Warming Is Real. Now What?

Aug 3, 2010 Full story: New York Times 102

Even as Democrats abandoned efforts late last month to advance a major climate change bill through the Senate, books about global warming continue to pour forth.

Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

#1 Aug 3, 2010
Hmmm, two new books to pick up this autumn. Now that the world's top scientific bodies have confirmed warming's human causes, the question is, what does it all mean?

Since: Mar 09

Clearlake, CA

#2 Aug 3, 2010
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#3 Aug 3, 2010
Northie wrote:
Hmmm, two new books to pick up this autumn. Now that the world's top scientific bodies have confirmed warming's human causes, the question is, what does it all mean?
I think that 'what will it all mean' is what the books are ABOUT.

Giving a picture of just what the changes will be and how much they will affect the country.

But "now what"? is easily answered. Now the globe will continue to warm just as it has before the legislation was introduced. In fact, it wasn't influenced by GWBs ban on science either. Reality will continue regardless of political exercise.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#4 Aug 3, 2010
CLK Dad wrote:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
CLK Daddy, time to get with it. Every point you make contradicts the findings of all the world's top scientific bodies--all of them.

Let me guess; you're a libertarian opposed to government regulation and taxes, no? Environmentalists are your latest stand-ins for the communists you used to despise, right?

Since: Jun 10

Marin County

#5 Aug 3, 2010
Northie wrote:
Now that the world's top scientific bodies have confirmed warming's human causes, the question is, what does it all mean?
It means the world shouldn't have waited till 1978 to ban CFC's.
they still dont get it

United States

#6 Aug 3, 2010
Months ago, Lord Christopher Monckton put forth his Instrument of Repudiation, CFACT gained thousands of signatures on our own petition against Cap and Trade, and ClimateGate launched a wake up call to America. Now this.
Recently, Marc Morano, senior editor of CFACT's Climate Depot, sat down with Dr. Denis Rancourt to discuss his views on global warming. Dr. Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa and a noted liberal environmentalist. However, when it comes to global warming, Dr. Rancourt disagrees with his fellow leftists. "They look to comfortable lies," said Rancourt of global warming believers. Watch the video here to hear more of what Dr. Rancourt has to say.
Black Cloud

Doncaster, UK

#7 Aug 4, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
CLK Daddy, time to get with it. Every point you make contradicts the findings of all the world's top scientific bodies--all of them.
Let me guess; you're a libertarian opposed to government regulation and taxes, no? Environmentalists are your latest stand-ins for the communists you used to despise, right?
So why is there no obsevation data showin any form of impending catastrophe.
For example an increase in extreme weather events or disruption to thermo haline flow.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#8 Aug 4, 2010
Black Cloud wrote:
<quoted text>
So why is there no obsevation data showin any form of impending catastrophe.
Human perception is too fast compared to climate change. We become used to it. Subjective observations are unreliable.

And objective estimates DO show impending problems. The term 'catastrophes' implies a high speed change. The issue doesn't have 'high speed' ANYWHERE in it. It is more like the frog in the slowly heated pot of water.
Black Cloud wrote:
<quoted text>
For example an increase in extreme weather events or disruption to thermo haline flow.
Now who is being picky. Lots of issues are coming. Agricultural output, hydrology cycle and the oceans are the major risks. And all of those show increasing problems.

Do some research and you will find lots of articles on the emerging problems. Or stick to blind ignorance.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#9 Aug 4, 2010
they still dont get it wrote:
Months ago, Lord Christopher Monckton put forth his Instrument of Repudiation, CFACT gained ..
Well good for Mr. Monckton. He needs a few instruments as he seems to be a bit of a tool..
Black Cloud

Doncaster, UK

#10 Aug 4, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Human perception is too fast compared to climate change. We become used to it. Subjective observations are unreliable.
And objective estimates DO show impending problems. The term 'catastrophes' implies a high speed change. The issue doesn't have 'high speed' ANYWHERE in it. It is more like the frog in the slowly heated pot of water.
<quoted text>
Now who is being picky. Lots of issues are coming. Agricultural output, hydrology cycle and the oceans are the major risks. And all of those show increasing problems.
Do some research and you will find lots of articles on the emerging problems. Or stick to blind ignorance.
Studies by the UK Met Office (A very pro climate change outfit) show no statistically significant increase in extreme weather
Other research in the journal Geophysical Research Letters show no alteration to thermohaline flow.

The only definite observational change attributable to climate change is an increase in the length of the growing season.

All the other dire problems we are supposed to be facing are down to extrapolation, hypothosis or computer models rather than hard observation.
Black Cloud

Doncaster, UK

#11 Aug 4, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Well good for Mr. Monckton. He needs a few instruments as he seems to be a bit of a tool..
Ah the old AGW trick of trying to smear anyone who dares to disagree.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#12 Aug 4, 2010
What to do? Sit back and enjoy the warm weather.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#13 Aug 4, 2010
kookboy wrote:
What to do? Sit back and enjoy the warm weather.
And the spreading deserts, the floods, the economic calamity...the steadily rising environmental debt that the next twenty generations will have to pay...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14 Aug 4, 2010
If global warming is real, we'll have to adapt, like we've always done. Clothing is a convential adaptation strategy, climate mitigation has never been tried or tested.

Shorts and short skirts, I'm all in.
Law

Omaha, NE

#15 Aug 4, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
CLK Daddy, time to get with it. Every point you make contradicts the findings of all the world's top scientific bodies--all of them.
Let me guess; you're a libertarian opposed to government regulation and taxes, no? Environmentalists are your latest stand-ins for the communists you used to despise, right?
No, not ALL of them. How long has Al Gore been your Messiah?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#16 Aug 4, 2010
Black Cloud wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah the old AGW trick of trying to smear anyone who dares to disagree.
Anyone that thinks he has developed an 'instrument of repudiation' isn't being smeared by being called a tool.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#17 Aug 4, 2010
Law wrote:
<quoted text>No, not ALL of them. How long has Al Gore been your Messiah?
Yes, ALL of them. Every major scientific academy with any bearing on climate or geophysics agrees that the climate is warming and humans are behind it. That includes every major national science academy on Earth, and every major body pertaining specifically to geophysics and climate, including 97% of qualified climatologists. All after decades of the greatest scientific investigation in history.

Of course, I'm sure you know better than they.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#18 Aug 4, 2010
Northie wrote:
... All after decades of the greatest scientific investigation in history.
Of course, I'm sure you know better than they.
An investigation without a single experimental test of AGW or climate change mitigation isn't very great. We've spent billions of research, but still, climatologists can't point to an experiment that shows how reducing CO2 emissions will do anything but drive up the price of energy and fuel. That's why, no one believes what they say anymore.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#19 Aug 4, 2010
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text. That's why, no one believes what they say anymore.
The only reason no one believes all the qualified scientists is because the energy industry is throwing up well-funded lies and smokescreens faster and louder than scientists can counter.

Who owns Newscorp again? Oh, yeah...Aussies and Saudis. No energy industry bias there.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#20 Aug 5, 2010
There's more money on the AGW side of the argument. Newspapers make money on headlines and scare tactics work. Corporate America is lining up for cash from government subsidy of 'green' business.

The argument doesn't boil down to who has the most money, its about experimental tests and climate change mitigation falls far short, not only for science, but for due diligence for public policy.

Tests, samples, demonstrations and trials are required to make good choices. Don't buy a pig in a poke.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 4 min One way or another 27,640
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 14 min DonPanic 33,224
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 38 min DonPanic 48,399
How do you spell 40 as a word? (Jul '10) 1 hr Earthling-1 467
Why Cold Weather Doesn't Mean Global Warming Is... 1 hr Earthling-1 4
The Face of Global Warming Dishonesty 2 hr Earthling-1 15
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 2 hr Earthling-1 3,437
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 3 hr Earthling-1 2,119

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE