I totally agree with you. There is no sensible argument for why we should wring this planet dry of resources, and destroy all our natural habitats. Whether we suffer the consequences in the next 100 years as a result of Climate Change, or whether we manage to splutter onwards with the aid of technology, wreaking destruction should not be a viable option. We owe it not just to ourselves, but to future generations to safeguard our planet.

Yes I despair of all the effort that goes into arguing when action is what is needed

Climate Change is a fact. But most of us only cry ‘help’ when the fire is at our backyard.

Yes, we have 3000 years of coal, what is the rush?

What is the rush?

What is the rush?

We have. Three. Thousand. Years. Stop shoving this shit down our throats. Every. Single. Day.

You have no scientific basis. The starting point of anthropogenic global warming is wrong, therefore everything based on it is also wrong.

Want to know what will happen turning off all the coal plants? People will die.

People will die.

People will die.

Y O U W I L L D I E

I have very hard to relate to this kind of comments Mike, is it really an option to gamble on an issue like this?

@ Mike - I think you managed to completely, totally, utterly and categorically miss the point. Nothing was said about turning off the coal plants. The point being made was that investing in green technologies, looking for sustainable alternatives and safeguarding the environment should not be a “nice to have”. Nor should it hinge entirely on Climate Change. It just makes sense.

In terms of your somewhat hysterical, doomsaying regarding a world with less coal plants. What will happen if we upset the balance of this planet? What will happen if we destroy increasing amounts of natural habitat? What will happen if we deplete key resources. In your words - people with die.

People will die.

People will die.

Your children’s, children will die.

At last, the bitter irony. You accuse me of hysterical doomsaying. I put it to you that my hysterical doomsaying is no less valid than your own movement’s hysterical doomsaying. Or do you deny that we are doomed?

Which brings me back to my original point. What is the rush? Why do we need to force this “transition” so quickly? Renewable technologies are hardly renewable. The transition will take not decades, but centuries. We obviously have enough resources to last us this long. We are not upsetting any “delicate balance”. Destroy increasing amounts of habitat? Take one step out of the city for a change. What does any of this have to do with energy anyway?

You don’t think those wind turbines kill tens of thousands of birds each year? You don’t think the land is plundered for the raw materials to build these towering monstrosities? Or the insane amount of open land? Or that the energy generated cannot be stored, the geographical limitations, what happens when the wind doesn’t blow, that they need coal/nuclear for baseload power anyway?

You think a solar panel works well in monsoon season? How about the toxic raw materials that go into those? You think they ever generate the energy it takes to produce them, let alone provide enough power to run anything more than your water heater, OR your lights, OR your fridge?

How about nuclear energy? You won’t let us have that either.

You act like you know something we don’t already know. As if “green energy” is right there in front of us and the only thing stopping us are greedy oil companies. Get real. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, desert heat, tidal, all of it. You name it, we already know about it, we’ve already designed, developed and tested it. We have concluded, that it simply isn’t ready nor feasible right now. Who are “we”? We are the independant scientists, the pioneers, the engineers and entrepreneurs who really make progress in this world. Nothing you greenies can do will ever compete, will ever compare. My singular actions throw more weight than your movement as a whole.

One of the biggest ironies of all is that oil is in fact the only real renewable resource we have. So-called “fossil fuels” do not at all have their origins in dead flora and fauna from millions of years ago. It is abiotic in origin, formed deep within the earths crust from the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate
and iron oxide – two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust. Who needs the sun when you have a furnace beneath your feet continously producing this liquid gold?

Yes, let’s not just look at it from the perspective of climate change. What are world leaders currently pushing as the “solution” to climate change?

A big, fat, tax.

Now let me see you deny this. A big, fat, tax on the very air we breathe, will increase living costs by 300%, forcing those towing the line into poverty, and those already in poverty six feet underground.

Supposedly this tax is required to fund the “transition”. Yet you deny my “hysterical doomsaying”. Just look at the answer staring at you in the face. There will be death, there is no doubt about it. And it won’t be because of global warming.

Can you see it yet? I could go on forever.

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

Seems I touched a nerve there. Fact is though,  you’re as hysterical as any environmental extremist.

You have a knee-jerk reaction to anything relating to Climate Change - as if it some depraved activity that we should not abide by.

Rather than taking a rational approach to the topic therefore, you dismiss it out of hand. Any whiff of “environmentalism” and you start acting like the dreaded greenies are coming to dismantle capitalism and take away your creature comforts.

In reality, most of us are just looking for a way to live sustainably, while getting on with our lives.

And back to your question - what’s the rush?

Well, as you point out the transition to green technologies is not something that will happen over night. It will take decades, if not longer. We simply don’t have the technology we need yet to replace coal or fossil fuels. That’s why we need to start investing right now - so that we will have alternatives. Whether that is because we believe it is the “necessary” thing to do, or because we hit shortages.

Please point out to me the irrationalities of my comments. Exactly what have I dismissed out of hand?

If there is no rush then what’s the fuss? We already invest millions and billions annually into research and development. Let human nature take its course and we’ll get there eventually. We aren’t going to run out of resources any time soon.

Are you aware of the green legacy of death of 40 million children (and counting) from preventable malaria thanks to the worldwide ban on DDT by environmentalists? Out of sight out of mind right?

I guess it would satisfy you to directly comment on the content of your article.

“wouldn’t a shift to a more sustainable way of living, less stressful to the environment, be a good thing? What’s there to loose in gearing the earth towards sustainable energy sources.”

Those aren’t really the right questions to be asking. We are already moving towards sustainable development and energy. The question that should be asked is “how fast?”. Without some impending crisis there is no need to force it. With force comes death and suffering, which is the direction we are headed.

“Ponder if 1.3 billion Chinese would live the extravagant lifestyle of your average Californian… they would need six more earths to sustain them and who wants to explain to them that they can’t?”

There is so much wrong with this statement. Are you suggesting that the carrying capacity of Earth is only 200 million people? Dare I say, your statement here is a little hysterical. In the best case your statement implies that we cannot let the third world develop with current technologies. In the worst case it is advocation of worldwide depopulation.

Is there any reason not to be hysterical when greenies have such a poor track record? The implications of a carbon tax are global, disasterous and upon us, now. We should be kicking and screaming about it, and getting mad as hell.

“In reality, most of us are just looking for a way to live sustainably, while getting on with our lives.”

You want to invest in green energy? Use your own money, not mine. For what its worth, most people really don’t give a shit one way or the other and would rather be left to their own devices. They will vote with their wallet, when the times get tough.

What’s the rush? Like I said, we only cry “help” when the fire is in our own back yard. Till then, it’s no rush.
Someone asked to get real. Here is a reality check.
1. Many plant and animal species are unlikely to survive climate change. New analyses suggest that 15–37% of a sample of 1,103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050. For some of these species there will no longer be anywhere suitable to live. Others will be unable to reach places where the climate is suitable. A rapid shift to technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases, combined with carbon sequestration, could save 15–20% of species from extinction.
2. Sea level is rising. During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15 cm (6 inches) due to melting glacier ice and expansion of warmer seawater. Models predict that sea level may rise as much as 59 cm (23 inches) during the 21st Century, threatening coastal communities, wetlands, and coral reefs.
3. Arctic sea ice is melting. The summer thickness of sea ice is about half of what it was in 1950. Melting ice may lead to changes in ocean circulation. Plus melting sea ice is speeding up warming in the Arctic.
4. Glaciers and permafrost are melting. Over the past 100 years, mountain glaciers in all areas of the world have decreased in size and so has the amount of permafrost in the Arctic. Greenland’s ice sheet is melting faster too.
5. Sea-surface temperatures are warming. Warmer waters in the shallow oceans have contributed to the death of about a quarter of the world’s coral reefs in the last few decades. Many of the coral animals died after weakened by bleaching, a process tied to warmed waters.
6. Heavier rainfall cause flooding in many regions. Warmer temperatures have led to more intense rainfall events in some areas. This can cause flooding.
7. Extreme drought is increasing. Higher temperatures cause a higher rate of evaporation and more drought in some areas of the world.
8. Ecosystems are changing. As temperatures warm, species may either move to a cooler habitat or die. Species that are particularly vulnerable include endangered species, coral reefs, and polar animals. Warming has also caused changes in the timing of spring events and the length of the growing season.
9. Ecosystems are changing. As temperatures warm, species may either move to a cooler habitat or die. Species that are particularly vulnerable include endangered species, coral reefs, and polar animals. Warming has also caused changes in the timing of spring events and the length of the growing season.
10. More frequent heat waves. It is likely that heat waves have become more common in more areas of the world.
Warmer temperatures affect human health. There have been more deaths due to heat waves and more allergy attacks as the pollen season grows longer. There have also been some changes in the ranges of animals that carry disease like mosquitoes.
11. Seawater is becoming more acidic. Carbon dioxide dissolving into the oceans, is making seawater more acidic. There could be impacts on coral reefs and other marine life.
If these sound like a distant fire and you can still watch TV and drink your beer for 3000 years,here is the wake up call. Half of world’s population breath air falling below the standards of WHO. There are Ozone holes as large as the USA and as tall as Mount Everest. Our grandchildren willneed special protective suits for UV over-exposure. And yes, environment policies had been “end-of-pipe”. There is no such thing as green energy (at least sustainable). But the debate is not on how we are going to die.The debate is how we and our children will live in years to come. We are still not aware of the paradigm shift and base our opinion on the outdated techno-economic world view which is based on inefficient high entropy model. There IS a rush actually. Humanity is notoriously slow to learn. Moreoevr, environmental irresponsibility of 1 day can have a degrading effect for a century.

WOW. This picture has never been more relevant.

http://www.emissiontradingreview.com/wp-content/uploads/global-warming-evidence.JPG

1. Survival of the fittest. 98% of all species in the past are now extinct.

2. Sea levels have feen rising on average of 4 feet (48 inches) per century for the past 10,000 years. Sea levels stopped rising in 2006. The IPCC’s “worst case scenario” doesn’t even stand up to half the multi-millenia average.

3. Arctic sea ice is 90% submerged in water. The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere can not melt ice nor warm the oceans. Warm ocean currents are what melted the ice. Furthermore, after reaching record lows, arctic sea ice extent has more or less recovered to the 30 year average.

4. Glaciers and “permafrost” have been receding/melting for the past 10,000 years. What else is new? (no, the trend is not accelerating either)

5. A warmer atmosphere does not heat the oceans. Only the sun and geothermal heat can do that. From what I hear those coral reefs are quick to adapt and have already recovered to a large extent since the mass bleaching event of the 1998 el nino.

6. If the atmosphere was warming more than the oceans, there would be less precipitation, not more. Yet the opposite is occuring.

7. Tell that to the sahara desert. Precipitation has increased world-wide.

8/9. Climate changes. Get used to it.

10. Heatwaves have been exasperbated by the urban heat island effect. However it has been observed that the more often heat waves happen, the lower the mortality rate. As it happens, people adapted to the heatwaves in just a few years. For the rest, refer to above picture.

11. Oceans are not becoming more acidic. First of all they are alkaline, it is more techincally correct to say they are becoming less alkaline. Secondly, this claim is based entirely on models; real world measurements show this not to be case at all. The ozone “hole” never existed. There has been no decrease in ozone levels in the past century except for a slight step change half way through it. A supposed accumulation of CFCs does not explain a step change. The ozone layer can’t be destroyed in any sense. It is both created and destroyed by the solar radiation it deflects. In the absence of an ozone layer, the radiation would simply be absorbed lower in the atmosphere. It couldn’t be a bigger fraud. And irony of ironies, we must now replace the replacements (HFCs) for the next fraud, anthropogenic global warming.

Of course, I think the picture says it much better than this wall of text.

Which picture?
1. Survival of the fittest? That’s a Darwinian cliche to underrate alarming species extinction rate. 98% of “all” species? What’s the temporal datum for an absolute figure of biodiversity? None. Without that, how an absolute % ratio (98% as mentioned) is applicable mathematically? Point in question is the rate of loss of biodiversity in terms of ‘relative’ species loss statistics.
2. Let’s do high school maths. A sea level rise @ 4 ft per century for last 10000 years gives a figure of 400 ft, which is about 122 meters. With an average figure of 361,000,000 square kilometers of ocean surface, you are talking about a total sea level rise contributing water mass of the order of 4.4 EXP 16 gms. The total atmospheric contribution of earth’s hydrosphere being 2.0 EXP 19 gms, that is absurd. Sea level stopped rising in 2006? Which month and date? Please see the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
3. Who said warmer atmosphere melts ice? Refresh your high school physics too. Heat capacity is the measure of a substance to absorb heatBy your own admission, oceans absorb more heat than atmosphere for a given amount of solar heat flow over earth. Anyway, that’s besides the point. Why do you think sea currents become warmer in an epoch compared to last? I hope you you won’t start denying green house effect now. I will give up then and start to play scrabble.
4.Please lead me to your 100000 thousand year theory and also let me know on which day and month in 2006 sea leve rise stopped. It didn’t take my permission certainly.
5. Surving bleaching by coral reefs after El Nino is no guarantee for surving an average increase of average ambient temperature of 1 degree C. Again,it’s not the local short duration temperature change. We can sit in a sauna at 50 degrees C, imagine leaving in 50 degrees C for a year.
6. No comment. I do not know how you got the idea that atmosphere is warming more than the ocean.
7. Draught has nothing to do with deserts.
8/9. I hope Ice Age Mammoths tried to get used to Climate Change. I sure don’t want their fate. Not in 3000 years.
10. I suppose you live in any region of earth above 45 degrees latitude. Come live in any temperate country. I have first hand experience of heat waves in India. People actually die in heat wave. Those who survive this year run the risk of dying next year.
11. Ozone holes don’t exist? See the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:160658main2_OZONE_large_350.png
Yes picture says better than words. Question is which picture?

Mattias, I think this series is your best here so far. Nicely elaborated, ironical yet still funny and very well put.

I agree Adela. An amazing post with not only a strong message but also a huge potential to make one laugh! Eager to see more from you, Mattias!

1. The temperature gets 0.6°C colder about every 50 miles further north. If it wasn’t a catastrophe 50 miles south, then it is not a catastrophe now. If the earth was on a 1 degree knife’s edge all life would have ended long ago. My point in saying 98% of all species in the past are extinct, is just this: We didn’t kill them all.

2. Sea levels:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png (from your own link)
http://nov55.com/oceans.html

3. Solar and geothermal energy accumulate in the oceans. The greenhouse effect pertains to the atmosphere, not the oceans.

4. Are you daft? We’ve been living during an interglacial that has lasted 10,000 years. Do you know what that means? A comparatively long warmer phase of a glacial period when considerable glacial retreat occurs.

5. If they can survive a 1 degree rise in 1 year, they can survive a 1 degree rise in 50 years. But nevermind that, the atmosphere cannot heat the oceans anyway, so why talk about oceans as if we are responsible for warm water currents?

6. That’s not what I said. If the atmosphere were warming more than the oceans, there would be less precipitation. Oceans warming more than the atmosphere, leads to more precipitation. The atmosphere does not warm the oceans. Warmer oceans warm the atmosphere.

7. Explain to me how a slight warming of the atmosphere produces opposite effects? Nevermind that drought has always been associated with cold oceanic currents.

8/9. If you don’t want to share their fate, stop trying to deny us the energy to heat our homes when the next ice age comes. If you think global warming is bad, just wait until global cooling.

10. If only the indians were developed they could run the A/C and not die from heat waves. But you won’t let them do that now will you? As I said, people adapt to greater frequency of heat wave events, less people die. That said, the opposite is true. Were global temperatures to cool and heat waves become less frequent, more people would die.

11. Ozone
http://junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
http://junkscience.com/Ozone/plot9552.gif
http://junkscience.com/Ozone/plot35910.gif

The “hole” is not a hole at all. That’s the way it’s always been. Ozone is created and destroyed by radiation. The poles have “holes” because for half of the year, they receive less radiation from the sun due to the tilt of the earth. Simple isn’t it?

AGW summary:
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Junkscience.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

1. It’s not about geo-local temperature variations. Or adaptability to these variations by species. I think you have got things very badly mixed up. It’s about change of average temperature of earth, which remained almost constant at about 15 degrees C for millions of years and now threatening to change due to environmental degradation. Life on earth exists within a small range of -50 to 50 degrees C (with exceptions of course) whereas earth’s biosphere maintains a delicate temperature control sitting within an energy flow from 5800K (of sun) to 3K (of cosmic space). Global Warming is not Hot weather - a change of as little as 1.5 degrees C of the average surface temperature of earth can cause havoc to life. We had been lucky so far, don’t gamble on that luck by being irresponsible while interacting with environment. We don’t need to kill species with guns - our wasteful and greedy interactions with Nature can cause it just as well. As a single species we are appropriating 40% of the net primary product of all terrestrial photosynthesis. We need a change in attitude.
2.I am still waiting for the date and month of 2006 when sea level has supposedly stopped rising.
3. Greenhouse effect pertains to the biosphere, which includes atmosphere, land and oceans - everywhere there is life. Get the context.
4. Am I daft? Let me see. Are you talking about the eccentricity cycle of earth as postulated by Malkovitch? While Malkovitch’s cycles (eccentricity, precession and tilt) explain long term climate change - an over simplified concept of 10,000 year interglacial does not disprove Global Warming due to anthropogenic reasons. Once again, Global Warming is not hot weather - it affects biosphere in more ways than you may care to know - and its speed, significance and unpredictability works on a much smaller scale of time. Life can perish three times over before the next ice age hits earth.
5. “so why talk about oceans as if we are responsible for warm water currents?”. So why worry if someone’s kid gets mugged in the neighborhood? Responsibility is a sense not a logic. By 2050 all the cultivable land surface of the world will become inadequate to provide food to humanity. Where do you think we go to grow crops? Oceans are 71% of the world’s surface - today or tomorrow we will be required to harvest it’s floors. I don’t want the repeat of plunder and rape of this common resource like we did for the land. I understand we have screwed up air and land sufficiently so it makes a whole lot sense to me to remain responsible for anything that happens to oceans.
6. I don’t wish to participate in the debate if atmosphere warmed the oceans or the reverse. Air, land and oceans are three interlinked common resources for all living beings. Point is: the earth is warming up, slowly but surely and there are enough evidence by now that our irresponsible, wasteful ways of life is one reason for it.
7. Explain to me how cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? Which scientific research has proved it beyond doubt? Like electricity, like gravitation? Weather is a system with infinitely unstable equlibrium - where a small set of actions can produce totally catastrophic response (butterfly effect).
8. I am not denying you anything. Stop whinning. I am not speaking for politicians,policy-makers, activists or enterpreneurs. Kindly remember you cannot make “your” energy without interfering with common resources of the world - air,land and oceans,not in the present framework of hign entropy technologies. You take from common resource pool and you dump your waste back again in my back yard too. I am not accusing you of plundering, but be humble and be responsible. And if possible, sit and think how you can help others by drawing lesser from the common resource pool and dumping back lesser too. I assure you,Global Warming is bad - so bad that it won’t let you see the next cooling.
9. Indians are better off not even considering air conditioning as a means of fighting heat waves. I don’t determine what they will have or not have - but I credit them with the little sense that they don’t belong to a culture of flying one jet-plane to ferry one person from one city to other.
10. Ozone “hole” is a popular expression for lay people and media May be you will prefer “Ozone Layer Depletion”? It’s a fact that ozone layer in the stratosphere shields the most harmful range of UV (215 - 300 nm) and it’s also a fact that CFCs and halons breakdown the ozone layer. Atmospheric variation of the thickness and distribution of Ozone Layer is one thing and destroying it chemically by foolish actions is another. Please read up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

And there you have it, folks. I hope you’ve enjoyed this charade as much as I have. The poster above is your typical rabid environut hellbent on destoying all human development and shows contempt for humanity as a whole. To them, we are lower than dirt, scum to be eradicated for soiling gaia to whom they worship. These dangerous creatures have sowed their seed of corruption into society and their movement as a whole is approaching critical mass.

I’ll let you decide, the reader, who is more rational among the two of us. And remember always, that for all the evidence and projections they produce of warming and catastrophe, they have no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has caused any of it, and will invent every excuse they can use to dupe you into believing they do, that they’re movement is rightous, that we should do this or that regardless of the consequences.

Don’t let their doomsaying distract you from the reality that’s right in front of you. Of all the reasons to “go green”, carbon dioxide is the worst.

I came to this site, to promote a single message:

There is no physical mechanism linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to observed rises in global mean average temperature during the 20th century.

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

@Mike. It’s interesting how having failed to convince us that Climate Change isn’t occurring (in the face of myriad evidence indicating it is) you turn to infantile name calling! “Rapid environuts” “dangerous creatures”... be warned dear reader, be warned!

Yet in stating our case, we are doing no more than you claim we should allow you to do - having the courage of our convictions.

For those of us convinced that there is a possibility we are facing a stark future inaction is not an option. I would far prefer to wake up in 2050 and have been proved wrong, than have belligerently gone about my business and be proved right.

There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that warming is partly due to human activity (the extent to which can, yes, be debated) and I owe it to myself (and everyone else) to act on that information and try to prevent a worsening situation.

Most interesting to me however, is that unlike the majority of individuals who are simply apathetic when it comes to climate change, you are actively campaigning against it. As if it was a movement to legalise pedophilia or something equally perverse. “Sowing our seed of corruption into society”. Good lord (or should I say, good Gaia since you clearly think the environmental movement of the noughties hasn’t moved on from communal living in the seventies).

I support your right to inaction - that’s the beauty of freedom of speech and democracy. But to actively try and prevent individuals from living a more sustainable lifestyle seems like madness. No one here is talking about moving into communes, and shutting down the banking sector. We’re looking at ways of altering our continuing progress so that it is less destructive. There are ways to achieve this, and they should be pursued.

At the very least, you should allow people the courage of their convictions without acting like they are degenerates. You only end up making yourself look like the fool.

Thanks to all, especially Mike, to keep the debate and discussion going. I am a bit frustrated, because Mike said he could go on forever. I agree with Jodi that he is entitled to his opinion and free not to act in favor of environmental protection. But I was just too happy to engage him point by point to save my belief and conviction which he challenged. I will not judge him, though he tried to judge me. But I will not buy what he wanted to promote and will speak up every time I will find likes of Mike attempting to do so. Thanks to Mattias too,I totally liked his sketches and what they conveyed.

I’m having an allergy attack right now. Can I take medicine without breaking my fast?
Allergy

The debate about climate change is essentially a debate about freedom. You want to take everyone’s freedom away and that is what I stand against.

I have no problems with you following your own convictions, in fact I’ve repeatedly advised you to follow your own leads. Go live your green life and leave the rest of us alone. Want to invest in green energy? Go ahead, do it with your own money, not mine. Planet’s overpopulated? No problem, don’t have any children, or better yet, put a bullet through your head. You get to be green and I don’t have to deal with you anymore, it’s win-win.

I need look no further than the slaughter of 40,000,000 children by green activism to see just how dangerous and insane you lot are. Ironic how you should mention paedophilia, when by these numbers, your average environmentalist poses more of a threat to children than any paedophile could.

Your “consensus” says we must reduce emissions by 80-90% by 2050. To actually achieve this, you would have to erase over half a million people’s “footprint” (figuratively, or literally), EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. FOR FOURTY YEARS STRAIGHT.

Tell me how this is in any way realistically achievable.

My goal was never to convince you of anything; I came to this site with full knowledge that what I am up against is not science, it is dogma. The new religion. I can no more convince you that anthropogenic global warming does not exist than you can convince a christian that god doesn’t exist.

Perhaps someone sitting on the fence will read this and take it upon themselves to research the subject and come to their own conclusions, who knows.

What should really be interesting to you is, how I am one man up against some 90 bloggers and community here on this site, the world “consensus” of scientists, the media, the politicians, the environmentalists and you. Why have you all failed to convince me?

Perhaps you could share some of the reasons you are so convinced yourselves?

@Mike. My interest here is limited to intellectual discourse and debate. I have seen enough pseudo-scientists and technology band wagon riders to cry “murder” at the slightest mention about a change in attitude and life-style for a sustainable future. They have an issue to come out of their comfort zone. I understand that. I also know it for a fact that interest groups who have their money invested in squeezing the earth till its last dread words like sacrifice and restraint. The reason is understandable. Their enterprise is fueled by greed. I am not bothered with your hysteria.
You cannot earn credibility by projecting yourself lonely here. You are not a crusader against injustice. Your theatrics do not bother me either.
You do not qualify to be convinced. That requires sense, logic and emotion. And most of all patience to stop and listen to people who are not saying what you wish them to say.
If you are ready to come come of personal attacks, vilification, exaggeration and if you are ready to debate with respect and honor, I am sure people will share with you why they are so convinced.
Meanwhile, why can you not have a world summit meeting like this with your sycophants?

@ Mike. I agree with Pabitra and would also add that rather than asking us why we’ve failed to persuade you, perhaps the rightful question is why the “some 90 bloggers and community here on this site, the world “consensus” of scientists, the media, the politicians, the environmentalists” and I have failed to be convinced by you.

(Also, a word to the wise - try to resist telling the people you’re debating with to put a bullet in their head if you want to be considered seriously. At present I think you’re a complete nut-job and I definitely wouldn’t want to be associated with your side of the argument. Particularly if you’re any indication of what people on that side are like).

So it’s ok to judge other people, so long as you’re the one making the judgement, right?

Please oh enlightened one, share your wisdom for this sinner, who doesn’t know any better.

Bestow upon me the knowledge that will lead us to a carbon-neutral sustainable society in 40 years, lest we destoy ourselves by our own moral impunity.

Right on again Mike, what the enviromentalist don’t seem to grasp is the big picture, everything is going according to a plan.
We have Oil for 50 years and then fusion power will hit in and together with coal this will reach until the end of the world in about 3200 year.

Read more science at:
http://nov55.com/

and go to the source of everything the good book itself, if some of the liberals would read this theu might take a more humble approch to the debate, like you do Mike

@Jodi: What a stupid proposition. Do I look like I have an audience from this platform to influence worldly opinion? At least my words bring balance to the climate doom/resource depletion/carrying capacity hysteria/bullshit being spouted on this site.

I am also not the one advocating worldwide depopulation, so excuse me if my colourful language upsets you.

How sad that you take sides with the environmental extremist. I’m sure your children are in safe hands.

@ Mike - I have no idea what your background is - perhaps you’re a scientific guru and have developed your own models on carbon emissions and conducted detailed analysis of those that are already in existence. If so, kudos to you.

I am not purporting to be a scientist. I am, yes, accepting the opinions of the scientific “consensus” and acting on that. Just as we do with most things we’re not experts in… medicine, space travel, technology.

Sure, we should weigh up the information out there, and question whether there are alternative explanations, but generally the information we’re using is provided by someone else. In fact I would wager that you’re basing your views on scientific proof that you have found in books and on websites, rather than facts independently verified by yourself.

I too have read a range of books, articles and websites, and I have also attended conferences run by scientific elite. I’m in fact doing my PhD on the topic. What I have heard has convinced me that there is evidence enough of anthropogenic warming. Since I’m unlikely to create a model to test their assertions, I’m not going to change my stance unless the preponderance of evidence points otherwise.

I respect your right to question what is being told to you. I however, think this debate (at least for me) has run its course. Nothing you have said so far has convinced me you (or your compatriots) have access to some “truth” that everyone else is ignoring.

For that reason, I’m retiring from this particular debate.

Retiring from a debate you took no part in? You haven’t rebutted a single point I have made, just abstract denial.

At least do me the honor of explaining how anthropogenic CO2 causes dangerous global warming/climate change.

What has convinced you? I will keep asking until I get an answer. I will be satisfied so long as it isn’t another IPCC doomsday model.

Fair enough…

This article pretty much summarises the main arguments for anthropogenic warming (and counter-arguments for those against it):

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php

But you could also take a look stuff written by Gabrielle Walker, Sir David King, Timothy Spall, Spencer Weart, J.R. Petit, Foukal, Frochlich, Spruit, Wigley, Lockwood…

Au revoir!

Also, I will give you some insight into my background:

I am 20 years old.
I live in Australia, with a family of 7.
I am a Chemical Engineering undergraduate student.
I am not a nut-job, I am just angry and frustrated.
I don’t plan on paying a single cent of carbon tax, or letting my freedoms be taken away.

I have only significantly researched the subject of global warming and climate change for approximately 3 months since I became aware of how significantly this would affect me and the world around me. I’m sure you’ll breathe a sigh of relief now that you know you are only dealing with an amateur and continue to look down on me from your glorious pedestal of moral ambivolence.

thanks for that Mike

I can’t forgivew the stupid argument you have been spewing on this forum
restating apparent crackpot science when ever you can
http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/midweek-cuckoogary-novak/

You should really work on your persons skills

If you can’t change your mind, how do you know that you have one.

But to me you will always be a nut job the technique you have been using here is really awful

I’d wish you’d find other ways of venting your frustration, but I guess this might be another debate technique and you’ll be back to your regular sulphuric commenting.

Alexey: What “stupid argument” are you referring to?

Considering I bought into the whole AGW hysteria until only recently, I am obviously capable of changing my mind.

And I don’t know about you, but I actually read what people post rather than attack the person that wrote it. To quote Jodi’s article:

The scientific case is not dependent on citation of authority, no matter how distinguished the authority may be.

I’ve already explained elsewhere why I reference Gary Novak, if you have a specific point you wish to discuss I will happily provide more scientifically apprehensible sources.

Mattias: I am whimsical, so I can’t say I don’t get some measure of enjoyment out of some of the responses to my comments. And you know what they say about arguing on the internet…

Jodi, I would like greater clarification on Table 1. Contributions to the greenhouse effect by different greenhouse gases since it appears that these values are derived by the same GCM models that I detest.

Specifically, how CO2 contributes 9-26% of the greenhouse effect. Could you point me to some experimentally derived numbers instead?

@Mike. Hoping you are sincere in your quest. Check this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_increase_rate.png
I have a question though. For argument’s sake,say,you detest Kevin Rudd. Does that make everything he stands for liable to be rejected by you?
GCM Model is a hypothesis, backed by research and experiments. One may agree to it or disagree. Why detest?
Proble mwith IPCC’s publisged papers they are always a bit outdated. But then, the delay is understandable because they need to compile from a huge corpus of data,which takes time. Moreoevr, the reports remain relevent over borader scales of decades and considering the severity of the issue and the temporalscale on which it works - that seems acceptable. Please go through this also:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
It’s a fact that the 5 figures indicated by Jodi are in fact based on GISS GCM codes,but then I find it perfectly alright. They were calcuated mathematically actually (not picked from thin air) and if you need reference please chacek this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
Since,I myself remained a graduate student of engineering some 25 years agoand earned a livelihood practicing it, may I point something to Mike. Technologists and Engineers sometimes derive a tunnel vision on account of their extreme dependence on absolute numbers. Science,however, may not be so exact. For example, our concerns will not be much altered if the % values are 5 to 21% rather than 9 to 26%, for argument’s sake.

To be more specific, I detest the exclusive use of models as a substitute for empirical evidence.

You incorrectly assert that the magnitude of my inquisitions amount to unimportant decimal points and minutiae, when there is an order of magnitude of discrepancy within the scientific literature.

For example, Dr. Heinz Hug wrote a paper to which he concludes (from empirical measurements) that the IPCC’s suggested radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 may be exaggerated by a factor of 80. Open discussion on his paper is documented here.

All I’m asking for is some evidence independant of GCMs that support CO2 as contributing 9-26% of the greenhouse effect.

Related to this is the asserted 7.2ºC of the natural 33ºC warming attributed to CO2. I would like to know how this number was derived and of any emprical evidence supportive of it.

@Mike.I am confused. Correct me if I am wrong, and I would request others who participated in the debate with you also, it sounded like you were contending like there is no such thing as global warming few days ago! While there is no disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of Global Warming and also the anthropogenic contribution to it. If there is any disagreement admittedly that is about the quantum of AGW’s effect on Climate and our future. Before I take the trouble of answering your query, can we please set the boundaries of the debate? You are accepting there is such thing as Global Warming and there are anthropogenic reasons for that? I am asking back because I don’t want to get waylaid in name-calling and hysteria again. Thanks.

Surprise surprise Mike didn’t like the figures, after about 5 minutes reading. He’ll soon be back among the mushroom scientist it’s a more comfy read.

I’d recommend Jared Diamonds Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, it’s not on global warming but a good read, especially if your from Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)

Specifically, I contend that anthropogenic global warming is physically impossible, in the sense that it is immeasurably small.

Two major criteria make up the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis:

- Man is responsible for most/all of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere.
- Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels produce warming at the earth’s surface.

My response to these specific criteria are:

- Man is responsible for only a small fraction of the CO2 rise.
- The warming produced by additional CO2 is limited by radiation, and immeasurably small.

For now, let’s just focus on the second point.

@ Mike. Great. We have the perspective now. Your response is based on a subjective description “small”.
Man is responsible for only a SMALL fraction of the CO2 rise.
The warming produced by additional CO2 is limited by radiation, and immeasurably SMALL.
You are also contending that: anthropogenic global warming is physically impossible, in the sense that it is immeasurably small.
1. May I know are these conjecture or do you have access to authentic data regarding Absolute CO2 content of the atmosphere year by year or at least index year by index year over say past 100 years (or 1000 years, even better) and differential count of the same? Do you have break up of these absolute CO
contents to suggest how much of that was for natural reasons and how much of that is for anthropogenic reasons? I assume you have. Please enlighten me in terms of %, how small is anthropogenic contribution of CO2 in atmosphere over past 100 (or 1000) years. And please show me the source of your data so that I can be satisfied about their authenticity.
2. Immeasurably small is not a satisfactory description for me. For example 50ngm of Polonium-210 will do as much harm to me as 250 mg of hydrogen cyanide. Since we both know we are talking here about warming not in the context of having a chilled beer, what is your reason for being so confident that this immeasurably small global warming is, in fact, trivial? And the scientists world over are exaggerating it’s harmful effects as one sinister group of people to take your supposedly “freedom”?
I will wait for for your answer.

You asked me to define the scope; above I asked this to be limited to the second point only, so I will respond only to that end.

I am not contending that the amount of CO2 is the limiting factor, I am contending that the amount of radiation emitted by the earth is the limiting factor. Please understand this distinction.

By “immeasurably small”, I contend that the signal of anthropogenic warming is lost in the noise of natural variability (ie. undetectable). This implicitly contends that the warming projections of the IPCC et. al. are vastly exaggerated.

Whether the effects of CO2 are harmful or not is not within the scope I have defined. Similarly, your citation of authority, majority, or opinion, are also rejected.

I humbly restate my request:

“All I’m asking for is some evidence independant of GCMs that support CO2 as contributing 9-26% of the greenhouse effect.

Related to this is the asserted 7.2ºC of the natural 33ºC warming attributed to CO2. I would like to know how this number was derived and of any emprical evidence supportive of it. ”

@Mike. It is noted that you yourself have defined the scope of the debate, just like you took freedom to call names. I suggested: can we please set the boundaries of the debate? Anyway, it’s alright with me, At least we are being objective.
As to your question is technically incorrect. That 9-26% range was not exactly as you put it. How important is CO2 in the greenhouse effect? If you remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, the infrared absorption decreases by 9 percent. If you remove all the greenhouse gases (including clouds) from the atmosphere except CO2, the absorption decreases by 74 percent, meaning that 26 percent (= 100 percent – 74 percent) of the absorption is still present if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. So the effect of CO2 can be either 9 percent or 26 percent of the greenhouse effect, depending on how it is defined. Undoubtedly the different definitions account, in part, for the different values cited in the literature for the importance of CO2 in the greenhouse effect. But whether it is 9 percent or 26 percent, the effect of CO2 is not a negligible effect. This has already been cited by Jodi (follow link : http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php). Hope you will patiently read it.
About empirical evidence independent of GCM, you may please read the following carefully:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
and I will recommend you follow all the hyperlinks (you will be happy to see that they are actually papers by real scientists on observed data collected over not 1, not 2 but 311 stations all over the world for nearly 3 decades). If you need to do the calculations yourself please refer WDCGG data in the following link:
http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html
Btw, you will require to subscribe to Nature (Magazine) as some of the papers are not privy to free reader.
There are people outside of IPCC et all, trust me, real neutral scientists who have not politicized the issue of AGW. Independent and unbiased research cannot overlook the human responsibility to Climate Change.
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin concluded their paper “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate” by saying “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” I have included the link above. I am afraid, I cannot be any more detailed in this forum.

Pabitra, nowhere in your articles/paper is the conclusion drawn that 9-26% of the greenhouse effect is attributable to CO2, from empirical evidence. I already read Jodi’s article and backtracked the references which lead back to the same GCM models that prompted my query in the first place. These numbers were not empirically derived.

Nor do your sources provide an answer to my second enquiry about the asserted 7.2ºC of the natural 33ºC greenhouse warming attributed to CO2.

Are you going to answer my queries or not?

A lot of good drawings here!

I always suffer from health problems whenever there is a drastic change in our climate. I try to combat it with vitamin c supplement to boost my immune system. This regimen helps a alot.