Ghosts, Goblins and Global Warming

[oseaghdha]

oseaghdha seems to think that the evil greens are just on a power trip, trying to destroy his casual joys, just for the hell of it.


I don't 'seem' to believe any such thing.

I do believe that the majority of the greenies are hypocritcal in that they profess a deep love of nature yet manage to exempt themselves from giving up certain 'luxuries' when it comes to infringing upon their own comfort and convienience. Like motorcycles, computers and powertools. Gaea wept!

Most of the rest are misguided simpletons deluded by half truths and outright lies propagated by PETA, Greenpeace, Earth First and any number of other collections of raving moonbats.

Personally, I prefer interpanetary rockets over the latest in mud hut design or the current hairshirt fashion.

[MAXIMAN]

Defying Logic and Reason

Ok...we are getting way OT here people. This thread is primarily aimed at discussing the pros and cons of man made global warming.

I really don't see much argument against good sterwardship of the earth and it's resources amongst either extreme. Where the catch is concerns the bogus "science" regarding anthropogenic global warming.

It seems in this thread the proponents of the notion that man is causing climate change are in effect saying it is ok to subvert facts and bend science to accomplish some utopian goal of a pristine world.

I've said this once and I will continue to harp on this point. If you want a clean enviroment FINE!!! Just don't LIE and bend facts to accomplish that goal. The ends doesn't justify the means. In the process you will give legitimate science a huge black eye and do more harm to your cause than any good. Because sooner or later the truth...ALL the facts will come out and when they do you'll have egg on your faces.

The people that are screaming at the top of their collective lungs "MAN IS CHANGING THE CLIMATE!!!" are simply ignoring the well established facts of the earth's history. However I can say thankfully many of my colleagues are finally waking up to the shrill bell of the alarmist. And most of them are beginning to speak up in an attempt to present the public with ALL the facts.

There is a huge hole in the so called science of global warming. It's about 541 million (541,000,000!) year WIDE and spans from the pre-cambrian to present. It totally ignores thousands of warming and cooling cycles that have occured repetitively during the past half a billion years. It completely disregards the fact that the earth is STILL plunged into an ice age of enormous proportion compared to the rest of he earth's long history. This so called "science" is utterly oblivious OR intentionally turning a blind eye to the fact that the earth normally has not had ice caps during that 541 million years. Several times there appears to have been sub-tropical forest AT THE POLES!

These are well established scientific facts. Geoscientists have know about these and many others for at least 50 years or longer. But the public is generally unaware of them. And why should they? They are not scientists. In general the public has no interest in these facts UNTIL NOW.

Earth history is KEY to unlocking the "global" puzzles of the future. This is the fundamental premise of earth science (read geology). If we don't understand the past we can not begin to grasp the future.

I've posed this question at least several times but here goes again:

The earth has a well established history of warming and cooling. Much of these cycles are at least an order of magnitude greater than what we have observed in the past century or so. These cycles have occurred hundreds and thousands of times over the past half billion years. And these shifts have occured almost instantaneously on occasion (ie Wooly Mamoth frozen in situ with grass in his mouth!).

Everytime it had to have been natural...everytime. It could not have been man. Man wasn't even present. So why now? How can you seriously think that this one time ...in 500 million years ... it is suddenly man's fault?

[MAXIMAN]

Personally, I prefer interpanetary rockets over the latest in mud hut design or the current hairshirt fashion.

[pggg]

The forces of nature fix any unbalance, humans are mere scurrying ants even with all their bravado, one good smack with a decent sized chunk of space rock is all it takes, we're gonna run out of luck sooner or later, hopefully a lot later..

[Wildkat]

Tangents are our friend...

okay Cody.... getting back on track...
Global Warming... fact or fiction...

I don't think anyone here has tried to negate the fact that global warming existed before the industrial age... What people are concerned with is the possibility that we are hastening it, not causing it.
I don't necessarily subscribe to this line of thought... especially right now when we are having one of the coolest summers I can remember (thank goodness)

but I can't say for certain that it isn't happening... I think that's one of those answers for the future when we look back at what we have been doing and say, "Oops... maybe we should have been more careful."

This thread is primarily aimed at discussing the pros and cons of man made global warming.

Does this mean we have to take all of our interplanetary visitation and habitation of the earth ideas to Ed's thread?

[jurgenkoppen]

The earth has a well established history of warming and cooling. Much of these cycles are at least an order of magnitude greater than what we have observed in the past century or so. These cycles have occurred hundreds and thousands of times over the past half billion years. And these shifts have occured almost instantaneously on occasion (ie Wooly Mamoth frozen in situ with grass in his mouth!).

Cody, again, nobody argues this fact. I know, I was married to a geo physicist, so I am aware of it, and so are most reasonably informed people.
But, as Wildcat also points out, the fact that there were cataclysms in the past, brought on by God know what, (meteor hits s.a. in the Yucatan peninsular being one well documented one, for example) does NOT preclude that our activities are also a cataclysm waiting to happen.
So why do you keep bringing up this argument???? Am I missing something here, or are you?
I bet , a few well placed nuclear warheads, or runaway reactors, can leave a fossil records for scientists in a couple of million years to scratch their heads about. Of course, the radiation might be a clue then, eh?
And also again, there are scientist and perhaps pseudo scientists with and without agendas and ulterior motives on both sides. So unless we collect all the data ourselves, and analyze it, all we can do is collect information on both sides, keep our eyes and ears open, and hope for the best.
In my view, the likelihood of a conspiracy of misinformation is just as high (or even higher) on the side which is in favor of perpetuating our 'consume till you drop' live style, namely the oil companies and all other industries who are depending on perpetual growth. (And that in a finite resource base, how logical is that, Cody?)
Sorry buddy, I am not buying that the science is conclusive on your side of the argument. You can't prove that we are not affecting the climate anymore than the other way around.

Personally, I prefer interpanetary rockets over the latest in mud hut design or the current hairshirt fashion.

Just because a I have enough humility to acknowledge, that societies less technologically advanced then ours might have had some clues on a better functioning social structure than we have, does not follow the conclusion that I want to go back into cave dwelling. Is that so hard to get?
Again, where is your argument logical?

The old Greek invented democracy, the Huron First Nations provided the model for our parliamentary system.
Older is not necessarily backwards, there may be some wisdom there, for crying out loud....
Anyways, so much for now, Jürgen

[prometheus578]

"Tangent is my midle name..."

One last comment on a tangent and then I retire.

and look perhaps at societies who lived before us for millenia without screwing their environment up, if just for some clues.

Polynesians destroyed the ecology of Easter Island before destroying themsleves.
The Anastazi, those eco-friendly people, deforested themselves into starvation.
The Maori, in the thirteenth century, wiped out New Zealand's population of Moas, other flightless birds, and half the animal species in the span of 60 years.

For some good reading on taking some cues today from indigenous peoples way of live... ...So-called primitive societies never wiped each other out the way we do, they all adhered to the rule of "compete with other tribes and species, but do not anihilate each other"

Might I point out the incessant warfare between the Anasazi, Zuni and Hopi peoples.
Or the evidence of burned villages and slaughtered peoples all through Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.
"Bone Bed" at Crow Creek, South Dakota., where nearly 500 men, women and children were slaughtered around 1300, before "civilized man" showed up.
Jurgen, for some more good reading, might I present:
Ferguson's "Tribal Warfare".
Keeley's "War Before Civilazation: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage"
LeBlanc's "Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest".
Krech's "The Ecological Indian: Myth and History".

(Sorry for the interuption, but clarification was needed. Peaceful, eco-friendly primitive societies is another feel good myth)
Thank you for your indulgence, Maximan.
(I now return you to the "Global Warming" thread, currently in progress....)

[MAXIMAN]

Jurg

Obviously you ARE missing something. Just like so many of your fellow alarmists your seem to opt to believing man is the primary culprit in lieu of the facts of earths history.

I can't force you to face these facts only present them here for all to see.

Another fact is solar irradiance and it's potential effect on global temperature. This is another inconvenient truth the "man blamers" seem to sweep under the rug.

Solar irradiance has a significant effect on earth's temperature and the other planetesimal bodies. You may be aware the ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Of course they is no atmosphere to speak of which could cause "green house warming" and there is no humans on Mars (in spite of what Pat would like to believe ). The only plausible cause for Mars is the sun. If it's effecting the sun it has to be effecting earth.

Here is a graph of solar irradiance for the past 300+ years. Coincidental? Hehehe...you decide.

[jurgenkoppen]

OK, I'll check it out and question to Cody

prometheus, thanks for the reading list, I will check it out and get back to you.
BTW, I already have no illusions about the lack of rosiness of inter tribal relationships . Part of tribal existence consisted of constant readiness and a constant low level alertness to deal with aggression from neighboring tribes, wild animals, natural disasters etc. They did not live on a bed of roses, for sure, and yes, there was conflict ( but on a more local scale).
But when comparing it to whole scale wipe out off modern proportions, including driving thousands of species to extinction each year,(until we did it to ourselves,I presume) I still think we are doing way more damage today.

Cody, It is more than likely that I am not only missing something, but it is for sure that I am only barely scratching the surface of all that can be known about this, or any other subject.
I have no illusions about that fact, either.
So based from my position of not- knowing everything, my first question about the data you present is:
How has the data been collected 400 years ago to today?
I dare guess that there is a way via soil core samples to extrapolate the amount of irradience during that time. Is it reliable?
If it is accurate does this data preclude the possibility of us further influenzing the climate?
Even if Mars polar caps are melting as well, as you say there is evidence for, is there a way we can respond to our own pack ice breaking up, and our own glaciers receding? Is there a way to respond, to be able to respond? Responsible?
And finally, do you acknowledge that there is global warming at all, if we only would stop asking ourselves if we brought it on ourselves? Is it just the assuming responsibility for the conditions ourselves, that is such a anathema to you?
Or is global warming altogether just not true, according to your data, of course.
Can you help me get this?
Cheers, and thanks by the way, for opening this very interesting discussion.
Jürgen

[Pat Kelly]

The only global warming is the hot air expelled by the politicians and special interest groups.
"Mars is for Martians!" "Earthlings go home!"

[jurgenkoppen]

Cody just said that we are heating up

Pat, I think Maxi just showed us a graph indicating that there is more heat coming from the sun, effecting all planets, including earth.
So which one is it now.
A) Total warming denying, as you proclaim,
B) a little bit of warming, but not our fault, as Cody espouses?
C) the warming deniers are not sure either and/or have a split camp, because their data is also unconclusive?

[prometheus578]

The earth is warming... there's no way to stop it."

Yes, mankind is helping it arrive sooner.
We are heading for a natural warming trend that'll last for hundreds of thousands of years.
Our human input is that it'll come what... maybe a few years sooner? In the big picture of things... who gives a monkey's a$$?
Wanna plan for your grandchildrens future? Buy swamp land 200 miles from the coast and start developing it as Beach Front property.
Don't like changing weather patterns... getting too dry to grow crops? Move your farm from Nebraska and buy land in Nevada. In 10,000 years, they'll have plenty of rain.
Two population groups I care little for. Rich people with ocean -side condos, and small, primative coastal tribes eating shellfish in Borneo. Neither group rides motorcycles, so why should we care?
Yes, the Japanese developed the fine Yamaha XS1100 in the late seventies, but when their islands flood, too bad. They've outlived there usefullness to me thirty years ago.
Death rates:
For proportions, one must look at population sizes and overall death percentages.
The wars in the US and Europe during the 20th century killed about 2% of the population.
Citing Keeley: The death rate in British Columbia between 1500 BCE and 500 CE approached 33%. That's a high number of war dead in regards to tribal populations overall.
If I 'member correctly, when Europeans first set foot here, the indigeneous population on the whole continent was only in the range of 4-5 million. What are we now... upward of 265 million?

[Erik the Red]

Maximan,
I think the problem I'm having with your argument, is mostly the way in which you present your case. No one knows every slightest detail and how they are all inter-related, therefore one must take some information on faith that it is correct. In that light, I will acknowledge that we are entering a *naturally occurring* climatic warming period. We used to be there, then it was colder, now we're coming into it again. Much of Michigan used to be under an inland sea, coral reefs and everything. Fine. I understand that.

That, I believe, is your underlying point. Where much of the discussion came from was "to what extent is man to blame?" You seem to be (correct me if I am mistaken) of the opinion that global warming is a natural cycle over which man has no control, and that man's impact is negligible.

Others are of the opinion that many of man's actions are irresponsible and hastening a serious effect which will stem from those causes. In short, we're screwing up this planet something fierce.

You are a scientist by trade. However, it is my opinion that you don't approach the discussion objectively. To anyone who agrees with you, you laud as one who is "in the know", and an enlightened individual, and give them little smiley emoticons as a reply. You immediately dismiss the notion that anyone who disagrees with you could at all have a valid point. Because after all, they think differently than you. You belittle anyone who disagrees with you, and call them communist, extremists, Gorebots, wacks, envirowacks, environMENTALists, shills, etc..., all meant derogatorily, and then present detailed data they/we/I don't have the slightest means to refute.

Anyone can prove anything with the right presentation of data. People can be manipulated into a certain way of thinking. This goes for both (all?) sides of an argument.

You say that the earth has been going through these cycles for hundreds of millions of years, and that man has only been around for the blink of an eye in geologic time. Therefore how could man possibly be to blame, since the cycle existed before man?

Would you agree that man is a significant part of the earth? From there, it can be surmised that since we do play a significant role in what goes on on this planet, we impart a significant impact by simply existing.

I say that you can't compare pre-human times to the present. Yup, those cycles happened for a long time. But people weren't around. A brand new variable was introduced to the equation, and that was humankind, which simply can't be ignored.

It's that lack of data and evidence of anthropogenic global warming that you're basing your entire position upon. It is simply an unknown, but you're treating it as the ace in the trump suit.


So here's what I think: Yes, the earth will be able to overcome anything we, as humans, do to it, given enough time. BUT, humankind will most likely cease to exist at some point because we need certain things to survive, and the planet will not be able to provide those things. The planet is a finite resource. After we're dead and gone, other species will evolve to become the dominant lifeform on the planet. Just like us after the dinosaurs. The only difference is that the dinosaurs were wiped out because of a meteor; we're going to do it to ourselves.

The only way to prevent that from happening in another few hundred years (or however long), is to change our collective attitude (as a species) toward the earth and start living a little more in harmony with it, so that maybe it won't wipe us out. What's so bad about that outlook? Are you saying that that end (human survival) doesn't justify the means (people like Al Gore encouraging us to carpool more, use less fossil fuels, etc...)??

[jurgenkoppen]

Thank you, Eric

Eric, your observation is totally right on.
I also read the use of derogatory titles as a form of insecurity by the one who uses them, therefore they are no threat to me.
I mean,let her rip...if you must, but do not believe for a second that they strengthen the argument.


Prometheus, your stated indifference to the Japanese and all people who may suffer as the result of xsive global warming speaks for itself as well. No further comment is needed.

Cheers, J

[Special Ed]

Yada, Yada, Yada

Planet Earth is way past due for a major geologic/astronomical event on the par of the extenction of the dinosaurs. Even less, there is evidence that mankind was almost wiped out by a catistrophic volcanic eruption only 70,000 some odd years ago. The Aztex (or is it Mayan?) calander , which is largely considered the most accurate calander ever devised by Man, ends in the year 2012.

We have been blessed with an uncommonly stable environment for the past 2 or 3 hundred years, and it erritates me that political opportunist like Al Gore are useing a relativly minor event like a changing climate to grab political control over peoples activities.

My brothers and sisters of XS, I am 61 years of age. My father died when he was 62. I have attended memorials for friends younger than I. The year 2012 is only 5 years away. I hope to live that long just to see what the f@#k will happen! Anything past that I will consider gravy.

In the meantime rest assured that by riding your XS/XJ11s as often as possable you are doing your part to "Save The Planet!"

Old bikers never die, they're just out of sight!
E.Liberty