Global Warming - our saviour.

[iNow]

I agree, but please bear in mind that Lance's posts (and mine and Bascule's, as well) are not made in a vacuum. Often, we are responding to more than just the individual threads to which we're replying.

[SkepticLance]

iNow is correct again. I began trying to be courteous to bascule, but he insists on ignoring what I was saying and raising straw man arguments.

 

Bascule, can you not understand the difference between shortage of fresh water, and lack of safe drinking water????? The shortage of water comes from the fact that vast amounts are needed. The average town dweller needs 200 litres per person per day for all domestic needs. The average farmer who needs to irrigate requires at least ten times that amount, and the need can be a thousand times greater. For drinking, we may need as little as one litre per day.

 

Any person who cannot understand that needing 1 to 3 litres of safe drinking water per person per day is different from needing 200 to 2000 litres of general purpose water - well such a person is stupid indeed.

 

So please drop your strawman. What I have said is quite correct, and your argument against it is irrelevent. If you persist in that argument, you are showing that my hypothetical idiot is you.

[bascule]

Yeah sorry SkepticLance, I'm not going down that road because it's completely irrelevant to my argument.

 

Knowing what you do now about the relationship between water vulnerability and climate change, do you still insist that climate change is a good thing?

[SkepticLance]

bascule

I do not think I ever insisted that climate change was a good thing. My initial post asked the question of others.

 

My private view is that climate change will be a mix of good and bad. Obviously, raising sea levels is bad. However, there will be good also. Greater warmth, especially in winter should be a boon in very cold countries. Nations such as Canada and Russia will gain the ability to produce more crops.

 

Local changes should be varied. Some places will be drier. Some wetter. Some places will be better off. Some worse.

 

If the reference I quoted initially turns out to be correct, and the global climate would have returned to a period of glaciations without human interferance, then overall anthropogenic global warming would be a good thing, though I think it is time to begin the process of halting it. Warming that is extreme would be bad.

[iNow]

Wrestling this thing back on topic, you said something like "we're actually quite lucky and should be pleased it's warming," bascule responed along the lines of, "there are a lot of folks hurting right now due to warming, access to clean/safe water being one major way this occurs, so that seems to speak counter to your point."

 

Can we move on now?

[Reaper]

However controversial this issue is, I am sure the debate can continue using better logical, scientific and less emotional arguments than these.

 

Oh sure it can, just like all the other times.

 

The problem is, these global warming deniers are just like cockroaches. We keep squishing and they keep coming. It's pathetic.

[bascule]

Greater warmth, especially in winter should be a boon in very cold countries. Nations such as Canada and Russia will gain the ability to produce more crops.

 

But that's not the case, and makes me think your understanding of climate change is extremely flawed.

 

The only "warming" manifests in the long-term trend of the global mean surface temperature. The regional effects are varied. Very cold countries may very well get colder.

 

bascule responed along the lines of, "there are a lot of folks hurting right now due to warming, access to clean/safe water being one major way this occurs, so that seems to speak counter to your point."

 

Yes, and this is only one of only impacts and vulnerabilities being researched now. However, it's the foremost in my mind in terms of how climate change will harm humans.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

The divergence off topic began with this from bascules earlier post.

 

"Originally Posted by SkepticLance

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. "

Do you think the millions of people who are about to lose access to safe drinking water feel the same way?[/

 

I responded with a statement that access to safe drinking water had nothing to do with global warming, which bascule totally misunderstood and misinterpreted, and we set off on our merry path to stupidity.

 

Let's ignore that divergence and get back to the theme.

[Sayonara]

Let's ignore that divergence and get back to the theme.

If people are not allowed to disagree with:

 

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.

 

...then what is the point of this thread?

[Reaper]

...then what is the point of this thread?

 

 

Well, I asked virtually the same question in the previous page, and look what happened .

 

This is another one of SkepticLance's threads, where he rules and the rest of us who dare to object are dragged into his personal Fantasy Land where the rules of logic do not apply...

Edited December 24, 2008 by Reaper

[bascule]

I do not think I ever insisted that climate change was a good thing. My initial post asked the question of others.

 

The title of this thread is "Global Warming - our saviour." PERIOD

 

That's not a question. That's a statement. But hey, I can't say I'm surprised to see you trying to play off something else as "just asking questions". It's your classical excuse. You claim to be a "skeptic" when really you're just a climate change denialist who seeks to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about climate science.

 

bascule totally misunderstood and misinterpreted

 

You sure like talking about that, but what about SkepticLance misunderstood and misinterpreted?

 

Greater warmth, especially in winter should be a boon in very cold countries. Nations such as Canada and Russia will gain the ability to produce more crops.

 

But that's not the case, and makes me think your understanding of climate change is extremely flawed.

 

The only "warming" manifests in the long-term trend of the global mean surface temperature. The regional effects are varied. Very cold countries may very well get colder.

 

You are singing the praises of global warming even though it's pretty clear at this point you don't know the first thing about it.

 

Furthermore, you ignored me pointing this out the first time, and instead decided to continue with disparaging me from your previous red herring. Do you ever wonder why I get frustrated and stop responding in threads where you are active?

Edited December 24, 2008 by bascule

[SkepticLance]

bascule

 

It would help if you read my posts properly. I was NOT singing the praises of global warming. Read my post again, and try to understand.

[bascule]

bascule

 

It would help if you read my posts properly. I was NOT singing the praises of global warming. Read my post again, and try to understand.

 

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.

[SkepticLance]

bascule

I do not know what has got into you lately. I do not mind you disagreeing with me. However, it is simple courtesy to read what someone posts before you argue against something that is not even said.

 

I said that global warming is a mixture of good and bad. Rather than 'singing the praises' I posted examples of both good things and bad things that global warming can bring.

This was in direct response to your question about whether I thought it was good or bad. I answered you honestly, and in good faith, and your response was ...

 

"You are singing the praises of global warming even though it's pretty clear at this point you don't know the first thing about it."

 

All I am asking from you is basic human courtesy. That means reading my posts before you argue against them, and affording a little respect instead of accusing me of total ignorance. You have been posting to these threads long enough to know that I am quite conversant with these matters. Please, please, please read before responding.

[Sayonara]

Lance, answer my question.

[deoxyribonuclei]

I think that global warming is an astronmically over rated. We really need to adress the fact that we are on th brink of cooling not warming. When it gets warmer the salt at the bottom of the sea comes up and melts the glaciers. This abnormal rise in fresh water will ultimately stop the currents. No currents no warmth. Then our Earth goes into a period of high instability

[swansont]

I think that global warming is an astronmically over rated. We really need to adress the fact that we are on th brink of cooling not warming. When it gets warmer the salt at the bottom of the sea comes up and melts the glaciers. This abnormal rise in fresh water will ultimately stop the currents. No currents no warmth. Then our Earth goes into a period of high instability

 

Any science references to back up these claims?

[deoxyribonuclei]

I watch alot of science channel.

[swansont]

I watch alot of science channel.

 

I have a hard time believing the science channel has been advancing a thesis that marginalizes the science of global warming. Anything else?

[deoxyribonuclei]

That may be true but it makes sense. This is also what caused the other ice ages.

[iNow]

Were humans pumping thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere during those other ice ages? If not, then it's an invalid comparison.

 

Why are people still so far behind the curve on this topic? It's not hard to understand, it's well supported, and it's not based on worldview... It's just basic science with enormous supporting evidence, yet for years and years and years we keep going around in circles just like people who argue creationism versus evolution. ENOUGH ALREADY!!! It's 2009, not 1009. Let's stop being so damned ignorant as a species and advance past this mindlessness!

[deoxyribonuclei]

lets not for get the fact that it was much hotter in the time of the dinosuars. this extreme heat was already there. The Earth was natuarlly heated. This caused the ice age.

Also it would be inhumane for us not to keep going in circles. We are imperfect. It's what we do. Get over it!

[iNow]

lets not for get the fact that it was much hotter in the time of the dinosuars. this extreme heat was already there. The Earth was natuarlly heated. This caused the ice age.

That's all well and good, but it's not what is happening now. If you think otherwise, then prove it. If you cannot, then it's time for you to stop posting on this topic. Enjoy.

[deoxyribonuclei]

Yes but you are contradicting yourself. You specifically said that we are duming tons of CO2 into the air. This is obviously over heating our Earth. Sooner or later it will have the same conditions now as back then.

[swansont]

Yes but you are contradicting yourself. You specifically said that we are duming tons of CO2 into the air. This is obviously over heating our Earth. Sooner or later it will have the same conditions now as back then.

 

No, that does not follow. One might reach the same CO2 concentration, but there are many other parameters to consider. And since humans were not alive at that time, it's a non-sequitur; humans are adapted to and exploit modern conditions, not those that existed 65+ MYa.

 

lets not for get the fact that it was much hotter in the time of the dinosuars. this extreme heat was already there. The Earth was natuarlly heated. This caused the ice age.

Also it would be inhumane for us not to keep going in circles. We are imperfect. It's what we do. Get over it!

 

The K-T boundary was 65 MYa. Which ice age did they cause?