Well, we're screwed.

[Snee]

Oh come on, while I seriously doubt that what we've done thus so far has had such a profound effect on our climate as some would have it, the opinion that we have had, are having, and probably will be having a hand in this most recent 'bout of global warming if we do continue to pollute as we currently do, is shared by a majority of all climatologists, as far as I know.

To dismiss their consensus (altho' the research is not yet finished, I'll grant you that) is a bit much.

Man can certainly affect nature, when it comes to our climate, given what the scientists now believe.

And as for the Kyoto treaty, I reckon it's a bit arrogant to dismiss something a large part of the world has agreed on as something that dictates "useless horseshit", not to mention that's it's downright insulting that the USA rejected it, especially so since America does stand for something like a third of all pollution emissions.

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance.

Who said I was ignorant? I've looked at what some of the scientists say, and it's pretty convincing.

Michael Chrichton, on the other hand is not someone I'd look to for a convincing interpretation of real data. He's good at fiction, but I'm not so sure about his takes on science

Even tho' a volcano eruption might have a more extensive effect on the environment, and even tho' we might not have had as great an effect on the environment as some have said, is that really a good reason not to try and make things better?

I'd rather side with the scientists on this.

As for the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto.png

I see "signed" was the wrong choice of word, ratified was what I meant.
Bloke like you ought to have gotten that, tho'.

[GepperRankins]

can i say the straw that broke the camels back?


shirley you'll understand what i mean

[j2k4]

Did you just dismiss the scientific community and endorse a fiction writer in the same post?

Hmmm...Let me check...

















Yes, I did.

Read the book.

[j2k4]

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance.

Who said I was ignorant? I've looked at what some of the scientists say, and it's pretty convincing.

Michael Chrichton, on the other hand is not someone I'd look to for a convincing interpretation of real data. He's good at fiction, but I'm not so sure about his takes on science

Even tho' a volcano eruption might have a more extensive effect on the environment, and even tho' we might not have had as great an effect on the environment as some have said, is that really a good reason not to try and make things better?

I'd rather side with the scientists on this.

As for the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto.png

I see "signed" was the wrong choice of word, ratified was what I meant.
Bloke like you ought to have gotten that, tho'.

I wasn't picking on that last; ratified, signed, either is good.

I was desirous of your noting the other former signatories who have vacated the treaty.

Let me put it this way:

You are well aware statistical evidence (the much-vaunted science) can be subtly skewed to achieve effect and/or influence opinion, especially with someone predisposed to a certain point-of-view, and by this I mean someone of whom it might be said, "He cares about the environment, as we all should".

This is all well and good, until the person in question confronts an issue which is superficially so persuasive as to skate past normal healthy skepticism, and this subject has been tailored to that very end.

I consider myself somewhat a student of the game, and my antenna have been up on this right from the beginning.

I have lived most of my life in cooler climes and various locales on the Great Lakes.

I am 47 years old.

I have lived through an impending Ice Age to no ill effect, only to be confronted with the same scenario in reverse.

In the early to mid-seventies, the scientific "consensus" was forecasting the lakes would, by the late-'80s/early '90s, be frozen over entirely, and stay that way for the next few hundred years, minimum.

Oh, and let's not forget-the Cold War was still burgeoning, and the threat of nuclear war pushed the scenario from catastrophic to apocalyptic: Anyone remember Nuclear Winter?

Anyway, I got through all that in pretty good shape, managing to get a tan each and every summer, swimming and recreating in and on the lakes, the levels of which fluctuated fairly drastically year after year, along with the requisite moaning about erosion, property values rising and falling, until I became bored and forgot about all of it.

You really should have been there.....but you weren't, and you haven't the benefit of my brand of hindsight; nor can I effectively communicate it to you.

[Skillian]

Did you just dismiss the scientific community and endorse a fiction writer in the same post?

Hmmm...Let me check...

Yes, I did.

Read the book.

I've read the reviews on Amazon, thats the best I can do without spending £4.99.

It does sound interesting and well referenced, and apparently there's an earthquake machine in there somewhere which sounds fun, but I would imagine its most useful contribution to the climate change issue is to encourage the readers to seek further information from scientific sources.

Then again, you never claimed it was a comprehensive source of information so there's no real reason for me to take issue with your post.

[j2k4]

Nice post J2, but this is kind of off topic, but hell I'll ask anyway:

How many more years do you think oil will last? As far as I know we crossed the peak a long time ago, and OPEC is just optimistic, nothing else. There really isn't as much oil on/in (the) Earth (at least the oil that we can "obtain") as OPEC or other scientists claim there to be.

So, since fossil fuels (which I kinda classify as oil, don't ask) is what, a HUGE chunk of what causes emmisions (spelling!), when we run out, what do you think will happen?

As you put it J2, the pollution caused by mankind (no not just America, I'm not narrowminded thank you very much) is miniscule and at best ignorable to the grand scheme of things (nature), so when we run out of fossil fuels life will just go on? Climate change will still take place regardless of the fact that fossil fuels will cease to burn?

That's one future I don't look forward to, because:

1) When (not if) fossil fuels diminish and the weather/climate continues to deteriorate (spelling!), people are gonna be scratching their heads going "WTF? I thought we took care of this problem by switching to alternative power sources".

2) Once again mankind's inability to plan ahead will bring about yet more famine, death, and what not.

My 2 cents on that subject (1/2 of which is based on this thread, the other half being on fossil fuels running out).

I'm interested in what you have to say J2, in fact, I'm interested in what all of you have to say.

Let's see how quickly I can do this.

If we are indeed at the "tipping-point" (as well we may be...who knows?), what I know of that indicates we are beyond redemption, pollution-wise, as well as being closer to the genuine end of the geologic supply string than we are to the beginning.

Now...back to the volcanic-event equation for a moment:

If, as is commonly agreed to be true, the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 gave forth a level of pollution well in excess of the entirety of man's activities to that point in history, a rough correlation can be drawn between that event and the amount of pollution yet to be derived from man's use/abuse of the world's remaining supply of fossil fuel.

This in turn means that, should we immediately forego any further use of fossil fuels, we bring to bear a minimally positive effect the equivalent (again, roughly) of the world's next semi-significant volcanic event.

Anyone want to bet when that'll be?

When fossil fuels are becoming demonstrably depleted and that fact begins to seriously effect the market (this has not happened yet, not by a long shot), other sources of energy will become viable.

I am not worried this will cause pain beyond moderate inconvenience, however, the mere thought of any other than self-propelled wheels under one's ass can drive some to contemplate suicide, I hear.

So be it.

The market will provide, though it may provide differently.

Life is supposed to be an adventure, isn't it?

[Tempestv]

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance.

I read the reviews on that book, to see if it was to be a waste of time, and some four reviews that I read on it before deciding that I had read enough about it all said that the whole book was conservitive propoganda. Sorry, but when I want to read about real events, I don't read fiction.

[j2k4]

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance.

I read the reviews on that book, to see if it was to be a waste of time, and some four reviews that I read on it before deciding that I had read enough about it all said that the whole book was conservitive propoganda. Sorry, but when I want to read about real events, I don't read fiction.

Do you prefer liberal propaganda?

How would you know the difference?

Would you ask an "expert"?

Consult the World-Wide-Web?

Do you reject ALL books purported to be important or relevant if they are novels?

Would you prefer Uncle Tom's Cabin never to have been written?

How about Atlas Shrugged?

How would you know whether that which you do read (presented as non-fictional fact, of course) is not a nicely-packaged collection of lies?

Have you read my sig?

I rather like it.

Perhaps you might present us with your own reading list relative to global warming and other issues so that we might parse it for accuracy and truthfulness.

[vidcc]

It seems to me that the more profit that can be made by polluting the louder the argument against the reality of global warming. I find it hard to give environmental arguments credibility when they include parallel arguments about cost, profit and jobs. Sure those arguments may be true but they don’t discredit the science. So this group possibly believe that man is having an effect but just don’t care because to them the bottom line is more important and the real problem will not be theirs, but later generations.

Another group that tend to deny the science do so because of religious beliefs. How could mere men influence God’s creation? Some fanatical religious types believe it is their duty under the word of the bible to use the earth and that environmentalists are going to prevent this.

Of course not everyone that doubts man’s role in global warming fits into these groups but they are a minority IMO.

Climate does indeed change naturally but this fact doesn’t discredit mans influence in speeding up the process.

[MagicNakor]

...Would you prefer Atlas Shrugged never to have been written?

God, yes. Did anyone really need to be subjected to Galt's fifty-odd page speech?

If that's not possible, can we just get her an editor?