The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[The_Man]

It shouldn't be a yes or no question, us vs them, cons vs liberal. It's considerably broader than that. Is warming occurring? Yes, though a small number would disagree. Is it a result of humans? Some say yes, some no, others aren't sure. Is it a serious issue? same answer as before. This lady breaks it down as it really is within the science community versus an us v them. Most of the scientists polled fell between 2 and 4 and I would think that's true of most regular people too. http://www.energyblogs.com/weather/index.cfm/2013/7/8/Five-Differing-Viewpoints-on-Climate-Change

Good article, thanks for posting. It is reasoned, measured, and draws no sweeping conclusions. Therefore it has no place in this ongoing discussion.

 

[jon_mx]

I just shoveled about 6 inches of global warming and it is still falling....double digit negative temperatures on the way! yyiiipppppiiiieeeee!

 

[jon_mx]

1. There has been no global rise in temperature – the "SKEPTIC"**
   
2. There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this – the "OBSERVER"
   
3. There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic– the "EXPLORER"
   
4. There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic – the "SUPPORTER"
   
5. There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures – the "ACTIVIST"
   

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

 

[Parrothead]

There is no global warming. We're in the midst of some of the lowest sun activity in many years when we are supposed to be in a period of high activity. The theories are wrong. Besides, global warming would be better for all of us than global cooling, so lets root for it.

Wow.

You think another ice age would be a good thing?

bikinis >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parkas

 

[timschochet]

• There has been no global rise in temperature the "SKEPTIC"**
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this the "OBSERVER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic the "EXPLORER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic the "SUPPORTER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures the "ACTIVIST"
  

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

Since I'm personally in camp #4, I don't think that's an accurate representation of my own views. Yes I think it will be catastrophic and that we need to do something, but both of those views are subjective and not science. That it's happening, and man made, is science.

 

[Rove!]

"the science is settled" is an amazingly anti-scientific statement...

 

[MaxThreshold]

• There has been no global rise in temperature the "SKEPTIC"**
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this the "OBSERVER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic the "EXPLORER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic the "SUPPORTER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures the "ACTIVIST"
  

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

Since I'm personally in camp #4, I don't think that's an accurate representation of my own views. Yes I think it will be catastrophic and that we need to do something, but both of those views are subjective and not science. That it's happening, and man made, is science.

So it appears you're actually in camp #5 then, not #4 like you start you're post out with. You're a walking, talking contradiction, Tim.

For the record, I would be in #3 despite what spittle-flying zealots like yourself like to proclaim when someone doesn't agree with you.

 

[MaxThreshold]

"the science is settled" is an amazingly anti-scientific statement...

 

[Sinn Fein]

So I don't get all the fuss. Lets assume, for the sake of this argument, that I believe that we are in a global warming period, and that human activities have directly, or indirectly contributed to said warming.

Don't these things generally take thousands of years to develop into anything remotely catastrophic? We have measured general warming trends over the last several decades, right? Seems like we have a couple of millennia to worry about shrinking landmass, and the whole water world lifestyle.

It also seems unlikely that any changes we make to the emission of greenhouse gasses would have any significant effect on the overall warming trends, The continued population growth will do us in, long before we are all living on huge house boats. We could use a little herd thinning every once in a while.

 

[datonn]

FACT: November 2013 was the warmest November worldwide in recorded history.

FACT: November 2013 was the 345th consecutive month with global temps above the 20th Century average. The last cooler than average month worldwide was February 1985.

I find data like these much more compelling than a boat stuck in the ice or a cold kickoff for an NFL playoff game.

I will post the National Climatic Data Center's 2013 annual review when it become available on January 14. Through November, 2013 had been the fourth warmest year in recorded history.

Currently, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2002.

I don't understand why global warming is a conservative vs. liberal issue. In fact, conservatives pride themselves on being unemotional, clear-eyed rationalists who make decisions based on data, not feelings. But for some reason, data seems to take a back seat to emotion on this issue. I really don't get it - is it just reflexive anti-environmentalism? Or unyielding support for fossil fuel companies?

Wow...when did you wake up from your 30+ year coma?

Data/Facts have little to do with ANYTHING being supported by the Republican Party of late. The Democrats either, for that matter. It's all-about ideals and world views...then spinning data/facts to try an garner as many votes/contributions as one can to try and work toward said ideals and world views. The Republicans haven't been "unemotional, clear-eyed rationalists who make decisions on data, not feelings" since around the time parachute pants and big hair was considered sexy.

 

[spreagle]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

 

[Sand]

• There has been no global rise in temperature the "SKEPTIC"**
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this the "OBSERVER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic the "EXPLORER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic the "SUPPORTER"
  
• There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures the "ACTIVIST"
  

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

Since I'm personally in camp #4, I don't think that's an accurate representation of my own views. Yes I think it will be catastrophic and that we need to do something, but both of those views are subjective and not science. That it's happening, and man made, is science.

So what exactly should we be doing? I'm going to love this answer.

 

[jonessed]

• There has been no global rise in temperature the "SKEPTIC"**
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this the "OBSERVER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic the "EXPLORER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic the "SUPPORTER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures the "ACTIVIST"

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

Since I'm personally in camp #4, I don't think that's an accurate representation of my own views. Yes I think it will be catastrophic and that we need to do something, but both of those views are subjective and not science. That it's happening, and man made, is science.

So what exactly should we be doing? I'm going to love this answer.

According to the IPCC there is nothing we can do outside of artificially trying to alter the atmosphere.

 

[DrJ]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

 

[Sand]

• There has been no global rise in temperature the "SKEPTIC"**
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this the "OBSERVER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic the "EXPLORER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic the "SUPPORTER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures the "ACTIVIST"

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

Since I'm personally in camp #4, I don't think that's an accurate representation of my own views. Yes I think it will be catastrophic and that we need to do something, but both of those views are subjective and not science. That it's happening, and man made, is science.

So what exactly should we be doing? I'm going to love this answer.

According to the IPCC there is nothing we can do outside of artificially trying to alter the atmosphere.

Let's let Tim answer this one.

 

[DrJ]

Now the main problem with my view is that even if we stopped wasting money here, the savings won't actually go to anything productive. There will be some other populist movement that the people (mostly "progressives") will demand we take action on and we'll spend piles of money amplifying that evidence to make it seem more important so we can continue to buy votes and pile in more money. Or idiot conservatives will waste money on unproductive wars on drugs or some other government nonsense their idiot supporters demand. The money has to be wasted, there is not another option right?

The economy is going to collapse well before the environment does. And then you won't even have the resources to fix anything.

 

[datonn]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.

And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...since as many as 700-750 million people on our planet live on land that would be under water should the oceans rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps.

It's also a national security issue for me too...as I want to get our country as much off of foreign sources of energy as is absolutely possible in the decades to come. There's little/no reason why our society should need to depend upon fossil fuels with all the energy just waiting to be captured and harvested all-around us. And the thought of much of our Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy being grounded because there's no gas in the tank? That should put the fear of God into even your staunchest of far-Right conservative.

 

[DrJ]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...since as many as 700-750 million people on our planet live on land that would be under water should the oceans rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps.

It's also a national security issue for me too...as I want to get our country as much off of foreign sources of energy as is absolutely possible in the decades to come. There's little/no reason why our society should need to depend upon fossil fuels with all the energy just waiting to be captured and harvested all-around us. And the thought of much of our Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy being grounded because there's no gas in the tank? That should put the fear of God into even your staunchest of far-Right conservative.

It's almost as if those people don't have legs and can't move. There's plenty of land, it's going to take a REALLY long time for what you're describing to happen, even if it actually ever does. And there's no reason to believe you can actually stop it no matter how much money you spend.The reason we should continue to rely on fossil fuels is because they are cheaper, which make us more productive with our resources. That massive productivity is what makes us most secure. They sell us oil because we have more to afford it. People don't mess with us because we produce piles of weapons they can't compete with. We go overboard there too, and we could make people not mess with us with about half the weapons we have if not less, but those weapons are one of the great things about productivity that dwarfs your peers.

 

[Sand]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.

And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

 

[timschochet]

• There has been no global rise in temperature the "SKEPTIC"**
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this the "OBSERVER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic the "EXPLORER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic the "SUPPORTER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures the "ACTIVIST"

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

Since I'm personally in camp #4, I don't think that's an accurate representation of my own views. Yes I think it will be catastrophic and that we need to do something, but both of those views are subjective and not science. That it's happening, and man made, is science.

So what exactly should we be doing? I'm going to love this answer.

Good question, but it's irrelevant to this thread since it has nothing to do with the science. My honest answer to you Sand is that I don't know. I am very uncomfortable with carbon taxes which might weaken our economy without helping the problem. One thing that bothers me about some environmentalists is that they're eager to see us punish ourselves. I also don't know that we can solve this unilaterally.

But it's ironic that YOU are the one who asked this question, Sand, since you alerted me to changes in solar technology which gives me hope that we might eventually get off fossil fuels. Surely that is the long term solution.

 

[DrJ]

There's also some good unintended consequences to water levels rising. Has the Potomac risen a few feet, you might have been able to save 200 trees.

