Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[lee G.]

I dont think people want to talk about what the problem really is.

[Justin Spencer]

I dont think people want to talk about what the problem really is.

The Bullpen?

[ness]

There's a man lying dead in the street. He has a bullet hole in his head. Autopsy will show he had prostate cancer.

Most of the Rush Limbaugh types would say that because people die of prostate cancer all the time, he very well could have died of it..."natural causes".

Most of the Al Gore disciples would say that he would have lived forever if it hadn't been for being shot.

About the only question left is how much longer he would have lived without the bullet hole.

Point is, climate cycles. We all know it. We even know a lot about the natural causes of it. But just because people die of natural causes after a long life doesn't mean they can't die earlier because of somebody shooting them. And just because there are natural causes of climate change doesn't mean there can't be human causes that speed it up considerably. That's the question that's left on the science side...how much are we speeding things up? Oh, and one more question...how much can we do to fix it? On the policy side, the questions are...do we put the effort into slowing it or stopping it, or the effort into figuring out how to live with it? And the problem with figuring out how WE are going to live with it doesn't take into account the effects it could have on natural ecosystems. THAT'S a huge problem if human actions are speeding things up...they may be speeding climate change up so fast that natural ecosystems can't cope with the change.

None of us on here know diddly about all the scientific foundations of climate change study. We can only listen to the real scientists...those who are in the relevant fields...and do our best to evaluate what both sides are saying. Not the conservative or liberal talking heads who don't know diddly about it either and most definitely have an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. Most of the time, policy should be based upon what the prevailing scientific "opinion" is, unless and until the contrarians can marshal enough data and evidence to sway the prevailing opinion. But science has become a political football on many issues these days, and most especially this issue because it so profoundly affects energy and economic policies. There are huge vested interests in business as usual when, if the prevailing scientific opinion is right, business as usual is the worst thing we can do. And there are a whole lot of scientists who have reputations at stake if it's shown the prevailing opinion is wrong.

I don't know whether it's wrong or not. I DO know that the belief that we puny humans can't possibly have much of an effect on something as vast and complex as climate is...just a little ridiculous, given that there is no place on earth that we haven't altered in some way and that we not only are the most numerous critter bigger than a bug on earth and have the technology to destroy most of the rest of the planet's inhabitants along with ourselves. Maybe we aren't having a big effect on climate, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Mainly...I hope we're just going through a "short cycle" of warming and things will settle back down to the kind of climate in which human civilization developed along with our present ecosystems. Because I don't think we'll ever have the political will to do the things that would need to be done to fix things if we're the ones that broke them.

I was just gonna say that!

Seriously -- an excellent post with a great perspective.

[Mitch f]

I don't know whether it's wrong or not. I DO know that the belief that we puny humans can't possibly have much of an effect on something as vast and complex as climate is...just a little ridiculous, given that there is no place on earth that we haven't altered in some way and that we not only are the most numerous critter bigger than a bug on earth and have the technology to destroy most of the rest of the planet's inhabitants along with ourselves. Maybe we aren't having a big effect on climate, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Exactly, I wouldnt bet on it either. Why take the risk? Best to stay on the side of caution. The damage will be irreversable. I also agree that none of us know diddly...including the scientists on both sides, who probably only know slightly more than diddly.

[ColdWaterFshr]

I also agree that none of us know diddly...including the scientists on both sides, who probably only know slightly more than diddly.

But it seems one of our distinguished panelists knows quite a bit more than diddly and even gets angry when we try to run from his avalanche of facts.

Good post, Al. Paul couldn't of said it better hisself.

[Wayne SW/MO]

It's virtually impossible to stay with this. It keeps reverting back to two opinions with no room for anything else, there is no climate change, or there is and it is a result of mankind. Personally, again, I just can't buy the notion that man is the sole, or major, contributor to the problem.

I moved to CO a little while ago and I was shocked to see how much standing dead timber there was here.

I don't know what the situation is there, but when I was in OR the FS wanted to salvage beetle killed timber, but environmentalist sued and prevented it. Eventually it burned, along with a lot of healthy timber.

[OzarkFishman]

Wayne there are only 2 opinions, but they are not those two.

Everyone agress that climate is changing.

The 2 opinions are that man has a MEASURABLE effect on the climate OR man does not.

I will say that my opinions have been changed as a result of this thread. Admitting that an opinion can change seems to be a sign of weakness these days, I DON'T buy in to that way of thinking.

One idea that keeps being brought up in this thread is that no one knows what they are talking about .... REALLY???

I am a fairly intelligent person, school was easy ... yet I openly admit that there are WAY more intelligent people out there that can wrap their brain around ideas and see connections that most cannot.

Being a teacher, I see those kids that already have closed their minds (as a result of their parents) ... They speak with certainty and "know" the junk they are spewing is truth.

To each their own, I choose to keep my mind open and listen to smart people (with the BS detector on, like ness said).

Yes, politics are entwined in EVERY aspect of life and true objectivity is harder and harder to find ...

[Tim Smith]

But it seems one of our distinguished panelists knows quite a bit more than diddly and even gets angry when we try to run from his avalanche of facts.

Good post, Al. Paul couldn't of said it better hisself.

Here's the diddly I know....

I've used the kinds of statistics these climatologists are using. I've been in the position of testing and retesting environmental hypotheses against available data. I've made predictions in complex systems and worked for years on end just to get people to do the right thing and then watched a system recover when they finally did.

Yes, climate is complex. But climatologists have complex, powerful tools to tease apart the interactions in it. They've gotten a lot of things right so far.

I've also done climate change adaption work. I've helped plant 20,000+ mangrove trees and helped set up mangrove reserves and spent time in schools and in community meetings explaining the impacts that are likely to come. I sat down with coastal mayors proud of their hometowns and had to tell them their homes will all be underwater before their grand kids get old. I've watched a World Heritage reef fall apart bit by bit. I've watched climate denial boneheads from the US and Russia and the UK and all over the world come to Belize and dredge up a pile of sand half a meter above sea level so they can build a million dollar house where a mangrove buffer used to be. In 50-100 years, those million dollar houses will be underwater. But you cant tell these people anything...because of arguments like there was a cold day in Missouri once last month.

I watched a good fisheries conservation group abandon important projects that dealt with climate change. The leadership knew climate change was real. They were just afraid they'd be ridiculed or lose members or be perceived as too...what...liberal?

Yeah. That all pisses me off.

Seems to me you can know a heck of lot less than diddly and still function at a level higher than that.

Sure. There's plenty we don't know. But we're not helpless. We may not be experts on the albedo effect or gastrointestinal methanogenesis but we can at least sort out the difference between climate and weather. If that's diddly, it's important diddly.

...and once you're past that and if you guys really do agree with Al's post, then you agree we know enough to focus on solutions instead of conspiracy theories and nonsense.

That would represent real progress.

[Tim Smith]

It's virtually impossible to stay with this. It keeps reverting back to two opinions with no room for anything else, there is no climate change, or there is and it is a result of mankind. Personally, again, I just can't buy the notion that man is the sole, or major, contributor to the problem.

I don't know what the situation is there, but when I was in OR the FS wanted to salvage beetle killed timber, but environmentalist sued and prevented it. Eventually it burned, along with a lot of healthy timber.

Actually, Wayne, your point was acknowledged. You were asked to show how your concerns about East Anglia (the specific objection you raised) supports your views. Given that those issues drive your position on the topic, one would think that would be a fairly simple thing to do.

Instead you've made a false assertion, changed the topic and bailed out.

It looks like that's going to be your final choice. If it's not you might want to answer the actual questions in the discussion including how money-driven market solutions aren't corrupting but somehow grant money is...

...that one is still hanging in the air too,.

[eric1978]

Personally, again, I just can't buy the notion that man is the sole, or major, contributor to the problem.

Why is it so hard to believe? We pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and at the same time we remove vast numbers of the organisms that help remove CO2. That doesn't strike you as a problem, given what we KNOW about the greenhouse effect? It's a logical conclusion to me...I really don't get the skepticism.