.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 8:33:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, more gloom. With warmer climes historically linked to good times, I'm a wee bit surprised there's absolutely nothing in the benefits column. Suspect the fashionable glass-half-empty focus in the studying and the reporting. No news is good news. Bad news is even better.

JonJ, it was Mark Twain who is also attributed with the line about everyone complaining about the weather, and no one doing anything to fix it. How things have changed. Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed complaining about the icy morning in Melbourne today - lowest minimum in 12 years. Yes, I know, Q&A, weather is not climate - just trying to relive those happy days when God was in heaven and people conversed about such things.

Did Protagorass say something?
Posted by fungochumley, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 8:42:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah the whole thing is some kind of elaborate global hoax designed to extract a few more tax dollars out each of us and provide a bunch of scientists with some extra grant funding.

Lets keep talking about selective local weather conditions because that's where the truth really lies, not in the term "average".

Meanwhile various glaciers and the Arctic aren't really melting and the Siberian Tundra can't be thawing for the first time in 10,000 years because hey, it was warmer in Roman times.
Posted by rache, Thursday, 9 July 2009 1:19:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why can we test Co2 in the lab like this? Watch from 1 minute 30. Eagerly awaiting your scientifically informed link to a peer-reviewed paper that deals with why the candle flame couldn’t be seen by the infra-red camera on the other side of a tube full of Co2."

So we are supposed to waste time and effort preparing a serious response to a YouTube video entitled "Climate Denial Crock of the Week?" Oh, come now.

If you want to read some serious appraisal of the 'greenhouse gas' theory, try

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/no_evidence.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Examinercoms-exclusive-global-warming-debates-Roger-Pielke-Sr-part-1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/10/another-scientific-consensus-bites-the-dust/

These are papers worth responding to -- if you can.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 9 July 2009 9:31:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes John J, you ARE supposed to watch the Youtube “Climate Crock of the week” because it contains footage from a documentary “The Carbon Wars” and shows a repeatable, demonstrable lab experiment that SHOWS what carbon does. You can’t disprove it, so you move on to ridicule (because it’s on youtube) and, well, if that’s your strategy I may as well ridicule all your links because they’re to website “on that there internet thing.... you can’t believe everything you read on the internet!”


But by all means, ridicule a lab experiment and then divert the conversation away to a bunch of whacko nut jobs that can’t publish their “theories” in the peer review process because they don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny!

You want us to read a paper by the “Science and Public Policy Institute” which reads as a who’s who of climate retards that can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that ALL of their arguments have been debunked by the real, peer reviewed science that keeps evolving and changing with new data, while the “skeptics” are stuck in their catechisms of denialist arguments, old recycled myths and outdated papers. Theirs is a religion of denial stuck in a philosophical stance that refuses to acknowledge certain BASIC data. REAL science evolves and changes with new data, dogma doesn’t.

They trot out the same old trite one liners, old disproved papers, old misleading graphs and absolute LIES to the gullible public that belong to the “church of everything’s gonna be all right and nothing has to change”.

In the meantime we are busy watching the north pole melt, a fairly major phase-change. (Google phase change if you want to know the basic physics behind how ice melting can remain at a fairly similar temperature yet is soaking up lots of energy, but once that ice is gone, the REAL warming starts!)

These guys just “can’t handle the truth” of new data, and are stuck pushing their old beliefs. Science adapts and handles new material, these guys don’t, and can’t explain basic data.

Like that candle.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:51:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again Jon J.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). Christopher Monkton's (wait, the Lord Viscount of Benchley's) 'think-site'.

The SPPI is allied to the Heartland Institute's neo-conservative right-wing 'think tank' which twice this year, held an "international" symposium on climate change - the first of which was held 'coincidentally' at the same time as the International Science Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen.

Heartland's second of the year's 'international' conferences was attended by; our very own Senator Fielding (at his own expense of course - but that's another story) and the inimitable David Evans (ex-Howard pin-up boy and author of your linked 'peer reviewed' paper) and the irascible Bob Carter (who along with Ian Plimer) enjoys star status with Australia's own right-wing neo-con 'think tank, the Lavoisier Group.

Anthony Watts (a TV weatherman in a previous life) is another of your links. He also has attained star status with Heartland. Watts is a regular guest speaker to their 'international' conferences no doubt because most AGW "deniers" gravitate to his blog-site and is so 'popular'.

Roger Pielke (both senior and junior) are also stars with Heartland and were instrumental in the writings and musings of the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 'report' (guess who published it) in contradiction to the real IPCC's AR4.

You want someone to respond to these "papers"? You must be joking. I only respond (review or critique) those that are submitted or published by reputable scientific journals - not right-wing think tanks or by people who are pushing their own ideological agenda.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 9 July 2009 11:21:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, there's no financial motive to lie about it is there?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/03/2615551.htm?section=justin

The world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that continue to question the cause and effects of global warming.

The Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) claims ExxonMobil has reneged on a promise to end financial support to the groups.

It also claims a conference of climate change sceptics in Washington, recently attended by Australian Family First Senator Stephen Fielding, was sponsored by one of the groups that received funding from the oil giant.

A policy director at the LSE, Bob Ward, first wrote to ExxonMobil in 2006, concerned about the financial support the company provided to climate change sceptics.

Last year the world's biggest oil company told the LSE's climate change institute it would discontinue funding several public policy groups whose position on climate change could "divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner".

<snip>
"Now the reason I single them out is that they have been sponsors of a recent conference of so-called sceptics which took place in Washington, and that is mostly a gathering of lobbyists and other people who reject the evidence on climate change.

"Of course it was also the conference which Senator Fielding recently attended.
<snip>

........

Mr Ward says those organisations are not informing the public about climate change.

"They are trying to mislead people and frankly we have seen these sorts of tactics before, for instance in the case of the tobacco industry, who for many, many years, funded campaigns and misinformation about the adverse effects of their products," he said.

"This seems to be a similar situation in which a commercial company is funding misinformation campaigns because there is abundant evidence that their products are having an adverse effect."
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 9 July 2009 6:56:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eclipse now (who sounds a lot like kulu?) who funds Grantham Research Institute. That's the obvious question the ABC always forgets to ask in their breathless pursuit of anyone with a contrary view. How will they benefit from smearing someone? How squeaky clean is their funding, is it any less scurrilous, is it objective?

Aren't they funded by some multibillionaire? Who wants to donate to green causes? So that's like asking what tobacco company finding will turn up, it's predictable.

Of course Grantham Institute has a problem with anyone questioning what they have been funded to uphold.

Look at their site and then decide for yourself, don't be fooled by the waving of arms and pointing "over there!"
Posted by odo, Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:06:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now,

The world has been warmer than it is now; the people were healthier, populations increased, and everything was fine. You need to catch up on your reading.

There has been more CO2 in the air, too – when there was no industrialisation!

I watched a scientist the other day preaching about how those of us who have not been fooled by the human-cause hysteria should take into account new scientific advancement. Suddenly, after everything - including the weather – has failed to show what they have been calling truth, there is new scientific advancement!

I know that scientific knowledge is supposed to double approximately every 7 years, but in the last 12 months or so?

Come on!

I thought about the CO2 bogey the other night when I was reading an article about the failed attempt to clone a thylacine. We were ASSURED by scientist that it could be done. It never was, of course, and scientists at the time were very sceptical.
Harry Griffin, who cloned Dolly the sheep said: “There’s a snowball’s chance in hell of this project being successful. But as a PR stunt (the National Museum got about half a million dollars for the project), it seems irresistible.”

The man-made theory of climate-change is in the same category as the cloning of the thylacine – it’s a stunt to get money for scientists and the rent-seekers who are manufacturing wind and solar power.

It’s going to cost us big time after Rudd has finished. The gullibility of people like you is amazing.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 10 July 2009 10:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,
Yes Co2 levels have periodically been higher in the past, but what is your point?

Do you think climatologists don’t study earth’s ancient climate history? Do you think it is not covered in dozens of peer-reviewed climate texts? Do you think greenies are not all briefed on this stuff in basic introductory books like Tim Flannery’s “Weather Makers”?

You arrogantly assume you’ve discovered some secret. But you don’t have the big picture with which to frame that tid-bit of information. You don’t know that these matters are ALL comprehensively addressed by climatologists repeatedly. Your half-assed Denialist heroes go on their crusades presenting their tired old data in their tired old regurgitation of myths on behalf of Exxon masters, and just “forget” to tell their audiences the Inconvenient Truth that climatologists ALREADY know everything they are presenting and have addressed it in the peer reviewed sources time and again. I’m so sick of responding to the same old myths.

“The gullibility of people like you is amazing.” While busy propagating idiotic disinformation and prattling on about cloning, did you happen to prove that the “Moon Landing was faked” and they really do have “Aliens at Roswell?” Such is the scale of the Climate Conspiracy you’d have us believe in. Just check the list of organizations that agree! They’re all “manipulated” into it? ALL OF THEM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Meanwhile, the rest of us are just getting on with the job in the real world of physics, and chemistry, and Co2’s Radiative Forcing Equation. (Which can be demonstrated in any spectrometry lab).

If you care to share which particular bit of climate history confuses you, I’d be happy to respond. But if you’re just going to slander every scientist in the whole climate community as “in it for grant money”, then grow up! Don’t you realize that science is a competitive business, and any young scientist would love to publish *the* paper that actually disproves climate change? However, the peer-review process keeps confirming from multiple fields of investigation that this is actually happening.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 10 July 2009 11:26:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now, mate, take a deep breath, let it out slowly, let your shoulders roll forward, let your breath all the way out. There you go, feel better now, repeat if necessary.

Relax, you're going to blow a gasket at this rate. People will jerk your chain deliberately for fun if you keep these displays going.

Your anger is overcoming your reason and you're beginning to blither like some deranged religious nutter, and no one wants to see that.

BTW - ranting about peer reviewed papers and demanding scientific method, then linking to Wikipedia is not a good look, you do realize wiki is open source don't you and not considered more than uncorroborated web graffiti?
Posted by rpg, Friday, 10 July 2009 11:40:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At least Wiki is a little more reliable than the ranting denialists who do not link to any credible peer reviewed scientific based data.
In the meantime the arctic ice is getting thinner, the USA is hotter and we have a 10 year drought, and another El Nino on its way and the rivers are empty (you can walk across the Murrumbidgee at Wagga and this is winter and should be flooded), Sydney is going to be like Brisbane and the world temperatures are still higher than it was 100 years ago and rising.
How many people are going to die when they are flooded, run out of resources, agriculture fails and there is no room elsewhere? NIMBY
We cannot support the 10 billion that are expected irrespective of any temperature rises if we have induced it or not.
Posted by PeterA, Friday, 10 July 2009 1:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter A, OMG "We cannot support the 10 billion"! "How many people are going to die .. etc" Dooooooom!

Another ranter .. is it the day of the week to all shout at people who disagree with you and claim the world is ending? Do you find that method of communicating effective? Have you made many converts or friends with this method, or is it just anger release?

Like Eclipse Now take a deep breath and relax, it might never happen.

I'm still reading through all the content referenced in the article, have you read it all through? What do you think or the report and supporting documents?

I know you love folks to post links so you can go wild shredding them and sneering at the "the ranting denialists who do not link to any credible .. etc" yes, we get the message. I don't post links for your amusement, nor do I bother with following most of the links to favorite "how to deal with a sceptic/alarmist" sites, Google wars don't interest me. The report in interesting though, have I asked whether you have read it?

I'm not a denier, I just question whether mankind is responsible for any warming, and I think we should be adapting not trying to stop or reverse the climate. When you say "denialist", I know that you have suspended objective analysis and become religious, OK fine now you're into insults, again, fine I don't mind you having a religion.

What is it you think people are denying, that the world is warming, no I get that, and I'm OK with it, how about you? Are you in denial that the climate is going to change and you cannot do a dang thing about it. Is it a feeling of loss of power that makes you want to rant and be angry at people who do not believe the same things you do?

Sydney gets Brisbane weather, you make it sound like a bad thing?
Posted by rpg, Friday, 10 July 2009 1:49:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RPG,
The wiki is merely a list of credible scientific organisations that agree with global warming, and is fully referenced. Check the footnotes for references — you do know that’s how wikipedia works?

Also, I think you made a typo. You meant to say:

“I’m not a denier, I just don’t like physics, chemistry, spectrometry, or science generally, so I’m going to call *you* religious while *I* refuse to deal with the facts. I’ll also attempt to hide my inability to find any credible anti-warming science by misrepresenting a request for actual scientific information as “Google wars”. (Anything instead of admitting to having an unjustified and ridiculous opinion). But I’m right and you’re wrong and RELIGIOUS as well! Mwawhahwahwa!”

Yep, you’ve won me over! ;-)

BTW — your last point about Sydney getting Brisbane weather is classic Denialist myth number 25, “It’s too cold where I live, warming will be great!” Please realise that climatologists admit there WILL be some winners, but mostly losers. We are ‘only’ talking about an extra 2 little Christmas tree lights per cubic meter of atmosphere, yet that small amount of extra energy will have some catastrophic results on some very important parts of the world, as the main OLO article explained.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live--warming-will-be-great.html

Back to Odo on his historical Co2 readings. Come on mate, we need something new here that the REAL climatologists have never seen before... you obviously *think* you’ve got something that can do the trick, why not give it a go?

Peter A, I agree. Population growth as we hit “peak everything” while the climate is also destabilising. And they act like there’s nothing to be concerned about!? Ultimately I’m an optimist and think we’ll adapt, and humanity (and pockets of civilisation) will survive even the worst case global warming scenarios. This is not “The End of the World”, but maybe the end of global prosperity, with increased wars? Very possible.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 11 July 2009 10:08:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now,

In the case of the IPCC and the few real scientists involved, there was no peer review; they were all feeding fromt the same money trough. It took independent scientists a long time and legal action against the purveyor of the the 'hockey stick' chart before it was proven to be fraudulent because historic data was left out.

No. They did not take into account historical or other possible and known causes of climate-change!

You call me 'arrogant'. I call you an ignoramus without a brain to think for himself, you gullible twit.

Consensus and your pagan Green religion is not science, you nutter.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 11 July 2009 11:22:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse now, I'm not going to play an adversarial game of comparing links and web references, I don't rabbit on about CO2, so I have no idea what you're blithering about.

"Come on mate, we need something new here etc .. yada yada .. give it a go?" Does it frustrate you when skeptics won't play the "compare religious readings" game?

" ... classic Denialist myth number 25", sounds like classic provocation from "How to deal with Sceptics" type web sites, correct? Whoop some heretics? Prove your worth to the cause?

You feel very strongly about this don't you?

BTW the "Sydney is going to be like Brisbane" is a quote from Peter As post, I responded to it to jerk his chain, he was winding up the doom scenario a little much.

"Ultimately I’m an optimist and think we’ll adapt", yay! So can we stop all the alarmism and frothing at the mouth business?

My opinion is that anyone who thinks they can change or reverse the climate is deluded and that adapting is better than spending energy, time and money doing it.

Now, back on topic, have you read the report, what do you think of it?
Posted by odo, Saturday, 11 July 2009 2:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,
Big statements about the IPCC and court and the 'hockey stick' but not a shred of evidence. Links please? Oh, and you're just another Denialist accusing someone of a "Green religion" without taking into account spectrometry, chemistry, and physics, or having ANY credible scientific evidence for your own anti-climate opinion. Go for it! You're making me look good. ;-)

ODO, you had my hopes up that I was finally going to be able to disprove global warming once and for all when you asserted that there had been higher levels of Co2 than today, and maybe today's climatologist just didn't know about those? (They explain them ALL in great detail).

"I don't rabbit on about CO2, so I have no idea what you're blithering about." OK, if you've got no idea then please don't post in a thread on global warming? Sounds wise to me.

""Ultimately I’m an optimist and think we’ll adapt", yay! So can we stop all the alarmism and frothing at the mouth business? "
Well, you DO know how to quote someone out of context. I basically meant human beings as a species will adapt, and *some* form of civilisation, but if we let the worst case scenarios run their course billions could die and ... is that acceptable to you, just in the name of profits for Big Oil & King Coal? THAT's what we CAN do, stop burning fossil fuels ASAP and scale up renewables over the next decade. Stop lying to this list that we can't.

Preventing billions starving to death is worth "frothing at the mouth" a bit. To bring it home a bit. Do you have kids? How about we just select your kids as one of the billions that will starve to death if we DON'T froth at the mouth a bit? Got that this is EXTREMELY personal to those that won't make it because people like you couldn't get their heads around the science?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 11 July 2009 7:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now: "They [climatologists] explain them ALL [higher levels of CO2] in great detail"

Q&A, our resident climate scientists says, "there is some disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales"
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 11 July 2009 9:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ODO, I apologise... I just double checked and you DIDN'T go on about higher Co2 levels in the past, it was Leigh. Sorry again.

Leigh, I'm referring to the INTERNATIONAL peer review process that includes:

European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Medical Association
Australian Medical Association
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Leigh, if you're saying ALL these organisations are deceiving the public just to take money from the "gravy train", then you are talking about an ENORMOUS conspiracy OF global warming, when all the evidence is that the conspiracy is you guys AGAINST global warming!

As Dr Karl said: ... “The Royal Society, which had Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, is the oldest and most prestigious scientific society in the world - and it's also deeply conservative. Mr. Ward asked why ExxonMobil paid millions of dollars to groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." Such a strongly worded letter is very unusual for the Royal Society."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/05/31/1938551.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 12 July 2009 12:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In the case of the IPCC and the few real scientists involved, there was no peer review; they were all feeding fromt the same money trough."

Wot.....no links.....no evidence......nuffin'.....just the same ole ranting conspiracy theories from the fossil fuel vampires, fighting fang and claw to hold on to their blood sucking evil empire and their diminishing profits:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 12 July 2009 2:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg states
'Like Eclipse Now take a deep breath and relax, it might never happen.'

What might never happen?
That is typical of out leaders (and you) just sit back and it might go away and we will adapt.
That is why the environment is under stress and climate change is occurring.

What are the consequences of adapting?
It is a word that gets banded around but no explanation on what it means.
The worst case scenario, could be doom (not my word, until now) for the majority of the worlds population, should we not plan for that situation or just sit back as you suggest.

ODO 'he was winding up the doom scenario a little much.'
Frightens you does it, so it should if you care for your grandchildren.

I am glad that I will not be living in Sydney when it gets Queensland weather - and the cane toads.

It is interesting to see the people dropping down to calling names when they have lost the discussion does not do there cause any good.
Posted by PeterA, Sunday, 12 July 2009 5:16:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PeterA – yes, I know what you mean about calling names mate.

Did you forget you had posted that earlier? WAFI.

At least Wiki is a little more reliable than the ranting denialists who do not link to any credible peer reviewed scientific based data.
Posted by PeterA, Friday, 10 July 2009 1:27:32 PM

It is interesting to see the people dropping down to calling names when they have lost the discussion does not do there cause any good.
Posted by PeterA, Sunday, 12 July 2009 5:16:35 PM

What are the consequences of adapting?

Being able to put our resources into something with tangible benefits to our society, not just line the pockets of the few selling snake oil and doubtful solutions.

The glass is half full .. for me.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 17 July 2009 4:34:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cool. Half full is the exact definition of peak oil, when we are half way through the muck. So even if you don't believe in global warming (despite scientific consensus from ALL the INDEPENDENT players that actually count) then at least try and get your head around that the world is RUNNING OUT of fossil fuels.

That is, even if we think we can burn the remaining oil (and we can't because just burning that would push us past the climate safety levels), because we are at world peak oil, don't you think we'd better find out if there's anything in that there "snake oil" as you put it?

Because I'm suggesting that a Greater Depression is pretty much inevitable within the next 5 to 10 years because of oil production decline. We currently consume about 84 mbd, and what happens to the world economy when it's only 70 mbd in a decade, and 60 mbd a few years after that? China and India are coming online as big oil consumers so you'd better PRAY that you are wrong about the "snake oil" of wind, solar, wave, tidal, and other electric powers, and PRAY you are wrong about our ability to translate electrons into transport energy (instead of the liquid fuels we are currently addicted to) or we are ALREADY STUFFED, got it?

I happen to be an optimist, and think we already HAVE the technology and alternative transport and city plans to live an attractive modern lifestyle, IF we get cracking now. But you and your sceptical pals are getting in the way.

And if you're right, and the alternatives are "snake oil", then we are well and truly stuffed because gas peaks a few years after oil, and even coal peaks somewhere between 2025 to 2050ish... depending on economic growth forecasts. So what's your answer to that genius?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 17 July 2009 7:33:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse, have you seen anyone about your anger problem?
Posted by fungochumley, Friday, 17 July 2009 10:49:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think it's anger, I think it's being "highly motivated". This stuff is just not funny any more.

So even if you don't accept global warming (and I just cannot understand that pig headed stubbornness, it's like denying gravity or the world being spherical), then what do people do about the fact that we are at peak oil, and within a few short years our global economy will be staggering under either shortages or $300 a barrel oil?

Morons like "MeMeMine" seem to think this is a fun game. They come out to play and point to the Heartland institute, or call renewable energy and other solutions (such as New Urbanism) "snake oil".

It makes me sick to my stomach. There are some very real crisis coming our way VERY soon.

It's this simple: I'm scared for my kids OK? I happen to like my middle-class existence, and don't think I'd do real good in a desperate "Greater Depression" or worse... some of the Mad Max scenarios.

But ultimately I'm an optimist and "hope" we'll make it, but each year we procrastinate massively upgrading intercity electric rail and freight lines from the food belts to the population areas is another quantum leap of difficulty for Australians to jump through when TSHTF.

I'm scared mate. I've personally briefed MLC's in NSW and even had 10 minutes with Maxine McKew. I'm in networks where I KNOW the geology has been spelt out to our main politicians. Every relevant State and Federal politician in Australia KNOWS that the world's independent, non-Exxon funded geologists are saying we're at peak oil. Some can even parrot the information back to you word for word: EG: Peak discoveries being in 1960's, we've been burning oil faster than finding new oil for 25 years, etc. They KNOW this, but choose to trust in the tooth fairy arriving just in time to rescue them from making decisions.

You'll have "an anger problem" with it as well in a few years when you realise just how stuffed we are, and they knew all along and could have been preparing.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 17 July 2009 11:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gosh, that does sound very exciting "I've personally briefed MLC's in NSW and even had 10 minutes with Maxine McKew."

Now that you've dropped that on us, we'll all be in awe of you, imagine briefing Maxine McKew, ALP royalty yes?

(Is 10 minutes her attention span? Or all the time she would give to a doom peddler? I'd have more respect for the latter)

So what do you do Eclipse Now?

You appear to be in the business of spreading the word, and fear, of some upcoming disaster.

What's your shtick? (what's your brief, to go onto blog/opinion sites and attack anyone who disagrees with the dogma?)

What's in it for you?

Who funds you?

Is that why you're so angry all the time, the skeptical view of man's contribution to climate change threatens more than the planet, it threatens your new stream of income?

Peak Oil/Energy questions - off topic as you ramble from hatred to hatred, but for the record I'm in favor of Nuclear Power. I'd like all the funding going to hobby techniques of generating electricity to go into developing better forms of storage, so electricity generated by hydro, nuclear or even coal can be stored so as to flatten out peak use and also be used in vehicles of all kinds.

Adapting means reviewing past decisions, like having nuclear power.

Adapting does not mean continuing to pollute as many do today.

Don't confuse a skeptical view of man made global warming as being in favor of polluting or being against other forms of novel power generation.

You tend to mix things up and declare anyone who disagrees on one subject to be obviously in favor of all manner of evils by definition. Since to disagree at all with any part of your thinking is just so unbelievable, that it is, well, evil.
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 18 July 2009 2:34:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I don't think it's anger, I think it's being "highly motivated.'"

Now that, my friend, is an example of real denial.
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 18 July 2009 7:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Guys, Bulverise me if you wish.

Attack my motives.

Attack my anger.

Do whatever it takes to move off the topic. Divert attention away from the fact that you guys have nothing, nada, zilch, and that you have been infected by an anti-science meme and stubbornly just can't let go in spite of all the evidence. Make sure you never answer any requests for peer-reviewed evidence and credible institutions backing your dogma.

Instead, indulge your dogma.

And above all, scream "STUFF YOU!" to all the climatologists alive today and all future generations. Because basically that's what your stubbornness is saying.

And you call me angry?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 18 July 2009 8:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who pays you Eclipse now?

It's a simple question, you bragged about briefing politicians.

Is it that all bluster and bravado.

Shuold we suspect you're int he pay of Big Green?
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 18 July 2009 8:43:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg

"Adapting means reviewing past decisions, like having nuclear power."

Yes, but it is complicated and can take decades, we should start now - and we are.

"Adapting does not mean continuing to pollute as many do today".

I think you are confusing adaptation with mitigation.

Adapting and mitigation against AGW is very well understood (thankfully by the real decision makers) - except of course by the 'sceptics'. Here on OLO, I use that term lightly.

Both adaptation and mitigation are required for humanity to grow/develop in an environmentally sustainable way.

rpg says:

<Don't confuse a skeptical view of man made global warming as being in favor of polluting or being against other forms of novel power generation.>
I agree, and it sounds good (whether you are a true sceptic or not).

What I cannot understand is that virtually everyone with that POV thinks adaptation and mitigation are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 18 July 2009 11:54:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Q&A, what do you make of the IPCC still rabbiting on about 450 ppm goals when James Hansen and the Australian "Climate Code Red" guys are saying 350? What does that say about the pace of climate science moving on while political inertia drags along behind? Where do we look for the climate "consensus" if this is true? What do you personally make about the 350 argument, because we're already at 385?

Oh, and to RPG and co: I'm just a "concerned citizen". I "briefed" Maxine when I joined the local Labor party a while back just to get access to a few pollies because I'm so desperately confused by their tardiness in addressing this stuff. She didn't believe me, and said as much when she met people 3 days later at the "Smart conference 2007" where she was again briefed by Dr Roger Bezdek.

See video here. 51 minutes web quality, not too data heavy. How she can walk away from that very professional briefing of the whole energy decline situation completely baffles me, and when one considers that ALL politicians at a State and Federal level have been briefed by both citizen-activists like myself and "Professionals" like Dr Bezdek. See what you make of it.

http://fundraisingconcepts.info/spo/bezdek_keynote.mov

When the Australian economy enters the final oil crisis in just a few years, and people start asking questions, I wonder if any of this will come out? Will there be Royal Commissions into who knew what when? Even Dr Karl, Catalyst, the ABC science team, gosh 60 minutes covered it. The Australian Federal Senate covered it in 2007... but no ACTION taken yet.

"3.133 'Early peak' commentators have criticised what they regard as overoptimistic official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The committee is not aware of any official agency publications which attempt to rebut peak oil arguments in similar detail."
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/c03.htm

We could be free of fossil fuels in 10 years if we got STUCK into it!

http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zerocarbonplan
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 19 July 2009 12:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How could ANYONE walk away from MY briefing? I am the ONLY ONE who KNOWS everything. ALL other briefings are unworthy. I AM GOD. WHY DON'T they listen to ME?

Get over YOURSELF.
Posted by fungochumley, Sunday, 19 July 2009 4:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A - Which part of that sentence are you having trouble with?

"Adapting does not mean continuing to pollute as many do today".

"I think you are confusing adaptation with mitigation."

I was drawing Eclipse Now's attention to the concept that skeptics and polluters are not necessarily the same thing - what are you on about?

"What I cannot understand is that virtually everyone with that POV thinks adaptation and mitigation are mutually exclusive. They are not." You obviously misunderstand many things and this appears to only reside in your imagination.

Eclipse Now - "Will there be Royal Commissions into who knew what when?" No of course not, there will be nothing to gain by such a witch hunt, there never is.

Let me give you an example. Imagine if the Eco/green industry had not demonized nuclear power 30 years ago where it would be today, how incredibly advanced it would be. We'd probably be up to 7th or 8th generation reactors, even little portable reactors.

Will we have a Royal Commission to find out why we didn't invest in nuclear energy more 30 years ago? To find out who were the culprits and what their motives were. How they misused information, for whatever reason, like they do today to try to sway public opinion to their own personal views, unbacked by science.

Harrisburg and Chernobyl have become legend in the eco/green firmament, the facts don't bother them at all.
Posted by rpg, Sunday, 19 July 2009 5:17:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fungo, I guess I deserved that. My 2nd paragraph was poorly written.

What I meant to get across was that I'm just a piddley little nobody activist that spent 10 minutes reading to Maxine McKew at a Labor party meeting (with a few choice paragraphs from the Australian Federal Senate inquiry) but Dr Roger Bezdek FULLY LECTURED Maxine with all the most pertinent information.

I also know from my activist networks that ALL State and Federal politicians KNOW there is a strong case for peak oil hitting in the next few years, and this is why I'm interested in not only a "Royal Commission" but the possible media treatment of these issues.

I was just expressing my surreal disbelief that we are not already busy building an oil-free transport system.

Fungo and RPG have attacked my "anger problem", and then my reply admits I've 'briefed' Maxine McKew try asserting I have a "financial problem." (Apparently I'm getting cheques from Greenpeace. Nice, but where are they?) When I point out I'm just a concerned citizen activist disappointed with decisions of politicians I know have been informed about these matters, I now have a "God-complex problem". Very interesting.

RPG and Fungo, have you noticed your whopping great AVOIDANCE PROBLEM? It would be nice to get back to the discussion at hand, just for a radical experiment in obeying forum protocol and, oh, I don't know, RELEVANCE?

RPG: On nuclear: believe it or not, I tend to be a market-will-fix it kind of guy for many things (but not *all* things).

And this is what the market is telling us about nuclear.

""Nuclear is dying of incurable attack of market forces despite what the industry wants you to believe," he remarked, adding that micropower offer more climate solution per dollar spent than nuclear."
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-nuclear_debate.html

Why should we back a particular energy industry with an extra 50% or 100% subsidy if something else is cheaper, safer, more secure, less NIMBY, is not fuel dependent (even peak uranium is an issue) and has less geopolitical “fallout”?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 19 July 2009 8:58:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EN, my point is that I don't think you should consider yourself special for having politicians not address your every concern. You seem to have some funny ideas about politics and democracy. And, perhaps you could explain to us how your comments are more relevant to this article on US climate.
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 20 July 2009 12:32:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg

<< Which part of that sentence are you having trouble with? >>

"Adapting does not mean continuing to pollute ..."

Ergo – adapting does mean not continuing to pollute.

My point (if you can follow the above) is that “not continuing to pollute” is not adaptation, it is mitigation (against excessive GHG emissions, for example).

Thanks, I realise there is a distinction between ‘sceptics’ and polluters, as you have pointed out. Your last sentence is ad hom.

______

Eclipse

I think the world will be unable to limit [CO2] to 450 ppm, let alone 350 – particularly since it will take centuries to sequester atmospheric CO2. This is why it is extremely important to minimise humanity’s contribution (to atmospheric CO2) by developing more sustainable energy and land-use management practices.

Jim Hansen (like you) is very passionate and motivated about AGW – I do understand why. However, Jim is an extremist, some say alarmist. Likewise, there are extremists on the other side of the so called “debate” as you are quite aware of.

The vast majority (by far) of scientists do believe in AGW – there is consensus about the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect ‘theory’. However, there is real debate (in the scientific community) about attribution and climate sensitivity (you know what these terms mean).

Nevertheless, most people don’t have an issue with developing and growing in a more environmentally sustainable way. In my opinion, the problem is how (not why) we are going to do this.

My advice to the most ardent extremists (on either side) is to focus on the UNFCCC’s tasks. After all, solving the “how” will be left up to politicians and economists – not so much the scientists.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 20 July 2009 10:18:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A we were saying the same thing, you from the believers POV and me from the skeptics POV.

You made the point that skeptics think adapting and mitigating are mutually exclusive. I disagree.

I was making the point to EN that he sees adapting and mitigating are exactly the same - so to talk about AGW is the same as pollution, alternative energy sources and any other eco/greenie current idea.

Sorry about the ad hom, but you do get a really lecturing, looking down your nose tone when you go into correction mode. Maybe you could reread your posts and see if it passes the "tone" test and perhaps stop trying to rub folks the wrong way - it seems deliberate, perhaps it is unintended. I'll only take so much criticism which is pedantic only, rather than knowledgeable. I'm happy to be corrected or taught something new or novel, but not sneered at.
Posted by rpg, Monday, 20 July 2009 12:56:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, I take your point rpg - it's the nature of the beast and it's certainly not intended. Pedantic maybe, such is the way we work. I apologise if that offends.

I would be the first to admit scientists (in general) don't make good conversationalists - we can be damn boring dinner guests, sometimes.

So, how should we get the message out there?
A lot of 'sceptics' don't like what the IPCC says (and most haven't even read the IPCC reports or technical papers - even though they are voluminous).
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 20 July 2009 2:56:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy