The american denial of global warming...

Yeah, Denial is not just a big river in Egypt. These guys are out to lunch. The North Pole is melting enough for sea traffic to start. When all that methane gets loose...

Seriously, do you honestly thinks it's not too late? India is industrializing. China is trying to become the next U.S.A (i.e. oil consumption).

Interesting point about the 300% absorption of gas prices. I hadn't realized it was that much. I suppose we can take a lot more. I still see hummers around. Doh!

Personally I think the whole American denial thing comes from a combo of gun-toting libertarianism, pure downright selfishness 'cos 'I got me a big old truck and I feels like a man when I drive it', and lots and lots of stupidity 'cos 'I love ma truck'.

No offense to the intelligent Americans reading this meant. Bush has been a disaster. How can we expect India and China to clean-up when we offer no example? Oh well. Peace.

Some people are convinced global warming is occuring and they won't accept any other evidence that indicates the brightness of the sun can be a bigger factor as to how hot and cold all the planets in our solar system are. For the few that didn't know this, other planets in our solar system have been experiencing global warming too. I don't believe man made green house gases can account for that. Now there is some evidence that global warming has stopped and is even starting to reverse. However it's pointless arguing when you can't change the minds of some people. We need more time and evidence as well. If all the global warming fans are wrong and the planet becomes very cold by the year 2040, we will be facing a lot bigger problems than worrying about people driving around in SUV's. Crops failing due to the cold will be the new threat along with famine. However I don't expect all those expecting to profit from controlling man made gases to accept any other ideas as plausible.

reply to post by melatonin

In this paper, we show how it is possible to greatly reduce this uncertainty by using Bayes' Theorem to combine several independent lines of evidence. Based on some conservative assumptions regarding the value of independent estimates, we conclude that climate sensitivity is very unlikely (

Originally posted by Long Lance
all predictions have to rely on models, as long as there's no closed expression / equation for world climate (lol), it'll boil down to simulations. either way, any prediction is by default unreliable to a certain extent, it's the nature of the beast. couple that with unreliable data

I actually agree that even the observation-based estimations of climate sensitivity are a type of model, a simple mathematical one - but much data is of this form. They're not a computer simulation, of course. but the point is that this form of data is not based on GCMs, which are always a bugbear of 'sceptics'. These studies use paleo data to produce estimates.

As for the Baysian stuff - what Annan & Hargreaves tried to do was to take the number of observation-based estimates and assess from them a likely range for climate sensitivity. As it points out, some of this class of study's findings are more extreme than that found in GCMs. So, they were able to produce a more conservative estimate showing the probability of falling above the current IPCC high range.

and i have every reason to be sceptical.

iow, i doubt global warming, i don't deny it. there's a difference, but then i'm not American either

Well, scepticism ain't a bad thing, but some people go beyond scepticism. Empirical/scientific sceptics suspend judgment until evidence is provided, and even when it is, accept findings provisionally and tentatively, actually embracing the uncertainity inherent to all science.

Whereas, deniers are rather different in form, using ideologically driven sophistry - using the uncertainity inherent in science to score rhetorical points, misrepresenting scientific findings, cherrypicking, and exhibiting profound confirmation bias. In sum, they are dishonest and most certainly not friends of good science or scholarship. It's not a big surprise that many are associated with industry funded think-tanks.

There's been a great example recently on dotearth with Gerlich & Tscheuschner, who have just had the asses handed to them by their betters.

Originally posted by melatonin
Whereas, deniers are rather different in form, using ideologically driven sophistry - using the uncertainity inherent in science to score rhetorical points, misrepresenting scientific findings, cherrypicking, and exhibiting profound confirmation bias. In sum, they are dishonest and most certainly not friends of good science or scholarship. It's not a big surprise that many are associated with industry funded think-tanks.

Two words:

Al Gore.

Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore.

Ok, that`s eight, unless we`re playing scrabble, then it`s 4.

I`m willing to read through a fair amount of the "other side" of the debate. I find some of the solar theories... interesting. But for some reason, the lion`s share of contrary points to the climate change debate reference "Al Gore". The implication seems to be that because he has been connected to the debate, the debate must be partisan - and under American Rules Democracy (akin to Australian Rules Football in its subtleties), all partisan debates can be reduced to the following: if you`re not on my side, you`re an idiot, and you`re wrong wrong wrong, lalalalalalala.

