Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nobody ever said that global warming would kill the planet by 2010

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 06:37 PM
Original message
Nobody ever said that global warming would kill the planet by 2010
The thing that all of these knuckle-draggers overlook is that climate change doesn't mean that we're going to see all of these 'doom-and-gloom' scenarios right away. Most of the dire predictions that climate scientists have made are regarding what will happen to the planet if we let global warming continue unchecked over the next century. Just because we haven't seen drastic changes yet doesn't negate the fact that they WILL happen.

However, we are ALREADY seeing some of the effects of global warming around the world. Part of that is evident in the extreme seasonal changes we've been seeing over the past several years - record heat waves, as well as record cold and record snowfalls in certain areas. Yes, as has been pointed out, record heat in parts of the world can contribute towards record cold and record snowfall in other parts.

As for the claim that global temperatures haven't risen over the past dozen years? First of all, I don't believe that one minute - they have been going up, although maybe not as drastically as once believed. This is because global climate is not an exact science. As I've mentioned, we're witnessing record heat waves along with record cold spells - which means, when you take the average, they almost negate each other, therefore you don't necessarily see an overall increase in temperature. However, studies do show that as time goes on, the rise in global temperatures will continue to accelerate, which will mean that we will continue to have more drastic swings in temperature. Which means that in 100 years, there will be areas of the globe undergoing unprecedented drought and higher sea levels, and areas that are engulfed in a localized Ice Age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Of course not. We're being destroyed in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NM_hemilover Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. Y2K already got me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChazII Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
60. Thank you for your common sense. n/t
Giving me the gift of laughter. Your post was needed today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. 2011?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
28. 2012
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Welp, there go Brinkley's eco-science credentials
Oh wait....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Seems everything is exactly the same now as it was then. How can that be? Unless
Nah, they couldn't have been wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. We have taken some remedial steps since 1984
I presume that Mr. Brinkley meant that we had 20 years without any changes in our then-present habits. And, there are indeed climatologists who think that we have passed the tipping point already, and any remedial measures at this time won't makes a dime's worth of difference.

In any case, Mr. Brinkley's opinion from 26 years ago is not the sort of hard science pronouncement from which to draw any valid conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Idiots who do not believe in Man Made Climate Change should have no say
in the future of any policy. I am all for inclusiveness in science, but when the stated goal of the Reich Wingers is to just oppose everything put forth bu us, they need not be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchyWoman57 Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Believe?
Science should not be about "belief". I'm interested in science, not religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Tell that to the people who deny science because they "believe" differently.
Their insane position forces the use of that word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Climatology IS all about science, and the science is settled. AGW
is very real. At one point we might have made a difference by changing our wasteful ways, but IMHO we have passed the point of no return.

The denialists like to point to alleged bad science, but they are all bible beaters at heart and believe that Gawd gave us the earth to ruin as we saw fit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. No you've misrepresented what he was saying. He didn't say science was about "belief"
he said an individuals choice to accept the facts of science or not was a choice to "believe" the scientists or not.

Big difference.

If you are interested in science, then your choice has never been more easy.

The overwhelming scientific consensus - so overwhelming in fact that the biggest scientific bodies in the world have all issued statements declaring the scientific data to be officially IN and the data impecably clear - is that climate change exists, and that human beings impact the rate of climate change.

The science on that is concrete and no more in dispute than the fact that the earth is round (yes, you can still find "the flat earth society" but would you take it seriously?)

Where the science is less clear is when it comes to what the impacts of climate change will be. So let's at least get the debate right. When it comes to the implications of climate change, there is a lot of room for more science and more study. Even with all the study in the world, when we enter the domain of prediction, it by definition becomes a less exact process.

So there's a lot more room for caution and skepticism when it comes to predictions. There is no room to rationally deny climate change or human impact. Not if you claim to care about science and not religion.

:hi:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
45. Do you believe in gravity? Is that a religion also? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
29. "I am all for inclusiveness in science"
You should have a show on the Comedy Channel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. To be honest, I'm begining to have some doubts myself.
With all the information that has been coming out about scientist having to reverse some of their findings, those stolen e-mail admitting to exaggerations, ect. When they talk about this cap and trade legislation, that is basically a hefty tax hike on everyone (including the middle class),in the form of several hundred dollars a year increase in fuel costs, people are beginning to pay attention to this. I don't know how this issue became so politicized, but it has, and this is going to be another issue the republicans are going to beat us over the head with next November.
The plan of calling them names and questioning their intelligence, basically saying if you don't believe in global warming, your stupid, is not the way to sell this thing. And it's not working.
Now there are video clips from a few years ago of Democrats saying the lack of snow is proof of global warming....I don't know. I'm not going to support something just because it's the general position of many on the left in this country, and this issue has become so politicized, there is so much info supporting both sides of this issue, I choose to keep an open mind. ( for now )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Are you kidding?
You might be in the wrong place. There is no debate about man's role in global climate change. Perhaps some of the solutions are bad, but the science is final.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dems_rightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Anytime
Somebody declares science to have been "final", they've ceased caring at all about the science, and have become a cheerleader for one position or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I most certain am a cheerleader when it comes to climate change and our role
It is over. There is no discussion. At this point we should be looking towards solutions, not fighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Ignore the trolls. They are paid by Big Oil and Big Bible to come here
and do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. because "big oil" would prefer the government support *no* alternative fuels - even though "big oil"
Edited on Mon Feb-15-10 09:55 PM by Hannah Bell
is invested in plenty of alternatives.

right.

it's just as likely "big oil" is pushing the climate change meme to drive up the prices of their products.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Climate change "meme?"
You do realize there's science you can see for yourself right?

Perhaps you don't mean the fact that:

1. climate change is happening and
2. human being's actions can affect rates of climate change

which is accepted as fact by every scientific body in the entire world, based on years of peer reviewed research and scientific proof.

Perhaps you mean the politicization of what we should do about it, or the tendency to describe only worst case scenarios when talking about the possible implications of climate change. Or the fact that there is less scientific consensus on what the impacts of climate change will be?

Because the latter makes some sense - political agendas, noble or otherwise, can tend to let passion cloud factual precision. But the former is anti-science. And I define anti-science as idiotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. um, the word "meme" contains no assumptions about the truth or untruth of what's passed along.
•a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (as by imitation); "memes ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. Lol, YOU again. Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. personal attack = avoiding the issue. Why would "big oil" want us to believe there's no climate
Edited on Mon Feb-15-10 11:08 PM by Hannah Bell
change if there is?

Exxon, for example, = oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, & used to include significant nuclear -

& its owners are invested in all of the above through other ventures as well.

I just want you to explain to me why "big oil" is telling us global warming is a myth. What do they get by doing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
74. apparently, they are "paying" people to come to DU
and say they doubt global warming
Hahahaahahhahahh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
43. How long would you like to have us debate this?
Perhaps you'll be convinced that the science is "final" when the ice caps have melted, hundreds of coastal cities lie underwater, and what's left of the human population is waging war over the last tracts of inhabitable land on the planet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. thanks for demonstrating my points.
"You might be in the wrong place" see, politicized, now i'm a freeper
"There is no debate about man's role in global climate change" I never mentioned "man's role" but there is always debate
"the science is final" Ok, if you say so. (eye roll)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. Joe, I'm not going to call you political names. But the scientific verdict is in. It just is.
Edited on Mon Feb-15-10 10:03 PM by Political Heretic
Every non-political scientific body in the world, the organizations behind the top peer-review scholarly science journals in the entire world - basically every where you can go in science to look for what science "agrees" that it "knows" - says the same thing:

1. Climate change exists
2. Human beings impact climate change

There is no more debate about that than there is that the world is round. It's true that you can always find irrationalists that will debate that the earth is round, but it takes a leap of faith to believe them, whereas it takes no faith, only reason, to accept overwhelming scientific data, subjected to peer review over and over again, and accepted by the broader scientific community of the entire world as empirically accurate.

As I've said many times, there is less scientific consensus when it comes to making predictions about the impact of climate change. If you want to argue about that be my guest. If you want to argue that climate change won't end up being a very big deal, go right ahead.

But don't deny climate change exists our that human beings affect it because you sound as stupid as someone who denies the earth is round or that germs exist.
PH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. and there it is..."because you sound as stupid as someone who denies the earth is round"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #39
49. Denying science = stupid, yes. Of course I make no apology for saying so.
There are things that some people speak of as though they are fact that are not supported by scientific consensus.

But climate change existing simply isn't one of them.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. Hmm.... I'm not comfortable with calling science "final." That's dogma, not science.
Edited on Mon Feb-15-10 10:16 PM by Political Heretic
What we have is overwhelming scientific consensus, given the evidence we have today.

Given all the evidence we have, the scientific consensus of every major scientific body in the entire world, including the most highly respected peer review science journals in the world, the national academy of science and basically every other governing science body is that the evidence tells us that climate change exists and that human beings can affect climate change.

It is always, always, always possible that new evidence in the future might change our understanding of these things.

People talked about the law of gravity as "final" generations ago, and boy do they look stupid now. "Laws" of gravity are not only not final, they are frequently not even accurate, given the varying conditions in our universe. We know that now because we have even more detailed ways to gather empirical data.

Having said that, gravity was not disproved - but our understanding of it has deepened and we've discovered it is much more complex than we first thought.

The same is likely to happen with climate change and our interactions with the climate.

Science is never "final." It is always, "here's what we know as of today."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
65. All deniers will be crushed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Just try to stay focused on the hard science, and not the political advoacy:
As I said below, here's where we are with the unpoliticized science:

1. National Academy of Sciences, pretty the gold standard for peer reviewed scientific scholarship, published statement declaring the reality of climate change a scientifically proven reality.

2. After years of ongoing research, NAS concludes that human being's impact on climate change is proven and cannot be empirically denied.

But that's it.

Scientists are still studying, testing, hypothesizing and debating each other about what the long term effects of climate change are likely to be.

It is an open area of investigation, and cannot be proven in the same way that climate change and human beings impact on climate change can be presently tested and proven.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Yeah there is a lot of stupidity going around.
"Democrats saying the lack of snow is proof of global warming..."

Yeah, anybody who said that is an idiot, who spoke without knowing what they were talking about.

It is disheartening indeed to see the reputation of science itself damaged by seekers of fame and fortune. Whether it's a drug study where the manufacturer is basically bribing the researchers and forcing certain results, or self-interested fools trying to sell any bullshit for a dollar and some screen time, nobody seems to care about truth anymore.

I haven't seen any objections to global climate change that make sense. It is not simply a position of "those on the left", but most scientists. Any "evidence" for the "other side" seems to be produced by people at least as corrupt or error prone or whatever, as these guys are. It's really a double standard. Every single whackjob against climate change can combine to constitute a solid body of evidence, but one research group, among thousands, with questionable or unethical methods taints all the other research? Come on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. here are the "idiots"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Byrd is not exactly a genius. :) He delivers more than a few face palming moments.
Trust me, stop listening to politicians on climate change. Even Democrats frequently don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Start listening to SCIENTISTS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
44. Um, politicians are not climatologists. Stop trying to push right-wing talking points.
Using video clips of some Democratic congressperson to make an argument against climate change is pure right-wing nonsense. I would expect to find this being pushed on FOX, freeperville, Glenn Beck, etc - but not here on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #44
67. Aw, but the right-wing talking points are so CUTE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beardown Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. Quantity should not trump quality
If you were hit by a never ending avalanche of reports saying that the world was flat, would you start to have doubts about the Earth being round because that's how the deniers are attacking legitimate global warming research. While the research on global warming is not as cut and dried as the shape of the Earth, peer reviewed research and a strong majority of the world's climate scientists think that there is a 90 percent chance that we are seeing global warming and that man is helping to cause it.

If you are bothered by a few errors and mistakes in data handling by the researchers that believe in global warming then you should be horrified by the deniers re-posting and rehashing of dozens of clearly disproven claims and talking points into nearly every serious discussion on global warming. I doubt if you'll find the climate research group repeating the Himalayan glaciers disappearing data point. I have no doubt you'll see deniers dragging out the same discredited research and outright lies time and again. There are valid questions about the specifics of the data and the models, but it's hard to have a reasonable discussion when you've got to wade hip deep through the denier's flood of talking points posts.

If you think that paying taxes to forestall or lessen the impact of global warming is going to hit the middle class hard, wait until you see what even the lower estimates of the effects of global warming do to the middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Thank you for your concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
70. Try your library -- "The Heat is On" and "The Dying of the Trees" are two great books --
and usually in every library --

If you're older than 25 or 30 years and had parents, you should have some real life

indications of Global Warming.

The idea that making people aware of Global Warming has been based on on calling people

"stupid" is ridiculous. That has been a very late response to decades of GOP's denial

of Global Warming and one or more of its members most inane comments.

Rather we've had 40 or more years years of ExxonMobil and other oil companies spending

billions to deny Global Warming with lies and distorted facts -- pricey propaganda which

worked. Only in the past 10 years or so has the public actually awakened to the true

threats of Global Warming -- and certainly not ALL of the public!

Now there are video clips from a few years ago of Democrats saying the lack of snow is proof of global warming.

Global Warming is a heating of the atmosphere which causes chaotic weather conditions --

floods/droughts, cyclones, tornades -- even earthquakes.

Yes -- the LACK of snow is due to Global Warming and increasing heat --

so is the melting of glaciers.

HOWEVER, the overabundance of snow as we have seen for instance in upper NE in last years is

also due to Global Warming. The fact that the Great Lakes no longer freeze in winter means

that the prevailing winds which pass over collect moisture and drop it in the form of snow

on land.

Global Warming is man-made and has actually changed weather patterns -- from winds to ocean

currents -- and all of the complications and compounding of these changes cannot be predicted.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. I've watched the tide levels here for years. No change. Shouldn't there be SOME change by now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
48. It's dark outside my window right now.
It's been that way for a few hours. I suppose it will always be like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #48
55. Oh knoes1!11!!!!1 The sun blew up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
66. NOAA observations show positive sea level trends for most of the US
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

Perhaps eyeballing the tides and attempting to guesstimate sea level isn't all that precise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
9. There is, as of yet, little scientific consensus on what will happen.
Here's where we are with the science:

One: Climate Change is real.

Two: Human beings affect (escalate) climate change


That's it.

When it comes to predictions about what will happen as a result of climate change, there is less scientific consensus. Some predict consequences so dire that they essentially spell the end of the planet. Other's predict consequences fare more mild. There's a lot of active work being done trying to develop more accurate predictors of the severity of climate change.

But this is also where climate change is the most politicized which impeded the science quite a bit. While the most authoritative science bodies in the world - such as the NAS - have issued statements identifying climate change as real and human impacts on climate change as real, no such consensus exists on the exact impacts of climate change.

I just want to make sure that, even if it doesn't fit our paradigm, we are accurate about the science.

Obviously, if one possible outcome is global catastrophe then the responsible thing to do - even if its possible that the effects of climate change turn out to be much less severe - is to take every precaution possible, since the consequences for life on earth if the most dire predictions turn out to be true.

But I have a big problem with people who present information on climate change and then only describe the more dire predictions possible and make that sound as thought there is complete scientific agreement that these will be the outcomes of climate change.

I know we want to convince people to act on climate change. But being disingenuous with the science isn't the way to do it. We know climate change is real. We know humans effect climate change. But science is still exploring, debating and attempting to figure out what the long term consequences of climate change are most likely to be - with theories ranging from mild changes to server global catastrophe.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
19. Nobody even said it would kill the planet
Even in the WORST scenarios, nobody ever said that the planet Earth would be destroyed, or even all life on Earth.

But it WILL result in massive loss of human life - mainly because of our warlike nature.

Extreme weather events will push people from the warmer areas and into the cooler north or south. You think you've got an "illegal immigrant" problem now? Just wait 30 years. As crops in Central America fail, the influx will be massive. And the clashes will be catastrophic.

In Africa and Southern Europe, deserts will expand, swallowing once fertile farmlands. In Great Britain, Scotland will become a Nordic country and England will get a climate similar to Russia or Canada once their source of heat - the Gulf Stream - stops flowing.

Australia will be a whole continent similar to the Sahara desert. It's happening right now.

Whole island archipelagos will disappear into the rising seas. The Maldives will cease to exist within 100 years.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,341669,00.html

And great regions of Bangla Desh will be swallowed by the sea.

Millions WILL die in the long run, but on a planet of 6 billion, it won't make THAT much of a dent. But I hope it knocks some sense into us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. We tend to equate ourselves with "the planet."
Our charming, childlike tendency is to believe we are the only thing on this planet that matters and if we aren't here, it will cease to exist.

My geology professors to a man wanted humans to hurry our extinction because we were hindering the processes of the earth. I thought that this was a short-sighted approach to the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. It's only a "problem" for us
The rest of the Earth's lifeforms will continue to "adapt, adopt and improve".

One thing's for sure. The cockroaches will have the last laugh, whenever that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
41. No one knows how this will compound, or whether the planet will keep turning . . .!!
Edited on Mon Feb-15-10 10:42 PM by defendandprotect
No one knows and no one can guarantee anything --

Certainly, once farming is effected, our time will be limited --

And that seems to be what the Chemtrails are about -- Weather modification --

Working? Who knows if it's spilling more chemicals on us and our soil - or actually

blocking anything?

Be thankful every day that you go to the grocery store and crops are still growing!!



PS: Then again, I'm sure the Dr. Strangelove's on the planet will have "underground

facilites prepared" and chemical foods -- the monsters among us always find a way to survive?

I doubt it!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
26. The retreat has begun. Pretty soon everyone will be denying they believed in global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. I think most of us will go ahead and stick with the science.
There's complete scientific consensus that climate change (its scientifically understood as "climate change" by the way, not "global warming") is a real phenomenon.

There's complete scientific consensus that human actions affect climate change.

But that's it.

There's no consensus on how severe or mild the effect of changing climate will actually be. Hopefully no one denies believing these things since they're simply where the science leads.

What the politics leads are to people - possibly well-intentioned making absolute claims about what the future will be like without actual scientific backing. And when their claims are demonstrated to be not provable but rather speculation, it does a great disservice to getting people to think seriously about the appropriate kinds of attitudes toward climate change and its potential impacts.

I think claiming that there's some sort of "retreat" is a bit of a stretch.... perhaps wishful thinking? I can't tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
briguy1967 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #31
50. Except that ...
we now have reason to question the science.

And before you start flaming away, yes, I have read many of the peer reviewed papers (so I know what the scientists are saying); I'm an engineer (so I understand the math and the science ... and more importantly, the limitations of the models) ... and so this much I can say ...

When you say "there's complete scientific consensus" you really haven't read anything. And further, is a very unscientific attitude.

I doubt that you understand how the data is "homogenized" (or even what that means).

How it is a demonstrable fact that there are many stations where the station data which showed a downward trend before the "adjustments" ... and now shows an upward trend in temperature.

How the adjustments to the data always seem to increase warming.

How the data is constantly being adjusted. Why?

The hacked emails (no matter what political persuasion you may have) just look bad, period. You can't possibly think that conspiring to keep data from prying eyes is a good thing (regardless of whether you agree with them or not).

The paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree rings are spurious. This is evidenced by the fact that there is a known divergence between recent tree-ring growth and the temperature record of one of the key data sets upon which the reconstructions are based. This divergence makes the calibration of tree-ring growth to temperature problematic at best.

I could go on.

The point is this ... the Earth's climate is a chaotic system, with far too many unknowns relating to the impact of clouds, natural variations caused by ocean circulation, etc. To pretend that we know enough to say that the science is settled is far too much.

What the recent news shows is that scientists are not above politics themselves, and that those who depend on government largess will say what they need to in order to keep the taxpayer research dollars rolling in. You can scream at "big oil" ... but there is also "big government research". Money has a way of distorting *any* scientists view - whether that money is coming from a corporation or a government entity sponsoring the research. There is corruption in government research too ... and we need to be vigilant. Scientists are human, they can be prideful, and they make mistakes ... and like any human they hate to admit if they're found to be wrong.

Some things in science are settled, but not quite as many things as one might suppose. Climate science has a lot of unknowns, in key areas ... and is definitely not as "settled" as one might think.

There are skeptics in climate science who have important things to say. They are definitely not flat-earth types. And it is always important to remain skeptical ... that's part of science. To me, there are legitimate issues about the quality of the data, and how that data is "massaged." When I read how they propose to adjust data, some of it makes sense ... other adjustments, not so much. It makes me question whether we *really* know how much of an increase in temperature there has been (when you see what they do, you can't help but question it sometimes ... particularly, the obvious switching of trend lines ... that's just baffling ... and we know they switch it from decreasing trends to increasing trends because they provide the raw and adjusted data). Look it up yourself, it's out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. I'm sorry but that just contradicts reality.

When you say "there's complete scientific consensus" you really haven't read anything. And further, is a very unscientific attitude.


Actually, what I know is that every major scientific body in the world has made formal statements affirming the science behind two very basic statements:

1. climate change exists as a real phenomenon
2. human beings can affect climate change.

What you are describing falls into a third category, speculating about the scope, severity and future impact of climate change. And as I said, there is currently no scientific consensus that I am aware of.

Hacked emails are about attempting to twist science for a political agenda - namely to support a position in that third category - future impact. The data simply does not currently support a consensus, and I'm skeptical that it ever will in the same what that we can look at empirically existing data - because its speculation about an unknown future with unknown variables.


There are skeptics in climate science who have important things to say. They are definitely not flat-earth types. And it is always important to remain skeptical ... that's part of science.


There are skeptics in climate science that are skeptical about claims that climate change will have catastrophic impacts on the environment, and those skeptics do have important things to say and important research to do.

However, there are not "skeptics" denying the existence of climate change that can get past any scientifically recognized peer reviewed journal. And when the major governing institutions within the scientific community - such as the National Academy of science, or the board behind the most prestigious scientific peer reviewed journal in the world - issue statements acknowledging that the data is in and climate change is as much a reality as gravity (even though data about gravity is constantly being "revised" and our knowledge of how gravity works constantly being expanded) then there's little place for science-deniers except for the fringe of culture.

How significant climate change may be is up for debate. How great human beings impact on climate change maybe is up for debate. That climate change exists or than human beings can influence it is not up for scientific debate. It's proven.

Like gravity, data that enhances or changes our understanding of how climate change works is constantly coming to light. And sometimes that challenges people's biases or politically held beliefs. But you don't deny gravity exists because our data about how gravity works continues to improve. Gravity skeptics are just being "responsibly skeptical." They're idiots. Climate skeptics are not different.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
briguy1967 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. More sloganeering.
And your appeal to authority (the peer-reviewed literature) is shown to be specious given the recent revelations which show that the main group of climate scientists conspired to keep out those who dissented with them - real scientific there.

And yet, you acknowledge that "how significant climate change may be is up for debate." That is precisely what the skeptics are pointing out (in case you haven't noticed). They are questioning the data quality, the methods of measurement (those thermometers mounted in the middle of asphalt next to building or on roof-tops sure are measuring climate change aren't they). My skepticism on climate change arises from such things. If the data is questionable, how can they say possibly say that what we are measuring is a change in temperature (versus a change in the surrounding environment). I certainly wouldn't put a thermometer smack dab next to a parking lot or a building ... would you? Would you trust the data coming from that?

And what about the reversals of trend lines after the data manipulation. There is NO DISPUTE that GISS will often "match" a station trend to other stations around it (it is part of the homogenization process. In other words, if a station shows that temperature is declining in the area, they will "adjust" it to match one or two stations within the 1200km circle around it. You think that such data adjustment is warranted?

Take the blinders off and take a look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. You're funny. I hope you stick around.
You repeat the bogus propaganda with such conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
72. The logical fallacy is ILLICIT appeal to authority, not just "appeal" to authority.
In other words, its not logically fallacious to appeal to, you know, actual authority. It is logically fallacious to me illegitimate appeals to authorities that are not actually authorities.

So, if you say "I believe that this statement about brain surgery is true, because the twenty seven brain surgeons I consulted all agreed that it was true, and the national neurosurgeon's alliance also agreed that it is true" - that's not a logical fallacy. That is an absolutely appropriate appeal to an legitimate authority. In other words, that's what you are supposed to do when you are not an expert on a subject yourself.


On the other hand, an illicit appeal to authority would be this: "I believe this statement about brain surgery is true, because my Pastor told me its true, and my cousins say its true, and I read an opinion piece by a hair dresser who said its true."

That's an example of an illegitimate appeal to authority. The sources are in fact not authorities at all.


And yet, you acknowledge that "how significant climate change may be is up for debate." That is precisely what the skeptics are pointing out (in case you haven't noticed).


Great. Then what are we arguing about?

1. climate change exists
2. human beings can influence climate change

But...

3. the severity of the effects of climate change are unclear and...
4. the scale of human affect on climate change is uncertain...

Really not much to argue about?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #52
73. PS - not that you care about facts but,
Objection:

The surface temperature record is so full of assumptions, corrections, differing equipment and station settings, changing technology, varying altitudes and more. It is not possible to claim we know what the "global average temperature" is, much less determine any trend. The IPCC graphs only say what the scientists want them to say.

Answer:

There is actually some truth to the part about the difficulties, there are many of them that scientists have to overcome in turning the hundreds of thousands of measurements taken in many different ways and over a span of more than a dozen decades into a single globally averaged trend. But this is the nature of science, no one said it was easy. This is in part why it has taken the scientific community so long to finally come out and say that what we have been observing for a hundred years is in fact exactly what it looks like. All other possible explanations (for example Urban Heat Island effect) have been investigated, the data has been examined and re-examined, reviewed and re-reviewed and the conclusion has become unassailable. And while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers to elevation above sea level, mean it probably is impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is in fact not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends not the absolute level, and often, as in this case, it is actually easier to determine how much a given property is changing versus what its exact value is. If one station is near the airport at 3 feet above sea level, another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter because they are both rising, that is the critical information.

So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets. In this case, all of the other various indicators of global temperature trends that are available unanimously agree. Go ahead, put aside the direct surface temperature measurements, because Global Warming is also indicated by:

Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere
Weather balloons show very similar warming
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Declining arctic sea ice
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Rising ocean temperature

All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend. Looks like the folks at NASA and CRU do know what they are doing after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-17-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #73
75. Nice post! I would add that this warming trend can not be explained solely
by known natural processes - there is a statistically significant likelihood of a human contribution. So, your comment in the previous post that humans "can" impact the climate ought to be "are impacting", although the relative contributions of natural and human forcings are open for discussion and debate...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #50
62. Then You Should Understand Thermodyanmics
So, assuming that's true, the increase in levels of atmostpheric constituents that absorb greater volumes of photons per unit mass (simple photochemistry and is one of the foundations of Beer's Law) heat of the atmosphere must increase.

Since the loss of heat from the atmosphere is proportional to the change in overall heat capacity (Tc) and the mole fraction of the higher Tc gasses is increasing, the atmosphere must retain more of that heat.

Assuming my title is true, you would then know that this heat results in overall higher temperature, therefore the original name, global warming.

So, if you're an engineer, you should know that the chemistry and physics that are the root of the phenomenon are immutable principles, not just theories.

When a theory is rooted in immutable, quantifiable principles, it is far more likely to explain the basic mechanism in question. The fact that the measurement systems are too imprecise and accurate to quantify the specific effect at this point, has no bearing at all on the validity of the fundamentals.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
71. ExxonMobil and oil industry spent billions to deny Global Warming . . .
Edited on Tue Feb-16-10 02:31 PM by defendandprotect
About 18 months or so ago, the Royal Academy of Science called them out and demanded that

they stop lying to the public and distorting facts of Global Warming. For decades, NY Times

permitted ExxonMobil to run anti-Global Warming propaganda ads on their Op-Ed pages which

could not be commented upon in letters to the editors because they were "ads."

While Global Warming is heating the planet -- it certainly isn't one predictatable and

uniform stream of activity. Very often in past years when we had snow here in NJ it was

almost immediately followed by 50 degree days and instant melting! Our weather this year

has been cooler overall -- does that mean there is no Global Warming? No!

It means that Nature is a system -- trying to stay in balance. Just like your own body.

We have been aware of Global Warming since the mid-1950's - at time when we could have done

something about it. There's a 50 year delay in Global Warming -- therefore, the effects you

are feeling right now are based only on our activities up to 1960!


The glaciers are melting -- and faster than scientists have ever predicted --

For close to 20 years now our govenrment has been working on "weather modification" --

Chemtrails. This is an international program.

This past decade is the hottest ever recorded.

If you are at least 20-25 years of age, I'm sure you've had personal experiences which tell

you that the planet and atmoshere are heating up. I'm sure you parents could tell you!

If we look at any other part of patriarchy -- its violence, its wars -- its war on nature.

If we look at its system of capitalism which is based on exploittion, not only of natural

resources but of human beings, as well, the destruction is undeniable.

If we look at the past almost 50 years of in plein air violence by the right wing and its

corruption of government -- Bush's efforts to force scientists to change critical information

in their reports to deny the seriousness of Global Warming - the answers are clear.

If we look at the right wing's efforts to disrupt information about nature -- the ozone hole

and Global Warming and NASA reporting on the condition of the planet and its systems, the

answer is clear.


One clear answer is that US should have nationalized the oil industry in FDR's time --

LBJ talked him out of it!


Meanwhile, it is impossible for any scientist to predict how Global Warming may compound

and what the complications of that may be. Food supply is a key question -- plant growth.


In the 1960's, we had strong beginnings of a youth movement to change our culture -- to

move to less authoritarian and more humane ways of dealing with everything --

We were also called to awaken to the pollution of our planet -- air, water, soil, rivers,

oceans -- and to the problem of over-population which so stresses the planet.

"Earth Day" has been largely disappeared and turned into roadside clean-up! The larger

questions of man-made pollution -- and discussions of overpopulation -- swept away by

our corporate press.





Here's some additional information --




SCIENTISTS WARNING TO HUMANITY/
GLOBAL WARMING


http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html
1. Scientist Statement
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.
INTRODUCTION


Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
THE ENVIRONMENT


The environment is suffering critical stress:


The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.


Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.


Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.


Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.


Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks
are very great.


Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.


Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.
POPULATION


The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.


Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.


No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
WARNING


We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.
WHAT WE MUST DO


Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.
We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs -- small-scale and relatively easy to implement.


We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.


We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.


We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.


We must stabilize population.
This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.


We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.
DEVELOPED NATIONS MUST ACT NOW


The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.
Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic, and environmental collapse.


Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1 trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.


A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.
We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural, social, economic, and political.
We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders.
We require the help of the world's religious leaders.
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. If by "everyone" you mean scientific illiterates and gullible idiots you may be correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #26
57. Actually the heavy snow in the unusual way it has
occurred is predicted by THE SCIENCE... that silly shit that many people in the US really DO NOT comprehend or grasp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fla_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #26
58. What goes around, comes around
maybe they will go back to global cooling? :shrug:


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


<snip>

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

</snip>



Personally, my understanding of the whole matter can be summed up in one word..... Platypus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Scientists believed lots of things in the 70s that have been rejected
We used to think Pluto was larger than Mercury, for example. Science is self-correcting like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #58
64. Popular press vs. scientific publication
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
40. Patriarchy/capitalism are deadly for the planet -- suicidal --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #40
54. Your note about men eating meat in recent memory
is wrong by the way. We have plenty of evidence that human beings have been eating meat since at least the Paleolithic, which is way before Greece...

Just a note... in fact human diet during the ice age... way before Greece, was almost 100% meat... hunted meat, but meat nonetheless. And the myths and religious practices involved things like avatars, animal avatars and other things like that.

I of course have pointed many a times that I WISH we actually lived in a capitalist system. This has as much to do with Capitalism, as the USSR had to do with Socialism... which is in name only.

I point this out because if we are to have honest discussions we have to also use actual data... not blind belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #54
69. Exploitation of nature and animal life begins with patriarchy --
Edited on Tue Feb-16-10 01:47 PM by defendandprotect
So does exploitation of all of nature -- including other human beings according to

various myths of "inferiority" --

That patriarchy has near destroyed the planet and our environment is clear --

That an animal/dairy-based diet has made humanity ill is also clear --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

Regulated capitalism as we lived it during the New Deal was still not economic democracy --

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system intended to move the wealth and

natural resources of a nation from the many to the few.

I'll be watching for an "honest discussion" from you --



:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-17-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #69
76. Given that humans lived
in matriarchal societies (from all evidence from places like Lascaeux, Neader Valley and other archeological sites), and we still ate meat... whatever trips your trigger. We exploited nature, thank you very much. That comes with being like alive and an animal who needs to consume calories to live. Technology didn't even rise with patriarchy, that came later... well after the mid period of the bronze age. See the conflict between Asher, the goddess of life and Yahweh for example... this is not a paleolithic conflict, not even neolithic... which saw the rise of agriculture. This is a bronze age conflict coming much later.

By the way... I did not say the New Deal was Capitalism, as defined by Adam Smith, you know the GUY WHO WROTE THE THEORY and shit, either. Actually it was far from it. It was closer to the ideal only insofar as silly shit like anti trust law was actually like enforced.

Like Marxism, the ideals are just that... ideals. Look at Plato and read his dialogue on The Cave to see some of what I am saying.

I know you are enamored with the concept that patriarchy is killing everything, but actually it is not patriarchy... and if you think dominance and dominance of others did not happen in earlier periods... well the archeological record of places like the Levant and ancient China deny your ideology. And yes, it is ideology, and not based on actual facts.

But if you want to learn something, there are plenty of books on the rise of early religions, some in google books by the way, that are fascinating, and explain a lot of this very well. The legends you are making references to... are bronze age era, much later than the rise of agriculture...

I just point this out because once again, if we are to really discuss things, we all need to take some of those ideological blinders that we all have. (Perhaps it is the I have been readying that material and shit for research and it is damn fascinating by the way, and for the record I wish I could explain our current problems with a single cause... alas life, and history, are far more complicated than that... oh and by the way, the single cause theory of history usually is pushed by statist states with a goal. I could mention two major proponents of that, but hey you are NOT an academic historian, so why point out those folks were like despised by historians who actually get it... we humans are complex critters.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
53. You silly it is December 12 or something like that
of 2012. What didn't read the Mayan Calendar, or Nostradamus?

Now on a much more serious note... exacto mundo. In fact the massive snow fall is due to water becoming steam due to unseasonal heat... which well, like it is falling like unusual amounts of snow and shit.

Me sitting at my brother's place, watching snow fall. What can I say? IT IS COLD out there, but it has been a mild winter, according to the guy at the airport yesterday. (At least in Cleveland)

And that is what they mean by Global Weather change. Hell, I go visit family in Mexico City and damn it is very hot at a time of year when it used not to... and this winter was down right brutal... see Climactic Change.

Global warming is a really good example of... bad messaging, and lack of understanding of science by most Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
61. I figured Reagan would get us nuked LONG before then.
Then we had the shrub working on the same goal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
63. Like Wiley Coyote, it will take us a long time to hit bottom. But we ARE off the cliff...
The 'tipping point' is past. Unless you can figure out a way to refreeze the thawing tundra -thousands of square miles- then the discussion here is moot. It is like arguing with the bus driver as we plunge into the gorge.

And by the way, the current term is "global climate DISRUPTION" not "warming" (John Holdren, and many other scientists)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
68. We won't really know what the major effects are until 30 or 50 years from now.
Some of us won't even be around, hence the lack of caring to do anything about it right now. Every year we learn more but every year is also a year wasted to do something about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC