Cold, Hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:30 am

Well,well,well...

Quote:

Imagine if the American government agency responsible for temperature records had announced a fortnight ago that it had overestimated annual temperatures since the year 2000. Imagine if, at the time of correcting this error, the hottest year on record was mysteriously altered from 1998 to 1934. Imagine further that if you considered the 10 hottest years on record after these corrections, the hottest decade changed from the 1990s to the 1930s...

Full article here:

Sydney Morning Herald Article

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:29 am

Interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that we are destroying the planet. It's still just a matter of time.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

^^

You aren't putting me out of a job! If you can tell me how to save the planet, I will.

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:39 am

^^^Don't misunderstand what I said. I said "WE". That includes me. I don't know what to do, I just recognize a crisis battle when I see one.

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

The debate among scientists that resulted has of course garnered much media coverage � particularly from such astute scientific reporters as Rush �the druggie� Limbaugh. The entire controversy has been a �god-send� for the �denialists� of global warming. In reality, as McIntyre himself notes, these revisions to the data record are ��not necessarily material to climate policy.� But as usual, the debate gets lost in irrelevant innuendo and people only read the headlines.

Since the late 1960�s I have followed this topic with much interest as a teacher of geosciences. In my opinion there is no longer any question of whether or not the earth is warming � de facto � the earth is warming as the result of human activity. The credible scientific community is in total agreement with that �fact�.

For those of you who cannot accept this �fact�, I invite you to turn off OxyContin Rush, skip over the headlines and read on topics such as desertification, polar melting, ocean currents and much, much more. You may learn the �truth� and finally come to accept that the world (including you) needs to change the way it does things.

Snipped. Telling other members that they have their heads up their asses because they disagree with you isn't necessary. TS

Inserted - it has been so long since I posted regularly that I had forgotten your puritan bent TS. So is it okay if I take Rush's head out of his ass and put it here?

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:05 pm

Gold Hat wrote:

The debate among scientists that resulted has of course garnered much media coverage � particularly from such astute scientific reporters as Rush �the druggie� Limbaugh.

Thanks for all the politics, both from you and the OP....

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

^^^^^^

That Limbaugh is a druggie is a fact.

That Limbaugh voices untruths while his mind is addled by drugs is a fact.

That the world's climate is warming due to human activity is a fact.

That some choose to ignore facts by dismissing the debate as "politics" is a fact.

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:14 pm

Hat:

I have not take a position either way on the merits of the OP or your post. I only take the position that this is NOT a political forum, and I for one would like to keep it that way.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

If a lower emissions fuel was invented, I would use it. If new kerosene or alternative for running aircraft on is invented, I would use it.
But the point is, I can't do much work to invent something, I'm not a scientist.

I know it is a serious problem, and you are probably going to come back at me by telling me 'moderation' and make everyone take a communal shower, family flush, no electricity days, whatever.

If it were such a massive huge big problem, then scientists should be locking themselves in the lab inventing something.

Tell me how, and I (we(world)) will try to fix it.

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:48 pm

Quote:

Tell me how, and I (we(world)) will try to fix it.

It's simple, but it will cost you, that's what they are prepairing us for now.
Climate has always changed, remember the ice ages from school? That's was because we didn't burn enough?

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

The Man wrote:

Hat:
I only take the position that this is NOT a political forum, and I for one would like to keep it that way.

Man:

Where in my posts have I taken a political position?

The debate over the mathematical accuracy of global warming data was exploited and inflamed principally by the likes of Limbaugh. That is why I made reference to him.

Would you not agree that to make intelligent decisions regarding this crisis we need to hear the truth? Those who distort the "facts" politicize the issue.

My post deals with the controversy regarding the analysis of empirical data and the necessity to obviate those who would make political hay while the temperature rises.

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:31 pm

The Man wrote:

Thanks for all the politics, both from you and the OP....

Did I take a stand in politics Confused

I thought I just posted an interesting article

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

^^^ Totally agree - a very, very interesting article - from an interesting newspaper that I read as often as time permits.

What you did is exactly what we all should do on a regular basis - open up the dialogue - discuss things - even debate Shocked

And be on guard to identify and eliminate those sources that have a political agenda. My own "realpolitik"is to stimulate genuine discussion based on scientific truth - much akin to what your article does.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:28 am

I think it's interesting, and very much possible, to discuss climate change in a non-political way. In New Zealand at least it's no longer the right-wing politicians denying climate change and the left-wing politicians saying that it's happening. Pretty much everyone has agreed that it's happening and that we need to do something about it.

I studied Geography for five years at university, including a large part of that on sustainable development. While climate change has become the rage in the past few years, it's definitely not the only symptom of how humans are messing up the globe. Issues such as resource depletion, species extinctions, desertification etc. are all crucial issues that are potentially being ignored because of the current obession with climate change.

In the end the only solution is for people to learn how to live using fewer resources - regardless of what those resources are. While we may not be around to see it, imagine a future without affordable oil (don't just say goodbye to petrol as we know it, how about plastic too) and where your average Chinese or Indian wants to use as many resources as your average American does today (which they would certainly have a right to, although think about how 2.3 billion people in those two countries compare with 300 million in the USA). People getting obsessed over whether temperatures will rise 1 degree or 3 degrees are really missing the point of how we can hope to maintain our current standard of living when so many of the resources that seem plentiful today will become increasingly rare in the future.

In a lot of my university essays on the topic 'solutions' came down to a fairly simple question: "how can we maintain our current standard of living while also significantly reducing the amount of resources that we use?"

I'm curious to hear some answers Smile

(hopefully I haven't made this thread even more political).

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:32 am

Methane hydrate.

(not a solution: a huge problem)

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

Josh wrote:

. . . In New Zealand at least it's no longer the right-wing politicians denying climate change and the left-wing politicians saying that it's happening. Pretty much everyone has agreed that it's happening and that we need to do something about it.

Josh wrote:

(hopefully I haven't made this thread even more political).

Not in the slightest - excellent information.

Regarding answers, there is a very old debate in geography that pits "Possibilism" against "Environmental Determinism" - geographers love to play with words Laughing

Simply put - the Possibilists hold that all of our environmental problems will ultimately be solved by technology - i.e. - better filters for our smoke stacks.

Determinists believe that the environment ultimately controls the outcome. In other words you can't beat Mother Nature - ie - filter all you want but the environment is not infinite - eventually you will pass the tipping point and you will be screwed.

Compare those paradigms to what Josh has written and decide for yourself which one will prevail.

It is a huge topic - the most important one of all.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:20 am

Interesting points there Gold Hat. Finally a true geography thread for this forum!

Your possibilism vs environmental determinism debate is a really interesting take on things.

Possibilists seem to be a bit over-optimistic in my point of view, especially when it comes to the idea that we will be able to maintain our standard of living while at the same time reducing our resource use, simply through using better technologies. While there's no doubt that we can do more through technology to help with reducing resource use, it's a pretty strong argument that things have gone a bit too far for this to be the only solution. It's kind of like hybrid cars - they're great because they make your petrol last longer but in the end you still need to use petrol, or recycling - you can never quite recycle everything. I think it's important that we do every last little thing to use our resources more efficiently through advancing technologies, but I question whether it can actually solve everything.

On the other hand, environmental determinists seem to make it too easy for us to throw our hands up in the air in surrender and say "oh bugger we've screwed earth up.... what next?" If we've created the problem then surely we should know how to go a long way towards solving it. However, we hear more and more that the earth is more fragile than we previously thought (look at the effect of ocean currents on climate or the recent droughts in the Amazon for example), and perhaps many crucial tipping points have been passed - and eventually we'll realise how screwed we are because of them (although if you live in Chad or rural Australia you probably already know about it).

In the end, as with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle (if there even is such a thing as "truth" and "solution" in this debate). There's little doubt that we can do more through advancing technologies and better environmental standards/controls. We'd be much further up sh*t creek otherwise. However, perhaps the real problems are those that are too "macro" for us to truly acknowledge and be able to tackle - such as resource depletion and climate change. How does anyone do anything that'll actually make the slightest bit of noticeable difference?

I sometimes wonder whether in the year 2200 people will look back at us now and go "wow... weren't those the glory years back then at the start of the century, when we had that thing called oil that made so much stuff really cheap to make, when New York, Tokyo and Los Angeles weren't under water.... damn I wish they'd done more".

Or perhaps things won't turn out that way? Perhaps technology will solve our problems? Perhaps we'll slowly learn to live in a more localised way and reduce our resource use? I might not be around to find out, but someone will be.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:42 am

Quote:

Climate has always changed, remember the ice ages from school? That's was because we didn't burn enough?

You must be really really old. It was kind of like now, weather wise, when I was at school.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

^^

You were never taught about the ice ages at school? Shocked

A very interesting debate, for sure.

Quote:

I sometimes wonder whether in the year 2200 people will look back at us now and go "wow... weren't those the glory years back then at the start of the century, when we had that thing called oil that made so much stuff really cheap to make, when New York, Tokyo and Los Angeles weren't under water.... damn I wish they'd done more".

Won't people adapt? If, for example, there is another ice age, would people be able to conform better to conditions? I can see where technology would play a large part in this, perhaps in inventing a super heater or something.

The people in 2200 will will probably be used of the fact that all the above mentioned places would be gone. Just like us now, we don't miss Atlantis, because in our lifespan, we haven't known it to be there.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:58 am

I'm putting the blame all on Red and his current safari! That lad must be using up a ton of fossil fuels on his fruitless jouney! Wink

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:00 am

I suggest we go ahead the way we do, wasting resources, destroying nature and generally selling everything for short-term profit. It's the only way to find out who was right. And don't worry about planet earth, it will survive us perfectly well and there even is hope that evolution will come forward with something truly intelligent next time around. The evolution of mankind certainly is nothing that needs to be repeated.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:43 am

OxygenDeprived wrote:

I'm putting the blame all on Red and his current safari! That lad must be using up a ton of fossil fuels on his fruitless jouney! Wink

Oh no...I can feel an ethics thread coming on...

The environmental impact of a shouty mugu on safari..... Shocked

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:45 am

So what you're effectively saying Don is the sooner we make ourselves extinct the better for the sake of planet earth?

I guess there's a bit of an argument there... Very Happy

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:49 am

Some group believes killing yourself to help the population stop rising so fast, is the best thing you can do with your life.

Must have a lot of members..

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:54 am

^^ The turnover in their membership must be pretty high Reaper. Laughing

This was an intelligent discussion a few posts ago..... hopefully Gold Hat comes back and we can freak everyone else out with our geography terminology again Very Happy

Cold, Hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims	View next topic View previous topic