In your face evidence of climate change

[deckster]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Spectacularly weak reasoning. Take two non-correlating events and say that therefore one must cause the other? Congratulations, have a seat on IPCC.

mattikake said:

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

Self-balancing equilibrium? There's nothing terribly stable about the earth's climate. For a start, at the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago, the planet warmed about around 10 degrees in under 100 years. Not many SUVs around then I believe.

This whole concept that the earth has some kind of natural preferred state is an utter fallacy. The climate always has and always will change. What matters is that we accept it and plan for what may happen, not run around like headless chickens trying to stop something over which we have absolutely no influence.

[King Herald]

Eric Mc said:

scorp said:

I don't think anyone here disputes the climate is changing, it's the cause(s) that are in dispute.

Exactly.

Glaciers and ice caps are only ever temporary artefacts.

No, no, I have seen footage of the end of glaciers falling off, which means we are all doomed. Think of the polar bears. And the polar bears children, And their children's children

[m4tthew]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.

Nope, sorry.

mattikake said:

Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

If there is no evidence, how can it be proven that mankind contributes?

mattikake said:

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

You are Al Gore aicmfp.

As others have alluded to, the planet has, over the last however many hundreds of millions of years been through a number of climatic changes, could it not be possible that this is happening again?

Edited by m4tthew on Tuesday 22 July 11:30

[Swilly]

mattikake said:

Some pics to have a look at. The best way of seeing climate change is with receeding glaciers and ice flows. There are some good pictures going back over 100 years, so you can clearly see the difference now.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glac...

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

Very interesting and exciting times. Either humans are going to get a much needed kick up the rse (that we are part of the eco-system, not free to do what we like... as some self-obsessed igorant versions of god or economic systems would have you believe) or we'll simply die out.

Um if the global climate is increasing then, yes, i would expect to see such things as glaciers retreating.

Are we not still coming out of the last iceage though !?!?!?

Dont you think it would do us better to approach this 'issue' with less of a dramatic, quasi-politicised stance !?!?!?!

Facts are always rock solid facts until they are proven not to be !!!!

Your human-hating rhetoric is humourous though !! plank !!

[telecat]

Sorry Mattikke, as long as they continue to include CO2 in the figures I cannot believe anything said by them. The amounts of CO2 they quote may seem huge but compared to the figures for the atmosphere as a whole they are minuscule. Even if they were not,remember that CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. It's a naturally occurring gas that is REQUIRED for life on earth to exist. Plants breath it and exude O2. Animals require it in order to breath, the presence of it in the lungs "triggers" breathing.

As for Glaciers and Ice caps. The "MMGW" camp have chosen Glaciers that have grown to their maximum length and are now receding because the ice cannot support itself. There are plenty of "growing" Glaciers. The Ice at the South Pole is currently increasing. The Polar Ice pack is in one of it's receding phases. It did this around the time of the Second world war and Previously receded enough for explorers to try and find the "North West" Passage.

Lastly the World has been "cooling" very gently since 1998.

Edited by telecat on Tuesday 22 July 11:34

[ajcj]

mattikake said:

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource to population for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

Utter bilge. Equilibrium means a balance: nothing changing, or returning over time to the same state. The temperature, weather systems, atmospheric composition, ocean currents, even the magnetic fields and the positions of the continents have all changed over time, and there is no equilibrium position that they will return to. Several billion years ago the world was a very different place, and there are long periods of time since then where humans in our current state would not have survived for long. More than 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct thanks to changes in their environment and they did not contribute to their own demise; why should we think we are any different?

[maxrider]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.

Out of interest, how old are you? It's very relevant.

[fatboy b]

I saw Mt Hood earlier this year. It had more snow on it than in the 1984 pic.

[mattikake]

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

...and the like.

Jesus there's some self-obsessed ignorance on display here, isn't there?!

Get the FUNDAMENTAL point: Man maybe natural, but the way man has been using natural resources, on land sea and most of all, stored under the ground, is NOT natural. It is NOT part of the natural eco-system.

This is before you consider the mass over-population of this plague we call humanity - over-population implies, using artificial over-use of resources to sustain an artificial over-sized population.

The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law.

[Timsta]

[chris watton]

I can fully understand past campaigns to stem massive deforestation, and not building on land that may have a massive detrimental effect on the local eco-system. I can also fully comprehend people wanting to safeguard their own local environment, be it disposing of rubbish responsibly (although I thought that’s what we all paid local taxes for), and wanting to keep our bills down, so save energy wherever we can – common sense stuff.

What I find disgusting is people preaching about how we should live, when life can already be a real struggle, most likely because they don’t like their neighbour who is seemingly better off than them. I don't think no other government in the West, since the Nazies has generated a nation of people so wrapped up in envy and hatred for their neighbour.

Again, if these people preaching to false Gods believe so much, please, lead by example, throw away all of your evil Western lifestyle belongings and go live off the land.

[otolith]

Everything else, how we get to work, what car we drive, where our food is grown, how we heat our houses, it's all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic:



That's the problem, that's what needs addressing, the fking ship is sinking and you're hassling me about the footprint of my deckchair?

[esselte]

mattikake said:

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

...and the like.

Jesus there's some self-obsessed ignorance on display here, isn't there?!

Get the FUNDAMENTAL point: Man maybe natural, but the way man has been using natural resources, on land sea and most of all, stored under the ground, is NOT natural. It is NOT part of the natural eco-system.

This is before you consider the mass over-population of this plague we call humanity - over-population implies, using artificial over-use of resources to sustain an artificial over-sized population.

The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law.

MAtt,have you looked anywhere for evidence to the contrary of your beliefs...?

[Swilly]

mattikake said:

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

...and the like.

Jesus there's some self-obsessed ignorance on display here, isn't there?!

Get the FUNDAMENTAL point: Man maybe natural, but the way man has been using natural resources, on land sea and most of all, stored under the ground, is NOT natural. It is NOT part of the natural eco-system.

This is before you consider the mass over-population of this plague we call humanity - over-population implies, using artificial over-use of resources to sustain an artificial over-sized population.

The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law.

I whole heartedly agree, we need to do something about this plague we call humanity... and given your obvious passion for this cause may i suggest you step up to the plate, put your money where your mouth is, and take that first step....

[tamore]

mattikake said:

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

...and the like.

Jesus there's some self-obsessed ignorance on display here, isn't there?!

Get the FUNDAMENTAL point: Man maybe natural, but the way man has been using natural resources, on land sea and most of all, stored under the ground, is NOT natural. It is NOT part of the natural eco-system.

This is before you consider the mass over-population of this plague we call humanity - over-population implies, using artificial over-use of resources to sustain an artificial over-sized population.

The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law.

well in the face of that, the only way forward is for everyone to top themselves to save the planet. you first..........

[ludo]

mat205125 said:

Human CO2 emission is a small percentage of total emissions.

I have no problem with people questioning whether CO2 is a major cause of global warming, as this can't be unambiguously proven (at least as far a I am aware), but I can't believe how often this nonsense it trotted out. The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is about half the level of human emissions, which shows that the environment must be absorbing the other half (it has to go somewhere). To do this, the environment must be absorbing more than it emits over an annual cycle (after the seasonal fluxes average out), so we know the environment is not causing the increase and by a process of elimination it must be us. You only need a bit of simple algebra to work this out from things that we can measure, it isn't rocket science!

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 22 July 11:45

[ewenm]

mattikake said:

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

...and the like.

Jesus there's some self-obsessed ignorance on display here, isn't there?!

Get the FUNDAMENTAL point: Man maybe natural, but the way man has been using natural resources, on land sea and most of all, stored under the ground, is NOT natural. It is NOT part of the natural eco-system.

This is before you consider the mass over-population of this plague we call humanity - over-population implies, using artificial over-use of resources to sustain an artificial over-sized population.

The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law.

I need some entertainment while watching Le Tour today, please continue stating theories and ideas as fact.

There's not enough data even to make climate models produce NOW from last year's conditions. Suggests to me the models are wrong (or not sophisticated enough), and yet governments and the media spout it as gospel truth. For a confirmed atheist, you're showing a lot of faith there.

[m4tthew]

Swilly said:

mattikake said:

lunarscope said:

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

...and the like.

Jesus there's some self-obsessed ignorance on display here, isn't there?!

Get the FUNDAMENTAL point: Man maybe natural, but the way man has been using natural resources, on land sea and most of all, stored under the ground, is NOT natural. It is NOT part of the natural eco-system.

This is before you consider the mass over-population of this plague we call humanity - over-population implies, using artificial over-use of resources to sustain an artificial over-sized population.

The law of conservation of energy is inscapeable (e.g. more man'energy' the less there has to be of everything else). No level of ignorance makes you exempt from this law.

I whole heartedly agree, we need to do something about this plague we call humanity... and given your obvious passion for this cause may i suggest you step up to the plate, put your money where your mouth is, and take that first step....

+1 One step closer to reducing mass over-population!

[Deltaf01]

mattikake said:

man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium,

How do you know its "sensitive"?

How sensitive is it to a volcano the size of Krakatoa blastig half the atmopshere into space?
We're still here, the plants and animals are still here?
It aint THAT sensitive pally, youre exagerrating to try and prove a pointless point.

[mattikake]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW.

Seeing as many can't seem to see literal reasoning and are decontructing this point it looks like I have to pose philosphically: :rolleys:
Question, just were do you think all that pollution goes? Why do you think it has absolutely ZERO effect?

Or another angle:
If you have a glass of white liquid, and progressively add black liquid until it turns black, at what point is the white liquid no longer pure white? Is it only when you notice? Only when you compare it to another glass of white liquid? Only when you decide? Only when you care?

Man HAS contributed. You just chosen not to notice or can't notice (yet).

Stuff that was not in the atmosphere, now is.

It's pretty basic reasoning really.