Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Ben]

[Ben]

[trish]

these people are ice age deniers lol.besides they think a little bit of ice wont hurt, any way it's more ice to drop into their cocktails

Apparently you're blind (see the refutation above) as well as stupid (time scales russtafa...think of the time sca.... oh that's right, you're an idiot). Anyway here it is again, just erase Faldur and substitute your own name, russtafa. ->

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...ing-trend.html

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

[russtafa]

Apparently you're blind (see the refutation above) as well as stupid (time scales russtafa...think of the time sca.... oh that's right, you're an idiot). Anyway here it is again, just erase Faldur and substitute your own name, russtafa. ->

Let's see Faldur what do we have today that we didn't have in the 70's? How about a capacity for high speed computation making detailed computational modeling and simulation of complex systems possible for the first time ever in the history of science. What else? Automatic remote measuring and data collection devices, many of them on board satellites that monitor the Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Many more ice cores have been collected, studied and understood. Many more layers of Earth strata have been examined in fuller detail and understood. (The iridium layer that made Alvarez famous was unnoticed in 1970). We have a greater understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere as well as the physical mechanisms responsible for the transfer of energy through it. Anything else? Oh yes, a scientific consensus. In 1970 the jury on climate change was still out with different researchers exploring different possibilities.

You mention the late Dr. George Kukla, a climatologist. Here some of his later work
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/174/

As you can see he had a lifelong interest in the glacial cycles of our planet. He studied, researched, designed models, tested hypothesis and refined our understanding of the phenomenon. Anyone with an interest in the science behind the ice ages owes him a debt of gratitude. Thank you Dr. George Kukla.

Here is a lay report on some of his later work.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...ing-trend.html

Oh my gosh! Faldur and Kukla have emotional stakes in this issue. Both would benefit from any legitimate argument that would allow them to deny global warming. Unlike Faldur, Dr. Kukla knows that no such argument has been presented. Instead of relying solely on the state of knowledge as it was in the early 70's and on the inclinations he had as a young researcher with a deep interest in the ice ages, Dr. Kukla through time, with thought and consideration, uninfluenced by politics and ideologies, revised his scientific assessment.

Dr. George Kukla gives the deniers no solace. His own work, by his own interpretation, supports the consensus position that the climate is warming and it is in part anthropocentric in origin.

Faldur, you should be ashamed to use Kukla's name as you did. It's as lame as baptizing the dead.

you believe in this b.s Trish good for and i suppose you believed in fairy stories when you were a kid but one day you will wake up to the scam of this global warming crap

[Ben]

Might want to read up on it...



Hmm.. sounds all too familiar.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist, (Oooh it must be true if one of these said so), George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Tit for tat --

[Ben]

you believe in this b.s Trish good for and i suppose you believed in fairy stories when you were a kid but one day you will wake up to the scam of this global warming crap

russtafa, what if you're wrong? Anyway, truth is: we can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. That's a fact.
But the endless debate/discussion (on this site) about anthropogenic global warming will persist. I just think there are benefits to reducing pollution. Air. Water. And soil. There are benefits without even acknowledging global warming.
I don't think you should worry about a so-called carbon tax. Governments will tax you to death anyway --
With respect to taxation, well, people have no power.
But, again, on the slim chance you're wrong?
OK, say it's 50 50. You know, there's a 50 percent chance it's a complete and utter hoax? Do we really want to take that risk?
I don't see the harm in switching to alternative energy? I don't think it's the solution. But what's wrong with having a bunch of wind farms? Or solar panels? Or electric cars?
Anyway, the so-called green movement or environmentalists are seen as the new communists. Ya know, a threat to freedom and so-called free market capitalism. So, it's understandable why people rail against the science of global warming.

First Environmentalism – Then Socialism!:

http://www.care2.com/causes/first-en...socialism.html

[Ben]

[Prospero]

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?

[russtafa]

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?

go and buy some magic beans mate but i aint buying it.but
the problem is you want to force your beliefs on the rest of us, and these fucking politicians then get on to it and we end up paying for it losing jobs and higher taxes, so fuck the global warming scam and their suckers

[Prospero]

Thanks for that Russtafa. Yes indeed. I would very much like the world that denies the very great threat we have created to take account of this and to stop being short term about things and look at the bigger picture. Our generation will be fine and probably that of our children. But beyond that, if we don't really address these issues, the world won't have a future.
Hence my remark about people like you fiddling while the world burns. And the pointlessness of engaging with you when you just see conspiracies.