James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2012, 05:03 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 05:21 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
I have never heard a claim about solar activity causing a 'mini' ice age. None of those points in that vid reflect my opinion.


However, IMO those of you who feel so strongly about climate change do it with the same conviction as a gnostic. You don't seem to submit any possibility that it's not man made. I find that to be a disturbing position. I wish someone would at least just admit the possibility that one could unknowingly have an ideological related position on climate change (and not just on the conservative side). I don't claim to know one way or the other so until I/we do I remain skeptical and opposed to any legislation or policy related specifically to climate change. Be it for or against.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 05:49 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
If you're happy to treat gravity as only a theory, and evolution as only a theory, then you might just be willing to treat climate science as only a theory. True, like any science new information could come in. However, currently the climate science has been steady for over 20 years and has been making consistently reliable predictions over that time. While it is a new branch of science, it is a branch that works. To deny it as layman without participating in the research, and without publishing your own papers is to value ignorance over knowledge.

The question is not "is our knowledge absolute". The questions are "do we need to act?", "when do we need to act?", and also "how to we need to act?". We need to act. To do nothing sets the scene for horrific damage to our society and its people over the next hundred years or more. We need to act now. Every year we delay we increase the price of resolving the problem. We need to act globally in ways that transform our economies. Every feel good gesture that nibbles at the edges of overall economic activity just costs us time and costs us money.

The solution:
1. Establish a scheme in every country that gives the government a basic level of control of carbon emissions. This scheme shouldn't do anything, except be a lever that the government can pull when the time is right.
2. Organise to start pulling those levers together, as a global society. We can take the hurt that will come as we do this, because the hurt will be less than that which is coming if we don't.

However, at the moment many countries (including mine and presumably yours) don't even have that lever in place. They can't negotiate in good faith with other countries. They can't promise any action. The world can't solve the problem when the levers are not in place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 05:57 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
Clearly gravity and evolution are light years ahead in terms of research, results, and knowledge than climate change. As for action, I'm in favor of policy that indirectly supports and aims to reduce climate change. I'm a big fan of green tech and environmental protection. It reduces our dependence on resources from hostile nations and ensures that our planet will be livable long after we're gone.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 02:32 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 08:03 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(02-05-2012 11:57 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I wish you wouldn't post a 70 year clip (which is said to be the tail end of a warming period) of a 10,000 year long climate period and call it suffiecient evidence.
lol...
Which warming period are you referring to?
We are not currently in a warming period. There are various cycles the earth goes though.
The wobble in Earth's rotation tilt, axial tilt.
Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical and then more circular every so often. If you combine all the effects of this we are actually going through a slight cooling.

Now the rate of change over the last 70 years is not explained away by the tail end of ANY 10,000 YEAR CYCLE. Are you fucking kidding?

If I think about what has changed over the last 100 years I mostly think of people and technology.

Didn't you just say in the last post that some glaciers shrinking and others are growing? It's funny... flip flop...

(02-05-2012 11:57 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm not familiar with this source but it's consistent with dozens of other studies I've seen on the matter. And I looked for any religions or right-wing rhetoric before posting it.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/162...g_ice_age/

And I like how people on a site full of skeptics call me a science denier for being skeptical.

That's because it takes sentences from some peer review literature out of context. If you go to the source and read the actual study this bullshit is fabricated on you'll find the peer review literature comes to a different conclusion than the outrageous claims made on the link you posted. So yeah, science denier would be an accurate term.

Being skeptical and curious is great. Posting misinformation like truth is out of style isn't.

What's happening to your skepticism when it comes to this stuff? You've said in an earlier post some rubbish about the massive billion dollar profit motives of the evil scientists/agw movement... As if scientists in any field make a great living. Dodgy

What about the profit motives of the fossil fuel industry? oil/coal/gas... I suppose they are innocent. No billion dollar profit motives?


Sorry if I come across as angry. It's just I do still care a little bit about the future of humanity on this planet. Haven't become a full blown misanthope yet... Maybe just barf a little in my mouth when I think about humanity, what we do to this planet and each other. Still not a sociopath.

I promise. My views on this topic totally have nothing to do with politics. I fucking hate politics (such a waste of time). You will not see me near anything political most of the time.

I'm maybe starting to be slightly curious about politics though I prefer to look at that topic from a safe distance.
At the moment Politics looks to me like the careful art of sculpting faeces. Politicians and campaign advisers squat in a circle and take a big dump and then the candidates jump in and wrestle with each other in the "mud" while trying to build the largest castle of poo and simultaneously trying to knock over the poo castle of other politicians. The winner has the largest poo castle.

I love this quote from the late Bill Hicks:
Bill Hicks Wrote:I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."

Australia basically has a 2 party system so some things are kindof similar.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 07:54 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 08:18 AM by germanyt.)
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(03-05-2012 02:32 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 11:57 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I wish you wouldn't post a 70 year clip (which is said to be the tail end of a warming period) of a 10,000 year long climate period and call it suffiecient evidence.
lol...
Which warming period are you referring to?
We are not currently in a warming period. There are various cycles the earth goes though.
The wobble in Earth's rotation tilt, axial tilt.
Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical and then more circular every so often. If you combine all the effects of this we are actually going through a slight cooling.

Now the rate of change over the last 70 years is not explained away by the tail end of ANY 10,000 YEAR CYCLE. Are you fucking kidding?

If I think about what has changed over the last 100 years I mostly think of people and technology.

Didn't you just say in the last post that some glaciers shrinking and others are growing? It's funny... flip flop...





That's because it takes sentences from some peer review literature out of context. If you go to the source and read the actual study this bullshit is fabricated on you'll find the peer review literature comes to a different conclusion than the outrageous claims made on the link you posted. So yeah, science denier would be an accurate term.

Being sceptical and curious is great. Posting misinformation like truth is out of style isn't.

What's happening to your scepticism when it comes to this stuff? You've said in an earlier post some rubbish about the massive billion dollar profit motives of the evil scientists... As if scientists in any field make a great living. Dodgy

What about the profit motives of the fossil fuel industry? oil/coal/gas... I suppose they are innocent. No billion dollar profit motives?

Warming Period - Post ice age period of time where the climate warms until it reaches a peak, usually lasting between 10 and 100 thousand years. At the end of this period the climate will shift toward a cooling period which results in an ice age, usually lasting between 10 and 100 thousand years.



So because you can observe the temperature change and also observe the people and tech around you it must be our fault?


Glaciers are shrinking in some areas and growing in others. It's not a flip flop. It's a fact. I usually only bring it up when people say things like "lots of ice is breaking off the glaciers".


I assume you found an original study and read it before posting that sentence.


As for the money, I'm not talking about scientists getting rich. But they know damn good and well they will be out of a job without the results these benefactors are looking for. Companies and government are funding this research because the results they find help them get laws passed and that push industries that make them rich. Look at Al Gore or any number of other people. Liberals always want to bash Cheney for Haliburton but when Al Gore stands to make billions from environmental policy he's 'saving the planet'. What a load of shit. Al Gore is the perpetrator of the biggest hoax (excluding religion) of all time and should be tried for his crimes. Regardless of whether or not he truly believes the crap he says.

And we aren't talking about the oil or gas industry. Of course there are profit motives but this isn't even the same thing. If the oil industry made ridiculous claims like 'gas prices are going up because we are running out of oil' and was able to convince half the world of it then maybe it'd be worth mentioning.


This might be the similar to what hafnof posted. I'm not sure.




The Coming of a New Ice Age

To search other articles and papers on this and other subjects, go to "Client log-in" above and enter "public@winningreen.com" and for password enter "free".



BY GERALD E. MARSH


CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.

How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earth’s surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don’t know.

Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years.

While an enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt.

Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization.

One has only to look at maps showing the extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to ice age conditions would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much colder.

The last “little” Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the miseries to come.

By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out farms and entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780, New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history would have been very different. Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the result was the continued flowering of modern civilization.

There were very few Ice Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earth’s climate entered an unusual period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial perioods, like the one we are now living in became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most of the Earth’s history, it was far warmer than it is today.

Indeed, the Sun has been getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have flourished. Both of these had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earth’s long history.

Five hundred million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels dropped to a little less than twice what they are today.

It is possible that moderately increased carbon dioxide concentrations could extend the current interglacial period. But we have not reached the level required yet, nor do we know the optimum level to reach.

So, rather than call for arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the climatology community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining the optimal range of carbon dioxide needed to extend the current interglacial period indefinitely.

NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earth’s climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age?

We ought to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp.



Gerald Marsh is a retired physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration. Readers may e-mail him at gemarsh@uchicago.edu






Regardless of whether this information is completely accurate the last sentence is spot on.



In closing, unless you can argue that we are NOT in an interglacial period or can show how we are NOT at the end of it and inching closer to cooling then there is no more need for discussion. Because if you can't then you can't accurately claim that man made CO2 is causing the Earth's climate to change. But believe what you want. Just don't be surprised when you find serious opposition to related policy.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 06:12 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
Climate change deniers are a religious cult created by republican propaganda, like Faux News, so you are wasting your time deepthought. Knowledge won't enter that dense cranium.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 06:16 PM
RE: James Lovelock backpeddling on climate change.
(03-05-2012 06:12 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  Climate change deniers are a religious cult created by republican propaganda, like Faux News, so you are wasting your time deepthought. Knowledge won't enter that dense cranium.
I would argue that since I'm aware of and agree that conservative ideology creates opposition to climate change science that I am excluded from those that are. I think I've made this comment before but it's amazing to me that you can be left-wing enough to think that I am right-wing. After your suggestion about population control I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: