World may not be warming, say scientists

[Blackjack200]

History has shown that everytime we rush to fix a problem we screw it up, just look at the current preditor vs prey animal ecology in the US, (50x more deer in the US today than in 1900).

Prove it. I don't trust your evidence.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Prove it. I don't trust your evidence.

Kudzu...imported from Japan to control soil erosion (especially along railroad tracks) and has spread through a huge area of the US.

 

[mattpegher]

Prove it. I don't trust your evidence.

Prove which

Deer http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/Pages/DeerPopulationFacts.aspx

There is also yellowstone elk
"Our discussion begins in Yellowstone National Park. In the late 1800s, Yellowstone’s game population – its elk, bison, antelope and deer – began to disappear. So in 1886, the US Cavalry took over management of the park. And its first order of business was to help bring back the game population.

After a few years of protection and special feeding, the game population started to come back strong. But what the government didn’t understand was that it was dealing with a complex ecosystem. You can’t just change one thing and think that it won’t also lead to cascading changes elsewhere.

The surging elk and deer populations ate a lot more. This caused the plant life to diminish. Aspen trees, for instance, started to disappear, eaten by the numerous elks. This hurt the beaver population, which depended on the aspen tree. The beavers built fewer dams. The beaver dams were important in helping prevent soil erosion by slowing the flow of water from the spring melt. Now the trout population took a hit, because it didn’t spawn in the increasingly silted water. And so on and so on…

The entire ecosystem started to break down because of man’s desire to boost the elk population. It got worse. In the winter of 1919-1920, more than half of the elk population died – with most of them starving to death. But the National Park Service chalked it up to predators. So it began killing wolves, mountain lions and coyotes – all of which only made the problems worse.

This anecdote from Yellowstone’s past comes from Michael Mauboussin’s book, Think Twice. He writes: “The population of the game animals began to experience erratic booms and busts. This only encouraged the managers to redouble their efforts, triggering morbid feedback loops.”

By the mid-1900s, the Park Service managed to kill off nearly all of the predators. In 1926, it shot the last wolf."

This is actually used today to discribe financial markets as ecologies.

 

[Throckmorton]

Herbivore overpopulation is due to the near eradication of predators... Which was a case of humans having a drastic impact on the environment. The equivalent would be continuing to pump huge amounts of GG into the atmosphere, not reducing our impact...

It boggles my mind that people can convince themselves that continuing to change atmospheric chemistry at the current rate is normal, and reducing our emissions is some kind of dangerous action with unpredictable results. Do you not understand how ridiculous that is?

 

[sandorski]

Herbivore overpopulation is due to the near eradication of predators... Which was a case of humans having a drastic impact on the environment. The equivalent would be continuing to pump huge amounts of GG into the atmosphere, not reducing our impact...

It boggles my mind that people can convince themselves that continuing to change atmospheric chemistry at the current rate is normal, and reducing our emissions is some kind of dangerous action with unpredictable results. Do you not understand how ridiculous that is?

If they did, they wouldn't be making the argument.

 

[mattpegher]

I agree throck, that there may be serious consequences to continued human existance.
The key is not to allow politics to muddy the scientific data, not to persue changes that have not been evaluated and to thoroughly investigate a global analysis of the impacts and consequences of our actions. It is unscientific and illogical to accept either position as being proven at this time. This does not mean that we should forgo research into processes that have less impact on the environment, it means that more research needs to be done, both on what impact we have and what impact our solutions will have.

Ultimately, the balance of nature is measured in millions of years, it is highly unlikely that we could so damage the planet that it would not reestablish balance. It is just that it may take much longer than our comprehension. It is ultimately our own existance that lies in peril, for if we change our planet drasticly, it may be uninhabitable for humans. We would then be removed from the ecosystem and a new ecosystem would emerge. Possibly one very different than todays.

 

[Throckmorton]

Well, life on earth recovered after the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, but it almost didn't. There have been several extinction events that destroyed the vast majority of species, and this is the latest. The difference is we have a moral decision. Do we want to continue to obliterate most life on earth? Do we want to risk the possibility that life never recovers? What if this is the only planet with life in the universe?

 

[mattpegher]

All the more reason not to screw it up. We cant rush to knee jerk reactions. It is certainly within our ability to make matters worse.
Unfortunately, we are saddled with many self serving individuals who claim to be our saviors, these range from politicians to activists to celebrities. Each has at least some self interest in their position; funding, attention, egotism (white knight syndrome). The goal is to determine what we can do to best husband the planet and ecosystems there in, but this will likely occure over such a time as each participant role will be minor. It is a human frailty that we strive for importance and a place in history.

Science cannot function without doubt. When we refuse to listen to the desentors, we cease to be scientist and become dictators.

 

[Amused]

You have the Freedom to spew CO2 into the air? Just what Freedom is at risk here?

Just for starters: to buy a simple 60 watt incandescent type A light bulb in CA.

To build a house in CA with Edison base light fixtures.

To use energy without punitive fees for going over an arbitrary limit.

The laws, restrictions and limitation tied to the MMGW hoax and energy shortage scams are just beginning. Let's talk about Cambridge, MA., shall we?

 

[sandorski]

All the more reason not to screw it up. We cant rush to knee jerk reactions. It is certainly within our ability to make matters worse.
Unfortunately, we are saddled with many self serving individuals who claim to be our saviors, these range from politicians to activists to celebrities. Each has at least some self interest in their position; funding, attention, egotism (white knight syndrome). The goal is to determine what we can do to best husband the planet and ecosystems there in, but this will likely occure over such a time as each participant role will be minor. It is a human frailty that we strive for importance and a place in history.

Science cannot function without doubt. When we refuse to listen to the desentors, we cease to be scientist and become dictators.

Decreasing CO2 and other GHG Emissions is not Rash. Things like Seeding the Upper Atmosphere with Reflective Materials/Chemicals and /or other such solutions is Rash, but become increasingly necessary as GW and CC increases. It is of the utmost importance to simply Decrease our Emissions to avoid Rash solutions.

 

[sandorski]

Just for starters: to buy a simple 60 watt incandescent type A light bulb in CA.

To build a house in CA with Edison base light fixtures.

To use energy without punitive fees for going over an arbitrary limit.

The laws, restrictions and limitation tied to the MMGW hoax and energy shortage scams are just beginning. Let's talk about Cambridge, MA., shall we?

Those are not Rights anymore than dumping your Sewage in the street is a Right.

 

[Throckmorton]

All the more reason not to screw it up. We cant rush to knee jerk reactions. It is certainly within our ability to make matters worse.
Unfortunately, we are saddled with many self serving individuals who claim to be our saviors, these range from politicians to activists to celebrities. Each has at least some self interest in their position; funding, attention, egotism (white knight syndrome). The goal is to determine what we can do to best husband the planet and ecosystems there in, but this will likely occure over such a time as each participant role will be minor. It is a human frailty that we strive for importance and a place in history.

Science cannot function without doubt. When we refuse to listen to the desentors, we cease to be scientist and become dictators.

How do you figure REDUCING our impact is a knee jerk reaction that can make things worse? That is what I am trying to say makes NO sense. It's like saying "I'm drunk, but I don't want to slow down my alcohol intake because that is a rash decision that can kill me". No... what makes no sense is to stop or slow down your drinking because that's the conservative, cautious thing to do.

 

[mattpegher]

Sand, I'm not saying decreasing CO2 is rash but how we acheive this might have negative impacts. Just to say we will decrease CO2 is too broad, how? Where? Who?
I replaced all the bulbs in my house with compact florescents but has anyone looked at how these are made, how far are the trucked to get to me, what ecosystems are harmed in the mining process of the materials. It is possible that the overall impact could be worse if not evaluated.

 

[HumblePie]

Well, life on earth recovered after the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, but it almost didn't. There have been several extinction events that destroyed the vast majority of species, and this is the latest. The difference is we have a moral decision. Do we want to continue to obliterate most life on earth? Do we want to risk the possibility that life never recovers? What if this is the only planet with life in the universe?

WTF? Look, just like GW, the meteor thing is also an unproven theory. Actually, one of many very plausible theories on why dinosaurs went extinct. When many of the species died out, many didn't like alligators and crocodiles. Claiming one possible theory as "fact" is the very problem many people are having with GW. There is no way to substantiate the claim that "nearly all life was killed off" nor can we make the claim that GW is causing the end of all life right now which is what you are alluding to. Maybe the current warming trend is making life more sustainable! You, nor me, nor even the "scientists" in regards to GW have any clue about that. And don't tell me a climate scientist can give professional advice to zoology.

