dailygalaxy.com— "If you look at the fossil record, it is just littered with dead bodies from past catastrophes,” observes University of Washington paleontologist Peter Ward.
Feb 22, 2010View in Crawl 4
It seems that people intentionally don't want to understand what human greenhouse gas emissions are: a "forcing." This means it is one of many factors, forcings in the terminology of climate science, that can affect climate change, and it can act with others to accelerate a rate of change. Obviously there were no SUV's and coal plants during the last extinction event, but it doesn't exonerate human emissions from hastening changes in the present. Climate stability is an oxymoron... the ice caps are melting, and that melting is accelerating, which will release a lot more methane and CO2 and amplify warming. We will need to adapt to this change and it would only seem to be due diligence to try and re-engineer civilization to accommodate the new reality and not accelerate the shift with additional heat trapping gases in the air. The transition from fossil fuels is an inevitability, it just seems like there's more upside to making that transition sooner than later.
> where is the motivation for the global scientific community to continually lie about this?Money, as in $7 billion in funding in 2009 from the US govt to research global warming. No warming, no funding, no job. And its not lying per se. I built computer models and simulators for years, and saw how there is plenty of room for ego, politics, interepretation, and bias when dealing with large data, complex models, and dozens of PhD's with their reputations+funding on the line.
So I suppose if we just learned that the Sleestaks destroyed their civilization and all dinosaurs with a Nuclear War instead, that would mean that Nukes were SAFER in your form of logic?The Explanation of HUMAN caused warming is pretty simple and has been explained to death -- but here it goes; if you have a closed system (earth climate) where the inputs and outputs are self-balancing, than changing one factor is going to eventually make a HUGE difference. Our cutting down of trees and burning of fossil fuels at the same time removes an output while adding more inputs. The WATER VAPOR average has gone up in the atmosphere 4%, even though it only stays in the atmosphere for three days. Water vapor is a side-effect, of a change in the inputs and outputs even though it is a bigger green house gas than CO2.CO2 stays in our atmosphere about 100 years. That's why it is so important.
Setting facts straight may help us to more efficiently adapt and evolve to control the environmental changes we cause on Earth. Right now we are placing an inordinate load of blame on CO2 for global warming while at the same time doing nothing to encourage plant life to efficiently fix carbon back into our soils. We are in such a sorry state of ignorance that most environmentalists are loathe to admit solar energy causes global warming and follow the energy trail to figure out the best way to positively influence our environment. Nothing Man is doing is increasing permanent carbon fixing more efficiently than plant life does.
Wow, I want you on the 6:00 news. I bet you guys would never ruin my beach day with rain. Oh, that's "weather", not "climate" because it's much much easier to predict 100 years in the future than tomorrow.I'm just taking the piss guys. Pollution or lack of it is directly related to living standards. If you increase living standards you will increase the likelihood of renewable and nonpolluting technologies becoming mainstream. Living standards, not bribes or government studies. No one wants to live in filth if they can afford not too.
alphalionFeb 22, 2010
Chilling!
gwatznFeb 23, 2010
It seems that people intentionally don't want to understand what human greenhouse gas emissions are: a "forcing." This means it is one of many factors, forcings in the terminology of climate science, that can affect climate change, and it can act with others to accelerate a rate of change. Obviously there were no SUV's and coal plants during the last extinction event, but it doesn't exonerate human emissions from hastening changes in the present. Climate stability is an oxymoron... the ice caps are melting, and that melting is accelerating, which will release a lot more methane and CO2 and amplify warming. We will need to adapt to this change and it would only seem to be due diligence to try and re-engineer civilization to accommodate the new reality and not accelerate the shift with additional heat trapping gases in the air. The transition from fossil fuels is an inevitability, it just seems like there's more upside to making that transition sooner than later.
dutchguilder2Feb 23, 2010
> where is the motivation for the global scientific community to continually lie about this?Money, as in $7 billion in funding in 2009 from the US govt to research global warming. No warming, no funding, no job. And its not lying per se. I built computer models and simulators for years, and saw how there is plenty of room for ego, politics, interepretation, and bias when dealing with large data, complex models, and dozens of PhD's with their reputations+funding on the line.
larke2000Feb 24, 2010
damn dinosaurs and their SUVs!!!
Closed AccountFeb 24, 2010
You're an idiot. Go back to school kid.
vitriolandangstFeb 25, 2010
So I suppose if we just learned that the Sleestaks destroyed their civilization and all dinosaurs with a Nuclear War instead, that would mean that Nukes were SAFER in your form of logic?The Explanation of HUMAN caused warming is pretty simple and has been explained to death -- but here it goes; if you have a closed system (earth climate) where the inputs and outputs are self-balancing, than changing one factor is going to eventually make a HUGE difference. Our cutting down of trees and burning of fossil fuels at the same time removes an output while adding more inputs. The WATER VAPOR average has gone up in the atmosphere 4%, even though it only stays in the atmosphere for three days. Water vapor is a side-effect, of a change in the inputs and outputs even though it is a bigger green house gas than CO2.CO2 stays in our atmosphere about 100 years. That's why it is so important.
hereticoftruthFeb 25, 2010
Setting facts straight may help us to more efficiently adapt and evolve to control the environmental changes we cause on Earth. Right now we are placing an inordinate load of blame on CO2 for global warming while at the same time doing nothing to encourage plant life to efficiently fix carbon back into our soils. We are in such a sorry state of ignorance that most environmentalists are loathe to admit solar energy causes global warming and follow the energy trail to figure out the best way to positively influence our environment. Nothing Man is doing is increasing permanent carbon fixing more efficiently than plant life does.
lyonsbanFeb 25, 2010
Wow, I want you on the 6:00 news. I bet you guys would never ruin my beach day with rain. Oh, that's "weather", not "climate" because it's much much easier to predict 100 years in the future than tomorrow.I'm just taking the piss guys. Pollution or lack of it is directly related to living standards. If you increase living standards you will increase the likelihood of renewable and nonpolluting technologies becoming mainstream. Living standards, not bribes or government studies. No one wants to live in filth if they can afford not too.