Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Calliope]

It didn't take a scientific background to discover this. It took an open mind and a lot of time. In another context you could call it due diligence.

No it took a gullible mind easily indoctrinated by "the science."

 

[explod]

That movie was the first example I found of a pattern that became clear in sources that are routinely cited on ASF, such as JoNova, Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, Andrew Bolt, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Heartland Institute, etc. They misrepresent the scientific material they cite, and they repeat their false statements even after the scientists who wrote the papers have told them that the work does not mean what they say it does.

Well said ghotib.

How can anyone be scepticle even if there is a remote possibility.

I need no convincing that we have a serious problem and one wonders why the sceptics are so vehement. Such denial indicates they cannot and will not accept what may be true.

 

[Calliope]

... and one wonders why the sceptics are so vehement.

One wonders why the alarmists are so gullible.

 

[bellenuit]

Methane discovery stokes new global warming fears Shock as retreat of Arctic releases greenhouse gas

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...f-arctic-releases-greenhouse-gas-6276278.html

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Well said ghotib.

How can anyone be scepticle even if there is a remote possibility.

I need no convincing that we have a serious problem

Er, quick, everyone to the North Pole to dump soot to alleviate the coming ice age....

Dang! Sorry folks, for a moment there I had a flashback to the 70's ice age scare....

What I should have said, everyone paint whatever you see with white - now we're saved once again.

The AGW Bowl is still being lapped up by a remaining few, and it tastes sooo good.

 

[wayneL]

Well said ghotib.

How can anyone be scepticle even if there is a remote possibility.

I need no convincing that we have a serious problem and one wonders why the sceptics are so vehement. Such denial indicates they cannot and will not accept what may be true.

The disingenuousness of the Church of MMCC knows no bounds.

Lots of things MAY be true Mr Plod. One thing that is incontrovertibly true is that the continued categorization of climate moderates as "deniers" is offensive, childish, inaccurate and polarizing.

If there is vehemence, it is because of the at least equal vehemence of alarmists. Alarmists routinely call for gaoling, killing and torture of climate moderates. Need I remind you of some of the truly offensive campaigns and remarks of totalitarian nutters like 10;10 and David Suzuki.

Please Mr Plod, if you must hoist yourself with your own petard, try not to be so utterly hypocritical that moderates don't have to even use their brain at all to see how you've blown up your own argument.

 

[basilio]

A wife returns home suddenly to find her husband deep in bed with another woman. Unfazed, the husband looks up from the sheets at her and, with great indignation, demands: "I have never been unfaithful ! Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Well we are certainly getting to the pointy end of this discussion. Ghoti put the finger on the whole discussion with the observation that when one examines the criticism of GW by Monckton. Plime, Bolt, Watts and co you quickly discover how dishonest they are. The misrepresent graphs, make up figures, deliberately cut and paste other scientists work and so forth.

These deceptions have been painstakingly, repeatedly exposed pointing out how and where the mistakes and deceptions have occurred.( When the denial industry attempts to point out mistakes in climate science it just doesn't stick - but it still gets trotted out ad nausem. ie the hockey stick crap. the alleged problems with badly located weather stations)

The response from deniers has been along the lines of the joke I started with. Outraged denial with the belief that if you can brazen it out long enough and loud enough you can wear the other person down despite the deception.

In another context the BS denial of the above joke would be given short shrift and a long rope. A cattle rustler caught with hot branding irons and newly branded cattle could protest his innocence for at least 5 minutes before dancing in the breeze.

Understanding the reality behind how humans are affecting climate through release of CO2 is a fact based science exercise. The problem comes when we realise that solving the problem will require truly enormous changes in how we run our societies.

When that reality is placed on the table the processes of denying or obscuring the facts to protect financial interest and our current stake in the world as we know it comes into play. That was the birth of the campaigns to discredit the science, the scientists, the politicians/citizens who argued the case (ie Al Gore, Tim Flannery, ABC, The Guardian and all climate scientists who appear to support the evidence). The challenge to our current lifestyle also underpins the reluctance of politicians and most people to stand up to the FUD campaigns of the denial industry (FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)

This has happened plenty of times. I pointed out how the Tobacco industry was the forerunner of lying through its teeth to discredit the evidence behind the effects of smoking and its addictive nature. (see movie .) Ditto asbestos. Ditto agricultural poisons.

So 25 years after recognising the GW problem but refusing to take it seriously it is now more comforting to deny and close your eyes.

If you are the deceived partner you might hang on to the comforts of home and a relationship of some sort for a little longer.

If your the cattle rustler you may not feel a thing until you start the final dance. (But then you could comfort yourself by thinking it was all a mistake or someone else fault or we all have to die anyway.)


Thank you for smoking http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

 

[basilio]

Methane discovery stokes new global warming fears Shock as retreat of Arctic releases greenhouse gas

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...f-arctic-releases-greenhouse-gas-6276278.html

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said.

"I was most impressed by the shear scale and the high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them," he said.

Hairy story Bellenuit. We don't have much time left do we ?

 

[Happy]

I kind of like this (repeated quite often as a smart/a.. comment):

Imagine how cold would it be if we didn’t have global warming.

(Sydney start to 2011 summer was/is the coldest in over 50 years…)

 

[Happy]

...
Understanding the reality behind how humans are affecting climate through release of CO2 is a fact based science exercise. The problem comes when we realise that solving the problem will require truly enormous changes in how we run our societies.
...

Controlled breeding for starters, so we don't need as many resources.

Here China was right, just 1 child for 50 to 100 years and see how we go after that.

 

[Calliope]

Hairy story Bellenuit. We don't have much time left do we ?

We don't have much time left to do what? There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate. The huge and growing AGW industry is the biggest and most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on the human race, and you are a willing participant in an obvious shakedown.:shake:

 

[Knobby22]

We don't have much time left to do what? There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate. The huge and growing AGW industry is the biggest and most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on the human race, and you are a willing participant in an obvious shakedown.:shake:

Do you think the Russian scientists are lying?

 

[basilio]

We don't have much time left to do what? There is absolutely nothing we can do to control the climate. The huge and growing AGW industry is the biggest and most expensive hoax ever perpetrated on the human race, and you are a willing participant in an obvious shakedown.

Do you think the Russian scientists are lying?

Knobby

Lets clear up any misunderstandings about the Calliope three strikes rule Knobby

1) They are Russians
2) They are scientists who are investigating climate science issues
3) They are reporting some scary xxxx on climate change

Liars, liars and liars. Three strikes and your out.

 

[Calliope]

Knobby

Lets clear up any misunderstandings about the Calliope three strikes rule Knobby

1) They are Russians
2) They are scientists who are investigating climate science issues
3) They are reporting some scary xxxx on climate change

Liars, liars and liars. Three strikes and your out.

My statement was "their absolutely nothing we can do about climate change". And there is nothing Russian scientists, IPCC scientists, nor carbon taxes, nor sneering smart-alec comments from you and Knobby can do about. it.

 

[wayneL]

:sleeping:

When basilio is an old woman, she will still be waiting for the apocalypse.

It's the old "end is nigh" in different clothes.

 

[Knobby22]

What gets at me is that some of the comments re: essentially denial.

There is a climate change industry.
There is an anti-climate change industry.

Each use their influence, sometimes badly, not everyone on each side is honest.
And they are represented generally by non scientists (economists, industry, lobbyists). I personally believe the non climate change industry is more dishonest as they are more corrupted by money but there is not a lot of innocence on either side.

The scientists involved generally are not part of this. They believe in scientific principles and do what they do with pride. They are not paid that well compared to the "industry" people. Their is always a couple of bad apples, whom when caught lose their livelihood, but they are rare.

I really dislike the scapegoating of all scientists as being corrupt and therefore all their evidence should be ignored because the industry (both climate and non climate) have their agendas to fill. I dislike how some of the media have taken sides and don't argue the essence of the debate but some ineffectual side issue like whether a Democrat politician uses jets.

I also disagree with Calliope that nothing can be done. We can do things but it will take the world to act as one in the common interest. We are however a long way away from this at present but if the cliomate change is bad enough, we will have to do something, even if that means poisoning our atmsphere with Sulphur compounds.

I'm not perfect but lets debate this rationally. Some are, some are just being annoying for fun.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

...

I really dislike the scapegoating of all scientists as being corrupt and therefore all their evidence should be ignored because the industry (both climate and non climate) have their agendas to fill. I dislike how some of the media have taken sides and don't argue the essence of the debate but some ineffectual side issue like whether a Democrat politician uses jets.

It's a terrible thing to have debate isn't it Knobby? It would so much better if all the media were pushing the same AGW message. Then climate disruptions like climategate I and II, Carbon Trading scams, observed climate facts to name a few could be forever swept under the carpet.

I see you've re-asserted the "all scientists as being corrupt" fallacy once again - and once again - for the record - just some.

I thought communism was a fading fad, apparently i'm wrong.

 

[bellenuit]

Hairy story Bellenuit. We don't have much time left do we ?

Yes, if the scenario pans out like the scientists are expecting, we don't have much time. So we certainly shouldn't be wasting what little time there is left on imposing an ineffective carbon tax that will only stifle our economy. We shouldn't be wasting time trotting around the world from one UN summit to the next when we know that the UN will never achieve anything other than proposals to hold a subsequent summit. We shouldn't be throwing away our monetary resources to 3rd world countries whose leaders will siphon off the majority of our contribution for their own self aggrandisement.

It is certainly difficult to know what to do. I support some form of direct action, particularly when we apply actions that produce the greatest CO2 reduction per dollar spent. If it looks like it is too late to act or that it is only us that is acting thus having a negligeable impact, then we should be looking at mitigating the effects of warming on the Australian populace. We should be discouraging establishing infrastructure and settlement in areas in which it will be unliveable due to warming. Some areas will be more liveable with global warming, so we should look at encouraging industry and people to move to those areas over time. Spending on infrastructure should include protections against environmental factors that will be more likely in a warmer climate than at present.

We certainly should be developing a policy now to deal with the effects of the warming (which is probably inevitable if we take the scientific predictions at face value).

 

[Calliope]

:sleeping:

When basilio is an old woman, she will still be waiting for the apocalypse.

It's the old "end is nigh" in different clothes.

She will be a grumpy old womam in ugg boots complaining about the long winters.

 

[Julia]

What gets at me is that some of the comments re: essentially denial.

There is a climate change industry.
There is an anti-climate change industry.

Each use their influence, sometimes badly, not everyone on each side is honest.
And they are represented generally by non scientists (economists, industry, lobbyists). I personally believe the non climate change industry is more dishonest

Of course you do.