daverupa wrote:I can't think of a more important geopolitical issue.
daverupa wrote:Nuclear arms proliferation might tie.
Digity wrote:... I'd prefer to hear from a scientist and not a "blogger". Since when does having a blog make you an expert? It gives this talk less credibility...even though he's probably correct on the general tone of the issue.
Reductor wrote:Is there any real good news about alternative energy? I read here and there about initiatives at other places in the world, but am lacking a wide enough view to know if things are swinging that way at a encouraging rate.
Mr Man wrote:Thanks for all the links Kim.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Quite by chance, the latest post on RealClimate is a pair of lectures on global warming and what to do about it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/online-video-lectures-on-climate-change/
Authoritative but very clear and approachable, and an excellent resource for anyone who isn't sure they know as much as they should about the subject.
Digity wrote:That makes me wonder...what do you think is the best action someone can take to help with the issue of global warming?
poto wrote:I haven't commented on this issue in a good long time. I also haven't really been paying much attention to it lately ...
Kim O'Hara wrote:poto wrote:I haven't commented on this issue in a good long time. I also haven't really been paying much attention to it lately ...
I think it would be great if you could bring yourself up to speed with current knowledge before you say much on the issue, because it's really clear that you are way out of touch. The links I provided in my earlier posts in this thread would be good for an overview.
Digity wrote:the ozone hole
Digity wrote:...polluting the oceans.
Digity wrote:Can you think of anything from industrialization that has benefited the environment?
Digity wrote:There's also the issue of sea levels. Is that going to be good? If I lived on an island I wouldn't be too happy about that news. Not saying that climate change will be the end of civilization, but I think it'll ultimately lead to more problems than good. Thinking otherwise is probably wishful thinking.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Poto,
I think "oblivious" (your word) or blinkered (mine) might actually be a reasonably accurate description of where you're coming from, just from your posts to this thread. They don't show any new knowledge since
We can pick up from there if you like ... but it would be much nicer for me if you would actually do enough reading from reputable sources to bring yourself up to date.
As for your graph from the Daily Mail, it's a known fraud from a known denialist - see http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html
[edit: fixed link]
poto wrote:Well, NASA's data for the same period looks pretty similar.
Satellite data is also not alarming. Despite a continual rise in atmospheric CO2, temps aren't keeping pace. Meaning all the models and projections of global warming advocates are wrong and continue to be wrong.
... Anyway, I'm still not alarmed about man's CO2 output. The reduced solar output has concerned me though. This current solar cycle is only half strength of the normal. Should the sun go quiet after this cycle and enter another minimum, we could see another ice age. I'm fairly sure that solar output trumps any of man's efforts to date.
poto wrote:BTW, I see you're still using loaded terms like 'denalist,' which is rather insulting, attempting to compare those who disagree with you with holocaust deniers. I now remember why I stopped replying to this subject. So much unpleasantness... not very conducive to my practice.
poto wrote:That's all for me now. Maybe I'll check back into one of these threads in a few more years once the next ice age starts
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests