T Nation

We are Destroying the Only Home we Know

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

I am not a heart surgery patient but if my doctor is bullshitting me more than once I am getting a new one.

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

If the doc is a known liar.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

If the doc is a known liar.[/quote]

Everybody lies, especially if it helps their cause or if they use some sort of “the ends justify the means” philosophy. There is a lot of money to be made in scaring the public. The same thing happened with a “global cooling” scare back in the 70’s. SPOILER ALERT: it was shown to be wrong and a lot of the proponents were shown to be using junk science. I am a physicist, not a climatologist, but I know when sensationalist claims are being for the sake of making money, and there is a lot of that going on here. I am not saying that all the research is junk, but some of the conclusions are faulty at best.


.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Our activities unlock carbon, so yes, we contribute something. One question is how much do we contribute. Next, how much starvation and misery will result from our contribution. And finally, how much starvation and misery are we willing to inflict in a rush to offset our contribution.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Our activities unlock carbon, so yes, we contribute something. One question is how much do we contribute. Next, how much starvation and misery will result from our contribution. And finally, how much starvation and misery are we willing to inflict in a rush to offset our contribution. [/quote]

I am afraid that your nuanced approach is not sufficiently apocalyptic.

Please try again.

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

“silee” who is not a troll but starts a thread on “climate change” with a wikipedia link to “climate change” - here you go:

Wall Street Journal, January 16th 2012:

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade - indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections - suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Read the rest, good article:


Maybe you are mistaken and we should actually increase CO2 emissions. See the paragraph above in bold from the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 leading scientists. So, shouldn’t we be increasing CO2 emissions? No? Why not?

Don’t you want to ‘save the planet?’ Gotta increase emissions then buddy. Latest “climate change” science and all.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

If the doc is a known liar.[/quote]

That is a very cynical view, and I might add paranoid. So you want to say that the climate scientist who tell us that the arctic caps are melting are lying about that?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

“silee” who is not a troll but starts a thread on “climate change” with a wikipedia link to “climate change” - here you go:

Wall Street Journal, January 16th 2012:

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade - indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections - suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Read the rest, good article:


Maybe you are mistaken and we should actually increase CO2 emissions. See the paragraph above in bold from the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 leading scientists. So, shouldn’t we be increasing CO2 emissions? No? Why not?[/quote]

I am not a climate scientist ok so can only point to others and in the wikipedia article it said 90% of the world’s climate scientist agree that Global warming is going on. So if 16 disagree that’s fits right in. Moreover in the first paragraph of the Wall street article , it said " Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true."

Saying that GW is not true is glossing over what the preponderance of Climate scientist are saying.

Back in the age of CIGERATES ARE GOOD FOR HEALTH, and scientist who worked for the tobacco industry some even knew better, but never said anything to the contrary that didn’t help to bring to the light of day the dangers that people should know about smoking.

Besides its not what some scientist say its what the evidence that science uncovers.

No one ever lacks an audience when they predict the end of the world

This is what I wrote in the other thread:

Climate is changing.

Fossil fuels are running out

We should adopt a policy that is least damaging to the environment, while still producing power that enables a modern economy to go on. That means investing in transitional fuels, some of which might take years of start up before they start to return a profit.

It shows the hubris of mankind that we believe that are actions can ultimately halt or change something that has happened since the planet’s creation.

Climate changes. Climate is always going to change. 60 million years ago the average global temperature was estimated to be 30 degrees celsius. 10,000 years ago, it was 2 degrees celsius ( I think). Now it’s 14 Celsius. You can deny that climate changes all you want, but we have to make adaptations that can ensure a modern economy can withstand more extreme and volatile weather, and not be reliant on fossil fuels.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
No one ever lacks an audience when they predict the end of the world

This is what I wrote in the other thread:

Climate is changing.

Fossil fuels are running out

We should adopt a policy that is least damaging to the environment, while still producing power that enables a modern economy to go on. That means investing in transitional fuels, some of which might take years of start up before they start to return a profit.

It shows the hubris of mankind that we believe that are actions can ultimately halt or change something that has happened since the planet’s creation.

Climate changes. Climate is always going to change. 60 million years ago the average global temperature was estimated to be 30 degrees celsius. 10,000 years ago, it was 2 degrees celsius ( I think). Now it’s 14 Celsius. You can deny that climate changes all you want, but we have to make adaptations that can ensure a modern economy can withstand more extreme and volatile weather, and not be reliant on fossil fuels.
[/quote]

The climate scientist are not predicting the end of the world like some on the religious right have, just serve weather changes that will impact , which are already impacting many, some more than others depending on where one lives. Also the increase of drought and flooding, more violent weather conditions, changes to animal environments for example the Polar Bear might be going extinct because of the warming of his environment.

As for oil we know that we are running out of cheap oil that is a fact.

I agree with you about alternative forms of energy we need to bring to bear the genius of the American, ( others also) technology to lessen our carbon footprint.

The domination of nature has been going on for centuries. As in most things in life there are trade offs, its nice to be able to hop in ones car and go where ever one wants. Of course with more and more car and less and less public, good public, transportation there is more carbon emissions. Car manufactures COULD HAVE WORKED ON CARS ,by increasing gas miles since Jimmy Carter by 1 mile more per gallon a year so from 1976 till 2012 we could have improved by 36 more miles per gallon.

I always liked the way the American Indians respected the earth, after all its our home we have to take care of it so it will take care of our needs.

But yeah we need the political will and the ingenuity to produce ways of providing energy that don’t destroy our planet. There are far more smarter and capable people out there than me who can speak to the fact of this endeavor.

This sounds like how I thought when I was 16-20 years old, and the world was out to get me.
Lay off the pot kid.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This sounds like how I thought when I was 16-20 years old, and the world was out to get me.
Lay off the pot kid.[/quote]

please mr scientist you must have something better than that? Its far better than the deniers of GW.

How old are you btw?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Our activities unlock carbon, so yes, we contribute something. One question is how much do we contribute. Next, how much starvation and misery will result from our contribution. And finally, how much starvation and misery are we willing to inflict in a rush to offset our contribution. [/quote]

I am afraid that your nuanced approach is not sufficiently apocalyptic.

Please try again. [/quote]LOL!!!

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

If the doc is a known liar.[/quote]
That is a very cynical view, and I might add paranoid. So you want to say that the climate scientist who tell us that the arctic caps are melting are lying about that?[/quote]
Yup.

Americans are becoming better about saving and conserving our resources. That is a good thing. Next our government Obama will try and tell a developing country like India or China, to stop growing and pumping “green house” gases.

However I still doubt human interaction can actually influence the climate like the ‘tree huggers’ claim. The Earth’s history has shown to be rather turbulent. Except the last ~2,000 years have been incredibly stable. Interesting how that is synonymous with the coming of Christ. Now this is just my opinion.

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

I feel we are on a suicidal course if we don’t step up and cut back on carbon emissions. I am not a climate scientist but I am rational enough to know that what they tell us is more than reasonable to believe. If a medical doctor told you that having heart surgery would give you a 90% chance of fixing a faulty heart who wouldn’t take those chances?[/quote]

If the doc is a known liar.[/quote]

That is a very cynical view, and I might add paranoid. So you want to say that the climate scientist who tell us that the arctic caps are melting are lying about that?[/quote]

No it’s not a cynical view, it’s a skeptic view. If I know the doctor has lied for money reasons before, I am going to be skeptic of him trying to sell me some expensive heart medicine.

Well, since the DMI shows little difference between the 60’s through the 2009, and NASA show a cooling trend once you look from the 40’s…yeah.

This is compared to Jane Eart who admits that the scientists fudge the numbers to figure stuff out, and that makes the results wrong.