Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[canadensis]

This thread is moronic, the bottom line is would you like to breathe clean (er) air or not? To me it is a pollution issue more than anything a g;pba; warming issue. Anyone who says that co2 is not pollution has never breathed the smog of a large city. Maybe not but whatever is coming out the exhaust pipe is burning my throat worse than a shot of rubbing alcohol.lol

 

Yes Aberta used to be tropical - it also used to lie near the equator , It also used to be under the ocean - so what? (plate tectonics). Everyone gets so excited about this crap and I'm not sure what the point is. Just do what you can on your own make your self less of a burden to the Environment. Government and big industry are full of it, we are the pawns.

 

 

Unclebuck,

 

Greenhouses pump co2 in to enhance growth..

 

It is not co2 that comes out of your tailpipe, it comes out of your mouth when you exhale...

 

co2 is not a pollutant.

 

I fully agree with your last 2 sentances.

[SupremeLeader]

Unclebuck,

 

Greenhouses pump co2 in to enhance growth..

 

It is not co2 that comes out of your tailpipe, it comes out of your mouth when you exhale...

 

co2 is not a pollutant.

 

I fully agree with your last 2 sentances.

 

C02 is only added to enhance growth in greenhouses for a period of no more than twenty minutes prior to daytime cycles.

 

C02 does, in fact come out the the tailpipe of a car that burns fossil fuels, along with Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide.

 

Although C02 is the product of perfect combustion, the US Environmental Protection Agency does, in fact, view C02 as a pollution concern.

[SupremeLeader]

Sundance, this is what I tell people. The problem with this issue is so many people see Global warming as caring for the environment, but it is missing the target. People should be angry with our politicians that they are fighting CO2 when there are so many other things that directly/undisputably effect our lives and the lives of all living things. This is not just about our back yard .... looking around the world and the biggest issue might be clean fresh water, we are lucky to be blessed by nature here. I a lot of ways Canada's lack of population when compared to other areas of the world has helped us keep a clean envirnment around us. But getting to our backyard I just think that the best place to start is in our own back yard. (Kinda lead by example). I just don't like the fact people are trying to get us to chase the wrong boogie man (CO2 is natural and not the greatest risk to our existance or health). Water is just an easy example ... there are all the other harmful emmissions that we release. I just bothers me that we are WASTING so much money world wide that could be better used to fight real issues wether environmental or health related.

 

Do you consider the Inuit people in 'our own backyard'? If so, C02 / global warming is ' the greatest risk to [their] existance [and] health'.

[mvdaog]

http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Austin-Sci...nds-to-CRU-hack

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/

 

Might as well see what they have to say about what the emails were about...

[Christofficer]

Well, you gotta base your facts on something that is credible. You guys all have valid points and I agree it's best not to pollute the environment at all. I see links being posted with no idea of who these people are who created this data or what they've done. Here is the bottom line:

 

 

The UN has been basing their data on these scientists with the hacked files for years with the IPCC reports. This comes from the CRU, CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human caused global warming. The man who had originally had this stolen data confirmed he was hacked, and all data is true.

 

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on global warming, quite frankly I don't know alot about it. What I do know is how to smell a scam coming from a mile away. It's a fact they're planning to implement a "carbon tax" based on this data. We all need to know if this stuff is fake and we all need to question what they're doing and what exactly this carbon tax will be used for in light of what's come forth. Just to say you've read a few articles from some unknown it doesn't mean it's true nor gives any solid fact to the matter. It's been proven by credible scientists that global warming is not occuring strictly because our impact on the earth. Ones who aren't being funded millions of dollars to potentially produce false data to implement a freedom robbing scheme. And believe me, if they do this global carbon tax, it's not going to be a few more pennies every month. Just look at the source behind taxes, it's already a complete sham.

[adc]

More interesting reading -- a good dose of common sense in my view. Terry

 

Premature Policy

How zealotry came to pervert climate science

 

The last (9th) comment by Scientist on the Steve Janke article pretty much sums up the stupidity of this debate..........."I'm a scientist and therefore I know what's right and what's best and you're just a hack who knows nothing"..........If the point of Janke's column on idealists wasn't clear to begin with, Mr. Scientist sure drove the point home in spades.......

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Austin-Sci...nds-to-CRU-hack

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/

 

Might as well see what they have to say about what the emails were about...

 

We are going to see spin doctors trying to cherry pick small snippets of emails to give them credibility. Articles I read showed leads me to believe if we were just talking about 1, 5 or 10 emails out of thousands...then I could see some reason there. Unfortunately there is just too much evidence that points to a control freak type system of systemically trying to control and release only certain information...and does it not strike it as strange that all the information they purport to release is all pro global warming...when the Earth is actually cooling? You would think that in a real honest scientific effort that they would publish 80% in favor and 20% against...just to look like their is some balance. Where on Earth is science this 100% one sided? And we are talking predicting weather folks...10, 50, 100 years into the future.

 

Suspicious...you bet.

 

True science encourages counter intuitive thinking, common sense thinking. They are encouraged to publish. From those studies new studies crop up to either flesh out the mistakes and holes, patch them up or prove them wrong. Nothing about science says being wrong is bad...it just helps to generate more thoughts and ideas. Hiding and suppressing that creative thinking...is what the IPCC is trying to do and obviously through this group as well.

 

How is this for a quote.

 

"Global Warming is playing an expensive game with a broken hockey stick..."

[Guest Sundancefisher]

MOD EDIT (BBT)

 

 

Your last sentence summed up your true intent regarding this topic. And for the record.......what have you given away so far?

 

Nuff said.

 

Just answer one simple question for me SL

 

Do you believe that average Earth temperature has been decreasing for the past 10 years?

 

Yes/No

[Ricinus]

Well, they can use the excuse resource extraction companies have used for years:

 

" We know we have screwed up in the past, but our technology has improved and we promise to do better. Trust us. "

 

 

Regards Mike

[SupremeLeader]

Just answer one simple question for me SL

 

Do you believe that average Earth temperature has been decreasing for the past 10 years?

 

Yes/No

 

 

2005 was the warmest year in a century (NASA).

 

2006 was the fifth warmest year on record. (NASA).

 

There has been a cooling 'trend' (see reference to 'trend' in previous post) since 1998 if you choose to present the data in a particiular way (see below).

 

Top five warmest years since 1890 (according to NASA).

 

1998

2002

2003

2005

2006

 

You talk about cherry picking data? If you look at this 'trend' and begin in 1997 or 1999 (thus removing the hottest year on record from the start of the analysis) instead of 1998 the 'trend' of cooling is debunked.

 

The 'trend' margin of cooling while using the starting point of 1998 amounts to ~.1%, that is not signifcant enough to form an actual major change in the direction of the Earths climate; you as a biologist should know this.

[SupremeLeader]

Just answer one simple question for me SL

 

Do you believe that average Earth temperature has been decreasing for the past 10 years?

 

Yes/No

 

I've answered your question(s), now scroll up and start answering mine.

[canadensis]

Do you consider the Inuit people in 'our own backyard'? If so, C02 / global warming is ' the greatest risk to [their] existance [and] health'.

 

And global cooling was the greatest risk to the dinosaurs, causing extinction.

[SupremeLeader]

And global cooling was the greatest risk to the dinosaurs, causing extinction.

 

Nice one, comparing dinosaurs to the Inuit....

[Ricinus]

And there are a lot of people who think the extinction of dinosaurs was caused by the great flood.

 

Regards Mike

[SupremeLeader]

And global cooling was the greatest risk to the dinosaurs, causing extinction.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you also point out that C02 comes out you mouth when you exhale, but not out of your exhaust pipe?

 

Last I heard Dinosaurs where around at the same time as people, the earth was created in seven days, and apparently the surfing was great for Noah and his crew.....at least that's what Stockwell tells me.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Climate change is a long-term change in the Earth's climate....they never changed their terminology; it's called the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change. It was created to address Global Warming which defined is: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

 

All they ever talked about was global warming this...global warming that. Now they never say it...they just say climate change...hoping people assume warming.

 

As the Earth is cooling...and you have said it yourself...what makes you think any perceived temperature changes is caused by increasing higher levels of CO2?

 

How is the Maldives affected by CO2 is the average temperature on Earth is decreasing.

 

Simple questions.

 

As for Stelmach...one figure puts the over all cost at $5 Billion to store CO2 in the ground instead of in plants. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/bu...a0-5d4d6c3e54cc

 

The $495 million is just a portion of that over all plan...I am hoping we don't spend the full $5 BILLION! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...e-pipeline.html

 

As for quoting a definition of smog...who cares where it comes from...it is pretty standard. Some people just assume smog is CO2 which is another falsification of the media.

 

I thought I answered these already...but here it is again for ya SL.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Where do you get your facts? Stelmach is spending 495 million over 15 years......33 million a year; a drop in the bucket when one considers the environmental cost.

 

Perhaps, but in that case you're not showing it - first of all by using and pointing out fringe websites to support your facts, and in your most recent post- Wikipedia. If you used those sources in a post-secondary paper you would fail -that is a fact.

 

I think you mean your saddened by the media sensationalization. In regards to getting second opinions, unfortunately, many of the second opinions have come from the largest contributers of C02 (Exxon). If you work in Education you'll support funding and protectionism, if your work in healthcare you'll support funding and expansion, if you work in the oil industry you'll resist critisism regarding climate change; it's called bias. And sorry Sun, you look at the studies to see how much substance there is? Maybe; if it suits your agenda. You should head down to the Maldives and tell people your thoughts, or a closer venue may be the Inuit on Baffin Island.

 

Wow, and I thought it was only the media that pumped out scare tactics?

 

Climate change is a long-term change in the Earth's climate....they never changed their terminology; it's called the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change. It was created to address Global Warming which defined is: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

 

As the Earth is cooling...and you have said it yourself...what makes you think any perceived temperature changes is caused by increasing higher levels of CO2?

 

How is the Maldives affected by CO2 is the average temperature on Earth is decreasing.

 

Simple questions.

 

As for Stelmach...one figure puts the over all cost at $5 Billion to store CO2 in the ground instead of in plants. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/bu...a0-5d4d6c3e54cc

 

The $495 million is just a portion of that over all plan...I am hoping we don't spend the full $5 BILLION! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...e-pipeline.html

 

As for quoting a definition of smog...who cares where it comes from...it is pretty standard. Some people just assume smog is CO2 which is another falsification of the media.

 

I thought I answered these already...but here it is again for ya SL.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[SupremeLeader]

All they ever talked about was global warming this...global warming that. Now they never say it...they just say climate change...hoping people assume warming.

 

That's an intelligent response.

 

As the Earth is cooling...and you have said it yourself...what makes you think any perceived temperature changes is caused by increasing higher levels of CO2?

 

Where did I say that? I pointed out that the data you presented is erroneous.

 

How is the Maldives affected by CO2 is the average temperature on Earth is decreasing?

 

The Maldives are being effected by rising global temperatures and sea level ie. climate change.

It's all over the news.

 

 

 

Again, scroll up, you still haven't answered my questions.

[Weedy1]

Some more info:

 

Ed Stelmach is planning on 1 billion in spending on carbon capture initiatives... That is a lot of money out of everyones pocket. Country wide carbon capture initiatives are looking at added tax on transportation, goods, services. It all amounts to taxes. Added taxes harms the economy...not improves it. The value added benefit here is not shown except that everyone can agree...temperatures fluctuate. We can't truly grasp that concept yet as humans are not smart enough to predict the climate 5 days from now let alone 50 years from now.

Where do you get your facts? Stelmach is spending 495 million over 15 years......33 million a year; a drop in the bucket when one considers the environmental cost.

 

From: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/091124/busi...ioxide_pipeline

 

Alberta pays $495M for carbon capture pipeline

 

Alberta is spending $495 million over 15 years for a 240-kilometre pipeline that companies can hook into for collecting and storing carbon dioxide, it was announced Tuesday.

 

The province has signed a letter of intent with Enhance Energy Inc., which is partnering with North West Upgrading to build the pipeline, connecting the so-called industrial heartland northeast of Edmonton to oilfields near Clive, in central Alberta.

 

"This new pipeline will significantly advance Alberta's capacity for future carbon capture and storage projects," Premier Ed Stelmach said in a release.

 

"The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line will be the backbone of CO2 transportation for Alberta. It will be built with long-term capacity in mind so as more companies capture CO2, they will be able connect to the line."

 

Construction on the pipeline is scheduled to start in 2011, with operation commencing in 2012. The pipeline will be able to carry about 40,000 tonnes of CO2 a day, or 14 million tonnes a year.

 

"The ACTL will enable the sustainable development of Albertas vast oil reserves while increasing production from existing reservoirs and helping to store 14 million tonnes of CO2 annually," said Susan Cole, president of Enhance Energy.

 

Alberta's portion of the funding is coming from its $2-billion carbon capture technology fund. The federal government is putting $63 million towards the project.

 

This is the third project funded by Alberta's carbon capture technology fund. In early October, the province and Ottawa announced funding for the Shell Quest project ($745Million dollars) , east of Edmonton, and Project Pioneer ($436 million) at TransAlta's Keephills plant in Wabumun, Alta.

 

In both projects, CO2 emitted from the plants will be captured and injected more than 2,000 metres underground.

 

 

 

See also :

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newcom/.../200998-eng.php

 

and

 

http://www.transalta.com/newsroom/news-rel...alta-build-one-

 

and

 

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Initiatives/1438.asp

[calkid75]

Do you consider the Inuit people in 'our own backyard'? If so, C02 / global warming is ' the greatest risk to [their] existance [and] health'.

 

I would consider them in "our own backyard". But I would hardly say that global warming (Not CO2 as I do not believe that CO2 is the cause of significant warming) is the greatest risk to their existance and health. It may be the greatest risk to their lifestyle but as most people effected by a changing climate they could choose to move. I do not believe because historically one has lived a certain way that we need to protect that when nature changes the situation. If I was convinced that something was going to change my lifestyle for the worst in my current location, you can bet I would change locations. I have moved for lesser lifestyle risks.(economic security)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

Some more info:

 

 

 

 

From: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/091124/busi...ioxide_pipeline

 

Alberta pays $495M for carbon capture pipeline

 

Alberta is spending $495 million over 15 years for a 240-kilometre pipeline that companies can hook into for collecting and storing carbon dioxide, it was announced Tuesday.

 

The province has signed a letter of intent with Enhance Energy Inc., which is partnering with North West Upgrading to build the pipeline, connecting the so-called industrial heartland northeast of Edmonton to oilfields near Clive, in central Alberta.

 

"This new pipeline will significantly advance Alberta's capacity for future carbon capture and storage projects," Premier Ed Stelmach said in a release.

 

"The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line will be the backbone of CO2 transportation for Alberta. It will be built with long-term capacity in mind so as more companies capture CO2, they will be able connect to the line."

 

Construction on the pipeline is scheduled to start in 2011, with operation commencing in 2012. The pipeline will be able to carry about 40,000 tonnes of CO2 a day, or 14 million tonnes a year.

 

"The ACTL will enable the sustainable development of Albertas vast oil reserves while increasing production from existing reservoirs and helping to store 14 million tonnes of CO2 annually," said Susan Cole, president of Enhance Energy.

 

Alberta's portion of the funding is coming from its $2-billion carbon capture technology fund. The federal government is putting $63 million towards the project.

 

This is the third project funded by Alberta's carbon capture technology fund. In early October, the province and Ottawa announced funding for the Shell Quest project ($745Million dollars) , east of Edmonton, and Project Pioneer ($436 million) at TransAlta's Keephills plant in Wabumun, Alta.

 

In both projects, CO2 emitted from the plants will be captured and injected more than 2,000 metres underground.

 

 

 

See also :

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newcom/.../200998-eng.php

 

and

 

http://www.transalta.com/newsroom/news-rel...alta-build-one-

 

and

 

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Initiatives/1438.asp

 

 

Indeed, they're spending 495 million from a fund...they're not spending 2 billion.

 

And even if it is 2 billion; the Alberta gov't collect 12.75 billion alone last year from oil companies...how much did the Big Oil take home? (serious question by the way).

 

C'mon team petrol.....you're talking about money, private Emails, skewed science, wikipedia.......My primary sources have been NASA, NOAA etc.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

That's an intelligent response.

 

 

 

Where did I say that? I pointed out that the data you presented is erroneous.

 

 

 

The Maldives are being effected by rising global temperatures and sea level ie. climate change.

It's all over the news.

 

 

 

Again, scroll up, you still haven't answered my questions.

 

Now I know I can't discuss this intelligently with you. The IPCC acknowledges the Earth has cooled in the last 10 years...not warmed. While CO2 is increasing...the Earth is cooling. A cooling Earth would not be the cause of any sea level rise...if there is any actual sea level rise. What many people don't realize is that these tiny atoll islands are simply old reefs. These reef build ups have actually been shown to break down and sink under their own weight...compressing the strata below.

 

As for Inuit...localized warming...does not mean global warming. Since the Inuit are not driving Hummers...and are not contributing more than Japan and China and India and the US...their localized warming in some parts of the north is offset by cooling in other areas. You just don't get it. The IPCC said initially years back that we had warmed for the last 10 years then a scientist (in Canada) noted a major error in their hockey stick model...corrected it...showed the Earth has actually cooled in the last 10 years and the IPCC now state that as fact. The error was that the IPCC completely forgot to include some ocean temperature data...that was cooler than average...bringing average Earth temperature down. Oceans are colder than normal...not warmer.

 

Their response. "We had an error in math that showed we should be warming. Once we discovered the error we reconfigured and ran new models and now we have a model that shows the Earth warms...then cools...then warms..." While somewhat abbreviated this was the gist of their announcement.

 

So then SL...again...you now admit you don't believe the IPCC's own data. You are then running on old data. You are no different than many people in the US that heard on CNN that the 9/11 bombers came from Canada...whereas none did. In a recent survey the majority of Americans remembered the first news report and did not remember the minor quiet retraction. Very similar to the very quiet retraction of the IPCC but if you do not believe me go to their website yourself.

 

So you don't forget. The Earth has cooled for the past 10 years. Fact...and the only fact both sides agree on apparently. If you can't believe both sides and have developed your own brand new theory...then well you win. I can't argue against the invisible truth...the inconvenient truth yes...invisible truth no... LOL

 

Still I don't blame you for missing this major, major point. Many other people relying on others to think for them still believe the same wrong thing or fixate on one thing and can't correct it in their mind. Regardless of all you other points...at least think about how from a common sense perspective...10 years of recent cooling throws on the old global warming hot air bubble.

 

Sun

 

P.S. I see at least now you are not ignoring the high cost Stelmach has allotted for our share of carbon capture and now fully agree with me on the high cost. Frighteningly high cost...and yes that is scary to anyone understanding money management. Slowly but slowly SL...I know you will come over to the dark side.

 

By the way...all this cost expended on hot air...the UN just said 1 billion children in the world are having trouble accessing enough food, water, shelter, clothing and medicine. If we can help the third world fend for themselves and feed themselves better they would be happy with 1 to 3 kids instead of 5-8 kids. When most of your kids die...that is tragic. Third world countries should be mortified people are dieing while we pay to put carbon dioxide in the ground.

[mvdaog]

I do not believe because historically one has lived a certain way that we need to protect that when nature changes the situation. If I was convinced that something was going to change my lifestyle for the worst in my current location, you can bet I would change locations.

 

Quite telling, I believe, of certain groups of people and how they view the world. Notice that by saying 'when NATURE changes the situation' that is mutually exclusive from being man-made, and is acceptable. You specifically pointed out that you don't believe global warming to be caused by CO2, so I'm assuming you believe it's from some other 'natural' cause, am I right? If so, when did we forget that we humans are part of nature, and are natural as well. The whole argument that we don't need to protect the way of life and the historical conditions of a certain group of people because it's all a 'natural' change doesn't hold up, because if caused by human beings, it is therefore natural as well.

 

If you still believe what you wrote, even when considering humans part of nature, then it boils down to an opinion, the opinion that environment shouldn't be protected for a people's historical way of life to survive. And it's your right to have that opinion. Not that it really means much, it's just one opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else wants/does/should be forced to assent or agree. Pretty arrogant to believe that what you believe is what should be imposed upon others, especially when historically other peoples have felt much more akin to a thing called 'home' than 'we' do in the present day, and that having to leave that home and community to somewhere else is more than just getting used to a new piece of property.

 

So what is it: You think that humans are not part of nature, and thus global warming, being natural, is acceptable and the Inuit should move? Or is it that you do believe humans are part of nature, and that global warming, being natural (and therefore possibly man-made) is acceptable, and Inuit should move because we're not going to do anything to help?

Just curious.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Quite telling, I believe, of certain groups of people and how they view the world. Notice that by saying 'when NATURE changes the situation' that is mutually exclusive from being man-made, and is acceptable. You specifically pointed out that you don't believe global warming to be caused by CO2, so I'm assuming you believe it's from some other 'natural' cause, am I right? If so, when did we forget that we humans are part of nature, and are natural as well. The whole argument that we don't need to protect the way of life and the historical conditions of a certain group of people because it's all a 'natural' change doesn't hold up, because if caused by human beings, it is therefore natural as well.

 

If you still believe what you wrote, even when considering humans part of nature, then it boils down to an opinion, the opinion that environment shouldn't be protected for a people's historical way of life to survive. And it's your right to have that opinion. Not that it really means much, it's just one opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else wants/does/should be forced to assent or agree. Pretty arrogant to believe that what you believe is what should be imposed upon others, especially when historically other peoples have felt much more akin to a thing called 'home' than 'we' do in the present day, and that having to leave that home and community to somewhere else is more than just getting used to a new piece of property.

 

So what is it: You think that humans are not part of nature, and thus global warming, being natural, is acceptable and the Inuit should move? Or is it that you do believe humans are part of nature, and that global warming, being natural (and therefore possibly man-made) is acceptable, and Inuit should move because we're not going to do anything to help?

Just curious.

 

We as a society can help develop crops that work in warmer years and colder years. We can help people locate in suitable places that keep away from flood plain and storm belts as best we can. The challenge is not to plan for warmer years...but for warmer and colder years. Your main premise above assumes that we as people being part of Mother Earth can effectively and efficiently control Mother Earth and in effect alter climate on a global scale. While I have seen this done on Star Trek we have yet to forecast weather 5 days out yet alone 20, 50 or 200. Therefore how can we say based upon the only evidence presented (computer models) that are fundamentally flawed with such problems as totally ignoring cloud effects on climate we are warming or cooling on a medium to long term? Then the bigger variable is how can we say that minute increases in CO2 will change that.

 

One scientist calculated...and it makes intuitive sense...that under the premise that since man started producing CO2 that we have caused a steady decline in the Earth's ability to cool itself (ignore the fact we have cooled over the past 10 years). He calculated the carbon footprint of man at the time of the industrial revolution and discovered an interesting fact. If you assume as the IPCC stated that we have been causing this problem...warming the Earth and that only eliminating our carbon footprint will save us...based upon the population increases from the industrial revolution to today...that to have any chance of meeting the IPCC quotas we would have to revert back in time to the carbon footprint of the first pilgrims to the new world...North America. So figure how drastically these people feel we have to change to keep us from all dying of global warming. It is impossible to even fathom a change for North America let alone India and China. Just the fuel needed to heat homes in Northern Europe, Russia, US and Canada throws us over the edge.

 

So know you have to also ask the question...does CO2 harm the Earth? Paleogeological CO2 highs were way higher than they are now. All that carbon was converted to plants...animals flourished. A warmer Earth has always been historically beneficial to diversity and biomass on Earth. Cooler years have caused extinctions and lower biomass. Ice ages bad...warm ages good.

 

Predictions of doom for 2009...never did materialize... Now the IPCC is back peddling hard.

 

[mvdaog]

We as a society can help develop crops that work in warmer years and colder years. We can help people locate in suitable places that keep away from flood plain and storm belts as best we can. The challenge is not to plan for warmer years...but for warmer and colder years. Your main premise above assumes that we as people being part of Mother Earth can effectively and efficiently control Mother Earth and in effect alter climate on a global scale. While I have seen this done on Star Trek we have yet to forecast weather 5 days out yet alone 20, 50 or 200. Therefore how can we say based upon the only evidence presented (computer models) that are fundamentally flawed with such problems as totally ignoring cloud effects on climate we are warming or cooling on a medium to long term? Then the bigger variable is how can we say that minute increases in CO2 will change that.

 

One scientist calculated...and it makes intuitive sense...that under the premise that since man started producing CO2 that we have caused a steady decline in the Earth's ability to cool itself (ignore the fact we have cooled over the past 10 years). He calculated the carbon footprint of man at the time of the industrial revolution and discovered an interesting fact. If you assume as the IPCC stated that we have been causing this problem...warming the Earth and that only eliminating our carbon footprint will save us...based upon the population increases from the industrial revolution to today...that to have any chance of meeting the IPCC quotas we would have to revert back in time to the carbon footprint of the first pilgrims to the new world...North America. So figure how drastically these people feel we have to change to keep us from all dying of global warming. It is impossible to even fathom a change for North America let alone India and China. Just the fuel needed to heat homes in Northern Europe, Russia, US and Canada throws us over the edge.

 

So know you have to also ask the question...does CO2 harm the Earth? Paleogeological CO2 highs were way higher than they are now. All that carbon was converted to plants...animals flourished. A warmer Earth has always been historically beneficial to diversity and biomass on Earth. Cooler years have caused extinctions and lower biomass. Ice ages bad...warm ages good.

 

Predictions of doom for 2009...never did materialize... Now the IPCC is back peddling hard.

 

Actually, as you can see by reading my post again, I never mentioned at all what I believe or what my opinions are on the topic. I never made any argument about climate change or what I believe we can or can't do about climate. I was just pointing out the flaws another member made when (most likely subconsciously) implying that nature and man are separate entities, along with informing that their opinion about how and when people should move from their home and how important one's home is, is only an opinion and doesn't add anything useful to the debate about global warming, and may even be insensitive.