So there I am eating my full breakfast in a lovely Five Star hotel overlooking the Thames and Parliament when I read of yet another global warming fanatic who is an arrogant fraud.
“With the IPCC and its Chairman Rajendra Pachauri coming under fire over the Himalayan glacier blunder, the UN body’s deputy defended him saying scientists are ‘only humans’ who can make ‘mistakes.’ Climate scientists are ‘only humans’ who can make mistakes like everyone else, said Jean-Pascal van Ypeersele also apparently saw nothing wrong over Pachauri using the word ‘voodoo science’ to slam India’s Environment ministry which contested the UN body’s claim”, stated my newspaper.
“The UN’s climate science body is under attack after being forced to retract claims that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt by 2035. The 2007 report, that included the Himalayan claim, is the basis for the current international debate on climate change. However, van Ypersele told the BBC it was simply a ‘human mistake’, the Daily Telegraph reported. ‘Aren’t mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution and I do not know of any human institution that does not make mistakes, so of course it is a regrettable incident that we published that wrong description of the Himalayan glacier,’ he said. The scandal has led to calls for Pachauri to resign after he described those who criticised the claim as using ‘voodoo science’. India’s Environment ministry had contested the IPCC’s projection of Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035.”
I almost couldn’t finish my toast. But did. After all, all this will happen again and again and again. When Global Warming zealots make horrible mistakes they are “only human” but their critics who reveal them to be wrong are “fanatics, deniers and fools.” Ho hum. More coffee please waiter.
I always thought science was based through observation? At least that’s what I recall being taught in school. Here are a couple of observations, out of many, I have made over the years on Global Warming; in 1996 when I was a regular viewer of the morning show Canada AM there was news report about the massive hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and the hysteria this caused. Also in 1996 and on Canada AM, a female scientist stated, unless we do something about Global Warming that in ten years time it will be to late and catastrophic events will occur! Well 2006 came along and guess what happened? Nothing!! And that hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic had closed! Were we ever really at risk?
Also, in 2008 after experiencing one the coldest winters on record for Toronto that broke the record for coldest temperature set back in the 1940′s and broke the record for most snow fall set in the 1840′s. Both dates are well before Global Warming!! I thought it was supposed to be getting hotter? At least that’s what we have been told by these scientists for so long.
Either these scientists really do not know what they are talking about or they are blatantly lying to us. Why are these scientists not being held accountable for there actions?
Issues such as global warming and eradicating poverty in third world countries are left wing bludgeons that so-called progressives use in a holier-than-thou Godless construct; to convince those of us who work, pay taxes and obey the law that we are aberrant as long as we don’t take these issues as seriously as they would like us to. They are distractions, meant to sidetrack us from what’s truly important and effective; being kind to one another where we live … raising respectful children (not sucking them down a sink) … giving old people the care and concern they deserve … calling a terrorist a terrorist and not a man-made human disaster.
Global warming is not a hoax. It exists and is evident everywhere. Open your eyes.
You’re absolutely right Padre! Global warming does exist and has existed since the planet was formed billions of years ago.
Every 100,000 years or so, the planet heats up. It stays warm for several thousand years and then cools down again. It has happened numerous times in this planet’s history.
Even just a thousand years ago, Norwegians [otherwise known as vikings] were growing wheat and barely on Greenland, that wasteland of snow and ice for much of the year that we know today.
The Romans were growing grapes for wine in Britain 2,000 years ago.
Gee, maybe the planet was warmer then. It must have been all those SUV’s the Romans and Vikings were driving all those centuries ago.
It does seem to be warming up quickly. Didn’t you need an icebreaker to get through the Northwest Passage until recently? A”cruise ship” ran into a rock there last week. Doesn’t anyone think that the thawing of the arctic ice is occurring rather quickly? Are the inhabitants of the Maldives mistaken when the think the sea level is rising on them at such a rate that they’ll have to evacuate their entire nation? Is it not logical to assume that the current state of human industry makes significant changes to the composition of the atmosphere? Unfortunately the global warming debate is more about running smack rather than concern for the well being of people. The back and forth insults of right versus left versus right could wind up being a humiliating epitaph for millions.
Global warming alarmists also declared the debate on climate change as being “over” even though these new revelations keep occurring, or despite the fact that there should always be debate in science, shouldn’t there?
Unfortunately, the agenda seems more ideological and political than it does scientific. In addition, the left seems quite intent on quashing debate instead of actually engaging in the great debates of our times.
Global warming? Debate over. If you’re against gay marriage, you’re against rights. If you’re against abortion, you’re against rights. And on and on it goes.
For people who consider themselves to be the smartest in the room, they sure don’t like having to prove it, especially against the very opponents they consider to be so backwards and ignorant.
I know that I personally love the opportunity of proving people wrong who I disagree with. I guess others don’t. Peculiar.
There are still radio hosts and TV News outlets that avoid the huge nuclear reactor 95 million miles away that has solar fluxes or flares during it’s cycles.Any University level Astronomy book(not climate)will have activity charts and temperature patterns to predict the 11 year cycles AND see the lag-times where the heat-rays finally reach Earth while getting stronger and more often.
This is no Global secret or Conspiracy to hide these facts,but the AGW useful idiots hardly think beyond next week and can’t handle thinking beyond Earth’s surface to even link the Moon to the predictible Ocean Tides.
Climate Change ???,sure…I predict Toronto will get cooler through January and then start to warm around April through August 2010-11.
Global Warming??
When money is handed out for these “GREEN” studies to back a theory….the career deadbeats turn it into “Global-Swarming” for Free-money.
Decades ago it was global cooling we were told was going to bring an end to the world and man kind. Yawn.
…what Brian Said
and Mark, except the distraction is to kill the middle class to make us all slaves
once middle class is gone, so is freedom and democracy
I’m looking forward to the supply of this year’s crop of locally grown pineapples at the Suzuki Gore stand in the St. Norbert Farmers’ Market, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Hmm, whom to believe? How about Vince, who has confused the hole in the ozone layer with climate change? Vince, please look up the Montreal Protocol and see why the hole is less of a concern (it’s still there, but projected to get smaller)–it’s because we collectively took action after LISTENING TO THE EXPERTS!
How about Brian, whose hypothesis seems to be that since the Earth has experienced climate cycles in the past that human activity is not contributing to the current climate? Brian, the two are not related and hence not mutually exclusive. The Earth can have experienced cycles in the past AND human activity can be contributing to climate change now.
Gary, news reports aside, do you seriously think that scientists studying our climate don’t factor in the Sun? Is it really your contention that they just forgot about it or something? Come on.
How about Jimmy trotting out the old global cooling “scare?” This is just a talking point, Jimmy. Have you actually looked it up? It was a rather minor scientific theory with nowhere near the level of agreement within the scientific community that current climate change has. It was overplayed in the press and became a minor “scare”, and it’s now way overplayed as a red herring talking point.
How about Mark Spark and Ghetty Real, who, instead of responding to scientific claims, have brought out the global conspiracy talk? Or Dennis_F, who feels that this is just a right-left political thing? Dennis, are all scientists who think AGW is a fact left in their politics? I don’t know, but you seem to.
Should we listen to these “theories” over scientists who have studied and researched this for years or decades?
Jim wrote
September 6, 2010 at 8:33 pm
It does seem to be warming up quickly. Didn’t you need an icebreaker to get through the Northwest Passage until recently?
————
Actually, no.
If you are familiar with Canadian history, you’ll know that one of the factors in the race to find an ice-free route through the Northwest Passage was the belief in the open polar sea.
Whalers had frequented the area centuries before it became of any interest to the British admiralty and had the experience of sailing in a relatively ice-free arctic. By the time the Brits began their quest the Arctic Ocean had become much colder. But the stories handed down through whaler lore could not disabuse them of the belief that they’d eventually punch through the ice and find the ice-free passage to Asia.
This of course led not only to many tragic deaths but also some fantastic moments of human achievement.
“Either these scientists really do not know what they are talking about or they are blatantly lying to us. Why are these scientists not being held accountable for there actions”
Correct! Last year the BC sockeye salmon run was about the lowest in history, the fish biologists who are paid handsomely to know everything about sockeye salmon, were saying it was due to global warming. Global warming was supposedly the only explanation. This year the salmon run is the best in 100 years, yet no one, especially the fish biologists, are claiming it is due to global warming. They are searching for another explanation. WHAT!!? The truth is these scientists don’t know what they are talking about, and some are outright lying. I think they should be held accountable and some should spend some time in jail.
“Vince, please look up the Montreal Protocol and see why the hole is less of a concern (it’s still there, but projected to get smaller)–it’s because we collectively took action after LISTENING TO THE EXPERTS!”
dear ThinkRationally;
Here waht James lovelock, the creater of the Gaia Theory said about the ozone controversy only last year;
He said “I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done. Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science.”
So much for listening to the EXPERTS. We listened to the experts back then and now the truth comes out. Even Lovelock knows the data was fudged, just like the experts fudged the data at the CRU. Thansk god for climategate.
ThinkRationally, you make very good points. But, there is one thing you forget and which is key to what we, sceptics, are arguing.
The billions of $ that were spent and which resulted in the IPCC report and (erroneous) conclusions were setup so as to make the findings a foregone conclusion. It was never about studying temperature variations, it was always about proving the theory of human generated global warming. The very fact that so much of the data was kept secret so that scientists with opposite opinions could not do their own research is the proof that the original studies and results are bunk. If the science was that obvious and that “settled”, then the scientists would be gladly publishing the data so that anyone could arrive at and confirm the findings.
Is it a fact that the world is warming? Probably is. Is it a fact that humans are contributors to this warming? Nope. It could be. But the IPCC has been so shoddy and unscientific in publishing its methods and results that one has no choice but to conclude that this is nothing more than a way for the scientists involved to toe the “correct” party line and get more research money.
There are now many hundreds or thousands of scientists who have debunked the IPCC report. They are just as credible as those who support it. For this reason, until the “science” is scrapped and redone with the transparency and true scientific method that it deserves, I and countless millions of sceptics, will still regard the IPCC report as not worth the paper it is written on.
@Vince: The ozone hole at Antarctica was never claimed to be a result of greenhouse gases but rather CFC usage. CFCs were banned and lo and behold the ozone hole diminished.
Global warming is going to continue to happen regardless of mans activites because the Earth has been warming up since the last ice age. I cannot side with the global warming deniers like Coren that think man-made global warming is bogus but I think the measures taken by politicians is too painful and ineffective towards curbing mans contribution to global warming. In other words, get industry and people to continue coming up with ways of operating in a more environmentallly friendly manner without all the legislative red tape. Cap n’ trade and CO2 restrictions on industry will prove painful and ineffective.
andre, the IPCC is certainly a flawed organization. It consists of working groups that have responsibility for various things that go into their reports, and they allow errors and inconsistencies to make their way in. However, the Himalayan glacier melt item and the Amazon item are very small parts of a greater report that are being used to debunk the whole report. They do need to overhaul their organization and be more open, accessible, and accountable.
However, if you’re looking for concrete proof before we take any action, then you don’t understand science. There will never be absolute proof. Even if we bake ourselves alive, people will be able to say it was just a natural cycle. What we need to do is make a decision based on imperfect information, and to do that we have to evaluate the sources.
You can claim some conspiracy involving the entirety of climate science (right, excepting the minority of dissenters) to maintain their access to “grant money”, but to me this doesn’t pass muster. You are saying, basically, that all scientists who agree with AGW are corrupt and unethical. This implies a vast conspiracy of silence on their part, and it’s a bit hard to swallow without proof (yes, in the case of such a thing I _can_ ask for proof). I believe a lack of professional ethics in the scientific community is relatively rare (correct me if I’m wrong), so why would one particular specialization have a majority of unethical practitioners?
As I said, there will never be absolute proof. If I have to choose between scientists who have dedicated their careers and lives to studying in this field and a bunch of detractors who counter with conspiracy claims and a very clear lack of scientific understanding then I have to choose the scientists.
I think, if we can ever get past this “debate”, that we can actually do something about it without bankrupting ourselves. The longer we wait, the more it’s going to cost. Maybe it doesn’t need to be the end of what we know, just a shift. Either way, oil will run out and/or become prohibitively expensive, so somethings going to change significantly one way or the other. If we wait to the last minute, as people tend to do (especially large groups that have to come to an agreement), then I’d say we’re in for a whole lot of pain.
Brian,
Are you denying global warming or simply being sarcastic?
Michael Coren said: “So there I am eating my full breakfast in a lovely Five Star hotel overlooking the Thames and Parliament blah blah blah…”
You know, if people cared more about starving children then they do about living an extravagant lifestyle, we could end world hunger overnight.
