David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[Pope]

There's so much that can go wrong in space exploration, it's a much safer bet to hang on to the only habitable place we know.

[AGX-17]

And, mars still exists even though the Martians don't exist. Don't weep for Planet Earth. She'll be here after everyone posting in this thread is fertilizing her.

 

There's no evidence whatsoever that "Martians" ever existed. When Mars did have surface water, a viable atmosphere and a magnetic field it couldn't have had more than single-celled life, if it had life at all. There's no legitimate, evidence-based reason to assume that a planet further from the sun, with less mass, less water and less internal heat could miraculously generate life faster than the Earth or that evolution would take place at an accelerated rate.

 

 

There's so much that can go wrong in space exploration, it's a much safer bet to hang on to the only habitable place we know.

 

You could not be more wrong. Life on Earth and the Earth itself are fated to be vaporized by the sun as it grows ever larger. The planet's surface will be scorched clean of life long before it's finally engulfed by the sun as it grows into a red giant. The pressing long-term issue is not how we treat the planet, but how we escape from it. Humanity has to be an interstellar species if it wants to survive indefinitely.

 

The risks of trying to escape the prison that is Earth are well worth taking if the species is to survive beyond the life of our sun. It would be far worse for the Earth, humanity and all its accomplishments to be vaporized and forgotten by the universe. You really prefer that tragic an end for humankind?

Edited October 30, 2012 by AGX-17

[Volourn]

"There's many reasons for my concern, but I'll admit that my main motivation is very selfish: the current state of the planet makes me feel guilty for putting offspring on it. Firstly because every life extra is a life this planet cannot support (at least if living by western standards); and secondly because this overpopulation (and its effects on our climate) really is reducing the quality of life. I just don't want my kid to ask me in twenty years from now why I put him on a doomed world if I knew it was doomed."

 

My reasons for niot caring are also selfish. I won't have children so I don't care what happens to the planet or anyone else after I did. Why should I? Several centuries from now 9and maybe sooner heh), nobody will give a crap about my fertizilzer self so why should I gave a crap about those uncaring punks? Turnabout is fair play even after I die.

 

 

"There's no evidence whatsoever that "Martians" ever existed."

 

I wa sbeing tongue in cheek. of coruse, there is no such thing as martians.

[Gorgon]

It's not easy trying to figure out what the consensus is on global warming, most of the information out there has an agenda. The rest of it is very vague and doesn't come down on one side or the other, simply stating that there is a difference of opinion. The whole equation is so complex that it might as well be magic to the average observer trying to figure out if global warming is a man made phenomenon or not.

 

I challenge anyone to try and reference what the prevailing feeling is in the scientific community. Scientists don't play politics, or they shouldn't, but are constantly co opted by one side or the other.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Disaster. It's a terrible thing to say, isn't it? Even disaster doesn't do it. There have been disasters in North America, with hurricanes and floods, yet still people deny and say 'oh, it has nothing to do with climate change.' It visibly has got [something] to do with climate change.

Well, I'm convinced. Of course there has never been a disaster before this global warming thing happened, how could I have been so blind?

[Gorgon]

You can't point at this storm or that and put it on global warming. Show statistical correlation instead, then we would have something.

[Pope]

There's so much that can go wrong in space exploration, it's a much safer bet to hang on to the only habitable place we know.

 

You could not be more wrong. Life on Earth and the Earth itself are fated to be vaporized by the sun as it grows ever larger. The planet's surface will be scorched clean of life long before it's finally engulfed by the sun as it grows into a red giant. The pressing long-term issue is not how we treat the planet, but how we escape from it. Humanity has to be an interstellar species if it wants to survive indefinitely.

 

The risks of trying to escape the prison that is Earth are well worth taking if the species is to survive beyond the life of our sun. It would be far worse for the Earth, humanity and all its accomplishments to be vaporized and forgotten by the universe. You really prefer that tragic an end for humankind?

Of course you are correct. In fact I want nothing more than humanity and its accomplishments to survive (although indefinitely is impossible as you are probably aware, since the entire universe will ultimately come to an end).

 

My post was more in response to the previous posts by JFSOCC and pmp10. I was reasoning in a much narrower timescale than you are. Surely you must agree that our technology is still a very long way from allowing us to colonize space. And the current rate at which this planet's ecosystem is declining seems to indicate that we'll be extinct much sooner than that.

 

So what I was getting at is that, for the time being, we should better focus our efforts in making our home a bit more sustainable, rather than downplaying its value to us in favor of the (still untested) hypothesis of space colonization.

[Humodour]

It's not easy trying to figure out what the consensus is on global warming

 

Really? REALLY?! There is a HUGE scientific consensus that global warming is very real and very bad. But hey, what would scientists know? It's not like they study the Earth's atmosphere, water table, chemistry, and physics or anything.

 

most of the information out there has an agenda.

 

You mean most of the information from non-scientists has an agenda.

 

Gorgon, you're spreading harmful disinformation by implying that both sides have an agenda. The global scientific consensus has no other agenda than telling the truth. And the truth they are telling you is: global warming is real, near, and catastrophic.

 

The interesting thing is that all the engineers know this as well. Ask any country's professional engineering society what their stance on global warming is, and do they factor it into their design and planning decisions? The answers will be yes it is happening, and yes, they do.

[Humodour]

I'm still not entirely convinced that the global warming, to the extent it's going, is completely something humanity can control, however. By that I mean, I think we have increased its rate, but I'm not as sure whether it wouldn't be happening to some degree regardless ... that is, it might be some "natural" planetary cycle...we're just making it worse/happen faster. If that makes sense.

 

Really? And is this view informed by peer-reviewed science or your gut feeling?

[JFSOCC]

You can't point at this storm or that and put it on global warming. Show statistical correlation instead, then we would have something.

5 el niño years in the last 10 years where before they'd be 5 every few decades, and never twice in a row.

 

and we know this for certain because we can date core samples accurately and these are different for el Niño years.

More frequent and more powerful hurricanes are also statistical evidence. Every year you're confronted.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/hurricanefrequency.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records#Number_of_tropical_storms_and_hurricanes_per_season

 

I heard someone say that there is no consensus amongst scientists, that is simply not true. let me say that again, that is a LIE. consensus exists and only a few fringe scientists doubt it. And even then they don;t doubt global warming, they doubt if it's human caused. Offering explanations which have so far been largely debunked such as solar cycles.

Edited October 31, 2012 by JFSOCC

[HoonDing]

I'd rather humanity would not spread their pestilence across the galaxy.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Really? REALLY?! There is a HUGE scientific consensus that global warming is very real and very bad. But hey, what would scientists know? It's not like they study the Earth's atmosphere, water table, chemistry, and physics or anything.

 

You mean most of the information from non-scientists has an agenda.

 

Gorgon, you're spreading harmful disinformation by implying that both sides have an agenda. The global scientific consensus has no other agenda than telling the truth. And the truth they are telling you is: global warming is real, near, and catastrophic.

 

The interesting thing is that all the engineers know this as well. Ask any country's professional engineering society what their stance on global warming is, and do they factor it into their design and planning decisions? The answers will be yes it is happening, and yes, they do.

 

Krezack, the problem with a lot of scientists and their 'predictions' is that a lot of their predictions have not only been false but the complete opposite to what's happened. Lets take Australia for example and the Climate Commissioner idiot extraordinaire Tim Flannery.

 

- In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

 

- In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

 

- In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent, that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

 

- In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

 

- In 2009, Flannery said, ’In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’

 

The reality is that not only did the rain came, it filled all our dams. And we've wasted billions and continue to waste millions on desalination plants while our dams are full. A great source of continued wasted money by the alarmists. There's a famous poem you might know...

 

I love a sunburnt country,

A land of sweeping plains,

Of ragged mountain ranges,

Of droughts and flooding rains.

 

Trying to say in exact terms what's going to happen in two, three, five or twenty years like Flannery has done is not only foolish, but idiotic. And this is coming from so called 'scientists'. It's not the non-scientists giving out ludicrous misinformation. The scientists are doing a fine job of doing that themselves.

 

Here's another quote from Flannery:

 

- In 2012, Flannery said, "Even if all the world today stopped emitting CO2, it would take probably 1000 years to maybe affect global temperature if any."

 

Krezack, How much CO2 do humans produce on Earth and how much is produced naturally?

 

Now I'm not a climate change denialist because the climate does change, hence 'climate change'. So please don't brand me as some denialist or other, because scientists should be questioning and examining the facts, and not be in the business of 'believing doomsday prophecies predictions'.

 

Is it any wonder there is so much misinformation out there from climate scientists that you have so many different viewpoints on the topic.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Hiro Protagonist

[Humodour]

Really? REALLY?! There is a HUGE scientific consensus that global warming is very real and very bad. But hey, what would scientists know? It's not like they study the Earth's atmosphere, water table, chemistry, and physics or anything.

 

You mean most of the information from non-scientists has an agenda.

 

Gorgon, you're spreading harmful disinformation by implying that both sides have an agenda. The global scientific consensus has no other agenda than telling the truth. And the truth they are telling you is: global warming is real, near, and catastrophic.

 

The interesting thing is that all the engineers know this as well. Ask any country's professional engineering society what their stance on global warming is, and do they factor it into their design and planning decisions? The answers will be yes it is happening, and yes, they do.

 

[... some ignorant comments followed by some more ignorant comments ...]

 

Krezack, How much CO2 do humans produce on Earth and how much is produced naturally?

 

I don't know - I'm not a climate scientist? Are you a climate scientist? No? Then why don't we ask the climate scientists?

 

"This overwhelming consensus [that humans are causing global warming] among climate experts was confirmed by an independent study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus position. It found that 97-98% of climate experts support the consensus. Moreover, the study found that the small number of scientists rejecting the consensus had published, on average, around half as many papers each as the large majority of scientists accepting the consensus position." [1]

 

Well there we have it.

 

Now I'm not a climate change denialist because the climate does change, hence 'climate change'. So please don't brand me as some denialist or other, because scientists should be questioning and examining the facts, and not be in the business of 'believing doomsday prophecies predictions'.

 

No, you are a damn denialist. You are denying that humans are causing global warming against the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed evidence across the globe - and citing some inaccurate predictions of a single science communicator (who by the way has been bang on the money on many things) you don't like to disparage the professionalism of all scientists. A typical tactic of deniers.

 

You won't find a single genuine scientific organisation which states that global warming is not happening. Even the Koch brothers couldn't convince the scientists they paid off to state that global warming isn't happening.

 

Leave this thread. Dishonesty is not welcome in it.

 

To those reading this thread, I will not respond further to Hiro's denialist manipulations, but he says that the evidence and consensus don't exist. I offer them to you to read over all you want and see for yourself that they do (but, as compared to Hiro's lack of knowledge, this knowledge involves actual scientific facts and data, so will require some thoughtful processing - which I concede is more difficult than writing this evidence off and running with one's simplistic gut feeling that humans pumping record amounts of pollution into the skies isn't doing anything):

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/07/scientific-consensus-climate-change

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/05/scientific-concensus-stronger-than-scientists-though/

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

 

The science and data: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

[Pope]

There's many reasons for my concern, but I'll admit that my main motivation is very selfish: the current state of the planet makes me feel guilty for putting offspring on it. Firstly because every life extra is a life this planet cannot support (at least if living by western standards); and secondly because this overpopulation (and its effects on our climate) really is reducing the quality of life. I just don't want my kid to ask me in twenty years from now why I put him on a doomed world if I knew it was doomed.

 

My reasons for niot caring are also selfish. I won't have children so I don't care what happens to the planet or anyone else after I did. Why should I? Several centuries from now 9and maybe sooner heh), nobody will give a crap about my fertizilzer self so why should I gave a crap about those uncaring punks? Turnabout is fair play even after I die.

Please note the important distinction between you and me. I have a lot more motivations besides the selfish one. And even then my sort of selfishness actually results in altruism.

 

But I appreciate you're admitting to being purely selfish. I hope you also know that people like you are what's wrong with this planet. It truly is sad that most people can't seem to look beyond their own lives and try to work towards something much grander instead. We take so much and it's only fair to give back a little. It really takes very little effort or sacrifice to be a bit more caring for the environment, and even that seems too much to ask for some. If you don't agree that humanity (and by extension all life) is precious, then please be consequential and die already. But not getting children is a start at least, so thanks for that.

[Gorgon]

It's not easy trying to figure out what the consensus is on global warming

 

Really? REALLY?! There is a HUGE scientific consensus that global warming is very real and very bad. But hey, what would scientists know? It's not like they study the Earth's atmosphere, water table, chemistry, and physics or anything.

 

most of the information out there has an agenda.

 

You mean most of the information from non-scientists has an agenda.

 

Gorgon, you're spreading harmful disinformation by implying that both sides have an agenda. The global scientific consensus has no other agenda than telling the truth. And the truth they are telling you is: global warming is real, near, and catastrophic.

 

The interesting thing is that all the engineers know this as well. Ask any country's professional engineering society what their stance on global warming is, and do they factor it into their design and planning decisions? The answers will be yes it is happening, and yes, they do.

 

My post was about the difficulty of obtaining information on the subject, I wasn't looking for more opinion. There's enough of that going around. Prove it, so the skeptics who try and fail to discover it for themselves will be moved. It will be your good deed for the day.

 

And to emphasise, the question was 'is global warming man made' not 'does it exist', of course it does.

 

Edit : perhaps the word to use is 'climate change' since there is a school of though advocating that it's getting colder, not warmer.

[Meshugger]

How much would the impact be if the cows stopped farting and the population declined by a billion or two? Surely there has to be some calculations about this somewhere...

[Volourn]

"But I appreciate you're admitting to being purely selfish. I hope you also know that people like you are what's wrong with this planet. It truly is sad that most people can't seem to look beyond their own lives and try to work towards something much grander instead. We take so much and it's only fair to give back a little. It really takes very little effort or sacrifice to be a bit more caring for the environment, and even that seems too much to ask for some. If you don't agree that humanity (and by extension all life) is precious, then please be consequential and die already. But not getting children is a start at least, so thanks for that. "

 

L0LZ

 

You completely missed the point but I do forgive you for wishing me to die. That's evil.

 

 

P.S. Stop crying about the environment. the environment will live on. The arrogance of humans to think they can do anything to really hurt this planet long term. It's ridiclous that sucha short live species thinks it has the power to do that to something that has been here for pretty much forever. L0LZ

Edited October 31, 2012 by Volourn

[JFSOCC]

it took the earth between 11 and 18 million years to recover from the devonian extinction. Our planet has 100 million years left before it becomes uninhabitable for all but the most basic species.

that means that a mass extinction event (which technically, is already begun) of greater magnitude than the all of the others (which is likely) is going to plunge the earth into a near permanent chaos.

 

Earth won't recover for 11 million years, at least.

think on that.

[Volourn]

"Our planet has 100 million years left before it becomes uninhabitable for all but the most basic species."

 

I like how you know that for fact. Youa ctually beleive that you know exactly how the planet - soemthing that is much older than you, will out live you and all your decisision - and what state it will be 100million years from now with certainty. Give me a break. You cna't even be 100% sure where you will be tomorrow or what shape you'll be in yet you claim to know the Earth's status 100million years from now.

 

Even the ebst scientist in the world can't make that kind of guarantee.

 

The arrogance of humans. Laughable. And, sad.

[Pope]

P.S. Stop crying about the environment. the environment will live on. The arrogance of humans to think they can do anything to really hurt this planet long term. It's ridiclous that sucha short live species thinks it has the power to do that to something that has been here for pretty much forever. L0LZ

You really do know nothing about nature do you?

 

There's no shame in admitting.

[Volourn]

I know enought o know that nature is too [powerful to allow such a pathetic weak arrogant species like humans destory nature. There's no shame in admitting that nature is more powerful than mere humans since humans are a part of nature and we only do things nature allows us to do. We are nature's creation yet we haev the gall to think we cna destory it? Give me a friggin' break.

[Pope]

Come on Volourn, don't get semantic on me. You know (or should know) there's a difference between nature and the ecosystem which is defined by it. Obviously nature cannot be destroyed. But the conditions to which we're so finely tuned and therefore depend on so heavily certainly can. Because of the laws of nature. It's happened before. The only difference is now it's by our own doing. And that's tragic.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You can't point at this storm or that and put it on global warming. Show statistical correlation instead, then we would have something.

5 el niño years in the last 10 years where before they'd be 5 every few decades, and never twice in a row.

 

Half truths and junk science typical of the warmists.

But there was also evidence of cycles as short as three years from the late 1800s to about 1920. The cycles settled into their current pattern around 1955.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119847&page=1

[Hiro Protagonist]

I don't know - I'm not a climate scientist? Are you a climate scientist? No? Then why don't we ask the climate scientists?

 

 

According to your messiah climate scientist Tim Flannery:

 

"Even if all the world today stopped emitting CO2, it would take probably 1000 years to maybe affect global temperature if any."

 

Wow, he can predict what will happen in 1000 years. Going on his previous predictions, he has no more credibilty than a rain dancer trying to make it rain.

 

 

 

No, you are a damn denialist. You are denying that humans are causing global warming against the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed evidence across the globe - and citing some inaccurate predictions of a single science communicator (who by the way has been bang on the money on many things) you don't like to disparage the professionalism of all scientists. A typical tactic of deniers.

 

No you're completely wrong. If anyone decides to ask a question, you jump all over them and start throwing insults all over the place. The fact is most people don't take you seriously because you have no ability to engage in a discussion. You're like the polar opposite of Australian Radio personality Alan Jones but worse. Alan Jones will spew bile over anyone who believes in Climate Change. You spew bile over anyone that a) doesn't believe in Climate change or b) if they believe in Climate Change but asks legitimate questions about Climate Change that don't conform to your twisted views. If anyone has legitimate questions to ask, you spew bile and insults all over them.

 

Also Tim Flannery has been wrong on everything he has predicted. It's laughable that you even say "been bang on the money on many things". The guy is a fool and a joke to the science community and does more harm to the Cilmate Change movement than anyone could. Any self respecting climate scientist wouldn't associate themselves with him. This statement alone by you shows how much your fanaticism you really have towards him.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Hiro Protagonist

[ravenshrike]

*Yawn* Let me know when the AGW weenies start pushing for major research funding into carbon sequestration. At that point I'll start taking their claims seriously.