Out here in the sticks, where very few people seem to be aware that Al Gore even wrote a book, and where we have nearly zero in terms of oil reserves, one doesn`t find very much in the way of a debate on global climate change. Wonder why that is, eh?

Originally posted by vox2442
Two words:

Al Gore.

Heh, he might well be the worst thing to happen to climate change science over the last few years. He had the best of intentions, he did a fairly good job with his presentation. But, you know, meh...

Just rather he didn't bother. He could have done a Blair and gone to save the Palestinians or something.

Entirely relevant for this thread:

ExxonMobil Deliberately Misled Blogosphere About Funding Global Warming Denialists

Yesterday's post on ExxonMobil highlighted that it had funded the Frontiers of Freedom and its Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP link ) during 2006, contrary to its claim that it was not funding global warming denialists. You may wonder about the context in which ExxonMobil made this claim.

linky

Thus, Exxon suggested they were no longer funding anti-science denialist think-tanks, when in fact they had.



[edit on 24-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by rizla

Personally I think the whole American denial thing comes from a combo of gun-toting libertarianism, pure downright selfishness 'cos 'I got me a big old truck and I feels like a man when I drive it', and lots and lots of stupidity 'cos 'I love ma truck'.

And right there is another classic example of why you will never convince many global warming skeptics. If you call a man a fool to his face, do you think that strategy will help win him over to your position?

I seriously doubt it.

If you do not respect a person or his opinions, he will not respect you or yours, either. In fact, I bet that selfish, stupid, truck-drivin' American redneck probably feels the same way about YOU.

epw.senate.gov...

Am I wrong in saying that they have good reason to be skeptical (NOT denial) about anthropogenic global warming? I actually used to be among the government sheep believers, but then I started to look at the other side of the debate, being curious. Then, of course, I found that link... in my opinion, the solar system warming has to be the final nail in the coffin.

People often (or even usually) misunderstand skeptics' motives... mine is to get rid of the "climate change" frenzy so that Africa can develop and so that the gov't can spend more on things that are actually useful; conservation springs to mind. It is NOT so that I can go buy an SUV, etcetera and be justified. I for one embrace the idea of super high-mileage cars or electric/hybrids. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by SlyCM
epw.senate.gov...

Am I wrong in saying that they have good reason to be skeptical (NOT denial) about anthropogenic global warming?

Inhofe and his swift-boating Marc Morano have ideological reasons to be 'sceptical'. They are actually deniers. But lets not get stuck in semantics, I'll call them 'sceptics' if it suits you.

I actually used to be among the government sheep believers, but then I started to look at the other side of the debate, being curious. Then, of course, I found that link... in my opinion, the solar system warming has to be the final nail in the coffin.

But the problem is that the solar system isn't warming. Of course, if you read many of the 'septic' websites, you might think that was the case.

One I prepared earlier

Sly's list of whom NOT to argue with...
-Religious people
-Ignorant people
and, most recently
-AGW proponents, who are at a similar levels as the above two.

I propose the opposite question, what is your evidence that this IS man made? Furthermore, how can you prove that it is going to be so catastrophic? There have been many times in the past in which the climate was much warmer than today... medieval springs to mind. The polar bears, moose, etcetera all survived, so why shouldn't they now? Global warming, global cooling... it's called climate, and it's been around a lot longer than we have.

Originally posted by SlyCM
Sly's list of whom NOT to argue with...
-Religious people
-Ignorant people
and, most recently
-AGW proponents, who are at a similar levels as the above two.

You're funny.

I propose the opposite question, what is your evidence that this IS man made? Furthermore, how can you prove that it is going to be so catastrophic? There have been many times in the past in which the climate was much warmer than today... medieval springs to mind. The polar bears, moose, etcetera all survived, so why shouldn't they now? Global warming, global cooling... it's called climate, and it's been around a lot longer than we have.

Check out the IPCC report, it's all in there. You might even watch the video on which this thread is based, rofl. However, it's more a case that human activity is contributing to climate change, rather than the single cause.

Will it be catastrophic? I suppose that's a subjective issue. Catastrophic to what or who? What is catastrophic? Is half of london under water catastrophic? How about most of Bangladesh? The disappearance of Tuvalu might not be catastrophic to me, but it might be to people who live there.

Temps are likely warmer now than for the last 1000 years at least, but that's not the problem, it's where we might be in 100 years time.

Anyway, watch the video, and make an informed comment. We might then get beyond me providing Climate science 101, and you ignoring my responses to google the next canard.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by melatonin]

Yeah I watched that video... I had to shut it off after about fifteen minutes as it was too boring and the "science" behind it was full of holes. Really it's one of the few videos where I actually had to "bite my tongue" to avoid shouting out in protest. The idea of AGW is for one, anti-human. It condemns those in undeveloped countries to forever exist in poverty and malnourishment. You (or anyone else) have still not explained how the dinos, etcetera survived if a 1 degree change is so deadly.

Sorry... had to switch accounts. Won't let me log on to my normal one at work for some reason....?

I again propose the opposite question to you. What reason do I have to believe that your "consensus" and "evidence" (an insult to the very word) is not just propaganda? Indeed, a motive has been established in the "climate swindle" video... an underemployed scientific discipline wanting money, an anti-capitalist, and a nuclear power proponent, followed by righteous "environmentalists" (again, in this context it's an insult to the word) that jump on the bandwagon. There is a very good reason most governments were reluctant to "jump on the bandwagon"... this entire notion of AGW will do little more than destroy their economy and almost nothing for what they intend to save. Furthermore, it is, as I have said numerous times before, suppressive and anti-human.

AGW evidence at it's very core is full of holes... 200 years, or even a thousand years, is a blink of an eye in geological terms. It is not an adequate amount of time passed to make such a strong conclusion.

Furthermore, I do not see AGW skeptics making any statements like this:
(Taken from a link near the bottom of my other one, posted earlier)

Marlo –

You are so full of crap.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

Interesting how you guys are so sure that your are right that you have to threaten people into changing their beliefs. Which is where my (incredibly apt) analogy to religion comes in. That E-mail pretty much destroys any credibility pro-AGW people had left in my eyes.

Just reading that report in it's entirety will allow you to see just how much of a "consensus" AGW actually has.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

Originally posted by SlyCM
Yeah I watched that video... I had to shut it off after about fifteen minutes as it was too boring and the "science" behind it was full of holes. Really it's one of the few videos where I actually had to "bite my tongue" to avoid shouting out in protest.

Lots of unsupported assertions about the validity of the science, cool. I'll ignore that, means nada.

The idea of AGW is for one, anti-human. It condemns those in undeveloped countries to forever exist in poverty and malnourishment. You (or anyone else) have still not explained how the dinos, etcetera survived if a 1 degree change is so deadly.

So we move to a pretty naff argumentum ad consequentium. No-one said a 1'C temperature change would be deadly except for you. But if you want to see the real effects of rapid climate change, check out the PETM event - which by all accounts looks to have been GHG-induced.

ABE:

I again propose the opposite question to you. What reason do I have to believe that your "consensus" and "evidence" (an insult to the very word) is not just propaganda? Indeed, a motive has been established in the "climate swindle" video... an underemployed scientific discipline wanting money, an anti-capitalist, and a nuclear power proponent, followed by righteous "environmentalists" (again, in this context it's an insult to the word) that jump on the bandwagon.

Heh, Durkin's mockumentary? The one which involved repeated corrections due to its very poor scholarship and misleading claims? The one which involved misrepresenting the thoughts of a climate scientist he interviewed? The one full of denialist canards?

If scientists were motivated by money, they'd probably find another career...

this entire notion of AGW will do little more than destroy their economy and almost nothing for what they intend to save. Furthermore, it is, as I have said numerous times before, suppressive and anti-human.

An unsupported appeal to consequences, again.

AGW evidence at it's very core is full of holes... 200 years, or even a thousand years, is a blink of an eye in geological terms. It is not an adequate amount of time passed to make such a strong conclusion.

A strong conclusion about what? That we are releasing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases every year? That this is leading to ever increasing levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Gases that we can see altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere?

Furthermore, I do not see AGW skeptics making any statements like this:

No, we see them making claims of dishonesty of climate scientists repeatedly. Just like you. Whilst they repeatedly misrepresent and mislead about climate science.

Interesting how you guys are so sure that your are right that you have to threaten people into changing their beliefs. Which is where my (incredibly apt) analogy to religion comes in.

That E-mail pretty much destroys any credibility pro-AGW people had left in my eyes.

What? The actions of one man destroys the credibility of completely unrelated independent scientists all over the world? Heh, whatever.

Just reading that report in it's entirety will allow you to see just how much of a "consensus" AGW actually has.

The consensus is found in the scientific literature. A recent poll of climate scientists also shows that there is also an overwhelming consensus that human-sourced greenhouse gases are having a least some warming effect on climate, with 77% accepting it is a serious problem, and another 15% that they are important but probably overstated some (it wasn't a great poll admittedly, but it was performed by one of the more credible true sceptics - Roger Pielke Sr.).

[edit on 27-2-2008 by melatonin]

PETM... created diversity (modern mammalian lines) it would appear, and only a limited group (forams) in the deep sea suffered heavy losses. This is with a temperature increase of 8 degrees in the sea, and subtropical temperatures in the polar seas... and Gore is trying to tell me that a rise of 1.5 - 4.5 is "a threat" to the environment or humanity? Things like this are what skepticism is built on... just so you know.

Again... this doubting of the validity of science you accuse me of... are you saying you do not do the same to mine?

Have you read my other post above yet?



[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
PETM... created diversity (modern mammalian lines) it would appear, and only a limited group (forams) in the deep sea suffered heavy losses. This is with a temperature increase of 8 degrees in the sea, and subtropical temperatures in the polar seas... and Gore is trying to tell me that a rise of 1.5 - 4.5 is "a threat" to the environment or humanity? Things like this are what skepticism is built on... just so you know.

So, an increase of between 5-8'C that lasted for tens of thousands of years, leading to extinctions of massive numbers of species can be ignored, because evolution is cool?

The best estimate is 3'C for the first doubling, then we get about another 3'C for the next. That takes us to 6'C. We could easily make that if we wanted to. Indeed, current rates of emissions are even faster than during the PETM period. Of course, it's a risk you're willing to take to save teh economy from reducing the use of a finite commodity, heh.

Again... this doubting of the validity of science you accuse me of... are you saying you do not do the same to mine?

Have you read my other post above yet?

Patience is a virtue. I don't hang on your every word.

I presented reasons as to why your claims about solar system warming are poop. You just say - this is rubbish, and make run of the mill denialist arguments, along with arguments to consequences.




[edit on 27-2-2008 by melatonin]

Heh, Durkin's mockumentary? The one which involved repeated corrections due to its very poor scholarship and misleading claims? The one which involved misrepresenting the thoughts of a climate scientist he interviewed? The one full of denialist canards?

I'll counter with errors in The Inconvenient Truth. Found by a google search "an inconvenient truth errors", but it is presented in microsoft word format so I can't link to it.

• Gore, aiming to undermine the significance of previous warm periods such as that of the Middle Ages, promoted the 1,000-year “hockey stick” temperature chart (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005).
• Gore showed heart-rending pictures of the New Orleans floods and insisted on a link between increased hurricane frequency and global warming that is not supported by the facts (IPCC, 2001, 2007).
• Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were as warm or warmer (Briffa et al., 2004).
• Gore did not explain that Arctic temperature changes are more closely correlated with changes in solar activity than with changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Soon, 2005).
• Gore did not explain that the Sun has been hotter, for longer, in the past 50 years than in any similar period in at least the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005).
• Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk of the continent has been cooling and gaining ice (Doran et al., 2004).
• Gore mentioned the breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf, but did not mention peer-reviewed research which suggests the ice shelf comes and goes frequently (Pudsey & Evans, 2001, 2006).
• Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing. In fact its thickness has been growing by 2 inches per year for a decade (Johannesen et al., 2005).
• Gore falsely claimed that global warming is melting Mt. Kilimanjaro’s icecap, actually caused by atmospheric dessication from local deforestation, and pre-20th-century climate shifts (Cullen et al., 2006).
• Gore said global sea levels would swamp Manhattan, Bangladesh, Shanghai and other coastal cities, and would rise 20ft by 2100, but the UN estimate is just 8in to 1ft 5in. (IPCC, 2007; Morner, 1995, 2004).
• Gore implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, failing to state that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other South American glaciers are advancing (Polissar et al., 2006).
• Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame (Foley & Coe, 2001).
• Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear populations have more than doubled since 1940 (Taylor, 2006).
• Gore said the ocean absorbs heat from the Sun, when in fact the ocean takes nearly all of its heat from the atmosphere, without which the ocean would freeze over (Houghton, 2002).
• Gore said a review of 928 scientific papers had shown none against the “consensus”. In fact only 1% of the papers were explicitly pro-“consensus”; almost 3 times as many were explicitly against (Peiser, 2006).
• Gore showed a link between changes in temperature and in CO2 concentration in the past 500,000 years, but did not admit that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration (Petit et al., 1999).

If scientists were motivated by money, they'd probably find another career...

Sure scientists aren't motivated by money. But, to refute this statement I need only reference how much extra funding one will receive for a study if one mentions "global warming"...

An unsupported appeal to consequences, again.

How very ironic you should say that.

-continued-

A strong conclusion about what? That we are releasing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases every year? That this is leading to ever increasing levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Gases that we can see altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere?

Above is the root of the AGW argument... I would like to ask, how can you prove that temperature does not in fact drive CO2, as mentioned in the link I posted earlier? How can you explain how the mesozoic, with it's abundant CO2 and much higher temperatures, was so successful if "global warming" is so catastrophist? And finally, can you explain why, during the Holocene Maximum, humanity flourished? Everything that global warming will "make extinct" clearly has adapted to it before.... and thrived. Why should it not this time, whether the warming is man-made or not?

No, we see them making claims of dishonesty of climate scientists repeatedly. Just like you. Whilst they repeatedly misrepresent and mislead about climate science.

This is mutually true, to an extent... do make claims of dishonesty, but we also do of ignorance and "jumping the gun", which they have done.

What? The actions of one man destroys the credibility of completely unrelated independent scientists all over the world? Heh, whatever.

Not one... below is from that E-mail link.

During today’s hearing ( “Examining the Case for the California Waiver: An Update from EPA” ), Senator Inhofe explained to the Committee that this kind of vilification of climate skeptics and subsequent threats to their professional integrity are not uncommon.

“This is so typical of these hate filled people who threaten and use vile language. I was called a traitor by one of the extreme left, this is what happens when you lose your case and [this threatening e-mail by ACORE’s president] is the best evidence of it,” Senator Inhofe explained. “We have all of these people who have a stake in [promoting man-made climate hysteria] like the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen. If the trend now in science is refuting that anthropogenic gases are a primary cause of climate change, then she is out of business, her whole weekly program (The Climate Code) is gone, her career is gone,” Senator Inhofe concluded.

So, an increase of between 5-8'C that lasted for tens of thousands of years, leading to extinctions of massive numbers of species can be ignored, because evolution is cool?

Massive numbers of extinctions as in 40% of deep-sea forams? That doesn't qualify as an extinction event.

The best estimate is 3'C for the first doubling, then we get about another 3'C for the next. That takes us to 6'C. We could easily make that if we wanted to. Indeed, current rates of emissions are even faster than during the PETM period.

Not the best estimate... read the link I posted for the real estimate.

Of course, it's a risk you're willing to take to save teh economy from reducing the use of a finite commodity, heh

The US has 100 million barrels of it in reserves... and Africa needs it to develop, realistically. I'll counter and say, you are willing to risk the world's economy, and continue the starvation and disease of millions of people, in order to attempt prevention of something that we may not be in control of and that won't hurt us or the environment anyways?

this is rubbish, and make run of the mill denialist arguments, along with arguments to consequences.

Again... it's mutual.

Finally, I would like to say... thank you for holding your patience and keeping this a relatively calm debate. I understand doing so is not the AGW proponent's forte.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
I'll counter with errors in The Inconvenient Truth. Found by a google search "an inconvenient truth errors", but it is presented in microsoft word format so I can't link to it.

• Gore, aiming to undermine the significance of previous warm periods such as that of the Middle Ages, promoted the 1,000-year “hockey stick” temperature chart (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005).
• Gore showed heart-rending pictures of the New Orleans floods and insisted on a link between increased hurricane frequency and global warming that is not supported by the facts (IPCC, 2001, 2007).

I'll just take the first two, as I have better things to do.

The 'hockey-stick' study has been validated by numerous other large scale multi-proxy climate reconstructions. Indeed, the proxies do suggest that current warming is greater than in the past 1000 years.

IPCC 2007

For the second part, many studies do show that there could be a link between hurricane intensity and increasing sea temperatures. However, this is one area in which I think Gore may have overstated the strength of the science, it is supported and was when he made the film, but some scientists like Landsea question the veracity of the data.

There lots more naff claims that are apparent without any research. For example, Peiser's crap study and the lag canard.

Sure scientists aren't motivated by money. But, to refute this statement I need only reference how much extra funding one will receive for a study if one mentions "global warming"...

If I wanted to gain research money, would I be telling people that we have enough evidence to conclude that we are having an impact, or would I say that we don't have enough evidence and we need more research?

How very ironic you should say that.

-continued-

OK.

ABE:

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
Above is the root of the AGW argument... I would like to ask, how can you prove that temperature does not in fact drive CO2, as mentioned in the link I posted earlier?

Both happen. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if you watch the video, you might have noted that. CO2 is also a gas at normal temps, thus when dissolved in oceans, its solubility is dependent on temperature (i.e., less soluble at higher temps).

Thus, it is both a cause of warming, and is released from the biosphere by warming.

Was that the ironic bit?

How can you explain how the mesozoic, with it's abundant CO2 and much higher temperatures, was so successful if "global warming" is so catastrophist? And finally, can you explain why, during the Holocene Maximum, humanity flourished? Everything that global warming will "make extinct" clearly has adapted to it before.... and thrived. Why should it not this time, whether the warming is man-made or not?

We haven't even determined what we can consider catastrophic. I think if climate warmed pretty slowly over thousands of years, like the PETM, we would be able to adapt much better than where we appear to be heading. The holocene optimum shows temps might have been 1'C or 2'C warmer than now, and the human population was rather smaller and sustainable. I think human society is rather different than 9000 years ago.

Not one... below is from that E-mail link.

During today’s hearing ( “Examining the Case for the California Waiver: An Update from EPA” ), Senator Inhofe explained to the Committee that this kind of vilification of climate skeptics and subsequent threats to their professional integrity are not uncommon.

Inhofe is an idiot. If he told me that the sky was blue, I'd check out the window.

Massive numbers of extinctions as in 40% of deep-sea forams? That doesn't qualify as an extinction event.

I didn't say it was an extinction event, I did say it involved massive numbers of extinctions. I think 40% of one group of species is rather a lot. But I agree it wasn't on the scale of the KT event or others.

Not the best estimate... read the link I posted for the real estimate.

No, the best estimate is 3'C, with a range of 2-4.5'C.

The US has 100 million barrels of it in reserves... and Africa needs it to develop, realistically. I'll counter and say, you are willing to risk the world's economy, and continue the starvation and disease of millions of people, in order to attempt prevention of something that we may not be in control of and that won't hurt us or the environment anyways?

Why would the economy be at risk? By using less coal and oil? The oil that now costs 300% more than a few years back? The oil that is a finite commodity? Is using money to build other forms of energy, fund research into new technologies, use innovative ideas etc gonna kill the capitalist dream?

We can't even stop third-world hardship now, so don't fall back to the poor little africans card. What are you expecting to happen in rural Sudan? Big coal stations and power grids, rofl. The best thing they can do in these areas is use off-grid technology, at least for now. It will be cheaper, and if done effectively, will work.

What you want to do (or actually Durkin) is make a link between CO2 and development, one need not be dependent on t'other. The idea that Durkin raises is vacuous on this issue, showing a poor solar panel system at a rural hospital to pull at heartstrings suggesting if it wasn't for environmentalists stopping someone building a coal power station just down the road, everything would be fine. What they need is an effective system. If you care so much, get a group together and collect some money to upgrade their system.

This is the same dude who previously suggested that breast implants reduced cancer. The guy is a serial BSer.

Again... it's mutual.

How so? I'm arguing from scientific predictions made using evidence and data collected by scientists. You're denying evidence and using emotional arguments about poor little africans and collapsing economies, because you don't like the consequences of the science.

Finally, I would like to say... thank you for holding your patience and keeping this a relatively calm debate. I understand doing so is not the AGW proponent's forte.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

I do my best, but I might come across as brusque sometimes, just ignore it if I do.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by melatonin]