Please some tell me why we fear climate change. I have not heard "Runaway green house" for years but its still seems to be the backbone of climate change fear mongering.

Change presents opportunity. The glass is half full.

As a child I was taught to fear nuclear war, then as the walls came down, global cooling, now global warming. Predictions in the mid 90's lead us all to believe we would be stuffed by now.

Please someone tell me what to fear as apathy, coupled with boundless optimism has given me no reason the reduce my consumption.

Please some tell me why we fear climate change. If it is too rapid it will destroy most agriculture and impoverish most human civilizations, in addition to causing a great extinction which will impoverish most natural environments.

The world will become a bleaker, harder, more degraded place.

If it is too rapid it will destroy most agriculture and impoverish most human civilizations, in addition to causing a great extinction which will impoverish most natural environments.

Come now "destroy agriculture..." NO. We simply change or move it. Its not like it happens over night.

Vast tracks of land are currently unsuited to agriculture, a warmer and wetter world will open these areas for cultivation. Plants love the warmth. We humans can turn arid desert into productive farm land.

Great extinction... Thats unproven. There are thousands of species that are considered pest in many parts of the world and try as we do we cant make a dent in their populations.

Granted a few rare or isolated species will be lost but habitat destruction is far more destructive then gradual climate change.


The world will become a bleaker, harder, more degraded place.
Bleaker, a cold winters day is bleaker then a warm summers day.
Harder???? for the arctic fox or polar bear. But for us it will be easier.

"too rapid" 100, 50 ,10 years? 15 years ago we lived in fear that the coming decade would be the end. The best scientist in the world have a hard time even measuring the change.

Still not scared.

Please some tell me why we fear climate change. I have not heard "Runaway green house" for years but its still seems to be the backbone of climate change fear mongering.

No. The greenhouse effect is unlikely to be a "runaway" effect that will turn Earth into a second Venus. But if we do nothing the Earth will warm by somewhere between 5 and 11 degrees Celcius by 2100. That may not sound like much, but the effects on the human species and on other species would be far reaching. Mass extinctions would occur. The world will become full of climate refugees. There will be water shortages in many of the world's major cities. Storms will be more frequent and more violent. And so on and so on.


Predictions in the mid 90's lead us all to believe we would be stuffed by now.

I don't think so. But our knowledge about the climate has increased significantly since the mid 90s.

Come now "destroy agriculture..." NO. We simply change or move it. Its not like it happens over night.

There's nowhere to move it to. For example, the southwest corner of Western Australia is one of the nation's leading producers of wheat. With global warming, that wheat could be grown further south. The only problem is that there's no land further south until you hit Antarctica. So, Australia's wheat production is being pushed into the sea.


Vast tracks of land are currently unsuited to agriculture, a warmer and wetter world will open these areas for cultivation. Plants love the warmth. We humans can turn arid desert into productive farm land.

No. Partly because increased rains won't come at the right time of year. Also because any increases will not be uniform across all areas. Also because encroaching deserts will actually destroy more of the land suitable for agriculture.


Great extinction... Thats unproven.

No. It's proven. It's already happening. Many species have already disappeared due directly to global warming.


Granted a few rare or isolated species will be lost but habitat destruction is far more destructive then gradual climate change.

Climate change results in habitat destruction.


Bleaker, a cold winters day is bleaker then a warm summers day.
Harder???? for the arctic fox or polar bear. But for us it will be easier.

No. Already heat exhaustion is a major cause of death even in advanced countries such as the United States.


"too rapid" 100, 50 ,10 years? 15 years ago we lived in fear that the coming decade would be the end. The best scientist in the world have a hard time even measuring the change.

No. The change is pretty obvious. Also, suppose we cut all carbon emissions tomorrow. We'd still have to wait 50 years to see any effect of this reduction, as the carbon we put into the atmosphere today would only just be starting to get removed.


Still not scared.

That's because you don't know much about the issue.

There will be water shortages in many of the world's major cities. Storms will be more frequent and more violent. And so on and so on
Demand creates water shortages not heat. As a matter of fact heat creates more rainfall. Where does it rain the most. The warmest parts of the world.

The violence of storms is linked to the differential in energy of various system. There is little evidence that that differential will increase. It may well decrease.

Please some tell me why we fear climate change. I have not heard "Runaway green house" for years but its still seems to be the backbone of climate change fear mongering.

Change presents opportunity. The glass is half full.

As a child I was taught to fear nuclear war, then as the walls came down, global cooling, now global warming. Predictions in the mid 90's lead us all to believe we would be stuffed by now.

Please someone tell me what to fear as apathy, coupled with boundless optimism has given me no reason the reduce my consumption.

REPLY: Oh , I do not know why. Keep thinking those happy thoughts. fellowtraveler

Demand creates water shortages not heat.

Tell that to the inhabitants of Perth, Sydney and Melbourne, for starters. Water shortages are happening right now due to increased heat. Southern Australia has now been in a state of drought for almost a decade. The only thing is that this drought won't go away because it is affected by global warming.


As a matter of fact heat creates more rainfall. Where does it rain the most. The warmest parts of the world.

Go and look up how much rain the Sahara desert gets.

In general, global warming will create more rain. But as I said before, it won't be at the right times or in the right places.


The violence of storms is linked to the differential in energy of various system. There is little evidence that that differential will increase. It may well decrease.

No. Storms are driven by heat. More heat means storms become more powerful. Why do you think that hurricanes start over warm water?

There's nowhere to move it to. For example, the southwest corner of Western Australia is one of the nation's leading producers of wheat. With global warming, that wheat could be grown further south. The only problem is that there's no land further south until you hit Antarctica. So, Australia's wheat production is being pushed into the sea.
Ohh your a fellow sandgroper. The greatest threat to WA's wheat production is salinity not climate change. BTW current GW predictions say that the SW of WA will become wetter and that in turn will lead to increased production. Also wheat production has been on a steady increase in WA for many years.


No. It's proven. It's already happening. Many species have already disappeared due directly to global warming.
Ohh you mean not due to habit destruction. Name a few


Climate change results in habitat destruction.
Only where there is no room to move. Poor spotted bandicoot ill miss you so...


No. Already heat exhaustion is a major cause of death even in advanced countries such as the United States.
Major cause????? Come now lets not make up facts. Does global warming make us fat and unhealthy. Thought that had something to do with all that wheat and beef we eat.


No. The change is pretty obvious. Also, suppose we cut all carbon emissions tomorrow. We'd still have to wait 50 years to see any effect of this reduction, as the carbon we put into the atmosphere today would only just be starting to get removed.
I do not deny it will get warmer.

Still not scared..

Ohh your a fellow sandgroper.

Nope.


The greatest threat to WA's wheat production is salinity not climate change.

Not so fast!

What happened in WA was that land was cleared of native vegetation to produce wheat. That was fine for quite a while until rainfall started to increase due to global warming. Then, rain was falling at times when there was no wheat planted. With no vegetation to soak up the water, the rain percolated through to the level of the crystalline salt, causing it to dissolve and rise towards the surface.

So you see. The salinity problem is a direct consequence of warming.


BTW current GW predictions say that the SW of WA will become wetter and that in turn will lead to increased production.

Where can I read about that?


Also wheat production has been on a steady increase in WA for many years.

Has it? Are you sure?


Ohh you mean not due to habit destruction. Name a few

Habitat destruction results from climate change in some instances. As for providing you with a list, I can't be bothered. Go look for yourself. Such information isn't hard to find.


Major cause????? Come now lets not make up facts. Does global warming make us fat and unhealthy. Thought that had something to do with all that wheat and beef we eat.

I said a major cause, not the major cause.

Still no fear..

At least when I was young there was direct, imminent AND legitimate fear of nuclear holocaust. This global warming fear mongering is nothing compared to that.

The only fear I have is the economic down turn caused by knee jerk governmental reactions to poorly understood perceived threats.

Come on people I need something to fear from global warming to make me feel I should vote for a government that will destroy our standard of living.


I can't be bothered. Go look for yourself. Such information isn't hard to find.
Take your own advice my friend..

Please some tell me why we fear climate change. I have not heard "Runaway green house" for years but its still seems to be the backbone of climate change fear mongering.

Change presents opportunity. The glass is half full.

As a child I was taught to fear nuclear war, then as the walls came down, global cooling, now global warming. Predictions in the mid 90's lead us all to believe we would be stuffed by now.

Please someone tell me what to fear as apathy, coupled with boundless optimism has given me no reason the reduce my consumption.

We should fear some of the drastic gradual changes of climate change, like natural global warmings and coolings that can effect people's lives. What I fear even more is people that take advantage of this fact and try to place the blame on humans instead, so they can turn around and control human lives more.

Come now "destroy agriculture..." NO. We simply change or move it. Its not like it happens over night. If it happens in only a couple of hundred years, it might as well be overnight.

Suppose the warmup is rapid, as feared and predicted:

The rice fields in the river deltas of Asia, that currently feed a high proportion of the large populations there, will flood with salt water and grow no more rice. New deltas will take thousands of years to form, upstream on smaller areas.

The temperate zone corn belt will dry out in the south, move north - but there is no rich mollosoil under the pine trees and peat bogs of the north, and it will take hundreds, maybe thousands, of years to form any. The sunlight regime is not the same, either.

The glaciers currently irrigating much farmland will vanish. Rivers will shrink and water tables recede, while the rain that does fall will fall in harder storms, increasing erosion and runoff and decreasing the percentage recharging the aquifers. Meanwhile the evapotranspiration deficit experienced by most crops will increase, sharply increasing the demand for irrigation and soil water even as the supply shrinks.

The growing seasons and best farming practices in msot places will change, and it will take time to adapt to new crops, new weather patterns. Adding to the difficulty, the changes will be unstable in the transition, leading to wild swings in the weather and crop failures scattered. Both deserts and bogs will expand, as the absent rains of some places fall all together on others.

The higher demand for irrigation with faster evaporation will cause more salting of irrigated fields. Diseases and pests currently restricted by cold weather will spread. Diseases and pests currently adapted to cold weather will find easier prey in the struggling plants of the northern farms. Trees and perennials will suffer in place.

And so forth.

Oh no should I fear starvation. World wide food production continues to grow despite global warming.

I fear bad agricultural practices more then global warming, it is the greatest threat to food production world wide including in developed countries.

I will agree that glacial run off will decline and will make water supplies spasmodic rather then gradual. This simply requires better water management. Water management around the world is atrocious and has alot of room for improvement via relatively cheap and simple methods.

Once again i hear the fallacy that global warming will increase storm intensity. Where does this come from? There is absolutely no proof. Storm intensity is a factor of energy differential not heat. The total amount of energy delivered by the sun is mostly constant, and the greater the green house effect the more uniform the world wide temperatures.

Come on scare me.. If you can.

Once again i hear the fallacy that global warming will increase storm intensity. Where does this come from? You are thinking windspeed, probably (and in error, probably). The more intense rainfall is a predicted consequence of warmer air retaining more water vapor, while the cooling effect of geographical rise remains the same - leading to less rain over areas without much geographical relief or the wrong wind patterns, and in consequence heavier rainfall per storm in areas with the necessary uplift at the occasional times of abetting wind.

Not what the farmers would prefer.

Oh no should I fear starvation. World wide food production continues to grow despite global warming. Like the guy said as he fell past the twentieth floor: "So far, so good".

You might be right. If the Chinese can figure out how to grow rice in salt water, maybe the world's largest pile of cash and the world's largest supply of engineers and factory labor and the world's best secured supply of industrial resources will not join forces with the world's largest supply of unmarried military aged men to see about getting some more food from somewhere.

The more intense rainfall is a predicted consequence of warmer air retaining more water vapor,
so far OK

while the cooling effect of geographical rise remains the same - leading to less rain over areas without much geographical relief or the wrong wind patterns, and in consequence heavier rainfall per storm in areas with the necessary uplift at the occasional times of abetting wind.
???

Your sort of right. Rain fall patterns are a little more complex then that. Something for another thread.

I will agree that there will be more flooding and more rain over more areas. Basically the tropics will move out from the equator. I see this as a good thing apart from the flooding.

So instead of holding us all back lets move people away from the flooding danger zones, build dams to manage flows and utilize all this extra water to irrigate and produce power.

So far the greatest fear is flooding. Yet that is offset by greater fresh water supplies. Lucky I'm a good swimmer..

....

Oh no should I fear starvation. World wide food production continues to grow despite global warming.

I would have phrased this a little different;

"Oh no should I fear starvation. World wide food production continues to grow because of global warming."

Please some tell me why we fear climate change. I have not heard "Runaway green house" for years but its still seems to be the backbone of climate change fear mongering.

Change presents opportunity. The glass is half full.

As a child I was taught to fear nuclear war, then as the walls came down, global cooling, now global warming. Predictions in the mid 90's lead us all to believe we would be stuffed by now.

Please someone tell me what to fear as apathy, coupled with boundless optimism has given me no reason the reduce my consumption.

fucking with nature doesn't end well.

The only fear I have is the economic down turn caused by knee jerk governmental reactions to poorly understood perceived threats.

Responding to climate change needn't cause an economic downturn. Like you said earlier, it's an opportunity.


Come on people I need something to fear from global warming to make me feel I should vote for a government that will destroy our standard of living.

Global warming will have a greater effect on your standard of living if your government does nothing.


Oh no should I fear starvation. World wide food production continues to grow despite global warming.

So far... This is only the beginning.


Once again i hear the fallacy that global warming will increase storm intensity. Where does this come from?

I explained it to you before. Heat drives storms; it's a form of energy.


The total amount of energy delivered by the sun is mostly constant, and the greater the green house effect the more uniform the world wide temperatures.

The sun does not deliver energy equally over the Earth's surface. That is the reason why weather patterns exist in the first place. The greenhouse effect will not result in more uniform temperatures, either.

So far the greatest fear is flooding. Yet that is offset by greater fresh water supplies. You mistake the matter, at least in the more common predictions.

More water vapor in the air does not necessarily mean widespread rain, as the warmer air better holds it as gas (and sucks more out of the soil and plants). It takes more to shake it out, and places not blessed with mountains or fortunate locations in places of global updraft and the like suffer drought. Australia may be very hard hit, for example.


Places with the requisite geography get all of it, and suffer episodic deluge.

Neither is ideal farming weather.

The tropics deal very well with heavy rain fall.

Still no fear. I guess that the only thing to fear is change. 10 years for humanity is a long time. 100 years is an eternity. We are adaptable, we can live in the harshest environments the Earth provides.

Water can be pumped across continents, barren soils can be made fertile. The huge variate of crops at our disposal allows us to produce something in most climates. All we need is warmth and sunlight.

Don't let GW fear mongering hinder human growth.

The tropics deal very well with heavy rain fall. In places. And the deserts deal very well with drought.

Agriculture is what feeds people.



Water can be pumped across continents, barren soils can be made fertile. Not realistically - most of that has been done, to the extent feasible.

The people currently restoring fertility to degraded farmland in the Appalachian Mountains of North America report (Wendell Berry is a decent and widely accessible source of informative anecdote) that it seems to be taking about fifty years, as a rule of thumb, if the damage is not too severe. Of course only limited research has been done - so perhaps after we begin to investigate and try ideas, in a couple of decades we can find ways of speeding things up.

Perhaps the CO2 effects will not be too rapid or severe. That's certainly possible: we could be lucky.

The individuals pushing for CO2 reduction mandates are the same ones who pushed to outlaw DDT and in doing so are responsible for millions of malaria related deaths. Stop screwing up the world by trying to save it.

Guilt by association? There is no scientific basis for the comparison. DDT was a definite problem and that's a fact.

Same ideology, and millions of human deaths is more of a problem than a few thin egg shells.

Same ideology, and millions of human deaths is more of a problem than a few thin egg shells.

And of course you understand that 'A few thin eggshells' wasn't the [i]only['i] problem that DDT caused (even then, and as I understand it, it was the widespread indiscriminant use that caused the problem - Got a moth problem? Hose your clothes down with DDT).

Good point...now go explain that to all the dead people

Good point...now go explain that to all the dead people

You really are that ignorant aren't you?

The use of DDT was never fully banned.

Under the Stockholm Convention it was/is only the agricultural use of DDT that was banned, even then some countries choose to ignore that.

The use of DDT for vector control, which is what you're talking about was never banned. There's been nothing (legality wise) stopping people from using DDT to control malaria, in fact, the lack of reasonable alternatives to DDT for malaria control was one of the main reasons that the use of DDT for vector control has been continued to be allowed.

The individuals pushing for CO2 reduction mandates are the same ones who pushed to outlaw DDT and in doing so are responsible for millions of malaria related deaths. Stop screwing up the world by trying to save it.

Seeing as you're so concerned about malaria, you'll be lobbying for action on climate change, I'm sure.

Take New Guinea, for one example. There, the lowland forest areas are malaria ridden, so that essentially nobody lives there. Higher up the mountains, there are currently thriving communities. But as the globe warms, conditions for malaria mosquitos become favourable at the higher elevations.

Hence, by doing nothing on climate change, you are condemning a large proportion of the inhabitants of the New Guinea highlands to annihilation from malaria - exactly the kind of thing you say should not be done.

Oh no... Arrrhhh run for the hills... Not according to James for you'll all be ANNIHILATED. Strong words James.:rolleyes:

Lets put this is some perspective. Leading cause of preventable death world wide, road traffic accidents. Over 10 million people since 1999 DEAD, 200 million injured costing us trillions.

So with in your face synergy, lets ban cars. GW scare mongers get their emission cuts in one fell swoop, and humanitarians get to save countless lives.

Not going to happen. Knowing the risk I gladly get in my car and drive. Gee just sitting in a parked car is dangerous.

GW activists claim to have a humanitarian agenda, or are they all on some mix up environmental band wagon???:shrug:

Why fear something that we can do nothing about?

The individuals pushing for CO2 reduction mandates are the same ones who pushed to outlaw DDT and in doing so are responsible for millions of malaria related deaths. Stop screwing up the world by trying to save it.

Overuse of DDT for agricultural purposes caused insect populations to become resistant, greatly decreasing it's effectiveness in controlling mosquito populations.

Why fear something that we can do nothing about?

I'd love to hear you say that if it were discovered that a very large asteroid were on a collision course with Earth. "Hey, it will devastate the biosphere, and cause the extinction of just about all animal life, but we cannot stop an asteroid, so why sweat the little things?"

There are a couple of thousand million people living in Asia (Bangladesh to give one example) that are in very serious trouble with even a minor increase in sea level. Should the cause of the projected rise turn out to be wholly natural, it would be of little comfort to these people.

Oh no... Arrrhhh run for the hills... Not according to James for you'll all be ANNIHILATED.

No. Just the inhabitants of the New Guinea highlands. Like I said. That's if they don't become climate change refugees like millions of others will, of course.


Lets put this is some perspective. Leading cause of preventable death world wide, road traffic accidents. Over 10 million people since 1999 DEAD, 200 million injured costing us trillions.

So with in your face synergy, lets ban cars. GW scare mongers get their emission cuts in one fell swoop, and humanitarians get to save countless lives.

Certainly I agree with you that we should reduce our reliance on cars. Good suggestion.


Not going to happen. Knowing the risk I gladly get in my car and drive. Gee just sitting in a parked car is dangerous.

We've already established that you lack a common sense reaction to danger that most people have.


GW activists claim to have a humanitarian agenda, or are they all on some mix up environmental band wagon???:shrug:

It's one and the same (apart from the "mixed up" part).


Why fear something that we can do nothing about?

We can do something about climate change. We can limit its extent.

I note that you are afraid to debate me on the reality of climate change.

Overuse of DDT for agricultural purposes caused insect populations to become resistant, greatly decreasing it's effectiveness in controlling mosquito populations.

It is improper use that caused this to happen.

DDT reduced the cases of malaria in India from millions to double digits per year.

Then came the Silent Spring shit and the "need to save money". DDT treatment was halted.

When the authorities saw malaria on the rebound, they realized they screwed up and reimplemented the program. By then they were too late.

Please some tell me why we fear climate change. I have not heard "Runaway green house" for years but its still seems to be the backbone of climate change fear mongering.

Change presents opportunity. The glass is half full.

As a child I was taught to fear nuclear war, then as the walls came down, global cooling, now global warming. Predictions in the mid 90's lead us all to believe we would be stuffed by now.

Please someone tell me what to fear as apathy, coupled with boundless optimism has given me no reason the reduce my consumption.

I agree. Nothing to fear, life goes on.
However awareness is always good, so if we really knew what was happening we might prepare to adapt to the change if need be.
Personally, I just think governments like to use scare tatics to keep people in line, it's a bit out played and kinda sad.

Even if changes are inevitable, I doubt we caused them, the world has went through many changes in the past, and it will go through many more in the future.

To be honest, a common threat might be the only thing that pulls us all together anyway, so maybe a natural or supernatural threat can actually be good for humanity in the long run (assuming we overcome the threat of coarse ;)).

Storms will be more frequent and more violent. And so on and so on.


This is a very dangerous line of thought, because it distracts the world from the more pressing issue of how to deal with disasters.

Take for example An Inconvinient Truth. There is this scene where Al Gore shows his sob face with the Katrina disaster playing in the background.

The message implied is clear. Global warming/climate change caused this disaster. Hundreds of people died because of that. Fighting climate change is therefore urgent and important.

But think a moment. Is preventing climate change the key to preventing those deaths from happening again?

Consider Katrina, a cat 3 storm when it hit. At places where most people died, the storm was somewhere between cat 2-3, or thereabouts. 700 people died.

Compare this to Taiwan. Every year they get storms, often cat 3, occassionally higher. Yet each time only a handful of people died. 20 is a high number, usually about 10.

So why are severe storms less destructive for Taiwan? Simply because they learnt to deal with it. They maintain good drainage, flood control, take safety measures, etc. In contrast, New Orleans was ill-prepared for the disaster

It is actions like this that will save lives and property the next time a disaster hits. Yet climate scientists only seek to further their own cause by using this incident to showcase the effects of climate change.

In the end, lets face it. Learning and spending resources to deal with disasters saves lives. Wasting resources fighting climate change wouldn't.

It is improper use that caused this to happen.

DDT reduced the cases of malaria in India from millions to double digits per year.

Then came the Silent Spring shit and the "need to save money". DDT treatment was halted.

When the authorities saw malaria on the rebound, they realized they screwed up and reimplemented the program. By then they were too late.

BS.
DDT was never completely banned, only it's agricultural use was, it's use for controling disease vectors was still permitted under the Stockholm Convention.

Obviously you're completely ignorant of the effects its impurities had and have on people, as well as the other problems associated with organochlorines, and persistant organic pollutants.

Not bs. That was what happened.

"When it was first introduced in World War II, DDT was very effective in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality. The WHO's anti-malaria campaign, which consisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially very successful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. The country resumed DDT spraying, but it was largely ineffective because mosquitoes had acquired resistance to the chemical in the interim, presumably because of its continued use in agriculture. The program was forced to switch to malathion, which though more expensive, proved effective."

from wiki

Malaria mosquitos became resistant because of the halt. If the program had persisted things would have became better for India.

Got a moth problem? Hose your clothes down with DDT.

That is a very good idea. DDT is actually safe enough to eat, provided not in large quantities.

Problem is DDT is not readily available anymore, at least where i am.

Certainly I agree with you that we should reduce our reliance on cars. Good suggestion.

It's one and the same (apart from the "mixed up" part).

We can do something about climate change. We can limit its extent.

This leads me to the point of this thread. Which is the greater peril. GW or econimic depression.

If GW activists had their way we would be plunged headlong into the greatest depression of all time. The great depression would look like an all you could eat smörgåsbord.

Human society requires growth. Unfortunate but true. We can not stop growth, we can not ban children, we can not abate the human desire for comfort, health, and long life.

Lets get real and concentrate on how we are to adapt to a changing world. Put in place strategies to help those that will be adversely effected by climate change.

Increasing TAX, limiting growth will not help society. Times are good why mess it up because we fear something we don't understand. Kyoto was a joke, Copenhagen even greater.

There has never been a light at the end of the tunnel of human growth lets not make it darker. Live for now not for an unknown future. IMHO:D

Not bs. That was what happened.

"When it was first introduced in World War II, DDT was very effective in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality. The WHO's anti-malaria campaign, which consisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially very successful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. The country resumed DDT spraying, but it was largely ineffective because mosquitoes had acquired resistance to the chemical in the interim, presumably because of its continued use in agriculture. The program was forced to switch to malathion, which though more expensive, proved effective."

from wiki

Malaria mosquitos became resistant because of the halt. If the program had persisted things would have became better for India.

No, according to the information that you linked to, DDT's continued agricultural use is the suspected cause of mosquito resistance to DDT.

Wrong. If you want to totally erradicate a species, you go all out to destroy it. You don't do a half-hearted attempt, stop, let them adapt and develop resistance, then continue again.

If India continued the use to erradicate malaria, at the same time use it for agricultural, there was a chance they could have established a malaria-free zone. But they messed it up.

Not bs. That was what happened.

"When it was first introduced in World War II, DDT was very effective in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality. The WHO's anti-malaria campaign, which consisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially very successful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. The country resumed DDT spraying, but it was largely ineffective because mosquitoes had acquired resistance to the chemical in the interim, presumably because of its continued use in agriculture. The program was forced to switch to malathion, which though more expensive, proved effective."

from wiki

Malaria mosquitos became resistant because of the halt. If the program had persisted things would have became better for India.
Absolut BS.

From the segment you posted:

The country resumed DDT spraying, but it was largely ineffective because mosquitoes had acquired resistance to the chemical in the interim, presumably because of its continued use in agriculture.
Even had the continued spraying, the mosquitoes would still have gained resistance, and the population qould still have rebounded.

Tell me, how many of those deaths do you think were caused by DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes?

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

All i can see is 3,000,000-29 cases of malaria prevented.

Wrong. If you want to totally erradicate a species, you go all out to destroy it. You don't do a half-hearted attempt, stop, let them adapt and develop resistance, then continue again.

If India continued the use to erradicate malaria, at the same time use it for agricultural, there was a chance they could have established a malaria-free zone. But they messed it up.

Where was unlimited use of DDT able to make mosquitoes extinct?

In any case, I'm sure the world will continue to focus on climate change. Which, to tell the truth, is good for me.

Where i am, it is so easy to get government funding if you pretend to be doing anything related to to fight climate change.

Sure, over here all the scientists pay lip service to the urgent need to fight climate change, but over lunch our opinion is that this is all bullshit. We're only in this for the jobs and money. If the US decides to spend big money on alternative energy technologies, we want a piece of it too.

Ever heard of the fuel cells fiasco? We managed to pass it off as clean alternative energy. Made big promises, got alot of money. Nothing came out of it. This year Obama scrapped fuel cell research. The money that trickled down to where we are is essentially zero. Fuel cell research here is halted.

No matter, we will move on to the next big thing. Long live climate change.

That is a very good idea. DDT is actually safe enough to eat, provided not in large quantities.

Problem is DDT is not readily available anymore, at least where i am.

Right...

Which is why WHO has it listed as "Moderatly Hazardous" and the NTP has it listed as "Moderately Toxic".

But by all means, if you think you know best, go right ahead and knock back a big glassfull, and let us know how that goes for you.

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

All i can see is 3,000,000-29 cases of malaria prevented.

Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making.

Where was unlimited use of DDT able to make mosquitoes extinct?

ho ho ho. Of course, unlimited use of DDT will make mosquitoes go extinct. So will everything else.

Don't believe? Get a huge tank of DDT. Then immerse yourself in it until you drown. That is unlimited DDT for you.

Come on, be reasonable. Whoever advocated the use of "unlimited" DDT?

The idea of a malaria-free zone is also nothing more than an ideal. Now and then, we still do get cases of malaria popping up in these zones, but the numbers are small and easily controlled. By then you don't use DDT anymore, because other less intensive, small-scale measures now work better.

Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making.

No, i understood your point perfectly. Your point is you refuse to accept the extent of benefits DDT bring and instead focus on are the disadvantages of DDT, which, in comparison to the number of lives saved, is mostly insignificant.

And i noted you avoided providing an answer to your own question too,

ho ho ho. Of course, unlimited use of DDT will make mosquitoes go extinct. So will everything else.

Don't believe? Get a huge tank of DDT. Then immerse yourself in it until you drown. That is unlimited DDT for you.

Come on, be reasonable. Whoever advocated the use of "unlimited" DDT?

The idea of a malaria-free zone is also nothing more than an ideal. Now and then, we still do get cases of malaria popping up in these zones, but the numbers are small and easily controlled. By then you don't use DDT anymore, because other less intensive, small-scale measures now work better.

The answer is nowhere. Massive amounts of DDT were used all over the world from the 1940s through the 1970s. Many insect pest species were greatly reduced, but so were many beneficial species. But the species generally regarded as pests rebounded, and were selected for resistance very quickly. DDT was no more capable of eliminating pest species of insects than antibiotics are capable of exterminating pathological bacteria.

No, i understood your point perfectly. Your point is you refuse to accept the extent of benefits DDT bring and instead focus on are the disadvantages of DDT, which, in comparison to the number of lives saved, is mostly insignificant.

And i noted you avoided providing an answer to your own question too,

The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you.

You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it.

The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you.

You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it.

Hold on, you are becoming incoherent. All i claimed is DDT is safe enough to eat.

Your original question :
"Tell me, how many of those deaths do you think were caused by DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes?"

I said i don't know, why don't you tell me, to which you replied

"Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making. "

To which i said you avoided your own question, and you said

"The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you."

Lets be clear. I never made any claims on anything to do with "DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes". All i did was show the drastic decrease of malaria cases. You are the one who, all of a sudden, brought up this point in your question, and now you want to shift the burden of proof to me.

You want to prove a point about how DDT kill predatory insects that may prevent malaria, and in the process cause deaths, you do your own homework.

But please note, those predatory insects had their chance before DDT came along, and you get millions of malaria cases a year. Just sayin.

And your original question is now changed to
"You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it"

Ok, lets forget about you initial question, since you probably do not know.

But I did claim DDT is safe enough to eat. If you require proof of that, just think back to the days when DDT was in widespread use in the US. Everyone was eating it.

In any case, the bottom line for DDT is this:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html

In 2006, WHO reverts back to use of DDT.

"IRS (indoor residual spraying) has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”

"We must take a position based on the science and the data. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”

“Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, we can put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”

Arch_Rival:


It is actions like this that will save lives and property the next time a disaster hits. Yet climate scientists only seek to further their own cause by using this incident to showcase the effects of climate change.

You're conflating separate issues. Of course cities need to prepare properly for forseeable disasters. No climate scientist disputes that. But preparing for disaster on its own will nothing to address the underlying problem. It's a very simple point.


Blindman:


This leads me to the point of this thread. Which is the greater peril. GW or econimic depression.

If GW activists had their way we would be plunged headlong into the greatest depression of all time.

I don't think you've managed to get one basic fact right in this thread yet. Isn't it time you did a little research? You're making yourself look like a bit of a fool, unfortunately.

Addressing climate change won't cause an economic depression. One analysis I saw recently for England, for example, suggested that addressing climate change would make England reach the same standard of living at 2052 that it would otherwise have had at 2050. The percentage of GNP that would need to be dedicated to combating climate change is tiny.

Hold on, you are becoming incoherent. All i claimed is DDT is safe enough to eat.

Your original question :
"Tell me, how many of those deaths do you think were caused by DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes?"

I said i don't know, why don't you tell me, to which you replied

"Good way of avoiding answering the question there, while at the same time, demonstrating that you haven't understood the point that I was making. "

To which i said you avoided your own question, and you said

"The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you."

Lets be clear. I never made any claims on anything to do with "DDT killing of things that pedate, or compete with mosquitoes". All i did was show the drastic decrease of malaria cases. You are the one who, all of a sudden, brought up this point in your question, and now you want to shift the burden of proof to me.

You want to prove a point about how DDT kill predatory insects that may prevent malaria, and in the process cause deaths, you do your own homework.

But please note, those predatory insects had their chance before DDT came along, and you get millions of malaria cases a year. Just sayin.

And your original question is now changed to
"You're the one claiming that DDT is safe, prove it"

Ok, lets forget about you initial question, since you probably do not know.

But I did claim DDT is safe enough to eat. If you require proof of that, just think back to the days when DDT was in widespread use in the US. Everyone was eating it.

Thanks for that - I needed the laugh.

No problem. I find our exchange quite entertaining. You want more laughs? Plenty where that came from.

We recently inked a deal with a development company. Modeling climate change for them in a built-up bay area.

Morons don't know modeling a 16kmx16km area of land and water does not equal climate change. The results will be fudgy at best.

But those dudes couldn't care. They get some government money for showing they pay attention to climate details and the living environment. And they are willing to pass some 200k to us over 3 years.

We're laughing all the way to the bank.

Climate change could happen! We must pass laws to avoid it!

We might get attacked by glitter unicorns! We must pass laws to avoid this as well!

If anything could ever happen EVER we must pass a law NOW to avoid it! (regardless if the "science" is currently being debated about the subject)

This leads me to the point of this thread. Which is the greater peril. GW or econimic depression.

If GW activists had their way we would be plunged headlong into the greatest depression of all time. The great depression would look like an all you could eat smörgåsbord.

Human society requires growth. Unfortunate but true. We can not stop growth, we can not ban children, we can not abate the human desire for comfort, health, and long life.

Lets get real and concentrate on how we are to adapt to a changing world. Put in place strategies to help those that will be adversely effected by climate change.

Increasing TAX, limiting growth will not help society. Times are good why mess it up because we fear something we don't understand. Kyoto was a joke, Copenhagen even greater.

There has never been a light at the end of the tunnel of human growth lets not make it darker. Live for now not for an unknown future. IMHO:D

It will indeed help society to find a new economy based on renewable and environmentally friendly energy. We are heading to a tipping point with peak oil. We can prepare for the twin diasters of peak oil and global warming or we can sleepwalk into our doom. Your choice.

We are heading towards a tipping point indeed. Look at the polls today; more and more people believe climate fluctuations are due to natural occurrences. The climate propaganda has reached its peak and is losing support fast. Your lie is exposed. Time to find a new theater for your proposed socialism.

Hold on, you are becoming incoherent. All i claimed is DDT is safe enough to eat. It's an estrogen mimic that accumulates and persists in fat, concentrating low doses into high load levels given continual consumption. Such as in all the upper level predators you might eat - say, fish - or domestic meat animals fed residue in sprayed crops. And subsequently, in ever increasing concentrations, in your breasts, the fat around your internal organs, your bone marrow, etc.

As an estrogen mimic, it does not duplicate all of the hormonal effects - just some of them, and not quite correctly. Bit of a crap shoot, there. If you have testicular cancer, it might do you good.

But as you say, it's "safe" to eat - so are your girlfriend's birth control pills. She in fact eats them. They don't accumulate in her fat, would be one possibly significant difference, but they won't kill you or make you immediately sick.

Bon appetit.


Time to find a new theater for your proposed socialism. If you think regulating carbon emission is socialism, wait 'til you see what has to be done to handle the consequences of a 2C greenhouse warming.

Climate change could happen! We must pass laws to avoid it!

We might get attacked by glitter unicorns! We must pass laws to avoid this as well!

Ahem.

The evidence for climate change is just a little stronger than the evidence for glitter unicorns. Trust me on this.

The argument could be made:

There is a climate email scandal. No unicorn email scandal.

Current climate debate. No unicorn debate.

Contradicting climate studies. No contradiction concerning unicorns.

Therefore: The scientific community is in more agreement about unicorns than climate change.

The e-mail scandal would be significant if it encompased the entire body of evidence for global warming, which goes back to the 70's. It does not.

The scientific debate is largely over, the only reason people stil vehemently deny it is because as soon as the phenomenon was known, industry started to be scared that maybe the governments of the world would want to do something about it, which threatened their incomes. This is an understandable worry, but it has nothing to do with the science. Instead of coming to terms with the situtation, the response of industry was to hire people to counter the message. Inside communications from political craftsmen like Frank Luntz reveal the scandalous way in which they both admit the facts, and cynically craft their response to undermine legitimate scientific conclusions.

Typical liberal response: Caught in a farce? Deny facts and blame everything on a conspiracy from the evil corporations!

Which fact am I denying? The recent e-mail scandal is significant with regard to that one institution. You are the one suggesting a conspiracy among all climate scientists, an unreasonable extrapolation.

On the other hand, we have evidence that the Republican administration did collude to undermine the science in the eyes of the public in order to further their pro-corporate platform. I have nothing against corporations, I am employed by one. I just don't want political motivations to undermine good science.

Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange)


"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.

The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".

How about that for a conspiracy? This memo is scandalous!

As I do not want bad science to dictate politcal policy. If climate change is really to be looked at honestly, and accepted as honest science by society, it needs to start over from scratch.

How so? The historical temperature records cannot be redone, even if there were a need to do so, which there isn't.

There is a need, but it is not the reason you are thinking. The polls show dropping support for climate change. There was an email scandal. Scientists continue to argue vehemently with each other. Political leaders cannot agree. When you have all of this, and growing resistance, don't you think it would all go better if things were just halted for 2 seconds and a review of the science conducted? Or better yet, do a new study with technology we have now instead of relying on 30 year old nonexistent records. If the trust of the public on this issue is not attained quickly, they will always see it as a lie and do everything they can to resist it.

I'm sure you are trying your best to perpetuate the myth that there is something wrong with the science. Much of the data is based on things like tree rings, coral, and ice cores. The samples still exist, so I fail to understand what needs to be redone.

No. Im saying you are losing public support; climate change is looking like a lie. In order to reverse this you cannot keep pointing at the same data and repeat "believe this." Statements and then retractions made by people like Gore do not help. Squabbling among scientists does not help. You have to have some unbiased new data to show and convince people.

Also ice cores show natural fluctuations which would prove temperature changes are natural.

Im guessing the tree rings you mentioned were the ones used by the U.N. for their climate change basis. From my understanding only a few trees were used which is not good science. When the rings of the same tree species were looked at in relation to current climate conditions, they did not match up very well either.

We don't redo the data collection aspect of scientific studies just because deniers have achieved a measure of success confusing the public.

Why would new data be treated any differently than the old data? The original goal of confusing and delaying public reaction would still be there.

Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy Of Climate Models (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080911150048.htm)


An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in climate.

Correlation does not equal causation buddy.

Also, tree ring issues?

Correlation does not equal causation buddy.

Also, tree ring issues?

No, but it does not preclude causation either, for example there is a high correlation between auto accidents and driving while intoxicated.

Correlation when coupled with other data as is the case with climate warming, can build a pretty conclusive case.

Correlation does not equal causation buddy.

Also, tree ring issues?

When other likely factors are discounted, then it does.

Stubbing my toe is correlated with yelling. So does that mean everytime I yell my foot hurts? No.

What other likely factors are discounted? Are you telling me that EVERY issue has been looked at and discounted as having anything to do with temperature?

and still...tree ring issue?

What's the tree ring issue? The tree rings support the other data.

This is a strange conversation, but typical of conservatives, Republicans, tea baggers, et al. They seem always to know the answer before they know the question and by God, ain't nothing gonna get between them and the already known answer. :) By God they are entitled to that answer no matter what :)

Correlation does not equal causation buddy.

Also, tree ring issues?

Correct.
However, you cannot have causation without correlation, and in this case correlation exists across many independent data sets AND a proven, solidly founded causal mechanism exists.

No. Im saying you are losing public support; climate change is looking like a lie. So when common sense and sound judgment on serious issues has been made to look like a lie by media propaganda, that is a good thing?

Correlation does not equal causation buddy. Correlation plus mechanism plus verified prediction plus superior explanatory power is worth considering as a "cause", though. Don't you think?

Some months back we had to write a proposal to study climate change. The proposal was presented to a goup of research management types who are not real scientists. If accepted, the proposal would guarantee jobs for the next couple of years.

In it we reproduced the pretty pictures of temperature data vs co2, similar to the one Al Gore showed.

We told them, clearly, the cause of temperature rise is due to co2. Therefore, we need to study the effects of co2 --> temperature rise --> effect on living environment.

The management were pleased. I don't mean to sound mean, but those guys are morons. They agreed with us simply because we are telling them what they already "know".

Later, during a break, one of our scientists asked one of the young management types what he thought of the fact temperature records show co2 lagging behind temperature.

The bombshell was he never heard of it before. He said this was the first he heard of it.

Later on after the meeting, we were sitting around having coffee making fun of the management morons. We agreed these are people who don't know anything, yet make the decisions and control the money.

A few weeks later, they approved our proposal. Except they wanted us to focus on more specific issues, like instead of studying the impact of living conditions in general, we should study the impact in a specific city.

A WIN for us.

:D:D

Arch_Rival:

You're conflating separate issues. Of course cities need to prepare properly for forseeable disasters. No climate scientist disputes that. But preparing for disaster on its own will nothing to address the underlying problem. It's a very simple point.



No these are not separate issues. Countries have finite resources. If you spend $X on fighting climate change you loose $X in studying and implementing preparatory measures.

Too much attention and resources is already given to fighting global warming. Look at Maldives. Their heads of state got so worked up they are convinced they will drown in rising sea levels.

"Whatever the outcome, it looks bad for us." This was what they said with regards to the failing Copenhagen talks.

They even went so far as to waste money organizing a state meeting underwater with full scuba gear. Sort of as a publicity stunt.

See, they are so bent on the idea fighting climate change is the solution to their problem, they neglect other cheaper, more feasible solutions.

Such as coastal landscaping and flood control. Studies have shown these methods usually take up on the order of 1% of gdp or less, yet preserve over 90% of land area. Yet these are options rarely heard about, considered, or debated.

But don't get me wrong. World governments are not stupid. If sea levels rise, they will eventually get round to these alternative solutions, but no one will ever admit these alternatives should be considered right from the start.

Some months back we had to write a proposal to study climate change. The proposal was presented to a goup of research management types who are not real scientists. If accepted, the proposal would guarantee jobs for the next couple of years.

In it we reproduced the pretty pictures of temperature data vs co2, similar to the one Al Gore showed.

We told them, clearly, the cause of temperature rise is due to co2. Therefore, we need to study the effects of co2 --> temperature rise --> effect on living environment.

The management were pleased. I don't mean to sound mean, but those guys are morons. They agreed with us simply because we are telling them what they already "know".

Later, during a break, one of our scientists asked one of the young management types what he thought of the fact temperature records show co2 lagging behind temperature.

The bombshell was he never heard of it before. He said this was the first he heard of it.

Later on after the meeting, we were sitting around having coffee making fun of the management morons. We agreed these are people who don't know anything, yet make the decisions and control the money.

A few weeks later, they approved our proposal. Except they wanted us to focus on more specific issues, like instead of studying the impact of living conditions in general, we should study the impact in a specific city.

A WIN for us.

:D:D
They aren't morons, they just never read or heard of the science behind it, and it seems you didn't bother to explain it, either. Nice job.

They aren't morons, they just never read or heard of the science behind it, and it seems you didn't bother to explain it, either. Nice job.

Yes, i agree we handled it quite well. We did get approval for the proposal, didn't we? And all we did was reinforce their common misconception of the facts.


:D:D

Come now "destroy agriculture..." NO. We simply change or move it. Its not like it happens over night.

We humans can turn arid desert into productive farm land.
Vast tracks of land are currently unsuited to agriculture, a warmer and wetter world will open these areas for cultivation.

Good soil has built up where there was warm weather and rain. Places that had rain may lose their rain and places that did not ave rain may get rain. The places with the good soil may become too dry. I sort of agree with you. Bad farming practices already made the good soil wash away and blow away so good soil is replaced by fertilizer which could be made and brought anywhere by the power of burning still yet more fossil fuels.

Modern man will be no more willing to give up their use of combustion than the Easter Islanders were willing to give up statue making so we should concentrate on global warming mitigation rather than stopping global warming.

It seems that we can not yet model where the rains will fall with global warming. A few degrees warmer may shift the rains to some new locations and then as global warming continues to get still yet warmer the rain locations may shift again to a third set of locations.

Will the rich nations do anything for Bangladesh or will poor India be forced to accept 50 million Bangladeshi refugees without any significant help from the rest of the world?

Will the USA invade Canada if Canadian crop land improves while American crop land deteriorates? Will China invade Russia to take Siberia. Already the war in Darfur is in large part a global warming caused war. There will be a lot of these wars as people scramble to adjust to the changing rains.

New Orleans/Katrina offers little hope that Florida will be successfully protected from rising oceans. The US government is just too corrupt and incompetent to handle the situation. Other nations governments and the UN are not any better than the US government. The world's poor will just have too die because nobody will help them. Siberian and Canadian land may improve but how are Darfuris supposed to get there? No big deal though biggest this population growth was not sustainable anyway. If global warming does not kill the poor population growth would have lead to the same sort of crisis on a larger scale before long anyway.

It would be nice if the worlds people could work together to end misery and create Utopia and our technology is advanced enough to create utopia but our politics and economics and lack of emotional sophistication are far too crude to allow us to use our technology to create Utopia.

Yes, i agree we handled it quite well. We did get approval for the proposal, didn't we? And all we did was reinforce their common misconception of the facts. And your own.

Your conception of the issue as a political one mostly, governed in its urgency and response by political forces without reference to judgments of physical reality, has been reinforced by your successful con job.

You are of course fooling yourself, in that manner. The foolish people you have conned can blame you - you have no such out.

btw: Who is more deluded in that situation: the person who has never heard of the history of CO2 increases initially leading lagging warming trends, or the person who thinks that casts doubt on estimations of the warming effects of the current CO2 boost? Are the confused less foolish than the ignorant?

And your own.

Your conception of the issue as a political one mostly, governed in its urgency and response by political forces without reference to judgments of physical reality, has been reinforced by your successful con job.

You are of course fooling yourself, in that manner. The foolish people you have conned can blame you - you have no such out.

btw: Who is more deluded in that situation: the person who has never heard of the history of CO2 increases initially leading warming trends, or the person who thinks that casts doubt on estimations of the warming effects of the current CO2 boost? Are the confused less foolish than the ignorant?

I'm now a conman? A very serious allegation.

But i'll let you explain, in your own words. In what way did I con those people? Did i tell these people any untruths? If so, what?

Already the war in Darfur is in large part a global warming caused war.

This is an ethnic war nothing to do with global warming.

When resources become tight, people split along ethnic lines.

The only way global warming has made it tight so far is the stupid economic vandalism initiated by deluded left wing environmentalists.

Did the left wing keep the rain from falling? They are more powerful than I thought!

But i'll let you explain, in your own words. In what way did I con those people? Did i tell these people any untruths? If so, what? You convinced some naive people that you believed something you did not believe, and were therefore a worthy recipient of moneys intended for those who did believe as you pretended.

In the course of that, you were pretending to an analytical competence you did not necessarily possess, of which that belief was taken (rightly or wrongly) as an indication.

Now you may in fact be competent in the manner desired, and your misrepresentation of yourself and the relevant issues was what the Jesuits call a "holy lie" - a lie told to communicate the truth. Or you may in fact be incompetent in fashion of many "denialists", unable to perceive even basic flaws or incoherencies in your objections to this global warming stuff. No way for those money pockets to tell.

You convinced some naive people that you believed something you did not believe, and were therefore a worthy recipient of moneys intended for those who did believe as you pretended.

In the course of that, you were pretending to an analytical competence you did not necessarily possess, of which that belief was taken (rightly or wrongly) as an indication.

Now you may in fact be competent in the manner desired, and your misrepresentation of yourself and the relevant issues was what the Jesuits call a "holy lie" - a lie told to communicate the truth. Or you may in fact be incompetent in fashion of many "denialists", unable to perceive even basic flaws or incoherencies in your objections to this global warming stuff. No way for those money pockets to tell.

Hold on, lets be clear where you are coming from.

Do you think we are competent in analysing the opinions and facts in literature related to climate change/global warming? Yes or no.

If you think we are incompetent, that means you think we made a mistake in our analysis of the facts/opinions in literature related to climate change/global warming. Tell me what that mistake is.

Did the left wing keep the rain from falling? They are more powerful than I thought!
So when ever there is a drought, to much rain, a cyclone, or a really nice day the first thing we do is blame global warming. There has been an endless list of extreme weather events through out human history, global warming has only just begun. :rolleyes:

Do you think we are competent in analysing the opinions and facts in literature related to climate change/global warming? Yes or no.

If you think we are incompetent, that means you think we made a mistake in our analysis of the facts/opinions in literature related to climate change/global warming. Tell me what that mistake is. Ihae no idea whether you are competent or not. (Your retailing of the "CO2 lags warming" irrelevancy and rightwing talking point argues against competence, but various motives are possible). I agreed with you that you were misrepresenting your opinions and evaluations, for the purpose of getting a contract.

Very good, first you insinuate we were trying to pretend to be competent when we are not.


In the course of that, you were pretending to an analytical competence you did not necessarily possess.


Your retailing of the "CO2 lags warming" irrelevancy and rightwing talking point argues against competence...

And now, when pointedly asked to clarify, you are suddenly no longer sure if we are really competent.



Ihae no idea whether you are competent or not.




ho ho ho. Lets go further. Why do you think my statement of co2 lagging warming argues against competence? How does that tie in to this earlier statement you made?


btw: Who is more deluded in that situation: the person who has never heard of the history of CO2 increases initially leading warming trends, or the person who thinks that casts doubt on estimations of the warming effects of the current CO2 boost?

Why do you suggest we, in making the statement about co2 lagging warming, are deluded?

btw, i think you made a mistake in the underlined portion. If not, please clarify.

btw, i think you made a mistake in the underlined portion. If not, please clarify. Yep. Mental glitch in the typing. Fixed.

Very good, first you insinuate we were trying to pretend to be competent when we are not. Initially, I had no opinion about your competence.

And now, when pointedly asked to clarify, you are suddenly no longer sure if we are really competent. You are exhibiting some symptoms of incomprehension, yes. Not definitive.


”Why do you suggest we, in making the statement about co2 lagging warming, are deluded? Not necessarily.

In the context of the validity of the fears about CO2 boosting, the choice is misunderstanding or misrepresentation. If you understand the situation, you know why CO2 lagging warming in the past doesn't mean much. In that case, why did you retail that kind of Fox News style talking point to anyone?

Iceaura and Arch Rival could you please move your argument to a separate thread or stay on subject. We are not debating the existence of global warming but rather how it will effect us in a negative way.

In the context of the validity of the fears about CO2 boosting, the choice is misunderstanding or misrepresentation. If you understand the situation, you know why CO2 lagging warming in the past doesn't mean much.

Ok. So you agree totally co2 lagged warming in the past. You essentially agree this is a fact, no argument about it.

So how did you think we misunderstood this fact?
Or how did you think we misrepresented this fact?

Those hockey-stick type of graphs that show temperature going back a thousand years have been used by many to indicate the rise in co2 causes a rise in temperature. If we neglect for a moment the data for the last 200 years or so, do you think in the past temperature rise is mostly driven by co2?

Iceaura and Arch Rival could you please move your argument to a separate thread or stay on subject. We are not debating the existence of global warming but rather how it will effect us in a negative way.

Ahh....apologies if i offended you in any way.

I wouldn't want you to think i haven't anything to contribute to your thread.

See, we shouldn't fear much about climate change.

What we should worry about are the effects of climate change.

Which, in my opinion, if considered and studied carefully, can be properly handled.

Take for example the common argument of death due to malaria. The mechanism works something like this: co2--> higher temperatures --> favours breeding of malaria-carrying mosquities --> more deaths due to malaria.

But think about this: are we going to spend billions of dollars to reduce co2 just to save malaria deaths?

People die of malaria not so much because of rising temperatures, but more due to the fact that they are mostly poor. They couldn't afford, or don't know, any measures to fight malaria.

Instead of worrying so much about rising temperatures/co2 levels, we could do better by spending more time, attention and money on providing mosquito nets, getting anti-malaria drugs, providing proper sanitation, educating the poor and erradicating poverty.

btw, iirc, anti-malarial drugs usually cost <US$1 per person per dose, or around there. Compare this with the amount of money thrown about at climate talks.

This is an example of how we can combat the effects of climate change rather than tackle climate change directly. Which, in my opinion, is more useful in saving lives and more effective in the use of resources.

We are not debating the existence of global warming but rather how it will effect us in a negative way We're not debating that either - you are simply denying any of the possibilities for disaster inherent in a rapid and unprecedented boost of the CO2 greenhouse influence.

You are not afraid of drought, sea level rise, large and sudden alterations in the circumstances of agriculture, ecology, or human endeavor, etc. All these are possibilities.

Instead of worrying so much about rising temperatures/co2 levels, we could do better by spending more time, attention and money on providing mosquito nets, getting anti-malaria drugs, providing proper sanitation, educating the poor and erradicating poverty.
Totally agree. A friend of mine died of malaria some years back in Indonesian.Lets fight the imminent threats rather then vague idealized threats.

Mind you I find it strange that many say that global warming will bring much drought yet still increase mosquito habitat.. ????


You are not afraid of drought, sea level rise, large and sudden alterations in the circumstances of agriculture, ecology, or human endeavor, etc. All these are possibilities. Possibilities as you say.. I could win Lotto and that would protect my family for a few generations from much of the worst that GW scare mongers push apon us. Possibilities....:D


We're not debating that either - you are simply denying any of the possibilities for disaster inherent in a rapid and unprecedented boost of the CO2 greenhouse influence.
Denying nothing, I just want to have some thing solid to fear.

Sea level rise. Gosh I just moved to Rockingham WA (coastal town in Western Australia) If we humans cant outrun 2mm a year we don't deserve to survive. The surface of the earth is a dynamic system. Some parts uplift at far greater rates, some subside. New Orleans sinks faster then sea levels rise. The Dutch love to reclaim the sea, they have no fear of rising sea levels even though they have vast tracks of land below sea level.

sudden alterations in the circumstances of agriculture
Most of the important crops of the world can be generated in less than a year. Give me water and power and I can grow anything anywhere.

Sudden in human terms is months or may be a year. We are not dumb animals.

Ok. So you agree totally co2 lagged warming in the past. You essentially agree this is a fact, no argument about it.

So how did you think we misunderstood this fact?
Or how did you think we misrepresented this fact?

On this point there's two ways of interpreting it.

1. Systematic error:
As I understand it, the lag shows up in two places, the Dome Fuji and Vostok ice cores. Snow falls, some of it melts, what's left behind the following year is called firn. Last years firn gets buried by this years firn, then next years, and so on and so forth, until it reaches a certain depth where it becomes ice. It's not until this point that the air pockets become completely sealed as air bubbles. This takes time, how much time it takes is dependent on the environmental conditions. What I had not realized until I looked at the raw data was how much time. At Dome Fuji it takes 2100-3100 years, at Vostok station it takes 4000-6000 years. This is important because it means that the gas bubbles in the ice are younger than the ice itself by this much, and the exact value varies, however, until this depth is reached, the air in the pockets is free to mix with the atmosphere, so, the possibility exists that the lag is simply a data artifact created by a systematic error in the models being used of the firn-ice transition depth over time.

2. So what?
People often bring up this point, but, the point itself does nothing to prove that CO2 is incapable of causing warming.

Most of the important crops of the world can be generated in less than a year. Give me water and power and I can grow anything anywhere. No, you can't. You can't, for example, replace the loss of the rice production in the river delta rice paddies of southern Asia, in real life, in anything like the time scale at which they would be destroyed by a one meter rise in sea level that takes place within one century.

You can't, in real life, replace the pasture and irrigated field production from the glacier fed rivers flowing from the Himalaya Mountains, if those glaciers cease to produce those rivers within 50 years.

You can't, in real life, replace the monsoon dependent agricultural production of the monsoon regions, if that weather pattern is radically altered within 25 years.

You can't even replace the loss of irrigation agriculture in the American West, if the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer is not replaceable by snowpack melt and glacial feed from the Rockies in the near future - never mind the rainfall agriculture currently producing the enormous surplus from the rich soils of the tallgrass prairie regions of the American Midwest, if the American West dries out to the extent it did in the hypsithermal after the most recent glaciation of North America.

and so forth.

Not that any of these disasters are certain - but they are all reasonable, midrange possibilities among the many created by the current boosting of CO2.

Any one of them would cost more than the replacement of all coal fired electrical generation by heat engine solar power using current, commercially available technology.

No, you can't. You can't, for example, replace the loss of the rice production in the river delta rice paddies of southern Asia, in real life, in anything like the time scale at which they would be destroyed by a one meter rise in sea level that takes place within one century.

You can't, in real life, replace the pasture and irrigated field production from the glacier fed rivers flowing from the Himalaya Mountains, if those glaciers cease to produce those rivers within 50 years.

You can't, in real life, replace the monsoon dependent agricultural production of the monsoon regions, if that weather pattern is radically altered within 25 years.

You can't even replace the loss of irrigation agriculture in the American West, if the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer is not replaceable by snowpack melt and glacial feed from the Rockies in the near future - never mind the rainfall agriculture currently producing the enormous surplus from the rich soils of the tallgrass prairie regions of the American Midwest, if the American West dries out to the extent it did in the hypsithermal after the most recent glaciation of North America.

and so forth.

Not that any of these disasters are certain - but they are all reasonable, midrange possibilities among the many created by the current boosting of CO2.

Any one of them would cost more than the replacement of all coal fired electrical generation by heat engine solar power using current, commercially available technology.
this of course assumes food must be grown or "produced" on land.
what happens when all of our food is produced in 3 or 4 factories?

this of course assumes food must be grown or "produced" on land.
what happens when all of our food is produced in 3 or 4 factories?

Are you living in some kind of fantasy?

What raw materials do you imagine will be used in these factories of yours?

Are you living in some kind of fantasy?
no, unless you wanna get all philosophical about it.


What raw materials do you imagine will be used in these factories of yours?
the elements themselves.
if our scientists put this stem cell research to the task i believe we can accomplish that.

Please some tell me why we fear climate change.

Because it introduces a survival pressure on the world that can outpace humanity's ability to adapt.



I have not heard "Runaway green house" for years but its still seems to be the backbone of climate change fear mongering.

Ignore the fear mongering or anything subjective.



Change presents opportunity. The glass is half full.

Some changes can present opportunity, others risk, and others both.



As a child I was taught to fear nuclear war, then as the walls came down, global cooling, now global warming. Predictions in the mid 90's lead us all to believe we would be stuffed by now.

I must have skipped that part of history.



Please someone tell me what to fear as apathy, coupled with boundless optimism has given me no reason the reduce my consumption.

Why do you need someone to tell you what to fear? What do your optimism and apathy have to do with anything? Are you looking for a reason to reduce your consumption?

and so forth.
Come now iceaura your such a pessimist. Look at the dutch example. IN the 15 century draining of mashes and bogs resulted in a 15meter drop in land levels to many meters below sea level. They had it under control by the 16 century. If we could do it back then its a snitch now.

Are you living in some kind of fantasy?

What raw materials do you imagine will be used in these factories of yours?
Europe produces a lot of its food in factories. Once again look at the dutch with tens of thousands of square km of green houses growing crops that could not be profitable in their climate.


I must have skipped that part of history.
Lucky you. The threat of nuclear war loomed large when I was young 70-80's. Nuclear winter and radiations perverse effects on life where taught as standard to young pre teens like me at the time. Global warming is a joke compared to the destruction we faced back then.

It is very evident that no one can put forth nothing but vague threats.

Why do you need someone to tell you what to fear? What do your optimism and apathy have to do with anything? Are you looking for a reason to reduce your consumption?
No just wondering if i should vote for a political party that wants to drive up the cost of living because of global warming. No way. Take your carbon credits and put it where the sun don't shine. Im not going to give my hard earned tax dollars to unknown or vague threats

On this point there's two ways of interpreting it.

1. Systematic error:
As I understand it, the lag shows up in two places, the Dome Fuji and Vostok ice cores. Snow falls, some of it melts, what's left behind the following year is called firn. Last years firn gets buried by this years firn, then next years, and so on and so forth, until it reaches a certain depth where it becomes ice. It's not until this point that the air pockets become completely sealed as air bubbles. This takes time, how much time it takes is dependent on the environmental conditions. What I had not realized until I looked at the raw data was how much time. At Dome Fuji it takes 2100-3100 years, at Vostok station it takes 4000-6000 years. This is important because it means that the gas bubbles in the ice are younger than the ice itself by this much, and the exact value varies, however, until this depth is reached, the air in the pockets is free to mix with the atmosphere, so, the possibility exists that the lag is simply a data artifact created by a systematic error in the models being used of the firn-ice transition depth over time.

2. So what?
People often bring up this point, but, the point itself does nothing to prove that CO2 is incapable of causing warming.

Wow, you guys change your stand all the time.

First, iceaura insinuated we are analytically incompetent.
"you were pretending to an analytical competence you did not necessarily possess..."

Then he ate his words and said he is long longer sure if we are really competent.
"Ihae no idea whether you are competent or not. "

Then he said we are deluded.
"Who is more deluded in that situation: the person who has never heard of the history of CO2 increases initially leading warming trends, or the person who thinks that casts doubt on estimations of the warming effects of the current CO2 boost? "

Then he ate his words again and said he no longer think we are deluded.
Me: "Why do you suggest we, in making the statement about co2 lagging warming, are deluded?"
Iceaura: "Not necessarily....."

Now the latest. Since we are no longer deluded, we are now misrepresenting or misunderstanding facts.
"In the context of the validity of the fears about CO2 boosting, the choice is misunderstanding or misrepresentation. "

Then when questioned, well....he hasn't replied.

And now for Trippy, it is no longer a mispresentation. It is now a question of relevance.
Me: "Or how did you think we misrepresented this fact?"
Trippy: " So what? People often bring up this point, but, the point itself does nothing to prove that CO2 is incapable of causing warming."


Since you guys don't know what to think, i'll tell you what you're thinking.

See, the statement of lagging co2 was merely a question posed to the suits during a break. And that was all there was to it.
1. We did not express any opinion to them on it.
2. We did not express to them our stand on its accuracy or relevance.
3. The question was never posed during the formal presentation, hence not a factor of consideration.

But when iceaura sees any text to do with "CO2 lags warming", his alarm bells go off.

See, he's shown himself to be a diehard climate change advocate. Anyone who sets off his alarm bells is an enemy he has to shoot down.

And he does it by personal attacks. He called us conmen, deluded, misrepresenting facts, lack analytical competency, etc. Yet we show he couldn't justify any of those.

So how does he justify his claim we are conmen? By presenting us as people who don't believe in the stuff we presented.

But truth is, he doesn't even know what we believe in. He has to make that up in his mind.

Lets be clear. The contract the suits gave was money in exchange for a clearly defined set of deliverables. So long as we deliver, we are not cheating, hence not conmen.

Iceaura simply applied his own arbitrary moral standard to call us conmen, simply because in his mind we disagree with whatever his opinions are. And when questioned, he heaped false allegation after false allegation, which he can't substantiate.

Thanks iceaura. I'll record this as an example of the state climate change advocacy is in nowadays.

Wow, you guys change your stand all the time.

First, iceaura insinuated we are analytically incompetent.
"you were pretending to an analytical competence you did not necessarily possess..."

Then he ate his words and said he is long longer sure if we are really competent.
"Ihae no idea whether you are competent or not. "
News for you. These two statements don't neccessarily contradict each other, they may even compliment each other.


Then when questioned, well....he hasn't replied.

And now for Trippy, it is no longer a mispresentation. It is now a question of relevance.
Me: "Or how did you think we misrepresented this fact?"
Trippy: " So what? People often bring up this point, but, the point itself does nothing to prove that CO2 is incapable of causing warming."
More dishonesty from you, that wasn't the only thing I said.
More to the point, it's a pretty transparent attempt at misdirection.

Aside from that, I wasn't addressing how you did or didn't misunderstand or misrepresent the fact, I was adressing the fact.

And you're absolutely right, one of the points is one of relevance.

There are no changes of stand, Iceaura and I simply have differing views on the matter. That Iceaura and I must have the same view is enitrely your fallacy, or can we start holding you responsible for Buffalo Roams statements, and talking about how you guys change your stand all the time?