How the GW myth is perpetuated

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Some people like you to believe that. Any species that is wouldn't have survived previous temperature fluctuations which were much greater than we're experiencing now.
ANY species like that? "Any" is a pretty broad term.

Quite right. Some people like me believe that because we've seen evidence of it. I can understand you rebutting evidence like that because I have seen you cherry pick through an article to find the info you like to see. Seems to me there was a fellow (I forget his name) that cherry picked info in his scientific research into GW and came up with some awfully biased hockey stick graphs a few years ago. The scientific community laughed at him but gullible newsmedia people et al sucked it in. It is sad really to see scientists ignorant any or part of important info available to them.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Indeed there is. The article was about the discovery of a tropical reef, teeming with life, thriving! You had said (months ago) that tropical corals were in trouble. This discovery indicates that maybe they aren't.

Actually, that wasn't the focus of the article. But the author felt he had to add that because, like you, a tropical reef thriving is not what he expected (or wanted) to find. According to predictions, it should have been suffering, in decline. So if they aren't in decline, well just you wait, they will be, due to over-fishing, coastal development and large scale land conversion to agriculture, shrimp farms, pollution, oil drilling, sedimentation, climate change and ocean acidification! My point has always been that climate change won't harm them, since they've been through that many times before. Climate change without the other threats is no threat at all. Over-fishing, coastal development and land conversion to agriculture, shrimp farms, pollution, oil drilling, sedimentation and ocean acidification are valid concerns, but the addition global warming will not exacerbate the effect of those concerns in any way.
Any evidence for this opinion? Temperature change can exacerbate quite a few situations that are already critical. Anyway, I am not surprised that some places may show increased activity in generation of life. Warm up the arctic and watch the vegetation rate increase. Oh hhhmmmm, I guess we may see that happening in the near future.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=5707df3f-8804-46db-9d71-ff7018935667

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/10/climatechange.arctic

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/489179.html


The problem is alarmists have been prediction catastrophe from global warming and it never happens. Instead they find corals thriving, or discover that bleaching is a natural response to changing temps where they're merely in the process of exchanging their symbiotic organisms. Are there valid threats from humans? Absolutely, but temperature change isn't one of them, and that was the supposed concern when we started posting on corals so many months ago.
My links are copied and pasted from the title bar of the page as I copy and paste the quotes. If you have any trouble accessing the site where I aquired the quote, then by all means let me know and I'll attempt to correct it. I'm not aware of any problems in the past, so I have no idea what you're whining about.
Yeah, I try to ignore the alarmists. But when there are so many people researching things and the mass of studies shows that something is happening, it at least deserves closer inspection. I have noticed that quite a few people balk when someone cries wolf just because someone cried wolf, becoming biased right away, and this makes them tend to ignore any evidence that goes against what they have concluded. I am still waiting to see more evidence myself. But I do know that things have been warming up. Perhaps they are on the way to cooling now. Doesn't look like the arctic is though.

The thing with your links is that you have too many "http" prefixes.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
GW is true. It's a natural progression. AGW is true also, but only in such miniscule amounts that it isn't measurable except in localized areas like heat islands. AGW caused by carbon emissions is a hoax designed to transfer wealth from the successful capitalistic economies to the dictatorial and socialistic failures. Go after industry? They'll either go out of business or move their factories to countries that have no emission limits, thereby throwing millions of people out of work and wrecking economies permanently. The ruling elite and rich activists won't be affected though. Now that's really increasing the gap between rich and poor!
You might be right about why the "hoax", if it is a hoax, was designed, but then I can see different businesses benefiting. IE, get rid of an oil company and a solar energy company pops up. Or get rid of a company that builds vehicles with internal combustion engines and one pops up building vehicles using electric motors. It's kinda like people; one disappears, another shows up.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
It's bad enough that they scam the capitalist west in order to bring about a massive wealth transfer. It ticks me off. But I get really angry at what they do to billions of the worlds poorest people in order to "save the planet".

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/44753,opinion,march-of-the-eco-imperialists

Me, too.Doesn't help that the newsmedia blow everything out of proportion either, which makes matters worse.

I am not terribly upset about species disappearing because others will evolve or generate I am sure. Eventually. Some time. And who needs polar bears anyway? We need more of the really adaptable species like bugs, racoons, black bear, skunks, and the like that can live around people.
But I am not a biologist or a climatologist so I am missing an awful lot of info and can go on only what I encounter.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Some people like you to believe that. Any species that is wouldn't have survived previous temperature fluctuations which were much greater than we're experiencing now.

Well, that's not a logical fallacy at all...:roll: How about argumentum ad poplarum, or even the unsubstantiated middle? Your assertion assumes that:

a) any species alive today must have survived multiple fluctuations (ignoring the greater speciation as time passes on), and that
b) they were all (climate changes) in larger magnitude than today (not at all substantiated.)

Indeed there is. The article was about the discovery of a tropical reef, teeming with life, thriving! You had said (months ago) that tropical corals were in trouble. This discovery indicates that maybe they aren't.

Appraently the discovery of one thriving reef is enough to disprove a trend? This is news to me. I shall rush off to tell my statistics professors of this new revelation! :roll:

Actually, that wasn't the focus of the article. But the author felt he had to add that because, like you, a tropical reef thriving is not what he expected (or wanted) to find.

I was talking about your post, not the article. Are you related to cut-and-paste Walter by chance? Moreover, where did the authors of that paper state that they were surprised by the result, because I read no such thing. I did read stark contrast, but that is to be expected from unsubstantiated models.

According to predictions, it should have been suffering, in decline. So if they aren't in decline, well just you wait, they will be, due to over-fishing, coastal development and large scale land conversion to agriculture, shrimp farms, pollution, oil drilling, sedimentation, climate change and ocean acidification!

Predictions from a model that stands in stark contrast to reported reef ecology. A model that is billed as including "atmosphere-ice and ocean carbon cycles." A model that doesn't include aragonite availability in a calcium carbonate cycle, or any calcium cycle for that matter, arguably the most important parameter to model in order to make predictions about calcification rates...

My point has always been that climate change won't harm them, since they've been through that many times before.
Unsubstantiated.

Climate change without the other threats is no threat at all.
More, unsubstantiated crap. You've shown your ecological and biological depth many times before. I wouldn't accept it at face value at all, minus the very large generalities that exist which you can parrot, which say nothing of specific research guidelines at all...

The problem is alarmists have been prediction catastrophe from global warming and it never happens.
Ahh, so now it's on from logical fallacies and unproved assertions to rhetoric. Didn't see that one coming...:roll: Do you have nothing intelligent to say about warming temperatures, lowered states of calcium saturation, and weakened cements? Do you need some time to wait for a blog entry or science daily entry that you can cherry pick?

Instead they find corals thriving, or discover that bleaching is a natural response to changing temps where they're merely in the process of exchanging their symbiotic organisms.
Ahh, back to an irrelevant conclusion. I guess I should tell my statistics professors of this new trend analysis you've come up with, though tt can't be called cherry-picking, because that already exists.... and my aquatic physiology professors would love to see this new information. Hell the shellfish group at my school could probably get grants....:roll:

Can you show more than one thriving new reef? Can you use this model you've quoted, to go out and find that the larger ecology of earth's reef systems is rebounding under warmer temperatures?


My links are copied and pasted from the title bar of the page as I copy and paste the quotes. If you have any trouble accessing the site where I aquired the quote, then by all means let me know and I'll attempt to correct it. I'm not aware of any problems in the past, so I have no idea what you're whining about.
My p.s. was to Les. He was having problems accessing these websites in your links:

I helped him out. Maybe next time before you consider me a whiner, you can read and type more carefully:lol:

Yeah, that's another funny thing. Some people tend to cherrypick an article for the info they want to see and leave out important related info they don't like. That's called editorializing and we get enough of it from the newsmedia.

No $hit ehh? Just because I argue for proven science, people assume I:
a) support Al Gore as a standard I fight on here to hold.
b) support Suzuki as a credible geo-scientist.
c) parrot the media bull crap simply because I don't agree with their pseudo-skeptic nonsense.

I'm sorry, but a skeptic would have long ago found the problems in the rhetoric and stodgy stats of Extrafire, Walter, Scott Free, and a few others that pop in to produce the Al Gore fallacy....


know I am right. I just thought I would be diplomatic and not call anyone a l***, for a change. lol
Nah, you should go back to the straight shooter Les ;) I think it's a better fit.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Yeah, that's another funny thing. Some people tend to cherrypick an article for the info they want to see and leave out important related info they don't like. That's called editorializing and we get enough of it from the newsmedia.
If I hadn't wanted anyone to see the rest of the material I wouldn't have used the link in the first place. Some times I paste the whole article, sometimes I paste relevant parts and link to it, sometimes the whole article is relevant but I consider it too long to paste it all. I guess you could call that editorializing, but unlike the news media I provide the link so you can read the complete article in full context. I would hardly call that cherry picking.

I certainly do select articles that are supportive of my position, as does everyone else here. I suppose that could be called cherry picking.

I know I am right. I just thought I would be diplomatic and not call anyone a l***, for a change. lol
And I know I am right, but I would never call anyone else that. Misguided, misinformed, maybe.:smile:

I"]http://http:www.whateverhelinkedto.com Ahhh. A few too many http's
Oh. Hadn't noticed that. I copy and paste the urls and in the link tool the http is already there. I've always highlighted the original http and pasted over it, thus eliminating it. Must have stopped working. I'll watch for that in future.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
ANY species like that? "Any" is a pretty broad term.

Quite right. Some people like me believe that because we've seen evidence of it. I can understand you rebutting evidence like that because I have seen you cherry pick through an article to find the info you like to see. Seems to me there was a fellow (I forget his name) that cherry picked info in his scientific research into GW and came up with some awfully biased hockey stick graphs a few years ago. The scientific community laughed at him but gullible newsmedia people et al sucked it in. It is sad really to see scientists ignorant any or part of important info available to them.
Well we know that it was much warmer during the Medieval climate optimum. And the Roman Warming. And very much warmer during most of the holocene, and warmer yet during the last few interglacials. Are you suggesting that there are some species that have evolved since then? If so, they wouldn't survive natural climate variations and are doomed to extinction.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Any evidence for this opinion? Temperature change can exacerbate quite a few situations that are already critical. Anyway, I am not surprised that some places may show increased activity in generation of life. Warm up the arctic and watch the vegetation rate increase. Oh hhhmmmm, I guess we may see that happening in the near future.
Yes it can. It can also help situations that are critical.



Yeah, I try to ignore the alarmists. But when there are so many people researching things and the mass of studies shows that something is happening, it at least deserves closer inspection. I have noticed that quite a few people balk when someone cries wolf just because someone cried wolf, becoming biased right away, and this makes them tend to ignore any evidence that goes against what they have concluded. I am still waiting to see more evidence myself. But I do know that things have been warming up. Perhaps they are on the way to cooling now. Doesn't look like the arctic is though.
I agree, something is happening. But the question is what is causing it.

The thing with your links is that you have too many "http" prefixes.
Yes, thanks, I saw that in the last post.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
You might be right about why the "hoax", if it is a hoax, was designed, but then I can see different businesses benefiting. IE, get rid of an oil company and a solar energy company pops up. Or get rid of a company that builds vehicles with internal combustion engines and one pops up building vehicles using electric motors. It's kinda like people; one disappears, another shows up.
Most of the businesses benefiting are the likes of Al Gores carbon offset company. You won't get rid of an oil company till the demand collapses. Not happening any time soon. The company that can build a full size SUV that gets terrific mileage or runs on an alternative energy source that's as convenient and long-ranged as gas will benefit, and they'd all like to do that. Meanwhile they're all trying to develop something that's viable. It takes $billions. No new company will have an easy time of it, even if they come up with a new concept, like the Tesla. Most existing businesses will be hurt by the government actions

Killing Jobs to Save the Climate

The price of European emission permits is rising so rapidly that German companies are threatening to leave the country. Thousands of jobs could be lost. And the environment may, in the end, be no better off.

They sat silently through two lectures, but then they couldn't control their anger any longer. The civil servants from the Environment Ministry, the Environment Agency and the German Emissions Trading Authority made it sound easy for industry to take up carbon trading. It was just too much for the managers to tolerate.

"If that's the shape the trading will take, we will simply move our cement operation to Ukraine," a cement factory manager shouted into the lecture hall. "Then there won't be any trading here, nothing will be produced here anymore -- the lights will simply go out here."

The businessmen's anger surprised the emissions-allowance trading experts. They had invited industry representatives to a relaxed forum at the Environment Ministry's office in Bonn. They wanted to present international developments in the carbon trading market. However, the mood in the German business world has soured -- managers no longer have the stomach for academic lectures. The reason is that emissions allowances are already burdening some companies that require a lot of energy for production purposes.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,566441,00.html
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Me, too.Doesn't help that the newsmedia blow everything out of proportion either, which makes matters worse.

I am not terribly upset about species disappearing because others will evolve or generate I am sure. Eventually. Some time. And who needs polar bears anyway? We need more of the really adaptable species like bugs, racoons, black bear, skunks, and the like that can live around people.
But I am not a biologist or a climatologist so I am missing an awful lot of info and can go on only what I encounter.
Well I don't care to see species disappear, but that's the natural way of things. Over 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. I don't miss having dinosaurs around, but I wouldn't like to see polar bears vanish. Not that they're likely to, they aren't endangered, they're in the middle of a population explosion.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Well, that's not a logical fallacy at all...:roll: How about argumentum ad poplarum, or even the unsubstantiated middle? Your assertion assumes that:

a) any species alive today must have survived multiple fluctuations (ignoring the greater speciation as time passes on), and that
b) they were all (climate changes) in larger magnitude than today (not at all substantiated.)
Not enough time has passed on for any noticeable additional speciation, and any that has won't survive the next natural cycle anyway, if they're that sensitive.

Larger climate changes are a fact, very much substantiated. You should know that. I don't have time to reference right now. Look it up.

Appraently the discovery of one thriving reef is enough to disprove a trend? This is news to me. I shall rush off to tell my statistics professors of this new revelation! :roll:
I said disprove a trend??? Where? I said might not be true. Be certain to tell your proff the words I actually used. He might not find it so impressive as "disprove".


I was talking about your post, not the article. Are you related to cut-and-paste Walter by chance? Moreover, where did the authors of that paper state that they were surprised by the result, because I read no such thing. I did read stark contrast, but that is to be expected from unsubstantiated models.
When I see an article about thriving organisms and then a warning about threats that isn't observed in action, it's a valid assumption that they have the same mindset as you.

I don't have time to answer the rest. I'll get to them later.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
Michael Crichton is trying to sell his book. A book, a work of fiction, that contradicts the evidence of global warming.

The scientific method of research is exactly that. A majority of Climatologists have produced results that others in the field have reproduced. Consensus is not some evil word......it simply means that a majority of scientists in the field have agreed that global warming is a threat. They have agreed that according to the best evidence, the global temperatures are rising and human produced greenhouse gasses are causing it.


....I would tend to agree with juan.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Not enough time has passed on for any noticeable additional speciation, and any that has won't survive the next natural cycle anyway, if they're that sensitive.

That's just more speculation.

Larger climate changes are a fact, very much substantiated. You should know that. I don't have time to reference right now. Look it up.

Maybe that flew over your head, so I'll explain again. I never disputed that there haven't been larger swings in the climate than the current change afoot. I'm disputing what you said, that the past fluctuations that these corals have experienced were all larger than todays, which is not substantiated.

I said disprove a trend??? Where? I said might not be true. Be certain to tell your proff the words I actually used. He might not find it so impressive as "disprove".

The part I would tell my prof is that apparently one new finding is enough to doubt the trend, that plus your past assertions like:

"Instead they find corals thriving, or discover that bleaching is a natural response to changing temps where they're merely in the process of exchanging their symbiotic organisms".

One new reef does not pass the significance test, and certainly doesn't mean that coral reefs are thriving.

When I see an article about thriving organisms and then a warning about threats that isn't observed in action, it's a valid assumption that they have the same mindset as you.

What mindset would that be? Perhaps the mindset that has observed the threats in action? While you have read something in a website that you liked, and reprint it like it's the gospel? That you would find such comfort from that model and it's implications for reef communities is ironic. That you would reprint an article in part, while ignoring the part I have argued in the first place, well that's just standard Extrafire fare.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
If I hadn't wanted anyone to see the rest of the material I wouldn't have used the link in the first place. Some times I paste the whole article, sometimes I paste relevant parts and link to it, sometimes the whole article is relevant but I consider it too long to paste it all. I guess you could call that editorializing, but unlike the news media I provide the link so you can read the complete article in full context. I would hardly call that cherry picking.
Someone would have found where you got it and pasted the link to it anyway. Using someone else's article without attribution is plagiarism and I just love finding out where people get there cutnpastes. lol No biggie. I didn't compare you to the newsmedia, I simply said we get enough of it from them.

I certainly do select articles that are supportive of my position, as does everyone else here. I suppose that could be called cherry picking.
I cherry pick articles sometimes myself. Again, not a biggie. But I am also willing to post research in contradiction. What I meant was that you cherry picked through the areticle to pick out what benefited your argument and left out the info that didn't.

And I know I am right, but I would never call anyone else that. .............:smile:
You'd never call anyone else right? There's a few people like that here.


Oh. Hadn't noticed that. I copy and paste the urls and in the link tool the http is already there. I've always highlighted the original http and pasted over it, thus eliminating it. Must have stopped working. I'll watch for that in future.
Cool. Happened to me a few times, too.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Well we know that it was much warmer during the Medieval climate optimum. And the Roman Warming. And very much warmer during most of the holocene, and warmer yet during the last few interglacials. Are you suggesting that there are some species that have evolved since then? If so, they wouldn't survive natural climate variations and are doomed to extinction.
Species evolve, devolve, speciate, hybidize, and some go extinct naturally, I know. I am not a biologist and don't know enough about all the species to say which will evolve quickly enough to temperature changes and which won't. I'm more into the psychology than the physiology. But I am sure there are a lot of surprises in nature. I was told that by a PhD in zoology.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Yes it can. It can also help situations that are critical.
I agree it can help sometimes but disagree with your initial comment that temperature fluctuation wouldn't make any difference.

I agree, something is happening. But the question is what is causing it.
Well, I am only concerned in that part of the issue to see if anything can be done to counteract it, not appoint blame. Blaming is for courts.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Most of the businesses benefiting are the likes of Al Gores carbon offset company. You won't get rid of an oil company till the demand collapses. Not happening any time soon. The company that can build a full size SUV that gets terrific mileage or runs on an alternative energy source that's as convenient and long-ranged as gas will benefit, and they'd all like to do that. Meanwhile they're all trying to develop something that's viable. It takes $billions. No new company will have an easy time of it, even if they come up with a new concept, like the Tesla. Most existing businesses will be hurt by the government actions

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,566441,00.html
I know that oil companies won't be disappearing anytime soon and gov'ts are in the habit of screwing things up. The only one I have noticed actually helping people help themselves is the Yukon gov't. The others seem to want to punish people into "going green".
Anyway, it was just an example I used because we sold our oil shares and bought alternatives energy shares and are making just as much money from them. We're also looking to convert one of our vehicles to straight electricity and adding solar panels to our roof. Trading foul for fair. Anyway for a while there might be a few scummy businesses popping up, but in general they don't last as long as the better ones do.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Well I don't care to see species disappear, but that's the natural way of things. Over 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. I don't miss having dinosaurs around, but I wouldn't like to see polar bears vanish. Not that they're likely to, they aren't endangered, they're in the middle of a population explosion.
Yes I saw this a few months ago. But like temperatures, populations fluctuate (except for human pops). But,
We now know that polar bears are not a single large homogeneous population that roams throughout the Arctic. Instead groups of polar bears referred to as stocks or populations, are distributed throughout the Arctic.
- http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html. So one group may be exploding in numbers when others dwindle. North America has only about 35% of them. But it is kinda neat that the number seems to have doubled from the approx. 12,000 since 1960.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

By Steven Goddard UK Register
Published Friday 15th August 2008 10:02 GMT - source story is here
Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”. Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.
The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year’s record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here’s a smaller version of the graph:
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)’s troublesome ice graph
The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)
Ice at the Arctic: 2007 and 2008 snapshots
As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.


The 30 per cent increase was calculated by counting pixels which contain colors representing ice. This is a conservative calculation, because of the map projection used. As the ice expands away from the pole, each new pixel represents a larger area - so the net effect is that the calculated 30 per cent increase is actually on the low side.
So how did NSIDC calculate a 10 per cent increase over 2007? Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.
What melts the Arctic?

The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.
We know that Arctic summer ice extent is largely determined by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA claimed last summer that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming”. The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on “global warming” makes for an easy story - but it is not based on solid science. ®
Bootnote

And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn’t NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?
The author, Steven Goddard, is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any energy industry, nor does he have any current affiliation with any university.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Well anyway, my point is that at the rate human population is growing, the rate we are messing up the planet, plus climate change effects, and whatever else, biodiversity is going down the crapper. This will severely limit possibilities for the future.

Look at the thing about China's developments: why couldn't they learn from our mistakes and have started developing in a more ecologically sensitive way to begin with?

We HAVE been stupid and ignorant, we ARE being stupid and ignorant, so is there really a need to CONTINUE to be stupid and ignorant just for the sake of a few people being wealthy?