I say that because Michael’s latest fallacy has nothing to do with global warming or science at all, and has everything to do with some petulant need for global warming deniers to be taken seriously. Like those who believe that the Jews are responsible for 9/11; or the wackos at Conservapedia that want you to believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a hoax or that Barack Obama is a Muslim; they desperately seek to be legitimized at the same time they refuse to listen to facts or reason. Why? Because they REALLY are zealots.
And the truth is Michael, you’ve always been a zealot going back to your days when you were a fundamentalist Christian that dismissed scientific facts in favour of Creationist nonsense. Your ability to dismiss facts or evidence that don’t support your beliefs has always been the working mechanism of your thought process; it has to be in order to believe the fantastical things you believe like the Abrahamic deity, Satan, miracles, an immortal soul, angels, demons, Heaven, Hell… Let’s be clear about one thing: your thinking is backwards. And I’m not being facetious here, your thinking is LITERALLY backwards: you start out with a conclusion (a belief) and then cherry pick your sources or think up reasons why it’s true while ignoring any facts or evidence (or lack thereof) to the contrary. That’s how you form your arguments; it’s intellectually dishonest, but you don’t know that because you’ve convinced yourself that you’re acting in the interests of truth and justice when in reality all your doing is practising self-deception. That’s what makes you a zealot. Like any other religious fanatic or conspiracy theorist, you believe that you know “the truth” and everyone else is being deceived by some elaborate conspiracy perpetuated by the “the left” and a scientific community that’s committing international fraud…. hell Bill Clinton couldn’t keep an affair a secret but somehow the entire scientific community is able to perpetuate a worldwide hoax! Are you really that stupid? Yes, apparently you are.
It really is astounding how people can live in a world where their daily lifestyle only proves how reliable the scientific method truly is with their dependence on countless scientific advancements that they take for granted—you know, things like medicine, electricity, computational computing, cell-phones—and yet, when it comes to global warming and evolution, all of a sudden the scientific method is no longer reliable and scientists are corrupt liars committing fraud on an global scale?! If you believe that, then you really are a zealot.
So global warming will make it hotter on earth?
Well, I’m in Canada.
Winters are STILL brutal here.
Bring me some warmth….
@klem, that Lovelock quote seems to be in all sorts of comment sections on the Web. I find something funny about your use of it here. It seems to be used to refute the need for the Montreal Protocol in the first place, because Lovelock believes the science behind the CFC-ozone depletion connection was flawed. First, I would have to ask whether you believe that CFC’s don’t deplete ozone, and that no solution was needed. However, the greater discussion here is about climate change, and you are quoting a man who does believe that climate change is a huge problem and that humans are unable to combat it because a democratic decision by our whole race might not come until after a catastrophic event, at which point it may be too late.
So I ask you, klem, are you willing to agree with Lovelock on the issue of climate change and our need to do something, or are you just using a convenient quote about his opinion on the state of scientific study to refute (the unrelated) ozone depletion issue and by association my entire post? Lovelock seems disgusted by the CRU emails, yet he still believes climate change is a serious problem. The question is, are you just cherry-picking when you agree with Lovelock and when you don’t? Are you just trying to use, like so many commenters, an out-of-context quote to discredit scientists while conveniently ignoring the fact that the man you’re quoting seems to disagree with you on the major topic at hand _despite_ the problems he sees within the scientific community?
M did your pre20th century whalers actually traverse the Northwest Passage and are the Inuit wrong when they say that the sea ice they rely on for transport is vanishing for longer periods eaach year? If so I’m interested to hear the details.
ThinkRationally,
I don’t know whether you are old enough to remember but in the 70′s, these same “scientists” were predicting that we were entering a 100-year ice age because the CO2 we were emitting in the atmosphere were supposedly blocking the sun rays and the earth was going to become pretty much uninhabitable. Now, a mere 40 years later, these guys are predicting the exact opposite and, to boot, they are doing this on the back of data which has been proven over and over as being flawed (the hockey stick is a hoax, the famous “tree bark” theory is based on one tree in Siberia, the temperature sensors are predominaently in urban areas, etc…). So I am sorry but these scientists have zero credibility. Of course there isn’t going to be absolute proof but I think it is rational to demand that the science be open, repeatable and based on tried and true data. As long as these scientists (many of them having nothing to do with climatology by the way) continue to reach conclusions based on a flawed body of evidence and a flawed scientific method, there is no way we should tie progress and development to their pet science experiment.
>>Are the inhabitants of the Maldives mistaken when the think the sea level is rising on them at such a rate that they’ll have to evacuate their entire nation?
Why is the sea level rising only around the Maldives and not anywhere else? Is this a gravitational anomaly? Can I get funding to go down to the Maldives for a couple of years and study the phenomenon?
While studying the Maldives give special attention to whether the ocean is absolutely flat or whether it rises and falls due to the weather and or the pull of the moon.
andre, I addressed the global cooling scare in my first post, after which you said I made some good points. You then went on to talk about scientists arriving at the results required to secure more grant money, as opposed to objective results. I then responded to that, and now you’re on global cooling. As I said, what I’ve read about global cooling says that it had nothing like the support current climate science has, but that the “scare” was escalated by the media. It is now being escalated again, opportunistically, by those looking to debate the veracity of current scientific research and results—it’s basically being used as a smear against scientists. You’re saying, “look, some scientists were wrong before, so they’re probably wrong now.” B does not of necessity follow A in this instance. I completely agree that this science must be open, though.
This is not an area where we can expect perfect information. We are forced to make decisions based on imperfect and incomplete information. It’s clear your chosen path is to distrust the science (actually, the scientists), and to attempt to foster that distrust in others. I like to believe that the majority of scientists out there genuinely want to find the truth and genuinely want their life’s work to benefit mankind, so it’s hard for me to believe that there’s nothing at all to all of this research. I also think it’s a bit wishful to think we can impact our environment in all of the extreme ways we have been without having any appreciable effect on it. “Mother Nature” may recover from almost anything we do, or find a new balance, but will it be conducive to human life and civilization?
>>whether it rises and falls … and or the pull of the moon.
I believe that they call it ‘the tide’ and it’s been around for quite a while, as far as I know. It’s not a new phenomenon. Shakespeare even wrote about it.
CH said, “…if people cared more about starving children then they do about living an extravagant lifestyle, we could end world hunger overnight.”
No, we couldn’t, but that’s another can of beans.
As for the Maldives going under, Nils-Axel Morner physicist and geologist, says:
Let me summarize a few facts.
(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.
(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today
(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level
(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.
(5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.
When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meetings, we agreed on a “best estimate” for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ±10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ±15cm. Such changes would imply small to negligible effects.
Also, by the way, Jim, you are correct. The ocean is not absolutely flat. It conforms to the shape of the earth, which is an oblate spheroid.
Everybody seems to be shooting from the hip on this one. Firstly MC seems to be complaining about unfair treatment between scientists making mistakes versus their critics pronouncements. Seems to me that depends on who you are listening too but I agree with his comment, “Ho Hum”.
On the question of global warming I think it is likely taking place;
– pics of ice caps & glaciers do appear to show significant shrinkage
– already arid areas of the earth do seem to be getting drier with lengthy droughts taking place
– the average tempature charts (assuming they are to be believed) do appear to show a tempature increase
The experts no longer appear to be debating the issue of whether global warming is real but rather at what pace it is proceeding, that seeming to be a critical factor in the equation of whether man is significantly contributing to this rise or not. It seems hard to conclude we are not contributing to the existence of greenhouse gases but to what degree and to what degree can we effect the eventual outcome. On one of the climate shows I remember hearing the figure of 2% being what was estimated that man’s total activities added to global greenhouse gases. I don’t know where the figure came from or how accurate it is but if it is accurate then we could be in trouble. I’ve heard a number of documentaries on the subject and while the earth’s tempature does go through cycles some of the major cycles (which thankfully don’t happen often) would cause mankind to struggle for existence. The problem seems to come back to the speed with which the current warming trend is happening and the fact that as the tundra and followed by the oceans warm they have the potential to release huge amounts of methane which would have devastating effects. Someone mentioned the sun’s activity and they are right in that significant solar flares are related to warmer periods, I haven’t yet heard though whether we are in a period of greater activity or not. I have heard that earth is in the cycle of moving from an eliptical orbit to a more circular one but this has always been associated with cooling rather than warming.
Whether mankind can fix the problem is much open to debate and the efforts made so far have been pointless as we continue to expand our use of carbon emitting fuels. Cap & trade schemes and Kyoto accords don’t seem to be a viable answer.
Seems to me what is happening is what should happen, that is lively debate, continued study, investigation of alternatives, etc etc. Whether it will make a dent in the problem and whether the problem will impact our future remains to be seen.
The Greek mathematician Archimedes proved indirectly that the ocean won’t rise. If ice melts (polar ice cap) water should not rise. So global warming shouldnt be seen as a rise in water but maybe a slight drop will occur. It may or may not be happening. So called experts like Moe are making statements about the ocean rising 5 to 10 cm and that assertion cannt be supported mathematically unless of course Archimedes was wrong.
What say ye Moe, was he wrong?
Thanks for reinforcing my point Don.
So….Jim and Don. What you are saying is that the world is not flat. Wow….food for thought. I wonder what Archimedes would say about that. We can learn a lot from Jim and Don and Archimedes and Shakespeare.
Don,
You’re wrong. Water fills space evnly therefore at any given point on the planet the ocean is absolutely flat.
Padre, Dr. Morner is the sea level expert, not me. However, Archimedes Principle has to do with floating objects. It does not take into account other factors that would influence sea level, such as rate of evaporation, creation and destruction of land masses, inflow of rivers, etc.
It is true that a melting iceberg would contribute little to sea volume, because most of its mass is already underwater. I do not know if ice caps are a different matter, because I don’t know how much water they displace; however, the ice sheet that covers Antarctica is mostly over land.
At any rate, Dr. Morner says the Maldives are in no danger.
No Padre, at any point on the planet, the ocean’s surface is curved. A plane tangent to the surface is absolutely flat, but the ocean’s surface is not.
Until climate science becomes more open, engages in rational debate and removes politics the argument from authority and talk of consensus are unconvincing. A recent report from the InterAcademy of Council recommended that, to become more credible, the IPCC must make major changes. IMO the most important recommendations are:
-to remove political advocacy and policy prescriptions
- accurately report confidence issues “”For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence,”
-to include a larger range of opinions, including skeptics.
Good advice. They also need to address raw data problems from surface stations, UHI and better understand the dynamics of the sun and natural cycles. At this point the politics behind climate change are the main driver not science. Wait for the science to mature before making rash decisions that effect billions of people.
@ Padre
I noticed you were careful to qualify your comment restricting it to Polar ice caps. I believe the biggest concern is melting of ice which is not already floating in the oceans such as Greenland.
I’ve spent a lot of time on the ocean and I’ve never seen it “flat” in any given point. Seems to me “flat” is relative to your terms of reference in this situation.
Padre, your Archimedes’ Principle argument is a prime example of how to remove credibility from skeptical viewpoints. What you’re saying is that all of these scientists coming up with figures about sea level rise simply forgot about that old Archimedes’ Principle thing they learned somewhere around grade 9. Do you really think that? Do you really think it’s likely that all those trained scientists simply forgot about something so obvious? You put out that comment as if it’s a nail-in-the-coffin argument, so I can only assume that you must believe this. This is what is so disturbing about this whole debate–armchair scientists can latch onto the simplest, silliest things and think they have it figured out.
As has been pointed out, if all of the ice concerned were floating now, then Archimedes’ Principle would apply (except for the very small rise that would be attributed to fresh water melting into salt water). However, anything fully or partially supported by land will add to the sea level if it melts (evaporation and precipitation cycles aside for a moment). I doubt it will ever all melt, but the Antarctic ice sheet is estimated to contain enough water to raise sea levels something like 60 meters, and the Greenland ice sheet has enough to raise it 7 meters–so only a fraction of this melting could cause serious problems in low-lying areas. It may not happen, but your Archimedes’ Principle argument is still bunk. What say ye, Padre, are you wrong?
Sorry guys but you are wrong. Thee space between water anywhere, unless obstructed, will always be flat.
1970′s – new ice age comming
1980′s – human population explosion, world will run out of food.
1990′s – AIDS epidemc, in 10 years 1 in 4 will be infected with HIV
2000′s – global warming, latter called climate change to include instances of cooling.
What happens is some in the scientific community develop and advance these theories. The politicians then latch on to them and sell to the public in an effort to consolidate their power and increase gov’t regulation.
It’s the oldest trick in the book. “This is your greatest threat, vote for me as I know how to fix it and will save your future” What! “you don’t agree with the science?” Are you not for saving the planet?”
In time holes will be punched through these theories and the general public will realise that it is absurd to think humans know what the proper temperature is for the world and even more absurd to think we can regulate it.
Theories are like assholes; everybody has one and they all stink.
Bill,
Vulgarity is not required.
George, it seems like politicians are being punished more than rewarded by the voting public right now for trying to do anything substantial to combat climate change, so I don’t see at this time how it’s being leveraged as a “sell” to the public. To me, politicians who are currently attempting to advance this agenda are doing so against the tide, so to speak. They are being forced to take baby steps, resulting in almost no change and a continual increase in our emissions.
As for the “proper” temperature of the planet, I don’t think the planet cares. But you and I do, that’s for sure. Certainly, a “proper” temperature for me is one that allows humans to survive. The band is probably narrower than most of us think, considering the vast amount of food we need to produce (and a host of other variables).
Hey Padre. Why don’t you pull that stick out of your ass and talk like a normal guy. Or should I call you Yukon? Hey Yukon…..why don’t you pull that stick out of your ass.
@ Padre
When the discussion was about the sea level rising or not why are you coming back with whether the sea is flat or not?
I’m not sure I comprehend the relevance of this but it would appear that since the earth is round (roughly anyway) the oceans must also conform to that shape (ignoring wave and tidal movement) otherwise the water would be hanging in mid air on either side. Duh!
Science is something that evolves over time, it is a learning process and to err is a natural part of that process. Rather than a reason to disbelieve scientific results the finding of errors and the debunking of certain theories is a positive thing, it means we are advancing the amount and accuracy of our scientific knowledge. Climate change is a extremely complicated process with a huge number of variables and not one that scientists completely understand yet. They may never understand it fully. It is also a field of knowledge with a vast amount of data to be gathered, analysed, and interpreted, and such interpretations will necessarily change over time as new data and analysis are gathered and integrated into what is already known. To ignore or rationalize away a potential problem such as climate change, something that obviously could have significant impact on our existence, by pointing to past scientific errors, inaccurate theories, etc. is just plain stupid. Luckily many of those involved in making decisions which will ultimately impact our collective existence are not as stupid as some of the folks writing in this blog.
ThinkRationally, I disagree, I think voters are more likely to go with someone who is percieved as trying to save their future. It is difficult to argue against climate change because most really don’t even understand it. It is safer to say you want to help save the planet and appear that you are “informed”.
I find it suspicious that proposed carbon regulation such as Cap and Trade use factors such as whether or not a company is unionized in determining alloted credits. Who will decide which companies will survive or not and in which countries?
How will any of this regulation actually reduce carbon emmissions and by how much? What will be the future resultant temperature decrease? None of these “results” seem to be discussed it all seems to be based on statements such as “well, we have to do something. We don’t want to leave it for our children (in the meantime we have no problem leaving our children burdened with an ever increasing debt load). I don’t believe any amount of regulation will do anything to decrease carbon emissions. It’s not about whether climate change is real or not, it’s about whether we can actually do anything about it.
Bill.
Yukon isn’t welcome here – not PC enough.
OK guys, Archimedes was wrong and Al Gore is right. The polar ice caps will melt and we’ll all drown.
Thinkrationally
“are you willing to agree with Lovelock on the issue of climate change and our need to do something, or are you just using a convenient quote about his opinion on the state of scientific study to refute (the unrelated) ozone depletion issue and by association my entire post?”
I am not willing to agree with Lovelock on ACC and yes I am using his convenient yet applicable quote to refute your entire post.
“The question is, are you just cherry-picking when you agree with Lovelock and when you don’t?”
Of course, do you think I should agree with everything he says? Do you think I should disagree with everything he says?
“ Are you just trying to use, like so many commenters, an out-of-context quote to discredit scientists while conveniently ignoring the fact that the man you’re quoting seems to disagree with you on the major topic at hand _despite_ the problems he sees within the scientific community?”
I am using Lovelocks quote to demonstrate that there are a lot of questions concerning the reliability of popular science especially when it is used to conveniently support a particular policy. It was bad science which supported the ozone depletion question, it can be just as bad with anthropogenic climate change.
Cheers