There is only one thing we can all agree on right now is that CO2 in the atmosphere is currently a bit higher than it was 120 years ago. That's the only "fact" that has been proven. Great, we have more CO2 which has some properties we know, but drawing outrages claims of derivatives from factual properties of CO2 is nothing but alarmist doomsday crying. That is about the equivalent of saying, "Sheep eat grass! OMG all the grass in the world is going to gone by 2035! We need to do something about sheep now before it becomes out of control! DOOoooOOoommmm!"

Yah, that was a bit of extra satire to illustrate my point as most people see that there may be a very remote possibly that sheep could eat every blade of grass on this planet at one point, like pigs can fly out of my ass. The problem seems to be that too many people seem to be using the fact that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas to promote the end of all life on this planet. This conclusion at this point is damn near the same thing as stating sheep will eat all grass. It may be true, but until further study WE HAVE NO EFFING CLUE! You don't have a clue, I don't have a clue, and definitely the scientists making claims about the polar ice caps all being gone in a couple of decades do not have a clue either.

 

[bfdd]

Also interesting that your inconsistant standards for ethical conduct between the deniers and the scientists is analagous to your inconsistant standards for evidence.

Uh... I do believe it was wrong to hack into their servers and steal their private information. I said it was wrong and unjustified, that doesn't mean some good didn't come out of it. I'm not saying the ends justify the means, I clearly stated it was unjustified.

 

[Throckmorton]

WTF? Look, just like GW, the meteor thing is also an unproven theory. Actually, one of many very plausible theories on why dinosaurs went extinct. When many of the species died out, many didn't like alligators and crocodiles. Claiming one possible theory as "fact" is the very problem many people are having with GW. There is no way to substantiate the claim that "nearly all life was killed off" nor can we make the claim that GW is causing the end of all life right now which is what you are alluding to. Maybe the current warming trend is making life more sustainable! You, nor me, nor even the "scientists" in regards to GW have any clue about that. And don't tell me a climate scientist can give professional advice to zoology.

There is only one thing we can all agree on right now is that CO2 in the atmosphere is currently a bit higher than it was 120 years ago. That's the only "fact" that has been proven. Great, we have more CO2 which has some properties we know, but drawing outrages claims of derivatives from factual properties of CO2 is nothing but alarmist doomsday crying. That is about the equivalent of saying, "Sheep eat grass! OMG all the grass in the world is going to gone by 2035! We need to do something about sheep now before it becomes out of control! DOOoooOOoommmm!"

Yah, that was a bit of extra satire to illustrate my point as most people see that there may be a very remote possibly that sheep could eat every blade of grass on this planet at one point, like pigs can fly out of my ass. The problem seems to be that too many people seem to be using the fact that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas to promote the end of all life on this planet. This conclusion at this point is damn near the same thing as stating sheep will eat all grass. It may be true, but until further study WE HAVE NO EFFING CLUE! You don't have a clue, I don't have a clue, and definitely the scientists making claims about the polar ice caps all being gone in a couple of decades do not have a clue either.

What I'm saying is the cavalier attitude of "The earth is so powerful mannnn it can handle anything bro!!" is ridiculous.

The meteor event theory is pretty well established. It flooded the atmosphere with particles, blotting out most plant life, and a huge percentage of species went extinct. Crocodiles aren't descendents of dinosaurs, they branched off long before, but birds are.

 

[Amused]

Those are not Rights anymore than dumping your Sewage in the street is a Right.

So you think it's okay to dictate how a person lights their home???

Wow...

This has been my point about the MMGW scam all along. It is a power grab for authoritarians and anti industrialists/capitalists.

And you asked for "FREEDOMS", NOT rights, I list just two of many lost... then tell me those aren't "rights." Well, they WERE freedoms and they are lost now.

Rights and freedoms, sometimes the same, many times not.

It is not a "right" to eat a turkey sandwich, therefore should we ban eating turkey sandwiches?

If I then complained that I am no longer free to eat a turkey sandwich would you say, "that's no more a right than shitting on your neighbor's head."???

Look up "authoritarianism." You'll find it fits your needs just fine.

BTW:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I know, I know, it's ignored now...

 

[sandorski]

So you think it's okay to dictate how a person lights their home???

Wow...

This has been my point about the MMGW scam all along. It is a power grab for authoritarians and anti industrialists/capitalists.

And you asked for "FREEDOMS", NOT rights, I list just two of many lost... then tell me those aren't "rights." Well, they WERE freedoms and they are lost now.

Rights and freedoms, sometimes the same, many times not.

It is not a "right" to eat a turkey sandwich, therefore should we ban eating turkey sandwiches?

If I then complained that I am no longer free to eat a turkey sandwich would you say, "that's no more a right than shitting on your neighbor's head."???

Look up "authoritarianism." You'll find it fits your needs just fine.

If that's the way you want to view it? Fuck yes. I'll Dictate that shit.

You have no Right to that though, so your argument is Moot.

 

[Amused]

If that's the way you want to view it? Fuck yes. I'll Dictate that shit.

You have no Right to that though, so your argument is Moot.

Bullshit. You aksed what freedoms I had lost, then switched it to a "right."

At any rate, you ARE an authoritarian. You've gone so far left, you're right.

I bet you're all butt-hurt over the MMGW scam falling apart now, aren't you? Copenhagen failed and Cap and Trade is dead.

People want to be free. Maybe you can come up with a more believable "emergency" to get them to throw away their freedoms?

 

[sandorski]

Bullshit. You aksed what freedoms I had lost, then switched it to a "right."

At any rate, you ARE an authoritarian. You've gone so far left, you're right.

I bet you're all butt-hurt over the MMGW scam falling apart now, aren't you? Copenhagen failed and Cap and Trade is dead.

People want to be free. Maybe you can come up with a more believable "emergency" to get them to throw away their freedoms?

Do you have the Right to spew your Sewage onto the Street?

Do you have the Right to Light your home with Glowing Radioactive Material?

You have no Right to Incandescent Lighting. None. Your argument is Moot.

 

[Amused]

Do you have the Right to spew your Sewage onto the Street?

Do you have the Right to Light your home with Glowing Radioactive Material?

You have no Right to Incandescent Lighting. None. Your argument is Moot.

You aparently have the right no, wait, FREEDOM to go to ridiculous extremes to vainly try to make your point.

How much electricity I use is NONE of your business, so long as I pay the bill. How I light my home is NONE of your business.

It's very sad that you think it is.

What even more sad is that you and your ilk are pushing tons of mercury into our homes and landfills as an "alternative" to safe incandescent lighting.

Just because it is not a "right" does NOT mean it should not be a freedom.

You better guard that turkey sandwich you have no "right" to eat. I'm coming for it.

 

[sandorski]

You aparently have the right no, wait, FREEDOM to go to ridiculous extremes to vainly try to make your point.

How much electricity I use is NONE of your business, so long as I pay the bill. How I light my home is NONE of your business.

It's very sad that you think it is.

What even more sad is that you and your ilk are pushing tons of mercury into our homes and landfills as an "alternative" to safe incandescent lighting.

Just because it is not a "right" does NOT mean it should not be a freedom.

You better guard that turkey sandwich you have no "right" to eat. I'm coming for it.

I'm going to ridiculous extremes? No sir, look into a mirror.

 

[bfdd]

What I'm saying is the cavalier attitude of "The earth is so powerful mannnn it can handle anything bro!!" is ridiculous.

The meteor event theory is pretty well established. It flooded the atmosphere with particles, blotting out most plant life, and a huge percentage of species went extinct. Crocodiles aren't descendents of dinosaurs, they branched off long before, but birds are.

You don't read enough. If I remember reading correctly they now believe birds evolved along side dinosaurs.

 

[Throckmorton]

Sand, I'm not saying decreasing CO2 is rash but how we acheive this might have negative impacts. Just to say we will decrease CO2 is too broad, how? Where? Who?
I replaced all the bulbs in my house with compact florescents but has anyone looked at how these are made, how far are the trucked to get to me, what ecosystems are harmed in the mining process of the materials. It is possible that the overall impact could be worse if not evaluated.

You're right, we have to consider our solutions carefully. The push to get CFLs in every home was a huge mistake. Most people aren't even aware that if one breaks, your house is now a toxic hazard. But the time to consider whether to reduce emissions is over. We need to do it, let's move on and figure out the best ways.

 

[mattpegher]

How do you figure REDUCING our impact is a knee jerk reaction that can make things worse? That is what I am trying to say makes NO sense. It's like saying "I'm drunk, but I don't want to slow down my alcohol intake because that is a rash decision that can kill me". No... what makes no sense is to stop or slow down your drinking because that's the conservative, cautious thing to do.

Good example, patients who stop drinking alcohol after developing a dependence often die of delerium tremens, or sieze for alcohol withdrawl. Alcoholics need to be monitored and other medications used to prevent thes from occuring. Lack of knowledge of the consequence can be dangerous.