Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago

[Poptech]

Not if you refuse to use it to address the problem of climate change.

The only way to address climate changes is to adapt.

 

[Merko]

Poptech, yes you're very logical. You will take any position on any set of facts, as long as it leads to the conclusion that we must do absolutely nothing politically to curb global warming.

But yes, we will adapt. Most of us are doing it already: The Kyoto protocol was the first major step of adaptation. The EU, and even China have taken significant further steps. Maybe you will not adapt, but I do not worry. As a species, we will surely survive.

 

[Poptech]

Read "Cadillac Desert" and weep.

Or read

Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (Peter Huber, Ph.D. MIT, 2000)

and get informed.

The clock is running and we, more or less up to now, have done little or noting to deal with impacts we as a species are visiting on this planet. The evidence is there for all to see.

In the virtual world, yes. In reality no.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

WWIII has nothing to do with climate change.


Which has nothing to do with Global Warming.

Researcher: Global Warming Not To Blame For Tsunami (Arizona State University)


No I am actually very logical.

That third sentence after the first two... wow.

The only way to address climate changes is to adapt.

What exactly do you mean by this? You seem to be saying that AGW isn't real, that it's real, but not a threat, and that we need to adapt to it. These are three contradictory stances.

I'd also like you to explain what you mean with the popular anti-AGW buzzword 'adaptation'. It's a broad term you see - we could 'adapt' to AGW by buying Air Conditioners, or we could 'adapt' by ratifying Kyoto. We could 'adapt' by banning the consumption of 'oil', or scrapping every plane in the world. Again, 'adapt' is an incredibly broad term, covering every single AGW countermeasure proposed by AGW 'believers'.

I, however, have a feeling that 'adapt', when used by you, means something more specific. So what is it?

 

[paximperium]

I have provided evidence from the Geological Survey of Norway that the ice in the Arctic Ocean has melted in the recent past more so than it is now.

Some more on melting ice...

"What If All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Ph.D. Physics)

Not an answer. So is Global Warming happening or not?

You seem to be arguing:
"Nooooo, AGW is not happening!!!"
But then:
"Oh but even if AGW happens it won't be bad at all!!!"

So which is it?

 

[Poptech]

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

I see you are back to the virtual world.

"The most comprehensive modeling"

 

[Poptech]

Poptech, yes you're very logical. You will take any position on any set of facts, as long as it leads to the conclusion that we must do absolutely nothing politically to curb global warming.

Please explain how we can control the sun and the orbit of the planet?

 

[Poptech]

Not an answer. So is Global Warming happening or not?

You seem to be arguing:
"Nooooo, AGW is not happening!!!"
But then:
"Oh but even if AGW happens it won't be bad at all!!!"

So which is it?

There is evidence that the planet has warmed slightly since the little ice age. There is not evidence that the warming is outside the range of natural variability and is caused by man (AGW). Unless of course you enter the virtual world. I keep my science in the real world.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Poptech, yes you're very logical. You will take any position on any set of facts, as long as it leads to the conclusion that we must do absolutely nothing politically to curb global warming.

So that's Poptech's definition of 'adapt'.

Also, Poptech, instead of chain-posting, please note the presence of this little button in the lower-right corner of your post and train yourself in its use:

. I realize people have missed it rather than overlooked it in the past, but now you know.

 

[Poptech]

So that's Poptech's definition of 'adapt'.

Your faith in government is misplaced. The free market and technological innovation is more than capable of adapting to climate change.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Your faith in government is misplaced. The free market and technological innovation is more than capable of adapting to climate change.

OK, thanks for (sort of) defining 'adapt'. Less sure about the strawman in the first sentence, though.

 

[CapelDodger]

Since the climate always changes, we will just adapt.

What evidence do you have for people adapting to climate change in the past?

 

[macdoc]

Does that mean he now acknowledges climate change despite his diatribes on his blog site..

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/02/global-cooling-in-2008.html

....kind of odd inconsistency....I guess given his confusion between climate and weather.......not so strange after all...

 

[CapelDodger]

Your faith in government is misplaced. The free market and technological innovation is more than capable of adapting to climate change.

That's no comfort to people who can't afford to buy. No doubt the free market will adapt : like the poor, the free market is always with us.

 

[Poptech]

What evidence do you have for people adapting to climate change in the past?

So you do not believe the climate has changed?

Does that mean he now acknowledges climate change despite his diatribes on his blog site..

Who says I do not believe in climate change? The climate has always changed.

 

[Poptech]

That's no comfort to people who can't afford to buy. No doubt the free market will adapt : like the poor, the free market is always with us.

If you want to be able to afford to buy then you will want a purely free market. As for the poor, yes there will always be less educated people of which charity will provide for.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is evidence that the planet has warmed slightly since the little ice age. There is not evidence that the warming is outside the range of natural variability and is caused by man (AGW). Unless of course you enter the virtual world. I keep my science in the real world.

And you call us uninformed?

We are in an ice-age. An ice-age consists of a glacial period and an inter-glacial. We are in an inter-glacial. A series of ice-ages is known as an ice-epoch.

The normal cycle of an inter-glacial is sudden warming followed by gradual cooling. Until recently (the last fifty years or so) this was the case for the current inter-glacial, but times have changed. In the very real world, not the virtual free-market world. What we might expect (other things being equal) is that it would continue.

However climate scientists who had cut their teeth on ice-ages (which did demand an explanation) predicted fifty years ago that we would see greenhouse warming given the change in atmospheric CO2. And lo, it came to pass. Not in digital models but in the big bad analogue model that we call home.

If you think about it logically you may conclude that you really don't know anything about the subject of climate. Consider your sources. Why do they have so little influence on the wider community? Why is such a large majority of the scientific, political, and general thinking communities so concerned?

When you can keep your head while all around are losing theirs it could be you've failed to grasp the situation.

 

[CapelDodger]

If you want to be able to afford to buy then you will want a purely free market.

Your logic escapes me. There's a major leap in there somewhere, perhaps you could fill it in.

As for the poor, yes there will always be less educated people of which charity will provide for.

Why do you think the poor are less educated? They usually are, of course, because they can't afford education. As for charity, it didn't do much for the Irish during the great famine. (Which was not climate-related but was a great opportunity for charity.) The free market meanwhile was shipping food out of the country because the price was better in England.

Your blissed-out attitude to the free-market will do you wrong if you're not careful.

 

[Poptech]

The normal cycle of an inter-glacial is sudden warming followed by gradual cooling. Until recently (the last fifty years or so) this was the case for the current inter-glacial, but times have changed. In the very real world, not the virtual free-market world. What we might expect (other things being equal) is that it would continue.

The current Interglacial is over 10,000 years old and is not based on 50 year trends.

However climate scientists who had cut their teeth on ice-ages (which did demand an explanation) predicted fifty years ago that we would see greenhouse warming given the change in atmospheric CO2. And lo, it came to pass. Not in digital models but in the big bad analogue model that we call home.

Only in the virtual world.

Why do they have so little influence on the wider community? Why is such a large majority of the scientific, political, and general thinking communities so concerned?

Who says a majority are concerned?

 

[Poptech]

Why do you think the poor are less educated? They usually are, of course, because they can't afford education. As for charity, it didn't do much for the Irish during the great famine. (Which was not climate-related but was a great opportunity for charity.) The free market meanwhile was shipping food out of the country because the price was better in England.

Your blissed-out attitude to the free-market will do you wrong if you're not careful.

Yes the poor are less educated. Public education keeps getting worse and higher education more expensive due to government interference.

Stupid in America (Video) (40min) (John Stossel, 20/20)

As for Ireland, you might want to understand what caused the problem, which was not the free market but government.

What Caused the Irish Potato Famine? (Mark Thornton, Ph.D. Economics)

Was the Potato Famine an ecological accident, as historians usually say? Like most famines, it had little to do with declines in food production as such. Adam Smith was right that "bad seasons" cause "dearth," but "the violence of well-intentioned governments" can convert "dearth into famine."

In fact, the most glaring cause of the famine was not a plant disease, but England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland.