rushmc 18
QuoteTo me it is all about power, money and control
And AGW is just one venue for them to push that agenda
Yes. There's a significant amount of money and power at stake on both sides. One side wants to keep that money and power for itself. The other side wants to take power and money from it and give it to itself. Power is a zero sum game.
I see where it is. We've got Heartland putting out a billboard with the Unabomber on it. That's bad. A couple of years ago we had alarmists putting out videos of schoolkids blowing up to make their point. We've got the CRU hack, which was seen and raised by Gleick and the Heartland materials.
It is a power game. As I mentioned, global warming is a political fact. It's a game, and the victors will receive the spoils. But there is also a lot lost in it.
As for me, on one side is denial. On the other side is alarm. Somewhere between the two is the truth. It's that middle ground that doesn't seem to get much attention.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 18
So then, what is, or, where is this middle ground?
A very open question (sorry) but I am looking for any specifics you have to offer.
To help so you understand my persective
I think, as a people, we can mess up local and small areas very very badly (with polution)
I also think we are arrogant if we think we have the power to first, affect global climate and second, do anything about it
A very open question (sorry) but I am looking for any specifics you have to offer.
To help so you understand my persective
I think, as a people, we can mess up local and small areas very very badly (with polution)
I also think we are arrogant if we think we have the power to first, affect global climate and second, do anything about it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
It begs to me a different question: why do we care? And the best answer I can come up with is "because we humans like it the way it is." In other words, we want the environment to remain the same because it's how we're set up. Even if climate change is natural, we wouldn't necessarily want it to happen.
our timeframe is also a bit different than is measured in geological time. If a given climate change, caused by us or not, caused a 500 year hot period and then reset back to 'normal,' that would be fine for the planet, but lousy for us. We don't live long enough to ride out these cycles.
There is evidence that in New York climate change was pretty rapid at the end of the last ice age, having accelerated about 10k years ago. The evidence suggests that while the New York archipelago was tundra that was dominated by spruce, that even within 30-50 years, the land became dominated by pine and then the deciduous forests.
And it is true - had we had cities, etc., back then, we'd have been hosed. At the height of the ice age, the east coast extended in some places another 50 miles, which is now under 350 feet of water - 22k years ago. It would have sucked to be there, and would have similarly sucked when Hudson Lake drained.
The present sea level was established only 6k years ago. It rose 350 feet in 6k years. That's an average of just under 6 feet every century. Or 2/3 of an inch every year. Some are estimating that the sea level has risen an average of up to 2.5mm per year since 1900, meaning a rise of about 275mm since 1900. Which is a little under 11 inches in 110 years. So it was over 6 times greater sea level rise back then.
So humans actually have been around to see this stuff in action during their lifetimes. It was easier for our nomadic ancestors to move their beach homes a few feet every ten or twenty years, but won't be so easy now.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And it is true - had we had cities, etc., back then, we'd have been hosed. At the height of the ice age, the east coast extended in some places another 50 miles, which is now under 350 feet of water - 22k years ago. It would have sucked to be there, and would have similarly sucked when Hudson Lake drained.
The present sea level was established only 6k years ago. It rose 350 feet in 6k years. That's an average of just under 6 feet every century. Or 2/3 of an inch every year. Some are estimating that the sea level has risen an average of up to 2.5mm per year since 1900, meaning a rise of about 275mm since 1900. Which is a little under 11 inches in 110 years. So it was over 6 times greater sea level rise back then.
So humans actually have been around to see this stuff in action during their lifetimes. It was easier for our nomadic ancestors to move their beach homes a few feet every ten or twenty years, but won't be so easy now.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 383
"I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power."
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/09/the-belief-that-co2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity-says-prominent-german-meteorologist/[/url]
Too easy.
Boosh
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/09/the-belief-that-co2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity-says-prominent-german-meteorologist/[/url]
Too easy.
Boosh
It begs to me a different question: why do we care? And the best answer I can come up with is "because we humans like it the way it is." In other words, we want the environment to remain the same because it's how we're set up. Even if climate change is natural, we wouldn't necessarily want it to happen.
It's pretty obvious that if the sea level rose 30 feet that it would cause some problems to a large number of people on earth. We've seen what happens when the sea level rises ten meters in the matter of a minute in Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc. The more time we have to be prepared for it the fewwer people die. If we could get, say, 50 years of notice we can do other things. Think of earthquake preparedness. Los Angeles is pretty well situated to handle them, and a shaker that would devastate New York City would be pretty much business as usual in Los Angeles.
So we want the climate to be the same or similar as now. What happens if sea level lowers? Take a look at the Aral Sea. What about increasing water salinity? Check out the Salton Sea.
The things to ask are, "Will we see a sea level increase? If so, how much? Can we stop it? What will be the other effects? Etc. Then, how much will it cost to eliminate it?"
Now, there seems to be some guilt that we are doing it to benefit humans. That's why we look at all creatures cute and cuddly. Polar bears dying is bad. (But they only tell a half truth. Some places in the Arctic are warming, some are cooling, and polar bears are dying in the colder places and thriving in the warmer places. That's a dirty secret). We don't want Penguins displaced. We don't want Orcas confused.
Many ARE arguing about the risk of catastrophe to humans. I get that. But my problems are twofold: (1) there's no consensus; and (2) the predictions of catastrophe that should have already happened haven't. Add to that the attribution of every weather phenomenon to climate and it sounds desperate.
And people like me, who believe that the climate is changing and humans bear some responsibility can be seen as somewhat reasonable. But, the fact that I think that the temperature rise as a result will be negligible, without catastrophic effect and perhaps with some benefits to offset the costs of the climate change makes me an uncomfrtable person to both sides.
I do tend to lean against the climate consensus because I think that they have tactics that I've seen in my job. And because I am in a sense on the skeptical side, I don't like being regarded as "anti-science" because I question the predictions.
I see that science has become an adjunct for politics in climate. Climate change has been established as a legal and political fact. Future climate devastation has been established as a political and legal fact. I do question that.
To me it is all about power, money and control
And AGW is just one venue for them to push that agenda
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln