Originally posted by RagnorakThe point is, Rag, that this talk of human-induced "global warming" which is incapable of proof at least, is drawing discussion away from the really important issues such as "what are we going to do in 40 years time when there's no oil?" That is the real issue facing civillisations today, why ignore it and try to stiffle business by chatting about this highly dubious global warming thing.
I'm just curious. What have you got to gain by denying man's contribution to global warming and in so doing, preventing any action which, at worst, can't do any harm?
It doesn't seem logical. If you're right, then you're right and the best that you will achieve is some "I told you so" bragging rights.
If you, and other civillian (as opposed to corpo ...[text shortened]... r and rivers. At the moment I can't understand the required mindset.
Thanks,
D
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterA) The article admits that global warming is occuring (Heading: Glaciers help curb global warming).
Why is that funny?
B) The article states the negative effects (social, economic and ecological) that glaciers melting causes
C) People who want to try to slow global warming refer to melting ice-caps and glaciers as an indication that global warming is occuring. You refer to an article dealing with this to present your opinion that global warming isn't occurring.
D) Global Warming alarmists refer to the fact that rising sea levels will be one of the big fallouts from global warming. Where does the water from the melting glaciers go?
E) How will the glaciers help curb global warming, when they've all melted?
F)China is the second biggest polluter on the planet. They are a growing economy, and as the u.s. have shown in the past, burning cheap fossil fuels is the easiest and fastest way to grow economies, in China's case: Coal. Also, China is a police state, so any chinese scientist's statements, like putting a positive spin on melting glaciers, have to be treated with caution.
It seems to me you don't really think about the articles you link to.
D
a) Of course "global warming" is occurring -- as far as scientists can tell, it's occurred about 600 times since the Earth was formed.
b)Will it be negative if people can grow grapes again in Britain or wheat in Siberia? Will it be negative if more people move to Canada and they have summer in the Yukon?
c) See a).
d)The reason so many people in America already live on the coasts (thus causing natural disasters to be far more costly) is because of government flood insurance. Once they have to bear the cost of rebuilding the structure themselves, they will move inland.
e)They won't all melt -- there's 200 million acres of frozen tundra in the Arctic…and they are increasing in mass. Also, at worst the temperatures are only going to increase 2-3 degrees and only regionally at that.
f)China is not a signatory to your precious Kyoto Protocol. There is nothing “global warming” zealots will ever get China to agree to. Besides, the treaty is not only ineffectual at halting CO2 emissions, it is very harmful to economic activity, as witnessed by the moribund economies of all the EU members who’ve attempted to meet Kyoto’s standards.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter600 times since the Earth was formed equates to a period of warming every 7.5 million years (the Earth being 4.5 billion years old). So you are saying that, given a typical 'warming period' of 100 years, there is a 1 in 75000 chance of us being in such a period? What are the odds of such a period coinciding with a time when humans are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which acts to increase the temperature of the atmosphere by reducing the amount of heat energy provided by the sun escaping back into space, and therefore provides such a cause for the observed warming?
a) Of course "global warming" is occurring -- as far as scientists can tell, it's occurred about 600 times since the Earth was formed.
Surely not just a coincidence?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAre you saying that the world's glaciers are increasing in mass? I think the opposite is true.
They won't all melt -- there's 200 million acres of frozen tundra in the Arctic…and they are increasing in mass.
Regarding the tundra, see http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_romanovsky.html for a discussion of changes in permafrost levels.