I’ve come across an odd confluence of a number of global warming news pieces and some mentions of climate change and effects in historical audiobooks I’ve listened to recently. These have brought the issue back up to me, and I thought I’d ask you all a few questions.

First, you might notice when you analyze the data that the models vary widely and frequently contradict each other, with new model-based IPCC reports coming out to contradict or dramatically adjust the supposedly-accurate reports from earlier years. When you look with more detail upon the data, however, the interesting thing is that they are trying to track a huge variety of variables: atmospheric reflectivity, surface reflectivity, oceanic currents, weather patterns (only one model even predicts the existence of El Nino), evapotranspiration, vegetative cover, carbon sinking, levels of a huge variety of chemicals in the air (CO2 being only one), solar radiation, natural cycles, and on and on. When looking at temperature levels, they tend to try to measure worldwide surface temperature (I’ve never actually seen a model that takes into account human impermeable surfaces and the urban heat island effect, or industrial heat output), but also atmospheric temperatures at various levels. Note that those atmospheric temperatures have not risen appreciably or have dropped, while surface temps have increased. CO2 is an atmospheric phenomenon, so that’s the temp measure that should indicate its influence (but does not).

So my first question is that with all these variables, most of which can have obviously huge impacts on climate, why is everyone so fixated on CO2? That’s like blaming the steam from shaving in the morning for your house being hot on a sunny July day, or blaming a candy bar you ate when you were 10 for your adult flabbiness.

The other question is, what does everyone imagine is bad about a warmer world? It’s cold that causes the problems. Why do you think life on this planet, people included, cluster towards the equator, thriving in warmth?

The Medieval Warming Period (“Climatic Optimum,” it is called) was a good 1-2 degrees warmer than today, by well-established reports. People thrived and population boomed. Greenland was green and England had a thriving wine business on the north part of the island. Historical records verify this stuff. When the Little Ice Age struck, famine and social unrest came with it.

So tell me, how will a warmer (particularly the slightly warmer planet predicted) earth cause net harm?

Arandur wrote:

So my first question is that with all these variables, most of which can have obviously huge impacts on climate, why is everyone so fixated on CO2?

There’s a ton of it emitted every day. That’s about it- the obviousness. Never mind that it’s emitted naturally, and there is just about squat we can do about that.

So tell me, how will a warmer (particularly the slightly warmer planet predicted) earth cause net harm?

Because, according to some, the ice caps will melt and raise the level of the ocean. This opinion, apparently, is held by people who DON’T drink their cocktails on the rocks, because it’s ludicrous.

So. It’s pretty obvious that I consider the whole topic of global warming a large, money- making distraction, really on both sides. What’s moderately amusing is that a lot of responses to your questions and my smart a** remarks will be extremely emotional. Why? Dunno. I know otherwise intelligent people who buy all this twaddle and get extremely upset if you express an opinion indicating that you believe it to be B.S..
It’s like a religion, IMO.

And sea level rise will cause hardships for coastal communities, yes, I’ve heard that. Well, temperatures have been higher before, so I think people can deal with it. And if this is about human hardship and the economic cost to humans, then we’re talking about economic concerns. Make the economic argument and you find that any reaction to global warming other than just adapting incrementally as humans always have is a shockingly atrocious waste of resources.

I guess what I’m getting at is that I’ve heard two main concerns about global warming. One is panic about what it might do to human civilization. Coming from the Greens, that’s pretty funny, since they hate humankind and want us in the Stone Age. Aside from that bias, for the rest of the masses, human concerns can be much better judged economically. The trouble with that is that the economic equation is antithetical to the socialist Green agenda, and would quickly prove that we shouldn’t give a crap about human impacts to global warming, even if we are impacting it. Actually, they might well suggest we should accelerate fossil fuel consumption and even directly try to increase global warming because the net benefits to humanity are greater.

The other argument is that nature will suffer. Again, this is a pretty ridiculous concern, considering that this world will keep ticking long after we’re gone, and has weathered (literally) dozens of catastrophic mass extinctions. There’s no point in caring about how nature will react to environmental changes except that we might want to preserve some species or biomes for nostalgic, aesthetic reasons. But then we’re just getting into the argument that we ought to actively try to control nature again to force it to produce the happy little environmental zoos and gardens that we would like to see.

