There is quite a bit MORE than a shred of evidence that human induced emission of GHG has had a effect on global climate, and most certainly not ALL evidence points to completely natural causes for global climate change. Let's not be too extravagant with the hyperboles here whatever you would earnestly prefer to be the case so as to discredit a theory which might argue for government intervention that you loath to see.

(February 12, 2011 at 12:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm not against renewable energy; never said I was. What I object to is governments forcing us to be "green" when there isn't a shred of evidence suggesting that we are responsible for climate change. If governments or communities want to go green, it's fine by me, as long as it isn't forced on people as it is today.

Also, it seems to me that the 'Greening' of our societies only result in greater tax $$ for our governments and very little (if anything) for actual transition to a less dependent fossil fuel economy.

Do not doubt that 'Climate Change' will happen. Stands to reason, Earth is a very old place and our records do not go back far enough for any 'real' accuracy. Much is based on computer modeling, which is of great assistance but the doubt is still there for the lay person....and politicians?? *pfft

If I have learnt anything from Horticulture it is "...Just when you think you have figured out Mother Nature and her rules...BAM!! She will hit you with something 'out of the blue' so it's back to the books"

I do object to the term "Global Warming" as being ambiguous. Thing that gets me confused is that all that is needed is a couple of our volcanoes to go off major league and it's a 'nuclear winter' ...how can humanity compete with that?? Admittedly we ARE striving in that direction.

Kudzu is reason enough to realize we're only a couple weeks away from death-by-ravenous-plants.

I hate 98% of the Green Movement. It's pretty much all just to make people feel good about themselves, not to actually help anything. Sort of like the idiot who gets a diet soda with his triple bacon cheeseburger.

Makes you wonder what caused all the ice ages before we came along.....

(February 12, 2011 at 11:58 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Kudzu is reason enough to realize we're only a couple weeks away from death-by-ravenous-plants.

Pueraria lobata Kudzu ; Pandorea pandorana Wonga Wonga vine ; Pyrostegia venusta Orange trumpet creeper.....and of course TRIFIDS!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffid

Humans have NO chance!!

(February 12, 2011 at 11:58 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I hate 98% of the Green Movement. It's pretty much all just to make people feel good about themselves, not to actually help anything. Sort of like the idiot who gets a diet soda with his triple bacon cheeseburger.

Sort of mental masturbation with plants!! The 'Greenies' here are starting to loose credibility fast as more and more homes and lives are lost due to a lack of back burning to "Save the Planet from Global Warming" Just another religious cult AFAIK. *pfft

(February 13, 2011 at 12:28 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Makes you wonder what caused all the ice ages before we came along.....

Much of our infrastructure, demographic and geographic foot print is built upon and laid out according to the temperature norms that the world has experienced in the last 300 years. A deviation away from this norm of even 5 degrees, much smaller than what it takes to repeat the Wisconsonian glacial maximum of 20,000 years ago, will bring about a massive and persistent demographic, agricultural, and economic crisis of a scale that will make the 1-2% GDP growth rate impact of proposed GHG measure seem negligible. The fact that earth has seen natural temperature swings over hundreds of thousands to millions of years vastly larger than what we've been able to pull off in our vainglorious attempt to burn all the carbon we can get our hands merely meant the earth will happily move on after our civilization all but collapse.

Maybe you would like to point out that earth has experienced and survived multiple asteroidal impacts with energy millions of times larger than the combined yield of all of the world's nuclear weapons, and propose that it would therefore be no big deal if we were to fight a nuclear war or two.

(February 13, 2011 at 3:41 am)Chuck Wrote: Much of our infrastructure, demographic and geographic foot print is built upon and laid out according to the temperature norms that the world has experienced in the last 300 years. A deviation away from this norm of even 5 degrees, much smaller than what it takes to repeat the Wisconsonian glacial maximum of 20,000 years ago, will bring about a massive and persistent demographic, agricultural, and economic crisis of a scale that will make the 1-2% GDP growth rate impact of proposed GHG measure seem negligible. The fact that earth has seen natural temperature swings over hundreds of thousands to millions of years vastly larger than what we've been able to pull off in our vainglorious attempt to burn all the carbon we can get our hands merely meant the earth will happily move on after our civilization all but collapse.

A drop in global temperatures of 5 degrees Celsius would cause a glacial period similar to the last one. Although the effects would not be evenly distributed, for instance North America would see temperatures fall by 10C degrees.

However a temperature drop of say 2 degrees Celsius on average globally would have major effects on agriculture and might trigger the regrowth of ice sheets in North America and Eurasia.

---

(February 12, 2011 at 2:04 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: It's kind of depressing that we've known everything scientists have been telling us for 53 years now (since 1958) about Global Climate Change and we've done jack shit about it.

On the positive side, all the US states that contained the largest portion of americans who typically don't believe in climate change and vote against laws and the people to create them concerning climate change will all be flooded.

Y'all have fun with that. I just wish Texas and Arizona would be completely submerged too, but I suppose some people need to be left behind to make fun of for their failure.

This is clear evidence we need much better science education in schools. Because the sheer ignorance of people when it comes to the basics of the scientific method is simply amazing.

(February 13, 2011 at 3:41 am)Chuck Wrote:

(February 13, 2011 at 12:28 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Makes you wonder what caused all the ice ages before we came along.....

Much of our infrastructure, demographic and geographic foot print is built upon and laid out according to the temperature norms that the world has experienced in the last 300 years. A deviation away from this norm of even 5 degrees, much smaller than what it takes to repeat the Wisconsonian glacial maximum of 20,000 years ago, will bring about a massive and persistent demographic, agricultural, and economic crisis of a scale that will make the 1-2% GDP growth rate impact of proposed GHG measure seem negligible. The fact that earth has seen natural temperature swings over hundreds of thousands to millions of years vastly larger than what we've been able to pull off in our vainglorious attempt to burn all the carbon we can get our hands merely meant the earth will happily move on after our civilization all but collapse.

Maybe you would like to point out that earth has experienced and survived multiple asteroidal impacts with energy millions of times larger than the combined yield of all of the world's nuclear weapons, and propose that it would therefore be no big deal if we were to fight a nuclear war or two.

Still goes nowhere to explain previous glaciation and 'global warming trends' prior to humanity and our love for burning fossil fuel.

(February 13, 2011 at 4:02 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Still goes nowhere to explain previous glaciation and 'global warming trends' prior to humanity and our love for burning fossil fuel.

Two words Milankovitch cycles

(February 13, 2011 at 3:41 am)Chuck Wrote:

(February 13, 2011 at 12:28 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Makes you wonder what caused all the ice ages before we came along.....

Much of our infrastructure, demographic and geographic foot print is built upon and laid out according to the temperature norms that the world has experienced in the last 300 years. A deviation away from this norm of even 5 degrees, much smaller than what it takes to repeat the Wisconsonian glacial maximum of 20,000 years ago, will bring about a massive and persistent demographic, agricultural, and economic crisis of a scale that will make the 1-2% GDP growth rate impact of proposed GHG measure seem negligible. The fact that earth has seen natural temperature swings over hundreds of thousands to millions of years vastly larger than what we've been able to pull off in our vainglorious attempt to burn all the carbon we can get our hands merely meant the earth will happily move on after our civilization all but collapse.

Maybe you would like to point out that earth has experienced and survived multiple asteroidal impacts with energy millions of times larger than the combined yield of all of the world's nuclear weapons, and propose that it would therefore be no big deal if we were to fight a nuclear war or two.

And I agree with everything you say, but it is pointless trying to avoid climate change, I think it's going to happen no matter what we do or don't do.

Our focus should be on surviving it.