Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global Warming Has Ended

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   
In the interests of fairness and accuracy, that's a rather poorly researched piece of catastrophist journalism you quoted there



Fatalists say we can only adapt, because global warming is too costly to curb. But you can’t “adapt” to a rise in sea level that could wipe out a third of Bangladesh in 30 years.


No-one seriously expects that to happen - at least not within the next 30 years as a result purely of carbon emissions etc
I suppose she could mean that such a rise might occur within a 30 year period at some indeterminate poijnt in the future?

(btw I understand that expectations for sea level rise over the next century are still subject to much debate and discussion amongst the contributors to the IPCC AR4. The rate of sea level rises may increase beyond what we're currently experiencing. Other factors may also be involved though. )


Two years ago, a study for the Pentagon concluded that America’s security could be jeopardised in as little as 20 years’ time because of instability caused by dwindling global food, water and energy supplies. Its authors are highly respected scenario planners who deal in uncertainty — and in human behaviour.


Yes, but it was just that - a scenario. Even the authors of the paper state the extreme improbability of the event they discuss actually occurring.


Professor Eric Wolff described how the British Antarctic Survey has drilled two miles down to measure the concentration of gases in the atmosphere over a staggering 800,000 years. That is way before Man even thought of doodling on a cave wall. CO2 and methane have tracked temperature remarkably closely over that whole period: there has been no occasion in all that time when CO2 has increased without temperature following


Data is not accurate enough to draw that conclusion. It appears that CO2 follows temperature. Although it should also be borne in mind that temperature is merely a proxy reading based on oxygen isotopes and may itself not be wholly accurate.


When it comes to the media, and climate change, the only thing you can be sure of is that what you read may not always be wholly accurate. There is misinformation (deliberate and more often inadvertent) from those arguing on both sides of the debate.




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
When it comes to the media, and climate change, the only thing you can be sure of is that what you read may not always be wholly accurate. There is misinformation (deliberate and more often inadvertent) from those arguing on both sides of the debate.


Considering millions have already died because of pollution and weather related factors, speculating on the high end serves to prevent more needless deaths, where as making excuses or denying risk does not.

"Erring on the side of caution is still a good policy", said the mouse to the lion.


NASA Scientist Urges Action on Global Warming Sci-Tech Today
The effects of global warming are being felt around the world and unless international efforts are launched within the next 10 years species will disappear and the earth will be a vastly less habitable planet by the end of the century, according to NASA scientist James E. Hansen.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Global Warming in Asia climatehotmap.org

Current solutions are in line with expanding the war economy and until that changes I would base most habitat and ecological destruction on the high end.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by forestlady
UNPRECEDENTED rate.


How could you (or anyone alive) possibly know this?


Originally posted by forestlady
We have already undergone and still are undergoing by far the planet's most rapid extinction EVER.


Or this?


Originally posted by forestlady
Species and plants are undergoing such rapid extinction because they cannot adjust to the changes like they have in the past,


Or this? What past? The last 5, 6, 7, 10 thousand years?
Do you truly believe this constitutes any kind of unnatural change?
If so, ask your friendly neighborhood Pterodactyl about that one.


Originally posted by forestlady
because these changes are happening far too rapidly.


For whom?

You can all (AGAIN) worry as much as you like, (AGAIN) mother nature will do exactly as she sees fit with or WITHOUT human influence...and folks, no matter WHAT you'd like to believe, there is not a THING on God's green Earth that any of us can do about it.

Be good people, clean up the environment, make attempts at restoring fractions of the ecosystem, these are all admirable and clearly actions in all of our best interest. Let the species who are their own, determine their fate...they will make the wisest choices with what they have to work with.
In nature there IS no right or wrong, only consequences.AB1


Here are the sources and evidence you asked for. There is much, much more out there, just google "present extinction" or Holocene extinction. Yes, iit already has a name even.

From the book, "Song of the Dodo by David Quammen:

"Paul Ehrlich, one of the grandfathers of conservation biology, who was a respected ecologist before he gained fame as a population-crisis maven, estimates that the current extinction rate, just among birds and mammals is roughly a hundred times the background level.

Ed Wilson, based on surveys of the diversity of invertebrates within tropical forests, estimates that the current loss of rainforest species is at least a thousand times aove normal. Dan Simberloff, who is nobody's idea of a careless alarmist, has published a Mass Extinction in Tropical Rain Forests? Is the situation really so dire as the arm-wavers would have us believe? asks Simberloff. After thirteen pages of cool argument and conscientiously crunched numbers, he concludes that it is. Yes, Simberloff predicts, the current cataclysm of extinctions is indeed likely to stand among the worst half-dozen such events in the history of life on Earth.
This time around, we're the Death Star.
But with a difference. Our own devastating impact on the biosphere will probably be a singular event, not part of a recurrent pattern. Why? Because we probably won't survive long enough, as a species, to do it again."

here:
www.bio.miami.edu...

Or, if you prefer Wikipedia, here is an excerpt:

en.wikipedia.org...
(click on present extinction at the end of the entry)

"Most biologists believe that we are at this moment at the beginning of a tremendously accelerated anthropogenic mass extinction. E.O. Wilson of Harvard, in The Future of Life (2002), estimates that at current rates of human destruction of the biosphere, one-half of all species of life will be extinct in 100 years. In 1998 the American Museum of Natural History conducted a poll of biologists that revealed that the vast majority of biologists believe that we are in the midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction. Numerous scientific studies since then—such as a 2004 report from Nature,[4] and those by the 10,000 scientists who contribute to the IUCN's annual Red List of threatened species—have only strengthened this consensus."

links.jstor.org...(198901)39%3A1%3C39%3AERPAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

www.pbs.org...

www.well.com...
This one says only 10% of big ocean fish remain. This site claims to be the best site on the web for info on the present extinction.

www.springerlink.com...
This article explains why this present Holocene extinction is different from any of the previous ones.

"...four alternative arguments are offered, each identifying a way in which anthropogenic extinction is significantly different from other forms of extinction, even mass extinction: (1) Humans are a different kind of natural cause from other causes of extinction; (2) Extinctions brought about by humans are uniquely persistent; (3) Anthropogenic extinctions are effectively random whereas past mass extinctions are rule-bound; (4) The impact of the current anthropogenic extinction event differs from the impact of other extinction events of the past, such that future recovery may not follow past patterns. Together, these four arguments suggest that the present-day extinction event brought about by humans may be unprecedented and that we cannot clearly extrapolate from past to present recovery from extinctions."

If you need more links, just let me know. We have the technology to know actually quite alot about previous extinctions, enough to know that this one is caused by humans and as a result, is much different from previous ones.
This was all research I did in 5 minutes. I didn't find any info that disputed any of my or the above claims. There is no dispute.

Still think I'm full of it and don't know what I'm talking about?



P.S. - And this news item just came up while I was typing this response:
from Earthlink news -
enews.earthlink.net.../45bed0d0_3ca6_1552620070130725980599

By H. JOSEF HEBERT (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
January 30, 2007 10:13 AM EST

WASHINGTON - Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady


Still think I'm full of it and don't know what I'm talking about?





I sure do...considering every one of your sources are speculation "Most biologists BELIEVE" is a shining example of why they AND you dont KNOW, but can only guess.


AB1



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
OK, so you believe biologists are full of it, too, then and that they have no idea what they're talking about. Your post demonstrates some scientific ignorance on your part, but Hey, don't let me keep you from thinking the Earth is flat.

Ya know, it's true I guess, only the ignorant don't want to learn.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
OK, so you believe biologists are full of it, too,

Nope, only you, unfortunately...show me irrefutable evidence, not some googled op/ed's or speculation...perhaps scientific lab results that YOU have performed....then we can talk...until then, you're at best a parrot spitting out everything else you've ever seen on the internet.


Originally posted by forestlady
Your post demonstrates some scientific ignorance on your part,


Actually it shows scientific ignorance on YOUR part, seeing as how you have not performed any science by which to draw conclusions.


Originally posted by forestlady
but Hey, don't let me keep you from thinking the Earth is flat.


Your weak attempt at humor is lost on me, I assure you. Not to mention it seems anyone who attempts to ride the middle of the fence is automatically either discounted, or lambasted.
Unless you're an extremist, there's no room for validity?
Is every drop of water on a camera lens a Alien spaceship to YOU TOO?


Originally posted by forestlady
Ya know, it's true I guess, only the ignorant don't want to learn.


Learn what? you're not teaching anything... you're regurgitating some web posts that are vastly speculation based.....what's there to learn from that, perhaps with the exception of how to copy and paste.



AB1



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Ya know, it's true I guess, only the ignorant don't want to learn.


Always amazes me how people think they know more than those that put in the hours, got the degree and walked the talk. Maybe there's too much lead in their water?




[edit on 30-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
What truly amazes me, is people who believe there can ONLY be one scenario and ONLY one way and ONLY one thing is for certain...and people like myself who believe that either camp potentially can be right or wrong....now, who's reasonable and who isnt?


I'll stick with my water


AB1



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
AB1 - I may be a great cynic, but even I recognise that science is about the most likely scenario (theory) based on all the available evidence. Your approach seems to be to automatically reject such a scenario on the basis it doesn't meet with your preconceptions? Unless you have a better scenario which explains the evidence more fully?

Btw science isn't only about doing research and experiments. Sometimes it's all about sitting at a desk and just reading what others have done and discovered and piecing that evidence together into a coherent, most probable, theory Obviously, the presentation of new evidence leads to subsequent refinements until we have as good a theory as is possible to get. Even this would never be described as 'absolute truth' - because we're not arrogant enough to presume we know absolutely everything - so we still use the phrase 'believe'. As in 'we believe that current extinction rates far exceed anything that has occurred naturally in modern geological times - which covers us in case 12 million years ago 20,000 species we'll never even know existed all became extinct overnight due to eating over-ripe chilli peppers......



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
AB1 - I may be a great cynic, but even I recognise that science is about the most likely scenario (theory) based on all the available evidence. Your approach seems to be to automatically reject such a scenario on the basis it doesn't meet with your preconceptions? Unless you have a better scenario which explains the evidence more fully?



No, absolutely not Essan...that's just the thing...I'm not rejecting anything at ALL..I'm open to all the scenarios, not SOLELY one (that being that the global warming due to mankind) being the definitive cause.

It seems that others are rejecting both sides of the fence. Hence my extremism post. It's like a GWB mentality..."either you're with us, or you're with the climatic terrorists"...simply put, MAYBE its a natural course of events that would have played out ANYWAY, and MAYBE its human influence. I'm not suggesting (as i've said countless times before) that we DONT protect our environment and our ecosystems and we NOT clean up where we can...we NEED to do those things even if the current holocene will persist for another 10k years...what I AM suggesting however is that we DONT (like in Iraq) jump to conclusions, look for the smoking gun, attempt to eradicate it, and create a more problematic situation than had we left some things well enough alone.


AB1



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by forestlady


Still think I'm full of it and don't know what I'm talking about?





I sure do...considering every one of your sources are speculation "Most biologists BELIEVE" is a shining example of why they AND you dont KNOW, but can only guess.


AB1


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The words 'believe' and 'estimate' simply do not and should not cut it when one is claiming mass extinctions and the end of the world as we know it. An educated guess is still a guess. This is why I have doubts about man's influence on global warming. Although some of the data backs up the assertions being made, many others appear to be nothing more than sensationalism designed to influence the audience towards a particular position. If they'd leave that 'estimate' and 'believe' garbage out, and it would probably be more, well...believable, instead of like dealing with a used car salesman.

Science is not about estimates, beliefs, guesses, or the most likely outcome. At the end of the day, its about cold, hard facts and data.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Vor that is simply how scientists communicate. They take into account that they may find more evidence that tells us something more so they use the words "believe" etc. My sources are from universities and top scientists. There is no debate in the scientific community: extinction is under way, period end of story. We are already losing something like 100,000 species per year. What are your sources?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Vor that is simply how scientists communicate. They take into account that they may find more evidence that tells us something more so they use the words "believe" etc. My sources are from universities and top scientists. There is no debate in the scientific community: extinction is under way, period end of story. We are already losing something like 100,000 species per year. What are your sources?


My sources for what? I have not claimed that global warming does not exist or that extinctions have not occured. At some level, I feel both assertions are correct, and humanity has indeed played a role (although I'm not sure how large that role is). My problem comes from the fact that many claims are simply unsubstantiated.

Where is the proof that 100,000 species go extinct each year? Not guesses, not estimates, but actual physical data where someone has counted them? Show me the lists where each species is named...all 100,000 of them for each year. I strongly doubt anything such as this exists.

Note that I'm not saying that its not necessarily true; it very well could be. I'm simply saying that if you are going to make such a claim, you'd better be able to back it up with hard numbers and proof.





[edit on 31-1-2007 by vor78]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
[Note that I'm not saying that its not necessarily true; it very well could be. I'm simply saying that if you are going to make such a claim, you'd better be able to back it up with hard numbers and proof.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by vor78]


Vor, You've gone and done it now.
SofiCrow - If you're out there, please come enlighten Vor.
Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I'm not sure if it's in the hard EVIDENCE that 100,000 species are going extinct each year but in how LONG has this been happening??


I mean, how have the methodolgies on "counting" changed in the last 11,000 years? Or perhaps the extinction is staggered between millenia? I mean seriously, who knows?

Maybe the extinction has been happening at the SAME rate, but we've simply been refining the motions by which to count them and database them.

I have tons of sparrows in my yard. My counting dictates to me that sparrows are plentiful...yet, in my little scenario here, when I travel the globe, I determine that "my yard" has the last of the sparrows on earth.
Until I developed a new "method of counting" or simply LOOKED for more, I had no reason to believe that they were endangered. So quite possibly this has been happening for a long long time.


AB1



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
You know what? I've spent alot of time (which I can't really afford) researching and putting together many credible sources with information for this thread, only to have people who don't really understand science tear it apart. So, if you want "hard, evidence" which I have already provided BTW, do your own research, don't be so lazy. I've provided the sources and links. If you want to disprove them, do your own research and then get back to me. Until then, I prefer to debate with people who themselves can show "hard evidence".
Have fun!



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
The only hard evidence needed to support the position that the planet heats and cools itself without the intervention of humans, and to a much greater extent than that predicted by the "exculsively human caused" global warming alarmists is this:

Major Glaciation Periods

I'm posting this as one who recognizes that the earth is obviously in warming trend. A trend, that based on the basic physical and chemical processes cited by GW scientists, is obviously partially caused by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

But how much? And what's the significance of the total affect of our CO2 loading, when compared to the forces that have caused the historical galaciations. I'm in upstate NY. During the last continental glaciation event in this neck of the woods, there was upwards of 2 miles of ice lying on the ground where my house now sits.

Now show me some evidence that proves humans can stop this from ever happening again, and maybe I'll cede that humans could cause an equally catasprophic warming crisis.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Now show me some evidence that proves humans can stop this from ever happening again, and maybe I'll cede that humans could cause an equally catasprophic warming crisis.


Since very few have attempted anything in regards to scalar weather modification and global climate control, that is like asking for proof of the atomic bomb in 1942.

It will probably fall down towards individuals having to take action in their immediate enviroments. Also many who have the means and resources to relocate and weather the effects of climate change, see the commoners as expendable and unworthy of wasting money on.

A few are trying:
Controversial Experimental Weather Modification Bill in US Congress




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Since very few have attempted anything in regards to scalar weather modification and global climate control, that is like asking for proof of the atomic bomb in 1942.



But what the alarmists are saying is that we are actively conducting global climate control, whether intentionally or not.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
But what the alarmists are saying is that we are actively conducting global climate control, whether intentionally or not.


Yeah well, the health industry has been saying Americans are too damn fat for years, but people are still eating too much and getting fatter. So what's your point? Mankind is generally composed of a majority of idiots that will only change when they are forced to?...then I agree.

I don't see us actively controlling our climate, cept maybe indoors... actively destroying the enviroment that effects the climate would be more the term I would use.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by Regenmacher]






top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join