 

[DrJ]

• There has been no global rise in temperature the "SKEPTIC"**
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I draw no conclusion from this the "OBSERVER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, but I would need to investigate further what the causes are (includes those who say that climate change could be due to natural causes), or to what extent it is anthropogenic the "EXPLORER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, and the cause is primarily anthropogenic the "SUPPORTER"
• There has been a global rise in temperature, the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and furthermore, there are cataclysmic implications for the future towards which we can and must take immediate measures the "ACTIVIST"

I am in camp number 3, which is where the science really is. The IPCC board is all in camp number 5, and anyone who is not in camp number 5 with them are considered the enemy and is not given any voice in the discussion. The IPCC is not science, despite what our local expert on commercial real estate in sunny southern California says.

Since I'm personally in camp #4, I don't think that's an accurate representation of my own views. Yes I think it will be catastrophic and that we need to do something, but both of those views are subjective and not science. That it's happening, and man made, is science.

So what exactly should we be doing? I'm going to love this answer.

Good question, but it's irrelevant to this thread since it has nothing to do with the science.My honest answer to you Sand is that I don't know. I am very uncomfortable with carbon taxes which might weaken our economy without helping the problem. One thing that bothers me about some environmentalists is that they're eager to see us punish ourselves. I also don't know that we can solve this unilaterally.

But it's ironic that YOU are the one who asked this question, Sand, since you alerted me to changes in solar technology which gives me hope that we might eventually get off fossil fuels. Surely that is the long term solution.

Screw carbon taxes - let's just ban oil. I mean, this is a serious problem, right?

 

[datonn]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.

And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?

As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

 

[Dr Oadi]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

Havent you read anything that has been posted? Science shows us Global warming IS happening and it IS man made!

 

[DrJ]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.

So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

 

[DrJ]

Speaking of which - it's really no wonder they quickly got rid of the term "Greenhouse effect", since Greenhouses are actually good for plants. We need something that sounds far more ominous.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.

So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

Tim,

As usual you misrepresent yourself. While you may use the word ignorant to describe those who don't agree with you on this topic, you've also used other, worse descriptions. As usual though, you don't realize you did it. That's typical of you. I just paraphrased your overall theme. And I find it hilarious that you say you absolutely believe in AGW and that it's catastrophic, but don't believe that puts you in category 5. Take a poll. I bet there would be only one vote that said you weren't cat. 5, and it would be yours.

 

[DrJ]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

This is true, Tim has been very consistent in labeling this a giant problem but also at shuffling his feet at actually doing anything meaningful about it. He actually campaigns actively (well, he posts about it a lot at FBG at least) against things like carbon taxes, an example being the pieces he linked on Australia's program earlier this year. It's like the most ridiculous position imaginable - there needs to be a special category just for Tim.

 

[datonn]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?

Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

 

[jonessed]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

Your wall of text ramblings are unreadable.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

This is true, Tim has been very consistent in labeling this a giant problem but also at shuffling his feet at actually doing anything meaningful about it. He actually campaigns actively (well, he posts about it a lot at FBG at least) against things like carbon taxes, an example being the pieces he linked on Australia's program earlier this year. It's like the most ridiculous position imaginable - there needs to be a special category just for Tim.

Based on your hilarious comments about plants benefiting from global warming thanks to all of the extra CO2, there ought to be a special category for YOU.

 

[jonessed]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

This is true, Tim has been very consistent in labeling this a giant problem but also at shuffling his feet at actually doing anything meaningful about it. He actually campaigns actively (well, he posts about it a lot at FBG at least) against things like carbon taxes, an example being the pieces he linked on Australia's program earlier this year. It's like the most ridiculous position imaginable - there needs to be a special category just for Tim.

Based on your hilarious comments about plants benefiting from global warming thanks to all of the extra CO2, there ought to be a special category for YOU.

Plant-life does benefit from more CO2.

 

[DrJ]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.

How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

 

[datonn]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

Your wall of text ramblings are unreadable.

If you cannot read 190 words, then I'm not sure how you would expect to learn/understand anything even remotely complex.

I hear there's a Honey Boo-Boo marathon on in the coming days.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

This is true, Tim has been very consistent in labeling this a giant problem but also at shuffling his feet at actually doing anything meaningful about it. He actually campaigns actively (well, he posts about it a lot at FBG at least) against things like carbon taxes, an example being the pieces he linked on Australia's program earlier this year. It's like the most ridiculous position imaginable - there needs to be a special category just for Tim.

Just because, like on most topics, Tim is calling for action without knowing exactly what he wants done, doesn't mean he doesn't want us to act. If that were the case, what does he mean by this quote:

But one can be critical of people like Gore, and also critical of the solutions, and still acknowledge that the evidence is out there that this is a serious problem and that it needs to be addressed

 

[msommer]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

Your wall of text ramblings are unreadable.

But at least they are better reasoned than what he responded to

 

[StrikeS2k]

First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.)

Tim quotes, just from the last 4 pages:

----------------------

You're like a flat earther. Seriously I'd be embarrassed to think such stuff, much less proclaim it to the world.

-

Deniers are gleeful this week because a group of scientists were caught in the ice of Antarctica- that PROVES there is no global warming!

Seriously, these guys are really embarrassing.

-

There is not a single issue in which mainstream conservatism looks more foolish on than this one.

------------------

So yeah Tim you aren't calling anyone an "idiot" using that term. You're just calling them embarrassingly foolish and flat earthers. But no, you would never be a condescending doosh. You're over that. Or so you say.

 

[datonn]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.

How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

 

[Dr Oadi]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

This is true, Tim has been very consistent in labeling this a giant problem but also at shuffling his feet at actually doing anything meaningful about it. He actually campaigns actively (well, he posts about it a lot at FBG at least) against things like carbon taxes, an example being the pieces he linked on Australia's program earlier this year. It's like the most ridiculous position imaginable - there needs to be a special category just for Tim.

Based on your hilarious comments about plants benefiting from global warming thanks to all of the extra CO2, there ought to be a special category for YOU.

Plant-life does benefit from more CO2.

Hilarious

 

[DrJ]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Ummm, almost all of the biodensity on the planet and variety of life is concentrated there.

 

[msommer]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.

How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Ummm, almost all of the biodensity in the planet and variety of life is concentrated there.

But very little food production and certainly very little ability to support population migration. That was your contention, right, plants likes co2 and heat?

 

[jonessed]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

Your wall of text ramblings are unreadable.

But at least they are better reasoned than what he responded to

My 10-year old has better writing skills.

 

[DrJ]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.

How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Ummm, almost all of the biodensity in the planet and variety of life is concentrated there.

But very little food production and certainly very little ability to support population migration. That was your contention, right, plants likes co2 and heat?

Because they're poor.

 

[msommer]

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.

How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Ummm, almost all of the biodensity in the planet and variety of life is concentrated there.

But very little food production and certainly very little ability to support population migration. That was your contention, right, plants likes co2 and heat?

Because they're poor.

Not really. Because the ecosystem is fragile. More heat and CO2 is not going to make it less fragile.

 

[jonessed]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...

What is the end game? What is all that research on GW going to get us?

I can't see the future (none of us can) ...so I have no idea. But what if the naysayers over the past ~60 years had said we shouldn't waste money exploring space? How many of today's technologies, products and services that we have come to rely upon, wouldn't exist if not for said investment?As to Dr.J's comment about people simply "moving inland," what about the land we need to produce enough food to feed that population? What about changes in the climate impacting weather patterns, which will directly impact both the location of agriculture and the yields that are achievable per acre? What about the trillions in economic damage if places such as New York, Miami, and D.C. are feet under water?

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Not a lot of water on the Arabian peninsula.

 

[Rove!]

I fall in camp #2, because I don't view the problem as serious enough to warrant any of the spending in #3. I'd prefer we use our limited resources on things that are actually productive.

Mark me down for Camp #3...with strong leanings toward Camp #4.

And for me, the problem is serious enough to warrant a lot of research/spending...since as many as 700-750 million people on our planet live on land that would be under water should the oceans rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps.

It's also a national security issue for me too...as I want to get our country as much off of foreign sources of energy as is absolutely possible in the decades to come. There's little/no reason why our society should need to depend upon fossil fuels with all the energy just waiting to be captured and harvested all-around us. And the thought of much of our Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy being grounded because there's no gas in the tank? That should put the fear of God into even your staunchest of far-Right conservative.

put me in camp #3. It definitely merits research and even if we find that AGW is overstated or doesn't happen, the scientific research will likely have other benefits. We just need ways to ensure that the issue doesn't get over-politicized as it has over the past 30 years...there has to be room for skepticism or its not truly science...

 

[DrJ]

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.

How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Ummm, almost all of the biodensity in the planet and variety of life is concentrated there.

But very little food production and certainly very little ability to support population migration. That was your contention, right, plants likes co2 and heat?

Because they're poor.

Not really. Because the ecosystem is fragile. More heat and CO2 is not going to make it less fragile.

It's only fragile where you chop half of it down to grow corn. The earth and it's life do a remarkable job of adapting to change.

 

[msommer]

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Not a lot of water on the Arabian peninsula.

Wait, water is needed too? Not only CO2 and heat? Or rich people? What will you guys think of next...