Edmontonian wrote:
August 21, 2009 15:57
It astonishes me that people who probably have no science training quickly put this down to politics or propaganda. Studying, in a scientific manner, the effects of our species on the global environment is much much different than proposing that we all give up our cars and go back to the stone age.
To reject these sorts of studies is much like rejecting studies linking smoking and cancer simply because you think it's going to lead to government policies that will remove your right to smoke.
Recommend
Report abuse
Pocantico wrote:
August 21, 2009 14:50
This is an incredible propaganda machine that will not stop - all to blame the emergence of homo sapiens as the final destruction of the planet. Never mind natural fires, meteorites, volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, the sun and everything else that occurred to change the atmosphere - it is only man's doing that is ruining the planet. What the article, from the deep green left's frightening psychosis, (and in complete sympathy with John Holdren, Obama's new science czar) - is really trying to say is that we all need a government mandate to force humans to kill themselves to save the Earth, but just prior to that, pass ridiculous global warming legislation.
Recommend
Report abuse
1whonose wrote:
August 21, 2009 13:23
Hence the saying, "Those who can do, those who can't become university professors or economists and use government grants to publish rubbish in the Quaternary Science Reviews".
Recommend
Report abuse
caribis wrote:
August 20, 2009 18:20
Why are people with no practical knowledge allowed to design the inputs to mathematical models of real world processes? Wheat, that crop of the Fertile Crescent and especially Europe, is a destroyer of soil. Without soil enrichment your yields become pathetic quite quickly. Any crop will drain the soil, but wheat is an overachiever in this area. To think that prehistoric man would learn to compost and fertilize, when he could just move to virgin (and this includes fallow land allowed time to recover) land is ridiculous.
Recommend
Report abuse
Ulrich312 wrote:
August 20, 2009 12:18
Let us all get out our spears and return to our pre-agricultural hunting days, then we can stop the "climate change".
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
G English wrote:
August 20, 2009 5:58
Raamera,
The notion that global temperatures have been falling since 03 or so is incorrect. The last three years have all fallen within the top 10 warmest years on record. Although 2008 was a bit of a down year due to the development of La Nina in 07. However we are seeing an upward trend in global temperatures.
Records are being smashed all over the globe, in Jan this past year Melbourne hit over 43C for three straight days, a first in recorded history. Regional temperature anomalies are showing even greater increases than those of global temperature anomalies. The Summer of Death in Europe in 06 saw average temperatures 3C above the average norm, which may not sound like much, but meteorologically speaking is huge.
Not to mention as I already pointed out, this July was the warmest year on record for sea surface temps. When I originally posted that, Bill was a Cat 1. He's now a Cat 4.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
D.Gunz wrote:
August 20, 2009 0:47
Global warming or not, humanity's continued reliance on fossil fuel is dangerous and limits our potentials. We must make a move towards renewable and more powerful sources of energy that can propel our civilization further afield.
Of course, many global warming skeptics here are just brainwashed by the oil-moneyed researchers and would fiercely oppose my suggestion, even if I told them that I do not believe in man-made global warming.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
DocForesight wrote:
August 19, 2009 22:49
Seems to me that none of the writers of the article, nor the fawning commenters who believe this claptrap, have ever done any farming. Do you not realize how difficult it is to cultivate a field without power implements? Or how time consuming it is to keep moving after you've expended all that energy to clear a field of trees, rocks, and other obstructions?
Farmers could be considered the original "environmentalists" because their livelihood depended on their taking care of their fields!
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
ktg oakland wrote:
August 19, 2009 21:52
A review of some of the comments to this article is embarrassing. I'm astonished that the earliest responses to the article show the lack of comprehension among some readers.
Early writers argue that since humanity is a part of nature, our contribution to global warming is a natural thing and it will all resolve itself naturally in the end. This is absolutely true, but what does it mean?
Consider this - homo sapiens is top predator. As a part of nature we are able to, just naturally, wipe out every other life form - say through nuclear Armageddon. In the alternative, we could contribute to global warming just enough to eliminate most vertebrate species, including our own. In either case, the planet will heal itself atmospherically and temperatures will trend down as forest and grassland growth pulls carbon out of the atmosphere over a geologic time scale.
Some numskulls from the last Economist Debate will no doubt chime in that we can colonize the moon and extra-solar planets while we wait out the recovery on Earth.
Get real people. Sell your Exxon stock and come back to seeing reality.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
chemmie wrote:
August 19, 2009 19:45
@raythedog
I agree, if our environment changes, we have to adapt. However, it is very important that we DO know what the 'root causes are', so that we know HOW to adapt.
environoobs may think the way we should adapt is by reducing CO2 emmissions. Everyone else know's they're wrong, and taxing us to reduce CO2 emmissions would be just robbing us for a false cause. And seriously, ppl wana rob you.
Smarter people may think 'ok, lets adapt by just coping with this different climate because its out of our control, or lets populate more than one planet.' Which I think would be great. This is economic development, too, without taxation.
So you see its important that we know the reasons for why problems exist, so we know how to solve them. Your choice: Be robbed by tax hungry politicians and ultimately bankers (holders of nations' debt), or expand technology without being robbed?
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
Raamera wrote:
August 19, 2009 19:29
The theory that as CO2 increases so does temperature has been disproved. Global temperatures have been declining since 2002 or 2003. Yet, CO2 levels have increased during that time. So the link is not valid.
Also invalidated are the climate models that did not forsee the downturn in global temperatures.
The scientists who did fortell of the current cooling trend are the solar researchers in Russia and Canada. Hats off to them. Real science. Not bogus, profit motivated, "concensus" "science".
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
raythedog wrote:
August 19, 2009 17:29
rivierafrank is exactly right. The simple fact is that, regardless of what anyone thinks the root causes are, the effects are happening. And we are consuming and wasting way too much and littering up the place. We need to change our ways. As for adapting, I doubt very much if the inhabitants of the Maldives or Alaskan islands care if their islands became threatened because of the effects of the industrial revolution or the farming revolution - they're just going to have to adapt or perish. Try Jerod Diamond's "Collapse" for the dose of realism this global discussion needs.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
Jumping Flapjack wrote:
August 19, 2009 1:28
Why has no one mentioned that global warming must be real, so we can have a carbon cap and trade tax Ponzi scheme. There's still nickles and dimes in your pockets that Govt. and the Banksters want to share. We just started opening up the piggybank, why not have another collapsing world scare?
If we could tax a comet impact scene ,we would have one of those too, but the enviro-doomers might start catching on that someone is pulling their leg while picking their pocket as well. But then again...maybe not...
As to the dire danger of humans converting CO2 into methane by drinking carbonated beverages I'm unsure, but I know there will be a grant forthcoming for some lucky enviro-scientists. Personally myself, I'd be happy if the damn slobs didnt throw their beercans and pop bottles on the side of the road.
Not the scientists, of course...If theyre really lucky they'll leave their debris between the covers of a new doomsday best seller.
I'm off to worry about more important things, like when will the new shipment of Ebola infected monkeys show up and will they be required to have swine flu shots before becoming household pets?
So many crises...so little time. sigh.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
hikeandski wrote:
August 18, 2009 21:25
The Economissed article missed again! It draws conclusions from "science" that are erroneous at best and fraudulent at worst. The largest series of "ice ages" happened before any human habitation. Why assume tha "last" glacial melting was caused by humans??
It appears that the "global warming" religionists are now accepting that the theory of "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" ("the theory")is not and can not be proven; so now they take the line that we should spend money suppressing CO2 regardless to consume less resources and pollute less.
Any literate person can satisfy themselves that "the theory" is not proven. A good source is the last IPCC report of about 1500 pages issued September 2007. It was summarized by nameless IPCC bureaucrats as "Summary for Decision Makers" about 150 pages and released with wide media coverage in February 2008. It strongly infered "the theory" as proven. Read both documents and you see the "Summary" is in error or fraudulent. My opinion was confirmed by named independent scientists retained by The FRaser Institute of Burnaby, B. C. Canada in their "Independent Summary for Decision Makers" issued in February, 2008 prepared from the 1500 page IPCC report.
Another example is the "debate" between Lawrence Solomon and Dr. Jay Gulledge of the Pew Center for Climate Change in December 2008. Solomon has received an award from the National Foundation of the US Chamber of Commerce for his book "The Deniers" based on his interviews with over 40 leading scientists in their fields who all disagreed that "the theory" was proven. He suggested to The Foundation that they arrange for a supporter of "the theory" of their choice to debate him about his book. The Foundation arranged for Dr. Gulledge, a strong leading supporter of "the theory" to attend. The debate was a complete fiasco! Gulledge made ludicrous statements opposing everything he had wriitten or stated previously! Solomon wrote an article in a leading Canadian newspaper (The Financial POst) on December 14, 2008 covering the debate titled "Alice in Climate Land" (a most appropriate title). The debate is on the National Foundation website. Read or listen to a leading "scientist" completely discredit himself on the subject.
It is not surprising that the UK university that held the only copy of world temperature records and major supporters of "the theory" and the IPCC has today reportedly denied "freedom of information" requests for copies of the records by saying they have inadvertently been destroyed and no longer exist!! That way no one can check their "interpretation" of the records! And these people call themselves "scientists"! Sound more like fraud artists to me.
Recommend (17)
Report abuse
awulff wrote:
August 18, 2009 19:53
Let me get this straight:
We know from geological evidence that ice ages go back at least 2.3 billion years (probably furhter back than that, but that is the earliest geological proof that has been found).
Then something must have changed the climate to make it warmer in all those previous cycles that has nothing to do with human activity.
However, this time, human activity is the cause of the warming cycle.
Right!
.....and global warming (sorry, Climate Change) scaremongers are crestfallen when treated with contempt.
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
Phillip Thomas wrote:
August 18, 2009 19:27
Another fine example of expensive science funded just to state the obvious. What, humans impact the planet since the time when we started modifying it for our own benefit? You don't say!
Quite amusing to see how many comments were made by the internet equivalent of drunk braggery. Calling people names because their views are not the same as yours amounts to juvenile ethics. Yeah, I'm talking about you, rivierafrank!
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
KCCM wrote:
August 18, 2009 16:18
I suppose the scary part is that we have evolved some sort of global consciousness and are struggling to understand. The same species that, like many others, indiscriminately kills and remodels its local environment (I doubt either lions or beavers indulge in self reflection), and that has harnessed (for destruction only, so far) nuclear fusion, can now regard our small planet from a different perspective (space) and get all reflective about who we are, what we are doing, and where we should fit. The exciting part is that we are in a position to try out some big ideas and see how well they work. For example, although I don't think it will affect climate change much, we can encourage cleaner, more efficient forms of energy production. Well, depending upon your personal philosophy, it's all part of some great divine plan or of some wonderful existential continuum. Either way, I'm enjoying my small part.
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
rivierafrank wrote:
August 18, 2009 15:25
Idiots. Who cares?
Fact is - whatever happens, we have to adapt. So the world gets warmer - adapt.
We pollute too much anyway - I don't need to see co2 levels or rising temperatures to see that :)
So even if you don't believe we cause warming, we need to reduce pollution anyway, and so the same goal is achieved - and discussions, pointless.
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
G English wrote:
August 18, 2009 13:48
Merill, the Earth goes through cycles, this is a given. However these cycles are largely driven by the composistion of the atmosphere as well as things such as the orientation of landmasses. The Earth at one time was far warmer than it is now, largely due to massive levels of CO2 and methane that existed in the atmosphere at the time. Much of the CO2 is now trapped in limestone and much of the methane is located at the bottom of the ocean.
Humans can't control things such as landmass orientation, solar activity, or almost any other variable that impacts our climate, but we have exhibited the ability to mass produce greenhouse gases. We've done so, through the constant burning of fossil fuels, adding C02 to our atmosphere at a steady rate.
Now you can either say that the increase in greenhouse gases, gases which are known to be effective at trapping heat, that occured with the arrival of agriculture and with the industrial revolution as mere coincidence or something more. Given my job and my studies for the past 10 years I'm biased in saying it's something more, but the data makes it hard to draw any other conclusion.
The Earth is going through a cooling cycle currently, and barring a major event such as the eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, it should continue that trend for quite some time. It is normal for these cycles to last thousands of years, until something tips the balance, at which point the climate will shift the other way, but we're beginning to see a very drastic shift. One that is happening quicker than any other turnaround we've seen.
We continue to set record after record, just this past week the NCDC announced that July was the warmest July ever for ocean temps, something that does not bode well for the upcoming hurricane season.
Recommend (11)
Report abuse
Merrill wrote:
August 18, 2009 11:27
The more one reads about global warming, there is confusion. So there are those who say that global warming is man-made and the media and governments catch on this trend and ignore the rest who don't agree. There is enough evidence to also say that global warming is natural and that the impact of man-made actions (farming, industry, et al) is not the reason why the earth and oceans are warming. The earth's natural 1,500 year cycles to warm and cool is not given much publicity by the media or has government support. So there is a dilemma here and there could be fraud and deceit too. However, it is clear that man is polluting its immediate surroundings. When a neighbor adds pollutants on to his/her lawn, you no doubt breathe those dirty pollutants. Similarly when autos emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere you breathe those pollutants. So we have a health issue here as well. Bottom line, populations are over consuming the earth's resources due to population increase and also due to the increase in per capita consumption. There is the greater danger that we may run short of these resources. Science can certainly help, but when populations increase and human capacity to multiply resources to match that increase fails we may collapse with Malthusian theories not only for food but for other consumption activities as well. Just consider the result of the booming new economies and the traffic jams they have created and that we may truly run short of clean water for human subsistence. I think whatever green actions people take they will not be able to alter the natural climate change cycles. However, these green actions are good because they promote a healthier society, a less greedy society, and who knows, green actions may just not contribute to a tipping point, if that is a reality. There are no doubt a failure of the greenhouse theory and scientific evidence to back it up, which is ignored too much by the media and the politicians. It may be better to also spend more time and resources in climate adaptation because (as said above) our green actions will not contribute to less global warming. We better fix those levees for good in New Orleans and learn how the Dutch have protected their country from its surrounding waters. And as one writer said, nuclear proliferation is the biggest hazard and the more dangerous hazard than global warming – don’t some countries get it yet?
Recommend (8)
Report abuse