Global Warming - our saviour.

[deoxyribonuclei]

You are abosolutely correct but it is still getting hotter. This ice age is not going to happen overnight. In The K-T boundary This Earth was still stabalizing. When before it could stablize it was hot. Something apocalyptic happened in the past that led to a chain of ice ages. It could've been a comet or an ateroid but what ever it was it was bad. For that reason I say that we are entering an ice age because right now some is going that is also apocalyptic. We are deforesting, we are dumping CO2 emissions, we are polluting. This is a very tramatic change for the Earth just like it was in the K-T boundary. They may be very different and one may have happened faster but they both lead to the same outcome

[bascule]

Lance, answer my question.

 

And mine, please

[SkepticLance]

To Sayonara

Sorry to take so long to reply to you. I have been heavily involved in family Christmas celebrations and have not been on my computer.

 

You asked the point of the thread. I am not really sure any more. I began it because I came across an interesting reference I wanted to share, and see what other people thought of the proposal. We got sidetracked and the degree of misinterpretation of what I was trying to say led down a merry garden path.

 

Bascule.

If you have a single question, please ask it again. There has been so much confusion in your recent posts that it needs clarification.

[bascule]

If you have a single question, please ask it again. There has been so much confusion in your recent posts that it needs clarification.

 

Never mind. You think I would've learned my lesson, but it's clear you're full of nothing but insults and distortions.

[iNow]

Never mind. You think I would've learned my lesson, but it's clear you're full of nothing but insults and distortions.

 

Well, if you're not going to remind him, bascule, I will.

 

Lance, in post #38, bascule asked you to be specific, as you kept stating that he was misinterpreting you and misrepresenting you, yet you never shared where, nor did you take steps to correct any of the misinterprations you asserted he was making.

 

Where exactly did bascule misinterpret you? On which specific point(s)? What did you actually mean so we can see the difference in bascule's interpretation and what you meant?

 

Also, use both the "link to post" and quote features like I did at the opening of this message to avoid future confusions or breakdowns.

[Sayonara]

To Sayonara

Sorry to take so long to reply to you. I have been heavily involved in family Christmas celebrations and have not been on my computer.

Not to worry, I only popped in briefly myself over Christmas.

 

You asked the point of the thread. I am not really sure any more. I began it because I came across an interesting reference I wanted to share, and see what other people thought of the proposal. We got sidetracked and the degree of misinterpretation of what I was trying to say led down a merry garden path.

I asked because the direction of the discussion seemed to run contrary to the original post, which seemed (on the face of it, at least) an open invitation to discuss the issue. Maybe it would help to re-read the thread and try and recall what you wanted out of it.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

When I asked bascule to repeat his question, that was a genuine request, hopefully worded courteously, since I was confused about what he wanted.

 

in post 38, bascule said :

 

"What a cop out. How about you point out what you think I've misinterpreted? As far as I can tell I haven't misinterpreted anything: you are a climate change denialist who seeks to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about climate science.

 

And you apparently don't understand the basics of climate change.

 

You're doing everyone on these forums a great disservice by even posting here."[/I]

 

I cannot see anything here that amounts to a polite query!! If bascule is correct in saying that I am full of insults, then it is clear I am not the only one!

 

If the question was, as you suggest, where bascule misrepresented me, it was in the distinction between safe water supply and overall global water shortage.

 

As I said before, these are two quite distinctly different issues.

I agree that there is a global water shortage. How much this may be related to global warming is somewhat moot, but I do not want to get involved in any argument on that point, because any cause and effect relationship is likely to be purely local, and overall generalisations, strongly suspect.

 

However, I was not talking about global water shortage. I was talking about providing safe drinking water. There are very few places on Earth that cannot supply sufficient water for drinking. That is because we need very little water for drinking - just 1 to 3 litres per day per person. However, the question is whether that water is safe to drink. Often it is not. Making it safe is a question of applying appropriate water treatment technology. Sometimes that consists of simple filtering. Sometimes something related to higher technology. However, safe drinking water supply is not related to global warming. It is a health problem, and related to access to the technology to treat the water before drinking.

 

I hope this answers the question. If not, please re-state.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, seriously now.

 

This thread was going downhill for a while, then it got a bit better, then it started teetering again.

 

If you want to debate this subject, get rid of the petty 'he said/she said' attitude, it's not doing anyone any good in delivering their message and just flaring the emotions up.

 

The first part of your post was completely irrelevant. If you can't discuss this subject without resorting to personal whining in every post, then drop the discussion.

 

Knock it out, all of you.

 

~moo

[Reaper]

You mean that you don't find this thread in the least bit amusing?

 

On the side note, I think I should show you the reality of the situation:

 

[SH3RL0CK]

You mean that you don't find this thread in the least bit amusing?

 

On the side note, I think I should show you the reality of the situation:

 

 

Reaper,

 

Thank you for that great correlation chart! Considering the recent, drastic increase in pirates, especially in the waters around Somalia, we can look forward to an ice age within the next couple of days, or hopefully hours.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1120/p25s22-woaf.html

 

 

You have proven dioxyribonuclei correct!

 

Seriously, I think it is best to stick to real data and not conjecture. While there is a great deal of debate about specific aspects of global warming/climate change, the undeniable facts are

1) the CO2 has increased drastically in the last few decades, most likely due to the use of fossil fuels

2) this must produce some amount of warming (although the exact amount is still uncertain)

3) the earth has increased in temperature over the very recent past, most likely due to this CO2 (although the details connecting this to CO2 isn't fully understood as there are other variables we don't know how to account for yet).

4) It would be wise to reduce the emitted CO2, although no one has an idea on realistically how to do it such that a real difference would be made.

Edited December 27, 2008 by SH3RL0CK

[john5746]

If this is correct, I am glad it happened. I would much rather live in our current relatively balmy conditions than in a new deep freeze.

 

since we are speculating.... as has been stated already, global warming doesn't affect all areas equally, so some climates may become more habitable, while others get worse. Maybe Europe and North America benefited at the cost of Africa, the islands and South America? We tend to assume anything supporting current conditions would be best, but maybe climates would be better today without the warming or would have been more stable.

 

In any case, if this is true the change was gradual enough for people to adjust, move or die gracefully. Sudden changes like the warming we have now will almost certainly result in conflict, famine, disease, etc. Some areas may change for the better, but only if those people can adjust to those changes and can cope with the global changes surrounding them.