Global Warming, yes or no?

One comment on the weather patterns this past year is that most were associated with the global weather phenomenon of La Nina. The consequences are actually predictable enough that we put off a trip to Costa Rica because it would be too rainy. We knew there would be no morels this spring here in New Mexico because we would have a drought. We expected things to get so dry that the forest would be closed to hiking. The fires are an annual occurrence but worse during La Nina years.

The connection with "global climate change", is that the frequency of El Nino and La Nina weather patterns seems to be increasing, causing lots of local weather anomalies. There probably is a connection and these weather types will become the norm in the future.
Since people seem to favor denial over any personal sacrifice to fix the problem, I guess we will leave the cost to our children. They can look back and curse their denialist parents.
Rick

Or curse the inventalist irratianalists. The science is not settled and the monetary costs to our children (who are always dragged into specious arguments) will be high either way. The actions demanded by those "warmists" who are financially vested in companies who benefit from governmental handouts to research dubious alternative fuels. I personally sacrifice to benefit the natural environment daily. I also deny the firm convictions of the "warmists." Where does that place me?

Wow - I'll reply later. Lot's (tons) of incorrect assumptions in your post. Right now I'm headed out to do another trash run in the bay. Check back tonight. Classic LOL moment.

Nuclear absolutely better than solar. But less carbon? You buy into that idea that you can broker carbon, as though any living organism doesn't add to this, even if it isn't human? So add your car, your computer, the food you eat (and if you grow it yourself, all the water you use in the un-water wealthy central and northeastern coast) and how that food is produced, you most certainly are not a net loss for the earth. I do agree that research is convoluted but that is primarily by the investors themselves, so let's take that out of their hands. Many of our most important discoveries were scoffed at- GFP, a nobel prize winning discovery, comes to mind first- how do you know if you don't spend a little to investigate? Lots of them take refining. Think of nuclear power that you bring up, it didn't happen overnight.

The whole idea behind the change is just that- on average, the temperatures will be warmer causing greater, and more dramatic weather as the world requilibrates. The question is where is the ceiling considering this particular epoch is not of previously known sources.

I live in Florida and also push the zone limits for plants in my area- I do it on the warm side and on the outskirts of town it is done in the other direction with peaches and such, that's simply a micro-climate issue combined with inaccurate cold tolerance by nursery industry. Many plants will survive much lower than published. Not unique at all. A function of biology for each plant- can it regenerate from roots and how thick is the outer cuticle? What kind of winter water content will this plant have? There are avocados that fruit on campus here yet they are regularly killed a few hours south. Pick the right individual in the right place and even known sensitive plants will surprise you.

About the sun- it's been calmer than ever. Almost frighteningly so. Maybe crazy later, but that's not the issue right now. Getting a little closer, but that's happened historically and very unlike this particular shift. We didn't just pick the greenhouse gases as the enemy, we noticed the trend and then eliminated potential causes until we found a likely culprit. Then we explore and find we are most likely correct. With a good deal of confidence that we know what is wrong, why wouldn't we accept the strong possibility and act accordingly? Mmm... that's right, it's steps on the toes of big oil and requires a bit of uncomfortable adjustments in our lifestyles and infrastructure. My point is that it is nothing like having to adjust to major famine or any of the other things that could potentially follow should we continue to shirk our responsibility?

Grants go to industry related research, less often dramatic claims. Remember stem cells? The first rash of AIDS? But breast cancer, very hi profile and profitable because it seems fairly within reach and is non-controversial, sure. Politicians invest safely, in general. Whatever feeds their constituency.

My mistake about the republican thing- just didn't know there were creationist, liberal non-climate changers out there. You should list yourself on the cryptozoological page. Interesting discussion, thanks.

You over simplify what a gain for environment is. The planting of a few plants for a few lepidopteran does nothing for the NET overall loss of habitat, it's not even a drop in a drop in a bucket, a bucket that now has holes melted in the bottom anyway.

Mars- the first thing that pops up, after National Geographic, when I even google the idea is:

"Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in reflected heat"

So, yes, it has been explored and continues to be. Remember the relative lack of atmosphere on Mars.

Other fish also die from you because you are part of the modern human system of trafficking products across oceans, eating foods that are not sustainable (really everything you eat since you are north american and thus living on a continent that could barely support our minute native population anyway, thus you rely on a whole host of invasive exotics, mostly genetically modified [yes, selective breeding is also genetic modification]), exploiting environments to get at resources, all of this. Very egotistical to think that you can be exempt from the same responsibility everyone else shares because you pick up trash every once in a while. It's not a gain until the overall effect is negated, and that will never be under the current system and certainly not by one person, especially one that denies all their own environmental consequences anyway.

I won't get back into the issue of the "other articles" as it has been dissected ad nauseum. There is a key disconnect in the way you treat scientific understanding. We learn things through overwhelming data, of which there is plenty. We do not say we are 100% certain, we say we are "confident" and then provide that margin so it can be understood that there is an overwhelming statistically significant trend despite natural variations within that margin (entropy is a factor after all). So why ignore something that is almost certain to be true, especially when the consequences are potentially very dire?

These objections are obviously not ignored, look at the length of this forum and the amount of public attention this topic gets in general. There are plenty of people on TV (mostly Fox) arguing the very same point you are, they are just in the minority and have lack a supporting data set which is why most credentialed individuals do not agree. The climate does change without our help, it just doesn't change this dramatically without us and our dilemma is that we do not know what happens under this paradigm.

You can illustrate evolution by using bacteria, it's done all the time and takes less than a month (really less than a week, but you can really have a dramatic new organism after a month or so). Have you heard of MRSA? You also test using a variety of genomic markers, various origins for said genetic material, etc. etc. Do some research on evolutionary genetics, sometimes the exact relationships are not clear but it is very evident that the process is driven by evolution, whether slow or epi-genetic. You need a better background in the sciences before you start trying to make claims about its results without really understanding how these were determined to be true (or false). You can test for aliens in a limited number of ways, all of which are showing that there are none. However it is well understood that our ability or even knowledge of how to search of extra-terrestrial life is extremely limited and therefor we do not stand up and say "we are fairly confident that aliens are imaginary"- we do say that we do not have any evidence of contact and so forth, but that their existence is indeed a possibility given that we cannot demonstrate in a convincing manner that they are imaginary. But we can test for evolution because we have tons of different types of tests, from the morphological to the molecular to demonstrative artificial reproduction of evolution. So yes, it can and has been tested, you simply haven't had any exposure to it apparently. That's typically the case- don't "believe" in it, it's because you were never afforded the information. As I said, it's not a question of "believing" anymore. Even the most conservative courts, when forced to listen and given the facts, had to agree. Hence in science we say that "evolution is a theory" meaning it is all but certain to be true and can be tested in variety of ways without failing. In fact it also is implicit that you can not only demonstrate it's validity in a number of ways but that you also cannot demonstrate that it is false. That is the scientific method to which you casually refer. That is why the overwhelming majority of climatologists, geographers, etc. are willing to apply their name to the cause. It's not that the sheer number of people make the theory true, is that the truth in theory brings the numbers up naturally. You use false logic to suggest the majority assumes based only on one another yet ignore the possibly that it is actually the nay-sayers who are guilty of this very thing.

You try to paint it as though everyone who understands global warming is happening is a lemming while in the same breath jumping on a different band wagon. So why is that the majority has to be the one's likened to the "cult" rather than you? You use the very same justification for your argument. At a certain point, when everyone is walking around saying "no, the sky really is blue" you are going to have to accept it, not call them subversive followers of mass hysteria. Sometimes the thing that everyone else believes is that way because it is correct, it is the case with most things. They are not "observed incidents" they are trends. This is very different. Your understanding of how the sciences work is not accurate and as such you are not interpreting the supporting evidence appropriately.

But I think you even point out my suspicion- you say "I argue to keep communication open"- which read much like "hello, my name is the devil's advocate" to me, ha ha ha. My only word of caution is that many times the leaving open of communication leads to misinformation which can be quite dangerous. I think of eugenics. How do you decide? Weigh the consequence of disseminating your ideas, presuming there is no foundation for either- if we act as though warming is real, what happens? People clean up there act and the earth is a little happier, even if the earth never changes temperature again. If we act as though are correct, what happens? People continue to behave with no respect for the earth at all, as though we are entitled to destroy as much of it as we chose. The difference is clear, and then add that it is most likely true that the earth is warming, well... the future under one paradigm is very grim. So why advocate something which is unlikely to be correct and really is nothing other than dangerous? You just provide excuses for other people who are less environmentally conscientious than yourself, at the minimum. I get excited about these topics because I can also see the "maximum" end of the spectrum and it is not pretty.

I should have said net gain for the natural environment. Your Bucket with holes example is incorrect (even if you use a plastic bucket). The planet is not a small closed system.

I grow a good amount of my own food (without artificial fertilizers). North America is so successful at producing food that farmers are paid to leave farmland fallow and export much of the excess. Where did you come up with that incorrect statement?

Mars has an atmosphere. Again, you make another incorrect statement.

How can I claim to be exempt from responsibility when I spend so much time taking responsibility? Really? Really? True, I only listed a few of the things I did. I suppose I should measure how much I use and how much I put back. But then, you would refuse to believe it if it was not peer reviewed so why bother? I won't go farther into what I do. Believe it or not, I do more good than harm. The planet is not a closed system. Dinosaurs used more than their fair share of carbon. Were they a net negative? No. I know you want to call me a dinosaur but that would be a nice thing to me.

The host of invasive exotics are not germane to the conversation but since you incorrectly stated they are mostly genetically modified I have to take issue. Please list the genetically modified invasive species you are thinking of. I will then list invasive species which are not genetically modified and we will compare which is more of a "host." I suppose what you call a host is not what is commonly accepted as a host. I can think of 30-40 invasive species that were not modified without looking it up. I can think of only 2 that were modified.


I can't speack about Fox TV as I really don't have the time to watch it.

"You use false logic to suggest the majority assumes based only on one another yet ignore the possibly that it is actually the nay-sayers who are guilty of this very thing."
Your statement is a little disjointed. A majority belief does not a fact make is what I was trying to show since this was the basis of some of your statements. Let's go one outrageous step farther - If the vast majority of published (and reviewed by their peers) theologians agree that that there is a God and that He or She made everything, would you reply in the way I expect? I mean, they are the experts and the overwheling majority of people agree with them. For your sake, don't assume I do.

"That is the scientific method to which you casually refer"
Ok great. That was the reply I was looking for. Then why was the scientific method corrupted by East Anglians? They admitted to tossing data which did not fit in their hypothesis? Is it because someone would not benefit intellectually or financially? According to another poster you, lie and die. Um, they are not dead. Besides learn about the Southern Oscillation and there is a congruent overlap with temperature change. CO2 levels not so much.

"At a certain point, when everyone is walking around saying "no, the sky really is blue" you are going to have to accept it, not call them subversive followers of mass hysteria."
Unless the shy is not really blue. (insert global warming where "the sky is blue" is written). You assume that everyone thinks the sky is blue when that is certainly not true. To bolster the sky is blue argument, you write something and have peers agree. For a myriad of possible reasons, you then state that anyone who does not agree that the sky is blue has not been accepted by the cloistered group you rely on. All others are rejected even when they show through logic and data that the sky is not blue. By the way, the sky is not blue! The light reaching you is blue. This is why the sky appears in other colors. www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

"Your understanding of how the sciences work is not accurate and as such you are not interpreting the supporting evidence appropriately. "
Funny, I think I just said the same thing about you.

Ok - Rick-

1st paragraph. I've never heard of the Seitz team so I don't know.


Solar cycles and the SO have been written about and the acclaim is, well we already talked about that. There are many articles punching holes in the CO2 theory.

Peer reviewd publications are screwed with. I've seen it. I was a part of it. I maybe should not have admitted that but it was 22 years ago and I swore to never help some one do it again.

Please give me the references of the big industry shills with whom I seem to agree but got there on my own.


Reply if you want but this is getting too unwieldy. I don't know if I have it in me to reply more. We've done well but I see this denigrating rapidly. So that I don't alienate my friends (and I do consider you and any one else who makes me think) friends I'm unlikely to post again here.