There is simply no aspect of this whole global warming issue that is worthy of more than a bit of academic interest in observing trends.

I agree with you, Satolkin, about the money-making and religious aspects of the belief. I get emotional about the farce and fraud being perpetrated, and its ever-growing attempts at stealing money from my pocket and forcing the world to operate within their illogical demands.

The other argument is that nature will suffer. Again, this is a pretty ridiculous concern, considering that this world will keep ticking long after we’re gone, and has weathered (literally) dozens of catastrophic mass extinctions.

True, but does that mean that we shouldn’t try to stop it from (or at least delay it) happening again? I think we should at least try to lower the death toll of our furry friends. (How to go about doing that is up for debate.)

FiNiX wrote:
>>The other argument is that nature will suffer. Again, this is a pretty ridiculous concern, considering that this world will keep ticking long after we’re gone, and has weathered (literally) dozens of catastrophic mass extinctions.

True, but does that mean that we shouldn’t try to stop it from (or at least delay it) happening again? I think we should at least try to lower the death toll of our furry friends. (How to go about doing that is up for debate.)

Yeah, it does mean we should stop screwing with it, FiNiX.
Here’s the deal:

Delitorious effects of global warming, if it exists, are highly debatable. Questionable, even.
It would be lovely if we could piss away tons o’ cash on every feelgood cause that raises it’s head, but we can’t. Our resources are limited- look up “guns and butter” on the ‘net for the basic economic argument about that.
What this leaves us is that our time, effort, and funds should be spent on things that aren’t flights of fancy. When we concentrate on fantasy, the following happens:
- Bridges fall down, because of lack of maintenence, in, say, Minneapolis.
- Roads turn to sht.
- Tuberculosis spreads because we’re jerking off over global warming rather than the illegal immigrant situation.
- Economy takes a dump, because, again, we’re focusing on fantasy.
- etc.

Bottom line, we need to pay attention to things we can really do something about, and not highly speculative crap. Hey, wanna hear something funny? Big corporations are now pushing “Green.”
Why?
We’re stupid enough to blow tons of cash on something that makes us feel good, but means fuk-all.
Moneymoneymoney.

Stop, everyone, pissing away your efforts and emotion on twaddle and codswallop. WOrk hard, raise your families right, and treat others as you would like to be treated. The rest is horsesh*t.

Vehemently eloquent, Satolkin.

Finix, are you advocating trying to control nature to create an outcome that we humans might desire? I thought that was the opposite of what the “greens” want to do. (By the way, I consider myself an environmentalist and conservationist; I use the label “green” to describe a certain class of advocates that I have vast disagreements with, viewing their advocacy as destructive often to both nature and human civilization).

Bottom line, we need to pay attention to things we can really do something about, and not highly speculative crap.

I agree with that, but do you think that we should try to save those animals that will definitely die, and which we can easily save?

I think that, when it comes to spending resources to save/better the lives of living things, there are two factors to consider: efficiency, and importance:

Importance: would the loss/worsening of the lives of these organisms lead to the loss/worsening of the lives of other organisms?

Efficiency: will spending resources in order to save/better the lives of these organisms lead to to the loss/worsening of the lives of more [important] organisms via lack of resources? (IOW, which is better? Helping here, or helping there?)

FiNiX wrote:

I agree with that, but do you think that we should try to save those animals that will definitely die, and which we can easily save?

Name one, and give me the sources that say:
1. They’re definitely going to die, and
2. We can prevent it.

Not trying to belittle you FiNiX, but a statement like ” those animals that will definitely die” is fixed firmly in emotion, IMO.

I am wholeheartedly behind Satolkin on this. Global warming is the largest myth perpetrated on an uniformed public today… IMO… And that’s saying a lot…

absoluteliquid wrote:
>I am wholeheartedly behind Satolkin on this. Global warming is the largest myth perpetrated on an uniformed public today… IMO… And that’s saying a lot…

Pet peeve for me, not only because it’s such a complete load of crap, but because I’m the ultimate hypocrite. My company (which will remain unnamed) spends a huge amount of time and money on this nonsense, and it’s simply a sales tool foisted upon the dumb.
And I use it, hard, as a sales tool.
Hey, gotta buy groceries, and gas for my behemoth pickup truck.