-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Global warming done for now?
- Thread starter mountainman
- Start date
ctenidae
Active member
Same thing happens in the financial markets, too.
Short-sighted specificity will always win over long-term macro analysis.
ERJ-145CA
Active member
The top post on this page, http://forums.alpinezone.com/46726-shamwow-3.html , has a link that has to do with those intergalactic DC-8's.
Johnskiismore
New member
Man, global warming is sooo last century, it's climate change now ;-)
dropKickMurphy
New member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 213
- Points
- 0
It's clear that the science behind all this is incredibly complex. Meteorologists can barely predict the weather 2 days out, yet we're to believe they can accurately predict long term climate patterns?
It's a joke to think that the question of man made global warming is "settled". The attempt to declare the debate closed is based on politics, not the scientific process. As more scientist, physicists, mathmaticians, scrutinize the data and studies, more flaws in the methodologies are discovered. At the same time, alternate hypotheses are presented. This is not simply people paid off by the evil "Big Oil"; it is simply the way that science is supposed to work. The debate is not over, it has barely begun.
The models that have been used as the basis of the most dire predictions did not predict the cooling of the ocean that has been observed in recent years. It is not enough to fudge those models now to explain this trend. In order for a model to be valid, it needs to be proved by accurately predicting future events. Those models have failed to do so.
I can give you the names of many prominent scientists in fields that are relevant to this issue who were believers in man made Global warming that have changed their stance in the last few years. I believe that the scientific community overall felt political pressure to back the "consensus"; and many now are beginning to speak the truth...that it's way too early to declare this a closed issue.
By the way, how many scientists who were previously sceptical of this issue have gone the other way in recent years?
It's important to remember that policies dictated by political pressure based on incomplete science can very well have very bad consequences. After Rachel Carson pointed to studies showing the effect of DDT on bird egg shells, DDT use and manufacture ceased in developed countries; which pretty much ended DDT use in third world countries as well. Subsequent studies that conflicted with hers received no publicity. "DDT is Bad for the Earth" had become established as an unquestioned fact; the issue prematurely settled by political trends.
Yet nothing has been nearly as effective in controlling malaria as DDT had been. Prior to the end of DDT use, malaria had been pretty much eradicated throughout the world. In the years since, malaria has become an epidemic in the third word; claiming at least 25 million lives. The vast majority of them children.
Who's to say that policies based on the global warming consensus won't have even more dire results? These policies could very well have severe impacts on the global economy as it struggles to recover from its present crisis. "Climate change" isn't killing people around the world...poverty is. Anything we do that impacts the recovery of the economy can be expected to lead to an increase in deaths in the most vulnerable people on the planet.
It's a joke to think that the question of man made global warming is "settled". The attempt to declare the debate closed is based on politics, not the scientific process. As more scientist, physicists, mathmaticians, scrutinize the data and studies, more flaws in the methodologies are discovered. At the same time, alternate hypotheses are presented. This is not simply people paid off by the evil "Big Oil"; it is simply the way that science is supposed to work. The debate is not over, it has barely begun.
The models that have been used as the basis of the most dire predictions did not predict the cooling of the ocean that has been observed in recent years. It is not enough to fudge those models now to explain this trend. In order for a model to be valid, it needs to be proved by accurately predicting future events. Those models have failed to do so.
I can give you the names of many prominent scientists in fields that are relevant to this issue who were believers in man made Global warming that have changed their stance in the last few years. I believe that the scientific community overall felt political pressure to back the "consensus"; and many now are beginning to speak the truth...that it's way too early to declare this a closed issue.
By the way, how many scientists who were previously sceptical of this issue have gone the other way in recent years?
It's important to remember that policies dictated by political pressure based on incomplete science can very well have very bad consequences. After Rachel Carson pointed to studies showing the effect of DDT on bird egg shells, DDT use and manufacture ceased in developed countries; which pretty much ended DDT use in third world countries as well. Subsequent studies that conflicted with hers received no publicity. "DDT is Bad for the Earth" had become established as an unquestioned fact; the issue prematurely settled by political trends.
Yet nothing has been nearly as effective in controlling malaria as DDT had been. Prior to the end of DDT use, malaria had been pretty much eradicated throughout the world. In the years since, malaria has become an epidemic in the third word; claiming at least 25 million lives. The vast majority of them children.
Who's to say that policies based on the global warming consensus won't have even more dire results? These policies could very well have severe impacts on the global economy as it struggles to recover from its present crisis. "Climate change" isn't killing people around the world...poverty is. Anything we do that impacts the recovery of the economy can be expected to lead to an increase in deaths in the most vulnerable people on the planet.
SIKSKIER
New member
I need a drink of Obama Kool-aid.
ctenidae
Active member
Global Warming, or more accurately Man-Made Global Climate Change, has been a convenient boogeyman, but suffers the same problem as all boogeymen- if the reason to stop polluting so much is gloabl warming (or hemmorhoid-shaped UFOs), and global warming is cast into doubt, then maybe we don't need to stop polluting, right? The same thing affects groups like Greenpeace- hanging your hat on the Spotted Owl or the Snail Darter are great, but then everything gets focused on those, and nothing else- once the Spotted Owl is saved, there's no need for Greenpeace, right?
Forget climate change. Instead, tell me what thepositive effects of continuing to pump high levels of CO2, NOx, SOx, and other lovely things into the atmosphere are. Show me the advantages of pumping sewage and industrial waste into the oceans, the value of deforestation, the upside to a hydrocarbon-based economy.
If you can't, then that is the argument for curtailing those things. If no good can come of it, then there's a reasonably high chance that the results are bad. That strikes me as a pretty good reason to reduce pollution.
Save the whales? F the whales. Save the Humans.
Forget climate change. Instead, tell me what thepositive effects of continuing to pump high levels of CO2, NOx, SOx, and other lovely things into the atmosphere are. Show me the advantages of pumping sewage and industrial waste into the oceans, the value of deforestation, the upside to a hydrocarbon-based economy.
If you can't, then that is the argument for curtailing those things. If no good can come of it, then there's a reasonably high chance that the results are bad. That strikes me as a pretty good reason to reduce pollution.
Save the whales? F the whales. Save the Humans.
Angus
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Messages
- 961
- Points
- 16
see Jeffrey Sachs and Pia Malaney research on the consequences of Malaria in economic development
@ http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pdf
loafer89
New member
I do not worry about climate change as much as I worry about the speed at which a potential dramatic change can occur. We used to think that climate change was a slow and gradual process, but this is not the case.
The Little Ice Age (1350ad -1850ad) ended in just a six year period. Actually the climate for the last 10,000 years has been more or less stable. Previous to this time period there where huge swings in global climate.
I believe the earth is warming as most evidence supports this, but is this man made?
I am inclined to go for a 50/50 mix of fixing blame on that question on man and nature.
We may be forcing the planet into a new regime of climate that may not suit all of us particularly well. Can we adapt? sure but it might be expensive and at a cost that not all of the world can afford.
Frightening aspects of current climate change are:
Tropical, Sub-tropical glaciers and temperate Glaciers dissapearing at an alarming rate. This endangers freshwater drinking and agriculture supplies of water from Seattle, Washington to Lima Peru to the Himilayas.
Wasting away of the Greenland Ice Sheet, this potential disaster of a sea rise could endanger alot of costal life on Earth. This would probably be a 100-200 year + process that would give us time to adjust to if it actually happens.
The health of the North Pole icecap is a serious issue as ice and snow reflect 90% of the current UV light and subsequent warmth. Without the ice, the Arctic could face runaway warming. Actually it is already warming at what some believe to be 3.5 times the rate of the rest of the world.
The Little Ice Age (1350ad -1850ad) ended in just a six year period. Actually the climate for the last 10,000 years has been more or less stable. Previous to this time period there where huge swings in global climate.
I believe the earth is warming as most evidence supports this, but is this man made?
I am inclined to go for a 50/50 mix of fixing blame on that question on man and nature.
We may be forcing the planet into a new regime of climate that may not suit all of us particularly well. Can we adapt? sure but it might be expensive and at a cost that not all of the world can afford.
Frightening aspects of current climate change are:
Tropical, Sub-tropical glaciers and temperate Glaciers dissapearing at an alarming rate. This endangers freshwater drinking and agriculture supplies of water from Seattle, Washington to Lima Peru to the Himilayas.
Wasting away of the Greenland Ice Sheet, this potential disaster of a sea rise could endanger alot of costal life on Earth. This would probably be a 100-200 year + process that would give us time to adjust to if it actually happens.
The health of the North Pole icecap is a serious issue as ice and snow reflect 90% of the current UV light and subsequent warmth. Without the ice, the Arctic could face runaway warming. Actually it is already warming at what some believe to be 3.5 times the rate of the rest of the world.
drjeff
Well-known member
