Crazy weather and armageddon

Paul,

I'd backed out of this one, because my head hurts from banging it against the wall.

But then I wrote a 1000 word reply.

But then I thought, sod it. I give up. Every time somebody says 'There's a problem', you answer 'Where's the solution, then?'. You also keep implying that the absence of the latter negates the validity of the former.

So we'll do it your way instead.

Lets all carry on as we are (consuming, dumping, de-foresting polluting), but put our 'resources' into planning for the impending, inevitable catastrophe:

So, to help us do this, please answer the following questions:
1. What's going to happen?
2. What do you suggest do when it does?
3. How much will be the human and economic cost?
4. How sure are you?

Thanks,

Will.

Paul,

You condemn chattering-class, media-led, grant-aided globe-trotting 'environmentalist' thinking as unscientific, but quite happily trot out the following, wholly unsupported statements or views:

- the human race could physically fit on the Isle of Man, I can't see what the problem is
- a transformation to a 'Green' society would look a lot like the aftermath of Armageddon.
- (WRT a 'greener society') no economic growth, limits on property rights, minima and maxima on wealth policies? All the green-tinted Marxist bits
- Nobody knows what will or will not happen but there is a large political industry based on misanthropy that would like you to believe they do know
- The world will be here long after us, it's our job to find a way of surviving.
- Who is going to start eating their own dog food?

I have therefore come to the conclusion that you either really don't understand the issues, as I first thought, or that you are being philodoxical.

Regards,

Will (finally backing out).

Just a quick question, do some of you actually think that earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by global warming (a stupid name anyway...how about global changing, which is what always happens)? Maybe it was just sarcasm that I glossed over. Anyway, a tsunami will almost always be caused by an earthquake, or a volcanic eruption of suitable terms, or an astroid impact.

The amount of energy needed to kick start one is mindboggling.

One other point: Global warming as a theory is basically wrong. The average earth temp has been decreasing in most places, not increasing (last 130 years). A few places have increased and it's been the media's ignorant obsession with these trends that have people worried.

Our knowledge of earth physics is primitive at best. The eradication of DDT is a great example. Since its demise 10's of millions have died due to malaria and other diseases.

To lable DDT a noxious chemical compound is an outright LIE. Look at it's replacement - much, MUCH worse. You could lick DDT right off the ground and be just dandy.

BTW, if any of you would like to see the references to the scientific journals I'd be happy to oblige.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aric:

do some of you actually think that earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by global warming?

---

Not the latest disater, no.

Though high waves can be cause by distorted weather patterns (hurricanes, tornadoes) that can be affected by Global Warming.

quote:

---

One other point: Global warming as a theory is basically wrong. The average earth temp has been decreasing in most places, not increasing (last 130 years). A few places have increased and it's been the media's ignorant obsession with these trends that have people worried.

---

*sigh*

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

CRU is the 'Climatic Research Unit' at the University of East Anglia, by the way.

quote:

---

BTW, if any of you would like to see the references to the scientific journals I'd be happy to oblige.

---

I'd love to see where you got this from!

quote:

---

Global warming as a theory is basically wrong. The average earth temp has been decreasing in most places, not increasing (last 130 years).

---

I think you may have had the graph upside down.



Stephen

Will,

I find your misquoting offensive.

I don't understand how you can be sure that bad Climate Change is a fact yet so uncertain about the consequences. I suggest you read http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg3spm.pdf for a start.

Paul

There's an interesting collection of views here.

http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_article.htm

(Note the 'environmentalist' taking Will's position, unwilling to go beyond 'everyone can do their bit and make a difference')

Paul

Okay. Let's say we decide that we don't believe in global warming at all and that if there was the slightest whiff of a man-made cause, then we'll still ignore it....when do we pack our bags to head south, or north, or south and north?

Like oil, the countries with the most comfortable climate of the future might well have the power of leverage. If it suddenly turns really cold will we have to find room in Africa and India for the entire northern hemisphere's population? What would we eat?
Would the US use its arms advantage to invade South America to make room for its population?

But if it goes on getting hotter and hotter then Canada and Russia may be handing out long term visas to the entire African and Indian populations. Unless "we" simply plan to let them die in a hell-hole dust bowl? Would the South Americans all move to Australia?

Is global migration a real option for our present (over) population levels? Or will we all just have to make do with our present geographic status? Unless we are wealthy enough to have a free choice?

How much real notice do we need to avoid worldwide famine in a permanently changed world climate?

Nime

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
There's an interesting collection of views here.

http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_article.htm

(Note the 'environmentalist' taking Will's position, unwilling to go beyond 'everyone can do their bit and make a difference')

Paul

---

I particularly enjoyed the following contribution from a Mr Hugh Devlin (of North Wales perhaps?):

'...what makes me a skeptic is the Government blaming us the people and jumping on the band-wagon and taxing us all rich and mostly poor and do nothing with the revenue for our benefit like electric cars or solar power and so no. What if the sun is just getting hotter? And if the earth is getting hotter won't the earth expand thus causing more volcano's to erupt thus stopping sunlight warming the earth? What ever the sun will run out of fuel, it will expand, it will engulf the inner planets, what ever we are all going to die one day why delay it for a hundred years or so we should be now (we have the technology) sending out pods with our DNA in them to find other planets to take over and continue our quest for the meaning of life.'

Tim

Paul,

quote:

---

Note the 'environmentalist' taking Will's position, unwilling to go beyond 'everyone can do their bit and make a difference'

---

The response from the stereotypical environmentalist is somewhat akin to that from the stereotypical director of the right-wing think-tank, who asserted that "[the problem] with the science is that scientists have realised that their funding is also contingent on coming up with scary scenarios," suggesting that scientists intentionally (or not) cook and misinterpret the numbers for personal gain.

I find this as absurd as the myth that medical science found a cure for cancer years ago but is keeping tight-lipped just to keep the grants rolling in.

Joe

Or the Friends of the Earth spokesman now referring to 'climate change emissions'. Dumbing down. But will he stop dumb people riding on aeroplanes?

There was a good story in last weekend's Sunday Times regarding capturing CO2 emissions from power stations and storing them in oil bearing strata thus both putting the carbon back where it came from and helping to extract oil from mature fields. An each way short term win.

I still don't understand why, if it's reasonable to use climate models to predict climate change and promote the results, it isn't reasonable to expect suggestions of how much 'climate change emission' has to be reduced. The environmentalists obviously don't need to say how to achieve the reduction.

Paul

I hate to be the chicken of depression (the bluebird of happiness's downer of a cousin), but a recent Nature article predicts that global warming may be even worse than the more pessimistic scenarios.

Joe

P.S. The abstract is available here.

Have you reviewed http://www.climateprediction.net/ ? I cannot work out what they're saying. It seems there's a lot of potential for 'the sky is falling' news stories from this work, including their press release. I quote,

"If the real world response were anywhere near the
upper end of our range, even today’s levels of greenhouse gases could already be dangerously high.”

The unstated bit is is that if the real world response were anywhere near the lower end of their range it would be getting colder. A look at the published data on their web site shows this.

Maybe the Nature paper is more honest. This is an interesting project, although I think the model and source code should be open rather than closed.

Paul