michsnowfreak Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 This is not meant to stir a big debate...just thought it was an amusing collection of quotes http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/120_years_of_climate_scares.html#ixzz3DMRklQsm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 How does that relate to us, also not sure if the Earth's carbon sequester systems are capable of bouncing back from something like 650 ppm CO2, which is the conservative peak of the anthropocene. In our lifetimes, we will be dealing with this AGW thing, there will be more extremes to come. More reason to walk softly and carry a big stick in regards to environmental policy. no I won't go send Al Gore some money.....he needs more after the divorce from Tipper Add this to your collection... This is why we can't have nice things. People automatically associate climate action with Al Gore and wealth redistribution, why has it become some political horse-race. The amount of short-sightedness and selfishness in some people is unfathomable. You can't eat money for survival, and that is a fact. AGW activists are called out for being "like religion" yet you have the same crowd of people thinking their way of life is sustainable. They don't actually live in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Add this to your collection... This is why we can't have nice things. People automatically associate climate action with Al Gore and wealth redistribution, why has it become some political horse-race. The amount of short-sightedness and selfishness in some people is unfathomable. You can't eat money for survival, and that is a fact. AGW activists are called out for being "like religion" yet you have the same crowd of people thinking their way of life is sustainable. They don't actually live in reality. And then you have people who think humans are smart enough and powerful enough to keep the Earth as is indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 And then you have people who think humans are smart enough and powerful enough to keep the Earth as is indefinitely. Point taken, who said we were done evolving? It's a work in-progress. We are not quite in-tune with the rate of our technology. Once you let the horse out, it is hard to contain (overpopulation). The end result is millions of people fighting for survival without seeing the big picture. I don't agree that humanity's entrance into the universe was a mistake. We have evolved just like any other species, many before us have destroyed the carrying capacity of ecosystems. We are the first to be able to see it, now it is not possible to run away from it. We must rise to the occasion and reach the true pinnacle of our potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Point taken, who said we were done evolving? It's a work in-progress. We are not quite in-tune with the rate of our technology. Once you let the horse out, it is hard to contain (overpopulation). The end result is millions of people fighting for survival without seeing the big picture. I don't agree that humanity's entrance into the universe was a mistake. We have evolved just like any other species, many before us have destroyed the carrying capacity of ecosystems. We are the first to be able to see it, now it is not possible to run away from it. We must rise to the occasion and reach the true pinnacle of our potential. A warmer earth isn't necessarily an earth more hostile to life as a whole. Certain species yes, not necessarily all. It might even be beneficial to most. This is the earths history. Some thrive some don't. Will we? I think that's likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 A warmer earth isn't necessarily an earth more hostile to life as a whole. Certain species yes, not necessarily all. It might even be beneficial to most. This is the earths history. Some thrive some don't. Will we? I think that's likely. When you write that a warmer world might even be beneficial to most - how do you figure that? For that to be true it would require the standard of living for around 4,000,000,000 people to improve due to AGW. Sea level rise as a consequence of AGW is already taking place, it has accelerated from 0.8 mm/year to today's 3.2 mm/year in a matter of decades, and will certainly continue to rise until the Earth is in equilibrium (centuries at least). According to NOAA, more than half the Earth's population live near coasts [link]. Loss of arable land, saltwater intrusion into aquifers, inundation of communities and infrastructure, and other impacts of sea level rise won't be beneficial to them, don't you agree? And we have to keep in mind the heatwaves, droughts and flooding negatively influenced by AGW. How do they benefit the farmers, ranchers, and other folk impacted? They number in the hundreds of millions of people world-wide, and the total of the AGW-related damages is already in the many billions.of dollars. There are other AGW-related issues, but perhaps it would be easier to just ask you to explain what 4,000,000,000 people you believe will benefit from AGW, and specifically HOW they will benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I agree with the above post here. It would be preferable to keep climate stabilized around the conditions which allowed homo sapiens to advance throughout the holocene. A warmer Earth could work, it just cannot be allowed to happen overnight (geologically) and unnaturally as that would damage other biological species deeply while Humans could persist more easily with the help of technology, perhaps not indefinitely tho. Just a bad excuse for not stepping up overall. I have a hunch that we can still incorporate a higher standard of living than present without melting the Earth. We invented stuff like Smartphones afterall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 A warmer Earth is a massive net loss to the planet and humanity, especially because the changes aren't occurring at a natural pace. Maybe some Russian provinces will see better farming conditions, wow what a plus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 A warmer Earth is a massive net loss to the planet and humanity, especially because the changes aren't occurring at a natural pace. Maybe some Russian provinces will see better farming conditions, wow what a plus!Yeah, food is over rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 When you write that a warmer world might even be beneficial to most - how do you figure that? For that to be true it would require the standard of living for around 4,000,000,000 people to improve due to AGW. Sea level rise as a consequence of AGW is already taking place, it has accelerated from 0.8 mm/year to today's 3.2 mm/year in a matter of decades, and will certainly continue to rise until the Earth is in equilibrium (centuries at least). According to NOAA, more than half the Earth's population live near coasts [link]. Loss of arable land, saltwater intrusion into aquifers, inundation of communities and infrastructure, and other impacts of sea level rise won't be beneficial to them, don't you agree? And we have to keep in mind the heatwaves, droughts and flooding negatively influenced by AGW. How do they benefit the farmers, ranchers, and other folk impacted? They number in the hundreds of millions of people world-wide, and the total of the AGW-related damages is already in the many billions.of dollars. There are other AGW-related issues, but perhaps it would be easier to just ask you to explain what 4,000,000,000 people you believe will benefit from AGW, and specifically HOW they will benefit. Wow, 3.2 mm per year. Better get the sandbags ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Wow, 3.2 mm per year. Better get the sandbags ready. Between 2009-2013 it was like 6.3 mm a year locally. I would guesstimate it will accelerate steadily indefinitely. 2 meters (6.5 ft.) of SLR by 2100 seems like the lower limit. I see you're not taking this seriously. People will realize in due time how sensitive the Earth is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Yeah, food is over rated. Why do you answer like this? This is such an uninformed troll response I know for a fact you don't believe it. So you're saying were going to have a net plus in arable and nutrient rich/water rich land? Because all reports I've seen see a reduction in usable farm land in any future global warming scenario. Oh and btw, we already make enough food to feed everyone. Distribution and waste are why people starve around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Why do you answer like this? This is such an uninformed troll response I know for a fact you don't believe it. So you're saying were going to have a net plus in arable and nutrient rich/water rich land? Because all reports I've seen see a reduction in usable farm land in any future global warming scenario. Oh and btw, we already make enough food to feed everyone. Distribution and waste are why people starve around the world. I agree with your last paragraph.I think logic would suggest that we would gain more land capable of both crop production and habitation as the majority of land in the northern hemisphere is probably north of 50 north. I don't have any numbers on that. I've tried to find them but haven't had any luck. Of course we would lose land to sea level rise, so .... Also, you are correct. You don't deserve troll responses....my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 Between 2009-2013 it was like 6.3 mm a year locally. I would guesstimate it will accelerate steadily indefinitely. 2 meters (6.5 ft.) of SLR by 2100 seems like the lower limit. I see you're not taking this seriously. People will realize in due time how sensitive the Earth is. Apologies for the smarta** response. I'm not taking this as seriously as you are, that's certain. I for one don't think we fully understand this or where it's going. Regardless, I don't think we have the power to stop it nor do we have the intelligence or technology to tamper with climate. I do, however, support all attempts to end fossil fuel means of energy production and the protection of the environment. One of these days, humans will realize this isn't our own private playground. Just a point of fact though....a sea level rise of 2m by 2100 is 23.3 mm of rise per year. And even if we were convinced it would happen, 86 years is a long time to adjust and adapt. Surviving species in this planets history have always done just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Add this to your collection... This is why we can't have nice things. People automatically associate climate action with Al Gore and wealth redistribution, why has it become some political horse-race. The amount of short-sightedness and selfishness in some people is unfathomable. You can't eat money for survival, and that is a fact. AGW activists are called out for being "like religion" yet you have the same crowd of people thinking their way of life is sustainable. They don't actually live in reality. bud, I'm 56 and could care absolutely not one iota about your supposed climate change and your obvious fixation with it I was living during the late 50's and 60's when the ice was much greater and there were warm winters and cold ones, droughts and floods, and life went on just like it will go on with any climate warming that has occurred through 2014 if you spent more energy working you could do more good for this planet by helping people who need the help now instead of running around here crying wolf and posting climate change agenda in every forum iow, get a life outside of climate change and you'll be a better person and be able to sleep at night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 bud, I'm 56 and could care absolutely not one iota about your supposed climate change and your obvious fixation with it I was living during the late 50's and 60's when the ice was much greater and there were warm winters and cold ones, droughts and floods, and life went on just like it will go on with any climate warming that has occurred through 2014 if you spent more energy working you could do more good for this planet by helping people who need the help now instead of running around here crying wolf and posting climate change agenda in every forum iow, get a life outside of climate change and you'll be a better person and be able to sleep at night It's not about me or you, it's about scientific integrity. At least on this forum. I am taking real-life discourse to become self-sufficient. No, i'm not a doomsday prepper. As for the community, not many are willing to leave their 9 to 5 and wake up. The fixation is because it will ruin my life and flood my hometown forever and probably lead to the downfall of modern living standards if we don't play our cards right. You are 56 and probably have a comfy pension, etc. Even then, the value of money drops every day. I recommend investing in gold. When i'm 56, assuming AGW doesn't kill me. I won't be like you that's for sure, hopefully I will be hardened by all the pain and misery and at least have a little more respect for the value of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildweatherman179 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 bud, I'm 56 and could care absolutely not one iota about your supposed climate change and your obvious fixation with it I was living during the late 50's and 60's when the ice was much greater and there were warm winters and cold ones, droughts and floods, and life went on just like it will go on with any climate warming that has occurred through 2014 if you spent more energy working you could do more good for this planet by helping people who need the help now instead of running around here crying wolf and posting climate change agenda in every forum iow, get a life outside of climate change and you'll be a better person and be able to sleep at night +100! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 It's not about me or you, it's about scientific integrity. At least on this forum. I am taking real-life discourse to become self-sufficient. No, i'm not a doomsday prepper. As for the community, not many are willing to leave their 9 to 5 and wake up. The fixation is because it will ruin my life and flood my hometown forever and probably lead to the downfall of modern living standards if we don't play our cards right. You are 56 and probably have a comfy pension, etc. Even then, the value of money drops every day. I recommend investing in gold. When i'm 56, assuming AGW doesn't kill me. I won't be like you that's for sure, hopefully I will be hardened by all the pain and misery and at least have a little more respect for the value of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Lol owned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Just sayin, live a happy life but plan accordingly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 A lot of these quotes are completely out of context. For example, the 1975 NYT article that warns "ice age inevitable" is totally out of context. If you actually read the article, you see that scientists at the time were debating the relative effects of 1) cooling from aerosols 2) a cooling sun 3) and carbon dioxide. The quote that a 'major cooling is inevitable' was on a geologic timescale. All the author was saying is that eventually an ice age will occur because that is the dominant state of climate. Inerglacials have been short over the last 2 million years (usually 10-20,000 years long). There is also plenty of discussion of carbon dioxide warming and of aerosol cooling. The way it is presented in this link is just unethical. It's a complete lie. It's amazing to me that people like this can look themselves in the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Apologies for the smarta** response. I'm not taking this as seriously as you are, that's certain. I for one don't think we fully understand this or where it's going. Regardless, I don't think we have the power to stop it nor do we have the intelligence or technology to tamper with climate. I do, however, support all attempts to end fossil fuel means of energy production and the protection of the environment. One of these days, humans will realize this isn't our own private playground. Just a point of fact though....a sea level rise of 2m by 2100 is 23.3 mm of rise per year. And even if we were convinced it would happen, 86 years is a long time to adjust and adapt. Surviving species in this planets history have always done just that. Yet we had the intelligence and technology to do the following: Create Lake Meade Create the Salton Sea Redirect the course of the Mississippi river By the 1930s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Yet we had the intelligence and technology to do the following: Create Lake Meade Create the Salton Sea Redirect the course of the Mississippi river By the 1930s. Nice comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I really hope the people that read this originally without realizing the blatant manipulation are as shocked as I am that they would literally take quotes so far out of context and spin them to have the exact opposite meaning of the articles they were drawn from. The complete immorality and lack of integrity of some of these climate bloggers never ceases to appal me. I mean this stuff is outrageous. If you ever have a question of the scruples of these 'denier' types this type of stuff should tell you all you need to know. I mean this is just so blatant. I click on the NYT link about 'inevitable major cooling' and instead I find a nuanced article about the warming effects of CO2 vs the cooling effects of aerosols and that the 'inevitable cooling' referred only to Milanchovich cycles which occur on 100,000 year time periods absent human tampering with climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 this is taken from the american thinker, it's denier propaganda from a conservative group with an established anti-science agenda not surprising to see it trumpeted from deniers and weenies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I mean that's the real issue. People need to learn what is a reliable source and what isn't. A reputable newspaper could never publish this sort of trash because it would immediately create a firestorm about the manipulation and lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 this is taken from the american thinker, it's denier propaganda from a conservative group with an established anti-science agenda not surprising to see it trumpeted from deniers and weenies Not surprised they would focus on these quotes. The quotes are legit though. Doesn't really say much. I don't think that URL is going to be relayed to the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 BTW. When I hear the phrase "anti-science" used, I have to know.... Do they oppose other sciences or just the conclusions of AGW? Are they anti-science or anti-consensus? Do they try and thwart geology, medicine, space and biology in general? Or just AGW studies? Is the Pluto classification fiasco being funded by a right-wing think tank or is this real science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Not surprised they would focus on these quotes. The quotes are legit though. Doesn't really say much. I don't think that URL is going to be relayed to the UN. No the quotes are not legit. They are completely out of context. Some of them have been taken and excerpted in such a way that the meaning is totally contrary to the substance of the text they were drawn from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 When you write that a warmer world might even be beneficial to most - how do you figure that? For that to be true it would require the standard of living for around 4,000,000,000 people to improve due to AGW. Sea level rise as a consequence of AGW is already taking place, it has accelerated from 0.8 mm/year to today's 3.2 mm/year in a matter of decades, and will certainly continue to rise until the Earth is in equilibrium (centuries at least). According to NOAA, more than half the Earth's population live near coasts [link]. Loss of arable land, saltwater intrusion into aquifers, inundation of communities and infrastructure, and other impacts of sea level rise won't be beneficial to them, don't you agree? And we have to keep in mind the heatwaves, droughts and flooding negatively influenced by AGW. How do they benefit the farmers, ranchers, and other folk impacted? They number in the hundreds of millions of people world-wide, and the total of the AGW-related damages is already in the many billions.of dollars. There are other AGW-related issues, but perhaps it would be easier to just ask you to explain what 4,000,000,000 people you believe will benefit from AGW, and specifically HOW they will benefit. Very speculative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.