Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Prospero]

Do you have kids Russtfa - cos they and your grand children are gonna cuss you and many of your generation out for your wilful stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence?

But then whole generations went to their graves believing the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Stupid Columbus, Galileo and Copernicus. We all know that the earth is balanced on the back of an elephant balanced on a tortiose. ignore the voices telling you otherwise.

Oh and the moon is made of cheese.

[russtafa]

Yeah ,yeah ,that's what the hippie con artist's say and i am not voting for a bunch of scam artist's and neither are the rest of Australia's voters ,just look at the polls .Hey want to bet with me on the results of the next election i'm sure you will win because people believe in a green solution

[Prospero]

It is not to do with belief Russtafa, but evidence and scientific probability. Ultimately there is never going to be 100 per cent rock solid proof until it is too late. But the scientific evidence for man made climate change is now immense and agreed by scientists across the world - from nations run by Governments of all political complexions.

[russtafa]

It is not to do with belief Russtafa, but evidence and scientific probability. Ultimately there is never going to be 100 per cent rock solid proof until it is too late. But the scientific evidence for man made climate change is now immense and agreed by scientists across the world - from nations run by Governments of all political complexions.

yeah you want to bet on the election because the left is about to get skinned alive come 2013

[trish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/sc...e-worries.html

http://www.nature.com/news/thawing-p...-runoff-1.9749

Thawing permafrost decreases the Earth's albedo. Consequently the Earth absorbs more energy which thaws more of the permafrost. It's a positive feedback loop with negative consequences. The heated atmosphere holds more water vapor making periods between precipitation longer and actual precipitation more voluminous; i.e. more droughts, more violent rains and heavier snows. Since ice is nearly ten times more voluminous then its melt, the thawed permafrost is effectively times time more porous. This means less runoff reaches the rivers. Ironically, as Ocean levels rise, some rivers fed by tundra tributaries (such as the Yangtze) will suffer decreased flow. Not good news for populations downstream that depend on that fresh water.

I wouldn't presume to advocate any particular course of action. 'just presenting the science.

[Stavros]

Trish, how do you see the history of science in the last, say, 100 years?

When it comes to Russtafa you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand the science of climate change, and doesn't care what the science says; his only concern is with extra taxes.

What should excite concern is the more general dismissal of science among mostly Republican candidates in the USA for whom the Old Testament is the fons et origo of knowledge. It is as if, since Reagan, there has been a march against Science with a capital S, videlicet:

1) an hostility to Climate Change Science and Advanced Global Warming that rejects it as science, but without any real, thorough critique of the science;

2) opposition to stem-cell research that denies to Science what can only be part of God's Will;

3) the attempt to replace the teaching of history and science in schools on the basis of reason and documented evidence, with the narrative provided by the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The USA now has a corps of politicians whose views on reason and science are no different from the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who believe that everything you need to know about the world you live in today is contained in the Qu'ran, and that nothing else matters; that is consonant with those Hindu who believe that everything you do today is part of the Karma that has shaped your destiny from one life to the next and that you are powerless to affect your own destiny in this life, only in the next (= you better start living a pure life now or live through another lifetime of misery).

Yes, they want the gadgets and trinkets produced by science, and they want the revenues that are derived from the science that has transformed industry, that can take base metals and crude oil out of the ground and turn them into gold.

But the mantra today seems to be: Science is Bullshit. The truth is God's Will.

[russtafa]

Trish, how do you see the history of science in the last, say, 100 years?

When it comes to Russtafa you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand the science of climate change, and doesn't care what the science says; his only concern is with extra taxes.

What should excite concern is the more general dismissal of science among mostly Republican candidates in the USA for whom the Old Testament is the fons et origo of knowledge. It is as if, since Reagan, there has been a march against Science with a capital S, videlicet:

1) an hostility to Climate Change Science and Advanced Global Warming that rejects it as science, but without any real, thorough critique of the science;

2) opposition to stem-cell research that denies to Science what can only be part of God's Will;

3) the attempt to replace the teaching of history and science in schools on the basis of reason and documented evidence, with the narrative provided by the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The USA now has a corps of politicians whose views on reason and science are no different from the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who believe that everything you need to know about the world you live in today is contained in the Qu'ran, and that nothing else matters; that is consonant with those Hindu who believe that everything you do today is part of the Karma that has shaped your destiny from one life to the next and that you are powerless to affect your own destiny in this life, only in the next (= you better start living a pure life now or live through another lifetime of misery).

Yes, they want the gadgets and trinkets produced by science, and they want the revenues that are derived from the science that has transformed industry, that can take base metals and crude oil out of the ground and turn them into gold.

But the mantra today seems to be: Science is Bullshit. The truth is God's Will.

exactly mate i don't believe ,don't care,don't want to pay more taxes .Australia has the highest number of taxes in the world and the vast majority of people don't want to pay another tax that will damage Australia for nil benefit or effect on the climate .taxing us is just stupid when Australia emits less than 1% of the worlds emissions ,it's so our PM can big note herself on the world stage.this is not impressing most Australians and will wipe the Labor party off the map

[trish]

Trish, how do you see the history of science in the last, say, 100 years?

When it comes to Russtafa you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand the science of climate change, and doesn't care what the science says; his only concern is with extra taxes.

What should excite concern is the more general dismissal of science among mostly Republican candidates in the USA for whom the Old Testament is the fons et origo of knowledge. It is as if, since Reagan, there has been a march against Science with a capital S, videlicet:

1) an hostility to Climate Change Science and Advanced Global Warming that rejects it as science, but without any real, thorough critique of the science;

2) opposition to stem-cell research that denies to Science what can only be part of God's Will;

3) the attempt to replace the teaching of history and science in schools on the basis of reason and documented evidence, with the narrative provided by the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The USA now has a corps of politicians whose views on reason and science are no different from the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who believe that everything you need to know about the world you live in today is contained in the Qu'ran, and that nothing else matters; that is consonant with those Hindu who believe that everything you do today is part of the Karma that has shaped your destiny from one life to the next and that you are powerless to affect your own destiny in this life, only in the next (= you better start living a pure life now or live through another lifetime of misery).

Yes, they want the gadgets and trinkets produced by science, and they want the revenues that are derived from the science that has transformed industry, that can take base metals and crude oil out of the ground and turn them into gold.

But the mantra today seems to be: Science is Bullshit. The truth is God's Will.

Darwinian evolution faced opposition from day one. The debates between Huxley and Wilberforce follow right on the tail of publication of Origin of the Species as well as the criticisms of Richard Owen and others. However, with rapid advances in comparative anatomy, taxonomy, paleontology, geology and the budding science of genetics biologists reached a consensus well before the turn of the century. Darwin was by and large correct, though there were many details to be sorted through. By the twentieth century, evolutionary biology was seen as the conceptual foundation of all the rest of biology. This makes evolutionary biology rather difficult to ignore. If biology is to be in the high school cirriculum, then biology teacher will have to expose their students to evolutionary biology.

Whereas populist opposition to evolutionary biology was all but dead in Britain and on the Continent, this was not the case in the U.S. The U.S.has always been fertile ground for religious experimentation. (I recommend reading Krakauer’s Under the Banner of God). Amish, Menonites, Anabaptists, Mormons, Branch Davidians, Scientology, etc. have either flourished or originated in American soil. New religions grow best when the followers are given some to fear and oppose. It’s not surprising that religious fundamentalists promoted the laws banning the teaching of evoutionary biology in public schools. The Scopes trial occurred in 1925. The film based on the play “Inherent the Wind” was partially responsible for my childhood interest in science. The latest “monkey trial” took place in Dover in 2008.

The U.S. has a complicated affaire with science. The inventions of the fission and fusion bombs demonstrated the incredible power of abstract mathemical thought when directed by careful attention to experimental studies. The detailed theory behind these devasting devices was so beyond the comprehension of non-experts that nuclear scientists were thought of as super geniuses. They were repeatedly featured in science fiction B-movies as heros with all purpose encyclopedic knowledge and as evil geniuses on the verge of maddness and bent on world domination.

The U.S. saw the success of the Russian satellite program in the early fifties as an existential threat. If atomic theory allowed one to build a fusion bomb, what will space science allow? Again, scientists were placed on a pedestal.

What finally came of those satellites, more than half a century later, was a network of cameras, thermometer, barometers and other meterological guages in the sky. Not only is it a tremendous spy network, it is tremendous laboratory for the collection of climate data to be used to test all manner of atmospheric and climate hypothesis. We know know, that since the industrial age the Earth’s climate has been moving away from equilibrium due to a heat imbalance caused by an increase of gasses in the atmosphere that are transluscent to opague in the infrared bands. The increases are largely anthropic in origin.

Over those same fifty years, the population of Earth went from 4 to nearly 7 billion. The fishing industry is finding out that the oceans are being depleted of fish and crustacians. Hunters and other outdoor enthusiaists are finding that species once plentiful are now rare or extinct. U.S. reserves of petroleum have possibly peaked back in the 80’s. The psychology of denial is fostered by exploitive industries anxious to eek out the last dollar from the commons before the resources are gone. Over the last fifty years, scientists have been the bearers of bad news. So people are inclined (imo) to be deny the validy of the relevant science.

There are a lot of russtafa’s out there; i.e. willfully ignorant deniers unable to separate knowledge from action. They say they don’t care. But I think they do. I think that’s precisely why they deny the science. Someone who really didn’t care, would admit the science was correct but just refuse to do anything about the ensuing problems.

[russtafa]

Darwinian evolution faced opposition from day one. The debates between Huxley and Wilberforce follow right on the tail of publication of Origin of the Species as well as the criticisms of Richard Owen and others. However, with rapid advances in comparative anatomy, taxonomy, paleontology, geology and the budding science of genetics biologists reached a consensus well before the turn of the century. Darwin was by and large correct, though there were many details to be sorted through. By the twentieth century, evolutionary biology was seen as the conceptual foundation of all the rest of biology. This makes evolutionary biology rather difficult to ignore. If biology is to be in the high school cirriculum, then biology teacher will have to expose their students to evolutionary biology.

Whereas populist opposition to evolutionary biology was all but dead in Britain and on the Continent, this was not the case in the U.S. The U.S.has always been fertile ground for religious experimentation. (I recommend reading Krakauer’s Under the Banner of God). Amish, Menonites, Anabaptists, Mormons, Branch Davidians, Scientology, etc. have either flourished or originated in American soil. New religions grow best when the followers are given some to fear and oppose. It’s not surprising that religious fundamentalists promoted the laws banning the teaching of evoutionary biology in public schools. The Scopes trial occurred in 1925. The film based on the play “Inherent the Wind” was partially responsible for my childhood interest in science. The latest “monkey trial” took place in Dover in 2008.

The U.S. has a complicated affaire with science. The inventions of the fission and fusion bombs demonstrated the incredible power of abstract mathemical thought when directed by careful attention to experimental studies. The detailed theory behind these devasting devices was so beyond the comprehension of non-experts that nuclear scientists were thought of as super geniuses. They were repeatedly featured in science fiction B-movies as heros with all purpose encyclopedic knowledge and as evil geniuses on the verge of maddness and bent on world domination.

The U.S. saw the success of the Russian satellite program in the early fifties as an existential threat. If atomic theory allowed one to build a fusion bomb, what will space science allow? Again, scientists were placed on a pedestal.

What finally came of those satellites, more than half a century later, was a network of , thermometer, barometers and other meterological guages in the sky. Not only is it a tremendous spy network, it is tremendous laboratory for the collection of climate data to be used to test all manner of atmospheric and climate hypothesis. We know know, that since the industrial age the Earth’s climate has been moving away from equilibrium due to a heat imbalance caused by an increase of gasses in the atmosphere that are transluscent to opague in the infrared bands. The increases are largely anthropic in origin.

Over those same fifty years, the population of Earth went from 4 to nearly 7 billion. The fishing industry is finding out that the oceans are being depleted of fish and crustacians. Hunters and other outdoor enthusiaists are finding that species once plentiful are now rare or extinct. U.S. reserves of petroleum have possibly peaked back in the 80’s. The psychology of denial is fostered by exploitive industries anxious to eek out the last dollar from the commons before the resources are gone. Over the last fifty years, scientists have been the bearers of bad news. So people are inclined (imo) to be deny the validy of the relevant science.

There are a lot of russtafa’s out there; i.e. willfully ignorant deniers unable to separate knowledge from action. They say they don’t care. But I think they do. I think that’s precisely why they deny the science. Someone who really didn’t care, would admit the science was correct but just refuse to do anything about the ensuing problems.

no Trish i don't give a flying fuck .and the real reason the world is in such a mess is because there are far to many people on this world to support it

[Faldur]

Some of us look at both sides of the argument and come up with a different opinion than yours. Why is that so hard to understand. I don't expect you to come to the same decisions as I do, thats kind of what makes the world such an amazing independent place.

Your intolerant to anyone who chooses to believe science that is different than yours. I kind of feel sorry for you. You have come to a belief based on the facts you have studied and I applaud you. Its bitching too that you have such a passion for your belief and wish to convert others. (Ya I said bitching, ok I'm old) But when you find someone like yourself that has formulated an opinion different than yours, maybe try a little more tactful approach.

Someone told me last week bridges were falling down all over the US because of "lack of maintenance". I chose not to believe that, but I respect the persons view and understood why they held it.