Really??!! When did we all reach that conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Printable View
Really??!! When did we all reach that conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Oh yeah. We just stumbled around in the dark or individually burned piles of wood, coal, peat moss, parafin, or anything else we could ignite. Of course the oil lamp was a lot more efficient. We just had to devoid the seas of whales for the oil.Quote:
But he does make a point that we managed fine without electricity prior to circa 1880.
Ah yes, bogus nostalgia. Back to the bad old days so we can all drop dead earlier. Hey Ben, do you know why the President of the United States has to be 35 years old? It's not just an arbitrary number that the delegates pulled out of their collective asses. At the end of the 18th century, 35 was the average lifespan of an American man. If you managed to live past that, you were considered an elder. Go back to then? I don't think so. Especially at my age. Give up electricity? I don't think so. In a few more years (later rather than sooner I hope), I may need to plug in periodically to recharge the battery in my pacemaker.
Left, left, left? I don't think so. Derrick Jensen's just another fanatic one trick pony.
Ever since I can recall there have been people predicting the decline of civilisation, society, food production, fresh air and democracy, to name but a few enduring phenonema; there was even a tv series on the BBC in the 1970s called Doomwatch in which science played the role of sphinx, being at times a benefit to human society, at other times a curse, but never being either fully or even partially understood. I think it came out of that fear of annihilation that began with Hiroshima and was briefly jazzed up during the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s, tv being about 10 years behind the times, as it usually was then.
Species come and species go, scientists are still discovering new ones in obscure volcanoes in Indonesia, at depths of the ocean previously inaccessible to human eyes -we still probably know more about the surface of the moon than the sea floors of the Pacific or the Caribbean. While people condemn the human race for its allegedly relentless sacking of planetary resources, nature itself hasn't exactly packed up - people still die of Malaria today, as they did in Ancient Egypt; a few years ago a friend of mine was attacked by an Owl in the early evening in the woods because he probably got too close to a nest he couldn't even see; and yes, the primnates of Indonesia and Africa may die out as human settlement trashes their home. But I doubt Bears, particularly those who seem to get their meals from settlements creeping into their territory, will ever become household pets, even in Canada.
Civilisation in Ancient Greece may have become part of 'our' tradition, but that tradition only began with the Renaissance, having been kept alive during our so called dark ages by Muslim scholars and libraries. At the time farmers were peasants, and like artisans, women, slaves and Barbarians were not part of civilisation because the Athenian elite did not consider them to BE civilised and therefore capable of discoursing on contemporary events or taking responsibility for public affairs. The idea that every one over the age of 18 should be part of the political system would strike the average Athenian as preposterous, and a recipe for chaos.
When the 'Great Powers' were carving up the world after 1918 and creating The League of Nations, the colonies of the defeated Empires were doled out to the Empires that remained on the basis that none of them could be allowed their independence (what Woodrow Wilson had called National Self Determination), because they could not, as it was stated at the time, Stand alone under the strenuous conditions of the modern world -this applied to the A class Mandates of the Ottoman Empire, the B class Mandates of Africa, and the C class Mandates in the Pacific -Jan Smuts, the South African who played a larger role in the Peace Processes than he deserved, remarked of the C class mandates that they could not possibly become independent because they were populated by savages and barbarians.
Climate change is real, deforestation is real, soil erosion is real, water shortages are real. All can be dealt with through the combination of modern science and political will. The future for space exploration lies with robots who can man missions to Jupiter, Saturn and the Infinite, so it could be worthwhile looking at these issues as contemporary ones that all have practicable solutions, not least because most of the people who contribute to this board and this thread are the ones who will be living through the changes of the next 50 years, long after I have vacated the departure lounge.
yeah ,yeah ,yeah ,so much bullshitQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
it's official global warming is over says prof.Curry
The world's oldest documented case of cancer is from ancient Egypt, in 1500 BC. Details were recorded on a papyrus, documenting cases of tumours occurring on the breast. It was treated by cauterization, using a method to destroy tissue with a hot instrument called "the fire drill." It was also recorded that there was no treatment for the disease, only palliative treatment.
Some cancers are caused more by the environment (or lifestyle) than due to genetics. Some are much more common now as we live longer - we only have to go back to 1900 to see that commonest causes of death were influenza/pneumonia and tuberculosis. Before that, death was due to water-bourn diseases. Some cancers are entirely due to genes - most early life cancers - brain tumours, leukemia, etc. The majority are a mixture of nuture and nature. Why do some guys smoke 100 cigs a day but still live to a 100?The best advice for a long life is still to choose your parents carefully.
End of problem - we can continue to fuck up the Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
oh no ,please,please not another graph
I know, it hurts your poor poor head to see evidence that overturns the preconceptions to which you are emotionally, politically and ideologically committed. But science is only about evidence, the best ways to present it, organize it, interpret it and understand it. Often that means you may have to comprehend a chart or two. Oops, sorry I just accidentally used some big words; they hurt your head too...don't they? :( You didn't mention the link. I assume you didn't bother to click on it, let alone read it. So much for good faith effort.
just your b/s,it hurts to see some one actually believes this scam. Go and buy some magic beans TrishQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
There is no scam - just one hell of a lot of prejudice and bias that refuses to see the evidence. These are the concluding remarks from the 2010 Royal Society Report - very balanced and fair. But please don't read it 'cos it may change your views - and we wont want that, would we?Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.
Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.
Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.
More believers in this scam .The Australian government advisor Prof Tim Flannery for climate change with his mad claims is now held in mockery in Australia after some of his crazy claims
Tim Flannery held in mockery?! The guy you named Australian of the Year as recently as 2007? You mean this guy ->
Tim Flannery
Scientist, explorer, author
http://www.theweathermakers.org/about/
Tim Flannery is one of Australia’s leading thinkers and writers. An internationally acclaimed scientist, explorer and conservationist, Tim’s books include the definitive ecological histories of Australia (The Future Eaters) and North America (The Eternal Frontier). He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers.
As a field zoologist he has discovered and named more than thirty new species of mammals (including two tree-kangaroos) and at 34 he was awarded the Edgeworth David Medal for Outstanding Research. His pioneering work in New Guinea prompted Sir David Attenborough to put him in the league of the world’s great explorers and the writer Redmond O’Hanlon to remark, “He’s discovered more new species than Charles Darwin.”
He is a regular contributor to The New York Review of books and The Times Literary Supplement and has edited and introduced many historical works, including The Birth of Sydney, The Diaries of William Buckley and The Explorers. He received a Centenary of Federation Medal for his service to science and in 2002 he became the first environmentalist to deliver the Australia Day address to the nation.
Tim Flannery spent a year as professor of Australian studies at Harvard, where he taught in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. In Australia he is a leading member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, which reports independently to government on sustainability issues.
A familiar voice on ABC Radio, NPR and the BBC for more than a decade, he is also known to viewers of the Documentary Channel as writer-presenter on the series The Future Eaters (1998), Wild Australasia (2003), Islands in the Sky (1992) and Bushfire (1997). He was a principal consultant on the SBS series The Colony (2004) and is currently Australian consultant-presenter for the international series ATLAS.
Formerly director of the South Australian Museum, Tim is chairman of the South Australian Premier’s Science Council and Sustainability Roundtable; a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy; and the National Geographic Society’s representative in Australasia. In April 2005 he was honoured as Australian Humanist of the Year. He will take up a position at Sydney's Macquarie University mid 2007.
Tim Flannery was named Australian of the Year the day before Australia Day on 25th January 2007.
[[QUOTE]] I am curious why this thread keeps on running. Those who obdurately insist the world is flat will never be convinced otherwise. There is a handful of these holocaust deniers here so why are those who understand science continuing to argue with them. Their politics or their limited intelligence make them incapable of taking account of the huge weight of essentially irrefutable evidence that most scientists around the world now accept as fact. Will we let them on the last helicopter out of Saigon when the time comes? [[QUOTE]]
It is seemingly pointless. It's like beating a dead horse. It's like the endless debate over God. Well, that you can't really prove. But this climate change denial is striking to me. But there's been a massive propaganda campaign by the energy industry (and they even admit to it) to confuse the public about global warming.
Plus people don't trust politicians or corporations. So why should they trust scientists?
I mean, one can firmly believe there's no such thing as global warming. You can firmly believe anything. You can believe the moon is made of cheese.
It'd be like me saying on this thread: Come on, the moon is made of cheese.
And people can provide me with all this scientific evidence. And I'd say, I'm not buying it. I don't believe the scientists. I think it's a conspiracy. It's all a hoax. The moon is made of cheese and there's nothing anyone can say to dissuade me from my absolute belief.
Plus a lot of people on this site are here merely to pick fights, as it were. Or e-fights -- ha ha ha! Nothing more; nothing less.
It becomes a bit petty.
And it increasingly devolves into outright idiocy.
1) Tim Flannery's The Eternal Frontier is scholarship of the highest order, and a book that proves that the natural history of the American continent is as rich as the social history of Europe -next time you meet an American in Rome or Venice or Paris who says 'we don't have this history', refer them to Flannery.
2) Ben: why do you always latch on to the energy companies and the denial of global warming when it isn't true? In 1997 BP's CEO John Browne went to Stanford where he was the first oil boss to acknowledge the human role in climate change, and argue that companies should take 'precautionary measures' and although he was initially ridiculed, he was followed soon after by Shell and other oil independents, ok not by Exxon but that was Lee Raymond and the justifiable fear of litigation in the US. Real reductions of carbon emissions have taken place in refineries and on oil rigs (including Exxon's), which further undermines your feeble argument. At some point the politics kicks in which is more concerned with tax and regulatory regimes than it is about the science, its not the fact of climate change and advanced global warming that is at issue -the issue is settled- its how we deal with it, politically and socially.
:screwyyou fuck heads,because Tim Flannery has the word Prof in front of his name we low peasants are supposed to bow down to the fool.Prof Tim Flannery's predictions=2005 Flannery predicted Sydney's dams would be dry in as little as 2years=dam levels now over 73 percent full.2007 Flannery predicted Adelaide would run out of water by 2009= fuck did he get that wrong.2007 Tim Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam -filling rains ,no not dam filling rains= floods!The man is the fucking village idiot and you dribbling fools think he is a great man.He is lucky he is not tarred and feathered here in Australia
Maybe you got this from the Sydney Morning Herald article
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/...-1226004644818
Which doesn't say Flannery said the dams would run dry, but that it was a possibility; and the records do show that the dams haven't been full since 1998, but the paper doesn't mention that or why the dams have been unable to reach maximum in the years since then so it is disingenuous of the paper to take today's figures without putting them in a broader historical context. The article also begins with the telling giveaway for its narrow-minded bluster:
This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate Commission.
His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.
Taxes, not science. As usual. Flannery is not famous for his predictions, and science is not exact in the way people want it to be. No doubt if someone wants to comb through the works of Einstein or Freeman Dyson or even Germaine Greer, they will find predictions that have been proven wrong over time.
You could always get a headache looking at the detailed graphs on the dams which are here, and where it says:
Sydney's overall dam level has gradually dropped since it was last full in 1998. This figure shows the data since November 2001 for overall dam levels.
You can see this in more detail in the year-by-year figure below. This figure shows the overall dam levels for the last few years. Each line represents how full the dams are for that year. From this figure we can see that the large drops in dam levels (since November 2001) came in the second half of 2002 and first half or 2004. The rest of the time the levels appear fairly steady. As no two lines meet each other (other than a brief period in early 2006), we can say that in every 365 day period since 2001, the dam levels have gone down.
http://www.iliveinsydney.com/water/damstats.php
what a load of shit Australia's dams are over flowing and Flannery is a wanker .Australian dams are having to open the dams or have major problems
:bangheadStavros you foreigners haven't a fucking clue ,the clown also predicted that a lot of houses on the coast of Sydney and the inner west would be lost due to a rise in water levels particularly along the Parramatta river and where does the cunt live?In a mansion on the coast ,go fucking figure aye lol
Every time Russtafa posts my point about no reason to debate with such fools is proven.I think I will block his truly primitive abuse from now on.
yeah yah pomie bastard like i think a lot of youQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
If there is a worldwide conspiracy wouldn't the likes of Michele Bachmann and John McCain be in agreement? They're both politicians, in the same Party and represent the same interests.
Michele Bachmann doesn't believe in global warming - YouTube
Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier - YouTube
Please .. do it for the bears .. they're running out of Coke ..
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...r-bear-bbq.jpg
David Suzuki. Not talking about climate change perse. But conservation and our lack of respect for nature. And, too, our selfishness as a species. I mean, we're, as David Suzuki points out, only 1 of 30 million species on the planet.
Dr. David Suzuki on meaning in the land - YouTube
And author and radio host: Thom Hartmann:
Should climate deniers be treated like war criminals? w/ James Hoggan - YouTube
Right wing US think tank and its big funders fuelling opposition to climate change science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...d-leak-climate
fuck climate change ,it rained yesterday and they said it wouldn't
the climate has not warmed in fifteen years so guess these scientist are full of shit
russtafa, you're confusing meteorology with climatology. Here's an analogy: You can't predict a day in advance when each ocean wave will crash and wash up to shore, but you can predict there will be waves and were the activity will be highest. You can't predict when a given air molecule in your room will strike the wall, but you can quantitatively predict within tolerable bounds the air pressure on that wall. Short term vs long. Micro vs macro. It's all scale.
You have a very unusual meteorologist if he or she simply says, “It’s going to rain tomorrow.” Most weather-persons will provide a number between 0 and 100 called the chance of precipitation. In addition they will indicate the type of precipitation expected (e.g. showers, flurries, rains, etc.) If you’re watching on TV or checking out the weather on the internet the prognostication will also be accompanied by an icon (e.g. a smiling sun, a sun with a cloud, streaks of rain, falling snowflakes etc.). Most people don’t process the chance of precipitation and simply take the icon as the prediction. If you interpret the report in that way, expect it to be wrong fairly often. If you keep track of the reported chance of precipitation and keep track of the weather throughout the year, you might find your local meteorologist is pretty accurate; e.g. You may find that 40% (+/- a few percent) of the time she said there was a 40% chance of rain, it rained.
russtafa, I already debunked your claim that warming has stopped. It is not a sufficient rebuttal to simply state your claim over again. The following chart shows the temperature anomaly up to 2005. Notice all the "outliers" (unexpectedly tall and unexpectedly short vertical bars). The data is stochastic. The black curve is a mathematical averaging called a smoothing of the data. It shows the clear trend of warming that has been occurring since the industrial age. The clowns who made the announcement that warming has stopped looked at the data from 1998 on and drew a curve down from the that tall red "outlier" down to the 2005 measurement and cried, “Viola, the planet is cooling!” That’s called cherry picking.
Once again, scale is important. Computer simulations of global warming all included variations on the decade scale. That's because northern and southern climate oscillations have combined effects on climate on that time scale and those effects are superposed upon the steady anthropogenic increases.
You, russtafa, admit that seven billion industrious people living on the same planet is likely to strain the life support system. But somehow, it’s unthinkable that it will strain the climate system which is an integral part of that life support.
One day you guys (russtafa, Faldur and others not in the HA community) are claiming global warming doesn’t exist. The next you’re saying it stopped. Then you start it up again so you can blame it on sun spots. After that you tell us the Earth is actually cooling and the next ice age is immanent. Then you claim global warming is caused by volcanos. Soon after that you claim global warming is a liberal hoax. The one I love is, “It’s El Nino!” You clowns have clearly made up your mind and are clamoring for reasons to cling to your denial.
The one constant we hear in all your argumentation is, “I don’t want regulations or taxes.” That’s not an argument for or against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. It’s merely an expression of the desire not to have to do anything about it. The fact that you’re so adamant to find reasons to deny the science indicates that you really do feel that we should do something about it were it happening. But just put that issue aside. Your assessment of the science shouldn’t be tainted by what you’re morally bound to do if the science is correct. Your assessment of the science should be based solely on the science. Then you can worry about the corrective measures to be taken.
Anthropogenic climate change exists. The Earth’s climate system is accumulating heat energy. The warmer atmosphere will hold more water. Because it takes longer to reach saturation, in some regions there will be longer time periods between rains. Because the saturation level is higher, in some regions, rains will become more torrential. Because there is more heat energy in the system, storms will become more violent, glaciers and ice shelves will melt and ocean levels will rise. Because the system is complex with ocean and air currents, mountain ranges and annual variations in luminoius flux depending on location, the effects will be regional rather than uniform. Should we try to do anything about it? Science is mute on that question. It’s up to us to decide.
The planet has cooled and heated throughout history. It was ongoing long before fossil fuels were invented.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Sorry you have been so duped to believe that man is responsible for keeping the thermostat set to a certain level. Good luck with that.
Yes. Agreed. Of course it has. Where has it been claimed otherwise? More to the point, how is that history relevant to the current warming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
So today you agree the Earth is warming. But according to you, the reason it's warming is: it just does that. The temperature goes up, the temperature goes down. That's just the history of the thing. Doesn't that strike you as a rather ridiculous hypothesis? The Earth is warming, because that just happens to be what it's doing now!?
The Earth doesn't warm and cool willy-nilly outside the realm of cause and effect. It was hot just after it's formation. Geothermal energy kept it pretty warm for a long while even as it radiated heat into space. The Earth's wobble subjects the climate to warming and cooling intervals occurring with a period of about 20000 years. When Krakatoa blew its top and ejected particulates high into the atmosphere increasing the Earth's effective albedo North America suffered "a year with no summer" and a short string of somewhat cooler years. At one time the atmosphere had so little oxygen it wouldn't have supported human life. It was warmer having a higher percentage of greenhouse gasses. Photosynthesizing plants added the oxygen that we breathe today. They also decreased the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Everything that happens has an effect. When seven billion industrious people are ejecting 30 billion tons of fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, it will have an effect. It is having an effect.
Yes, the Earth warmed and cooled throughout history. Now it's warming, and the cause is anthropogenic.
It's clear, Faldur, that you have fairly little interest in science. You rarely participate in other discussions involving science. It's odd that you would have a position on this issue, and one that you're so adamant to defend. Are you sure your reasons aren't less than scientific and rather more ideological?
Now I do defy you to link to the post where I claim man is responsible for keeping the thermostat set at a certain level. In post after post, I take particular care to emphasize that is not my position. Science cannot tell us what we should do. It can at times tell us what is happening. Indeed that last couple of lines of your short post belie your true position. It's not the science that interests you. You just don't want to be told you have to conserve, or pay extra taxes, or somehow make an extra effort to keep the thermostat fixed where it is. I can sympathize with that. I'm not interested in telling you what you should do. I'm just telling it like it is.Quote:
Sorry you have been so duped to believe that man is responsible for keeping the thermostat set to a certain level. Good luck with that.
:iagree::iagree:Trish wrote: "It's clear, Faldur, that you have fairly little interest in science. You rarely participate in other discussions involving science. It's odd that you would have a position on this issue, and one that you're so adamant to defend. Are you sure your reasons aren't less than scientific and rather more ideological?"
I'm amazed at how many people can't seem to get their heads around the fact that we have a finite amount of air surrounding our little planet and if we tip the delicate balance of gasses within it beyond a certain point the results can easily be catastrophic (to us and many other species) in a way that a much worshipped, booming-voiced guy in the sky can't fix. Ho hum… :shrug
I'd ask you the same question hun, but I already know the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Are my reasons ideological? No. I supplied you with lots of arguments in the last 52 pages. Can you find one that is ideological? Perhaps it was the argument from basic principles that explains how an infrared opaque sky traps more energy than can escape. Nah, that's not ideological.
But you didn't answer the question. Why not? Are your arguments ideological? How about the one that goes: the Earth is always warming and cooling, it just is...it's historical. Okay, that isn't an ideological statement. But it's not any sort of reason either, so one has to wonder.
So with a straight face answer the question. Don't post your answer. Just look in the mirror and answer it honestly.
Trish believes in this shit and will always believe that crap until old age .but we know better because it's a left wing scam to rip off the people
And than you russtafa for chiming in with a paradigmatic example of ideologically driven science denial.
most people couldn't give a shit about the scam but in Australia we don't want to pay for it or loose our jobs over itQuote:
Originally Posted by trish