[Corey USA]

This is what we face if we do not take this seriously and curb our ways fast.
This is worse than even what the doomsayers are saying. This is a fact.
This is the punishment If we do not change NOW.
So wake up and get real. We must change. IT IS NOT AN OPTION.
The two options you do have are doing it voluntarily or by being forced by fellow humans. The price of not doing it is as follows:
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html

If this cycle is started by US humans that's the end. and we are closer to this than you think the arctic is already thawing just ask the Canadian residence and Siberian residence.

I could probably get this info from a more reputable site if you like.

Think maybe it only fair I use a counter one as well...
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2334

Want to see the effects of global warming in action that is having an effect on the methane in the ocean check out the video clip in top right corner. had no audio so I could not here what was said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...2274439&page=1

[blearyeyes]

But Corey this is alarmist fodder of the worst kind. Look for a potential problem, raise it to the worst case scenario, predict the end of the world and sprinkle with plenty of guilt. This has been happening for decades and none of the doom-laden claims has ever come to fruitition. MMGW is the latest but there are probably others waiting in the wings. Meanwhile the world goes on.

[Stephen Wilde]

That clip from abc news is just like the news broadcasts which were mocked so effectively in the movie Starship Troopers and I would guess are at the same level of intellectual rigour.

As a UK resident I need to ask- Is abc news a comedy channel ?

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

That clip from abc news is just like the news broadcasts which were mocked so effectively in the movie Starship Troopers and I would guess are at the same level of intellectual rigour.

As a UK resident I need to ask- Is abc news a comedy channel ?

What was wrong with it, apart from the fact that it didn't agree with your particular (and ill-founded) prior beliefs?

It was a mass media piece, so obviously it lacked scientific rigour. But it said nothing that was absurd, or remotely funny. If you want TV comedy, you would do better to watch Martin Durkin's channel 4 documentary again. Now that really was funny.

[Stephen Wilde]

What is right about it apart from the fact that it agrees with your particular ill founded prior beliefs ?

It seems more likely to me that causes other than man are the main factor in any recent warming than that a small increase in temperature is going to provoke a sudden irreversible apocalypse.

Anyway see my posts to other threads. Carbon emissions are a diversion. Just attend to human population levels and all environmental issues go away.

Control of emissions at the present stage of human development will just worsen the problem for reasons I state elsewhere.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

What is right about it apart from the fact that it agrees with your particular ill founded prior beliefs ?

The difference is that my beliefs are based on what the scientific evidence is saying, and yours are not.

It seems more likely to me that causes other than man are the main factor in any recent warming than that a small increase in temperature is going to provoke a sudden irreversible apocalypse.

You've conflated two different points there. Your first point is completely ill-founded, because you have failed to identify the "causes other than man" which might be responsible.

On the second point, the reality is that we just don't know. Such catastrophic feedback scenarios are not included in the IPCC models, because we do not know enough about them to be able to do that; the models are necessarily conservative in that regard. The future outcomes of unconstrained CO2 emissions are bad enough to require action, and the possibility of catastrophic climate change through methane clathrate release from warming oceans and permafrost adds impetus.

[Stephen Wilde]

There is a huge number of potential influences other than man.

Most have never been accurately observed and recorded. It is unsafe to rely on the assumption that warming is caused by one potential cause that has been better observed and recorded than many others.

Requiring proof to displace such an unwarranted initial assumption is illogical and unscientific. Being suspicious of that initial assumption is logical and scientific.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

What was wrong with it, apart from the fact that it didn't agree with your particular (and ill-founded) prior beliefs?

It was a mass media piece, so obviously it lacked scientific rigour. But it said nothing that was absurd, or remotely funny. If you want TV comedy, you would do better to watch Martin Durkin's channel 4 documentary again. Now that really was funny.

Is this your double standards creeping in again njp?

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

There is a huge number of potential influences other than man.

Most have never been accurately observed and recorded. It is unsafe to rely on the assumption that warming is caused by one potential cause that has been better observed and recorded than many others.

Postulating the existence of unknown and unobserved influences to explain a phenomenom for which we already have a perfectly good explanation is not science. It's make-believe.

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Requiring proof to displace such an unwarranted initial assumption is illogical and unscientific. Being suspicious of that initial assumption is logical and scientific.

That just makes no sense at all. By your reckoning, we would go on being suspicious of the "assumption" that CO2 causes global warming indefinitely, as we continued to confidently predict the discovery of the global warming fairy.

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Is this your double standards creeping in again njp?

The ABC report contained no actual lies or faked data. Durkin's documentary contained plenty of both, and therefore sits well below it in any hierarchy of accuracy.

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Is this your double standards creeping in again njp?

How is that double standards? The ABC item described something that is quite possible, based on established science, although uncertain in its degree. TGGWS was a pack of outrageous misrepresentations of the state of climate science.

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

There is a huge number of potential influences other than man.

Most have never been accurately observed and recorded. It is unsafe to rely on the assumption that warming is caused by one potential cause that has been better observed and recorded than many others.

Requiring proof to displace such an unwarranted initial assumption is illogical and unscientific. Being suspicious of that initial assumption is logical and scientific.

It is not unwarranted. It is based on basic physics and copious observation.

[Stephen Wilde]

But you or njp have said the main reason CO2 is worthy of blame is because no other cause has been proved. You thereby impose an impossible burden of proof on those who disagree given the poor level of understanding that exists.

It is well know that there are in fact many other potential influences.I am not just postulating unlikely possibilities. How can they be ignored just because we lack the data to properly quantify them ?

Either you must prove it is CO2 or you must prove it is not something else. You cannot assume it is CO2 by ignoring all the other possibilities.

Elsewhere you have conceded that the workings of the atmosphere are incredibly complex yet you see fit to ignore that complexity in favour of a convenient assumption which has not been demonstrated as true or even likely as rigorously as you say.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

But you or njp have said the main reason CO2 is worthy of blame is because no other cause has been proved. You thereby impose an impossible burden of proof on those who disagree given the poor level of understanding that exists.

That's an absurd misrepresentation. Other possible causes have been examined and found not to explain recent warming. CO2, on the other hand, has well-known physical properties that make it a greenhouse gas, and has been increasing in the atmosphere as a direct result of human activities. It is the smoking gun par excellence:

attribution of 20th century climate change to CO2

You don't believe it because, well, you just don't believe it. You are rather like Bush/Blair in pursuit of WMD - the less evidence you find for "other causes", the more convinced you become that they must exist.

It is well know that there are in fact many other potential influences.I am not just postulating unlikely possibilities. How can they be ignored just because we lack the data to properly quantify them ?

Well what are they then, these mysterious, unquantified influences? Are we back to the Global Warming Fairy, or did you have something known to science in mind?

[Stephen Wilde]

I suppose it's a matter of how one wants to interpret things. I see a lot of doubt and many qualifications and value judgements in that realclimate link but clearly you do not and we are never going to resolve that difference between us.

I'm not going to list all the other potential causes. They are well documented and discussed elsewhere and anyone interested in this discussion can easily find them. It is better for others to browse the sources uninfluenced by my choices of link.

Having narrowed down our differences as far as possible there is no point me continuing on the AGW issue but I may continue on the solutions threads because there are other greater threats arising from human numbers and total rather than individual consumption levels. CO2 is a smaller concern with medium to long term consequences whereas numbers and consumption are greater and more immediate concerns. Additionally if we deal with numbers and total consumption the climate change and CO2 issue goes away as a by product of solving those more pressing problems.

If we deal with CO2 production without tackling numbers and total consumption we are wasting our efforts anyway.

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I suppose it's a matter of how one wants to interpret things. I see a lot of doubt and many qualifications and value judgements in that realclimate link but clearly you do not and we are never going to resolve that difference between us.

I'm not going to list all the other potential causes. They are well documented and discussed elsewhere and anyone interested in this discussion can easily find them. It is better for others to browse the sources uninfluenced by my choices of link.

Having narrowed down our differences as far as possible there is no point me continuing on the AGW issue but I may continue on the solutions threads because there are other greater threats arising from human numbers and total rather than individual consumption levels. CO2 is a smaller concern with medium to long term consequences whereas numbers and consumption are greater and more immediate concerns. Additionally if we deal with numbers and total consumption the climate change and CO2 issue goes away as a by product of solving those more pressing problems.

If we deal with CO2 production without tackling numbers and total consumption we are wasting our efforts anyway.

I don't think you will ever be convinced about AGW whatever the evidence.

I largely agree with you about solutions. Even if we assume (wrongly IMO) that AGW is not an issue, most of the measures we need to take for long term sustainability and raising living and health standards for all will involve the reduction of fossil fuel consumption by the West.

[Corey USA]

Didn't mean to start an argument was just pointing out consequences of not curbing human pollution. and curbing it in a voluntary fashion.