Sceptical approach to climate change causes controversy!

[rxcoup]

Merry almost christmas to all members!

 

I've written up a little article about some climate-change idiocy here in Australia. Would appreciate other members opinions, contradictions or thoughts on my article?

 

Sceptical approach to climate change causes controversy!

Tony Abbott seems to have outraged Australia’s mainstream media this week with his appointment of Bob Baldwin to Minister Of Environment as he is outrageously some sort of climate sceptic. This article  “Tony Abbott appoints climate skeptic to “help” on environment” being a prime example of misinformed response I’ve seen so far. And I postulate here that it’s an excellent move to install such a person in a field of politics so highly reliant on science.

Both “sides” (they are all the same) of Australian politics have long been dominated by climate cultists who’ve been brainwashed from an early age to be unquestioning and unscientific in their understanding of environmental issues, the most emotive being climate change. Rational discussion has for some time been thrown out the window on the issue of climate change as the general public take on “faith” most of the misinformation they are fed and defend it with a near religious level of fervour (and closed-mindedness).

 

Most of the population have little to zero understanding of what issues most scientists agree on (co2 emissions cause some warming) and which are still in contention (the rest, which is still in its infancy i.e. how much man made warming has occurred and will occur based on positive climate feedback theory, whether or not changes to temperature so far are part of normal climatic variation.  For an idea just how complex and as yet unknown the science is:

From the Guardian:

Feedback loops such as these are complex in themselves and even more complex when considered as part of an integrated global climate system. Some are already at work, while others have yet to kick in. Others still – both positive and negative – may yet be discovered. These uncertainties, coupled with historical evidence for the climate changing rapidly in the past, led

one prominent climate scientist

to compare releasing greenhouse gases into the air with “poking a beast with a sharp stick”.

“The computer models were built by scientists who have only a fragmented, immature understanding of complex climate systems”. It’s akin to asking a weather man whether it will be sunny in 5 months time in Nebraska at 5:48pm and then investing in $50,000 worth of sunblock based on his wildly inadequate estimates (carbon tax). So most climate related policies are highly premature and far worse, take the focus and funding away from real life environment issues that could be addressed and resolved in the near term.

 

So why is he a better choice in my opinion?

The job of the scientist is think outside the current dogma, formulate theories and gather empirical evidence from the cold hard real world of facts. This man’s job will be to inspect the evidence of scientists. Appointing a “sceptical” minister who admits he does not know, as the evidence is still not in, seems to have caused great outrage in the media and with many so-called environmentalists. This is simply ludicrous.

If this guy is sceptical in his parsing of the scientific research submitted to him that’s a good thing. If the evidence put forward is as unquestionable, undeniable and incontrovertible as most seem to think, his scepticism will be outweighed by evidence. All the statements I’ve seen from him seem to be fairly sound and rational.

To quote Mr Baldwin himself:

“I am neither a skeptic nor a denier. I have read widely and talked to scientists, but I am not a scientist. Maybe climate change is cyclic? I do not know, because there are too many subjective opinions in this argument, each proffering a different expert perspective.”

Sounds fairly sane to me, at least he admits that he does not know. Most politicians spit out some lines of end of the world doom speak, meant to induce climate shame and guilt and stoke the fires of fear that allow them to manipulate the public.

 

Carbon Tax Scam

Trend setter as he is, Tony Abbot became the first world leader to repeal the carbon tax. But today cunningly deflected attack from the pro-tax crowd by holding up the resultant tax reductions as a boon to his female constituents (who anecdotally control household finances, though I could not find a study proving this). His comments,  set off the anti-Abbott feminist brigade and shifted the focus of the media away from the tax repeal and once again to his supposedly misogynistic evil-doing nature. A cleverly crafted deflection technique on behalf of his media team in my opinion. – [Backlash against Abbott’s women and household budget comment grows].

 

But It’s a shame that such a stunningly brave and momentous piece of policy work need be defended in this way. It’s a great testament to the courage the current government seems to be showing in the face of the climate conspiracy propagandists, the IMF and the IPCC by ditching the carbon tax. Carbon taxation based on climate propaganda and fear mongering is just one of the psychological weapons used to extort ever larger servings of (tax) milk from the Australian public (the cash-cows of modern crony capitalism). So the result is a great victory for reason and sanity, though who’s to say there we’re any virtuous intentions. But hopefully other countries take note of what is possible.

 

What if the Green bench got their way?

What if instead they hired a green friendly version of this guy? Let’s play devils advocate. Would any decision they made actually be made in the interest of the current population, let alone the children who will inherit the earth. Deep, deep down you know they would not. Political decisions are made and policies implemented purely to create “spin”-able headlines today and to get votes next week.

 

What would this green friendly politician do? Re-instate the carbon tax and solve all the world’s problems? Assuming the catastrophic man-made climate change theorists are right (which they are not of course) and assuming you take the highest range estimates of the IPCC and somehow got the rest of the world to join in; The carbon tax is a still bad policy with a negative cost benefit of 1000:1.

 

Is Balance restored?

Not yet. Even with today’s appointment, the majority of the politicians (and the uninformed public) are staunch science and reason deniers. With such a majority they should be able to quash this evils man’s shockingly sceptical and pragmatic approach to what is a scientific area of policy.

 

 

[AccuTron]

Wow, glad to see this post.  I'm immersed in other forum topics right now, but a quick scan of your post makes me want to come back for a longer read.  In the meantime, in the interest of getting as much as possible info in one place for easy access, here's a mega-link to other posts I've made on the topic, take a good hour or two at least to follow it all.  Follow my orange flower icon to help navigate.  Thanks again for the original post.

 

climate fraud updates - General Messages - Freedomain Radio Message Board

[FriendlyHacker]

There is no question about whether or not carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and methane can capture heat in the atmosphere, the surface temperature of Venus is almost 500°C because of the runaway greenhouse effect some gases produce when in dense quantities at the atmosphere.

There is also no question about whether or not climate change is actually happening in our planet, some scientists disagree on the cause of it but an analyses of temperatures over the last 2 centuries and the observation by satellites on the amount of heat that gets in and the amount of heat that gets out, show a clear pattern of increasing temperature.

The human caused climate change is now called Anthropogenic Climate Change, to differentiate itself from other causes.

Some of the "arguments" against climate change are quite simplistic and show no understanding of the concept of climate, climate is recorded in centuries, weather is recorded in days. So if someone says that the climate can't be increasing temperature because they are getting snow storms, is like saying that there is no Sun because you can't see it during the night, whether or not there are a few colder or hotter days and years, is not saying much about where the climate is heading to.



About the positive feedback loop, it is basically about the ocean reaching a certain temperature that will liberate the methane trapped there in ocean floor, and since methane is a much worse greenhouse gas it is said the temperature will increase much faster once it happens.

I like to think about this like if you were boiling milk, milk will continue to increase temperature in a positive feedback loop until it boils and overflows, but at any time someone can go there and turn the oven off, there are many ways to "turn the oven off" on our planetary climate change, but those things will probably only happen when climate disasters are happening in a big enough frequency to justify pouring the money to fixing the problem.

[AccuTron]

There is no question about whether or not carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and methane can capture heat in the atmosphere, the surface temperature of Venus is almost 500°C because of the runaway greenhouse effect some gases produce when in dense quantities at the atmosphere.

 

There is also no question about whether or not climate change is actually happening in our planet, some scientists disagree on the cause of it but an analyses of temperatures over the last 2 centuries and the observation by satellites on the amount of heat that gets in and the amount of heat that gets out, show a clear pattern of increasing temperature.

 

Some of the "arguments" against climate change are quite simplistic and show no understanding of the concept of climate,...

 

 

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!  

 

Do the research!  Skeptics is a bogus word, use the word Detectives.  The ENTIRE 20th century alarming warming is a hoax.  It's generally agreed that the Northern Hemisphere has been warming since ~1850.  Gee, think some glaciers might get a little mushy, HEATING FOR OVER A CENTURY AND HALF??   

 

Also in my main link:  about a thousand years ago, it was warmer than this.  Greenland actually was green, at least the edges, and evidence of barley cultivation is about one fifth the way up in latitude (I think this is from World Book).  Soil cores and clamshell analysis shows Greenland was warmer than now "several times over the last 100,000 years." Leif Erikson didn't lie about it, it really was green those centuries ago.

 

Also, various claims of "warmest year since year X" is bogus, since ALL temps since about 1850 have been rising, with fluctuations.  Also, a (NASA? NOAA?) whistle blower revealed that the claim of 2009 being warmest year ever was because original data had colder thermometers (higher latitudes or altitudes) removed from the data set-- Voila, it's warmer!  He was on Fox, mainstream media wouldn't touch him…follow the ownership, money and political power on that one.

 

(National Research Councils) NRC2006, referenced in the IPCC's Copenhagen Diagnosis (which is 100% lies) as a SUPPORTING document, actually says, summarizing in my words, "we don't believe you."  Words like "low confidence", "even less confidence."  But IPCC assumes nobody will check.  I did.  It's a 40 page paper, a thick read, but I found a paragraph on page 4 to help guide you, included in my main link.  Also, if you already know gobs of background, you can read between the lines of NRC's suggestions at the end, which basically say "you need to better science."  IPCC's idea of support is "we don't believe you and you need to do better science."

 

As a nugget, showing how complex this is, where the strays might occur:  I saw a page showing how a weather station, wooden legs, small roofed box, about five feet tall, was originally installed in a wide open field, no human anything around it.  I'm guessing installed in 1940's-50's.   There is a photo of it in the sixties.  A shopping mall has surrounded it.  It has ten feet square of scruffy dirt, surrounded by a blacktop parking lot, with lots of heated car engines.  Gee, do you think the readings might have gone up??

 

You need to spend 2-3 hours MINIMUM on my links for this or the poison will seep back into your mind.  You must understand the SCALE of this or you won't get it.  Once you get the bigger story, its no mystery at all, crime and corruption and lies (and lazy citizens) just like always.  The money and power on this fraud is bigger than anything in history I can think of.  That's why it's so extensive, and ruthless. 

 

Slander is a main part of the fraud game; anyone telling about the lies is called working for Big Oil, or doesn't believe in the moon landing, or other nonsense.  Gore has used those words.  Plus most people are just mentally lazy, and like their ego pumped, and climate change is the perfect soapbox for feeling superior.  If you read ALL the material I've supplied…which is only a SMALL SAMPLE of what there is…then you'll see it explained in more detail.  

 

 

Ken Lay, of Enron infamy: (look it up if you don't know Kenneth Lay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, "Lay and Enron became synonymous with corporate abuse and accounting fraud", "Lay was indicted by a grand jury on 11 counts of securities fraud and related charges", "Lay was found guilty on May 25, 2006, of 10 counts against him; the judge dismissed the 11th. Because each count carried a maximum 5- to 10-year sentence, legal experts said Lay could have faced 20 to 30 years in prison.^[2] However, he died while vacationing in Snowmass, Colorado, on July 5, 2006, about three and a half months before his scheduled October 23 sentencing"  )

 

Before he died, Lay was working with Inconvenient Truth Al Gore. (search ken lay al gore)  Lay sent a front man to Kyoto, supposedly just for governments, to make sure Cap and Trade was passed.  When it was passed, it was declared a victory for Enron, ONE OF BIGGEST CON OUTFITS IN HISTORY.  AL GORE AND KEN LAY ARE/WERE TRADERS, THEY GET A CUT ON CAP AND TRADE…THEY MAKE OUT LIKE BANDITS.  Read this here. Al Gore's Inconvenient Enron | National Review Online

 

And this guy who wrote the article, like myself, like maligned Canadian hero McIntyre, ALL OF US BELIEVED THE LIES AT FIRST BECAUSE IT WAS EVERYWHERE (gee, like when Hitler or Tojo was in power, the same story was everywhere??).  WE WENT IN AS INNOCENT BELIEVERS…but when we started looking at the material, it was obvious something was wrong.  

 

Digging deeper, there's falsified data all over the place, pre-sorted data to not include honest data, all kinds of cover up, it goes on and on.  Fabulous detective and hero McIntyre for instance, a retired geologist who did mineral exploration among other things (thus the frauds' claim that he works for Big Oil, to discredit actually looking at what he found), back about 2003, simply and innocently asked Dr. Mann, the evil one, for the alarming data.  Mann stonewalled for two years (McIntyre has a megalink of his emails with Mann) and was finally forced to turn it over by a FOIA request…guess what, it's falsified by +0.6C when compared to raw source data.  

 

Why 0.6C?  Probably because he made false claims elsewhere by 0.5C and was covering his rear.  Read further.

 

Two more years, another FOIA, to get him to turn over his algorithm…you thought thermometers everywhere were rising, didn't you?…nope, never true…he ran raw data thru a faulty algorithm, and it made alarming rises because he didn't study statistics (uh, meteorology is nothing BUT statistics), and wrote a bad program.  

 

This is BEYOND DOUBT shown in the Wegman Report 2006 when trendless test noise was put into his algorithm…by three pro-bono qualified statisticians…and Mann's program makes a "hockey stick" out of nothing at all.  

 

You can see the smoking gun chart, the example showing Mann's alarming warming claim, compared right next to a trendless noise output, and they are virtually identical.  This is provided in my master link.   Since the fraud is obvious, the bad guys try to have you not look, by claiming Wegman was a plagiarizer.  Like that could have anything to do with the test results.  Wegman apparently copied a block of text from someone else while doing a website about color perception.  NOTHING TO DO with the truth, pure smokescreen.  They also claim he worked for Big Oil, so don't look.  The bad guys say NOT ONE WORD about the obvious test results.

 

As I've explained elsewhere, I've done 70+ hours intense research on this topic, and have read every word, all the readers comments, of…get ready…over 1,200 websites, including research papers of 30 and 40 pages, and two long Congressional reports.  I know my shit.

 

One of those papers was an investigation into the internal documents of the IPCC, and the good author provided four examples of a person Fields, upper management at IPCC, telling Congress "the link is clear" that humans are affecting weather (Read as:  plenty of corruption money, big projects, and oh by the way, wink wink, Democrats get lots of votes because Democrats want to save the planet and Republicans hate the planet.  This of course only works if voters believe the fraud in the first place.)  

 

Field is compared to the IPCC's own internal documents, shown in my link, which can find no connection at all between humans and weather!!!  Shhhh, don't tell the public, might lose power and money and votes.  This is not "skeptics", this is the IPCC itself, denying it's very reason for existence. 

 

You must believe, that with well over a thousand websites, what I can present here is only ever going to be a sampling.  You MUST understand that, the scope of what you don't know.

 

You might also check the Copenhagen Diagnosis' alleged solar vs human graph.  Blatant lie.  Look it up.  They show the sun's 11-year cycle, but leave out the rest.  When the real solar activity is compared to their claim of Human activity, guess what?---the real Sun closely matches what they claim is Human.  I have done this graph overlay in my big link, just look. 

 

I also found a graph showing that CO2, temperature, and two other gases (probably more), ALL MARCH IN LOCKSTEP.  Gore didn't mention those other gases, inconvenient as they are.  In fact, Gore's own graph, if closely examined, shows temperature leading CO2 several times, but he counts upon nobody checking.  In his own graph, CO2 leads 8 times, Temperature leads 5 times, and it's a wash 12 times; the graph also shows nothing about margins of error, so is really bogus to begin with.

 

Also, you can clearly see in the legitimate graph that CO2 rises during EVERY interglacial warm period.  CO2 has been rising for 18,000 years -- how inconvenient. (Oh, and sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years, rapidly for a long time, slowing down about 5-6 thousand years ago; the Maldives can't sue First World countries if that's admitted.  Always, always, follow the money.)  

 

And we get few warm periods on this planet, that graph is an eye-opener that Earth is an ICE planet most of it's history after initial cool down from a bubbling volcanic mess.  Warm periods going wayyyyy back have only been several, lasting about 6-20 thousand years, and our current one is I think already 15,000 years old.  We should be worried about another ice age.

 

NASA scientist Hansen, paid public money and now retired on public money (and looking good to the chicks when he's out protesting global warming) put out a paper in 1980, CO2 And Climate Change.  Sounds like a signature paper.  As I guessed some years ago, I downloaded it because I thought the fraud would make it unaccessible.  

 

That is what he has done.  Another citizen has done the digging, and it's now inside a locked file directory labeled "Meetings."  GISS Blocking Access To Archived Data And Hansen’s Writings | Real Science  It can still be found with digging, but why do we have to dig?  ‎www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf  Science and math types:  on the first page you'll see blatant illegal math with his disregard for significant figures; he also uses the Stefan-Boltzman constant, which is expressly only for ideal black bodies.

 

He used blatantly illegal math and physics.  Pure fantasy.  This happens a lot; the bad guys will hide their fraud that was out there for years.  The bogus parts of his paper are highlighted in my main link.  Complete disregard for the rule of significant digits, and comparing the Earth with it's molten core to an ideal black body, a mathematical concept that emits no heat or radiation whatsoever.  NASA scientist Hansen confuses something colder than empty space with a radioactive decay furnace hot enough to melt iron under high pressure??  

 

Moonbattery: Global Warming Hoaxer James Hansen Denounced as Fraud by Former Boss

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen "embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was "was never muzzled." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. …

 

This, by the way, is why Republicans were holding back funding to Federal labs:  they have been infiltrated by fraud at the very top, across many agencies we used to hold dear and true.

 

This goes on and on and on.  I'm here repeating what I've put elsewhere.  So start with my original piece.  This is thirty easy to read pages, mostly just jpg's with brief supporting text, with lots of easy on the eyes spacing.  Start here:  CRIMATE.pdf - Google Drive

And check further here:

Global Warming Pause never true? - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board

climate fraud updates - General Messages - Freedomain Radio Message Board

 

 

PLAN TO SPEND MINIMUM 2 HOURS, 3-4 IS BETTER.

[FriendlyHacker]

While you were watching Fox News to learn the science of global warming. I was actually learning the physics of meteorology from books, scientific papers and watching interviews with people who do weather research for a living, and you might be surprised about this little piece of information, but they actually know what they are doing when they take data from thousands of different data collecting points around the globe, not to mention satellite technology.

Do you really take anything from Fox News seriously? Isn't that the place they showcase creationism as science and blame gay people for meteorological catastrophes?

 

It does not matter if you believe in global warming, or if I believe in it, I don't care about that, I care about understanding the issue.

It might seem like you're writing about things I've never thought or read about before, but I get the same feeling I get when a Chirstian comes up to me with Pascal's Wager, as if I've never heard about it before.

[AccuTron]

It was a clip of a few minutes from a Fox broadcast, on another site.  I've never watched an actual Fox program.  I haven't had a TV in fifteen years, I'm not even sure how to find a Fox program, and don't care.

 

And, ahem, that was just one point out of a truckload.  I think you did enough cherry picking to put some migrant workers on unemployment.

 

What about the IPCC's own papers showing they can't find anything?  Within five minutes, sitting at your screen right now as you read this, you could go to my link above CRIMATE.pdf - Google Drive, pages 20-22, and be reading it for yourself.  It has nothing to do with Fox, or myself.

 

As mentioned, I learned the science of global warming from over 1,200 websites, now up to about 75 hrs intense research.  I DO NOT react to simply one or a few claims.  The forty-page paper of NRC2006, as simply one example, meant that the NRC had done bundles of research.  

 

Once the scam is revealed, there is no mystery whatsoever.  The names of the liars are known (the part about Al Gore and Ken Lay, con artist extraordinaire, doesn't get a reaction from you???), how they falsified their work is known, doing the real science ALWAYS makes the alarming warming go away.  If someone says there is alarming warming, follow their money, power, votes, employment, glory, getting chicks, etc.  Especially their EGO.

 

I don't know what Pascal's Wager is, and I could look it up, but don't care.  YOU read every single word of over 1,200 websites, and you'll end up in the same place.  Or just read my links for 2-3 hours for a survey course. 

[FriendlyHacker]

I have a hard time understating this:

https://docs.google.com/a/amazonicadesign.com/file/d/0B-KljfuGLbTCZDlrOXRHWkZYMlk/edit?pli=1

It's riddled with anecdotal evidence and non scientific language.

[AccuTron]

I have a hard time understating this:

 

https://docs.google.com/a/amazonicadesign.com/file/d/0B-KljfuGLbTCZDlrOXRHWkZYMlk/edit?pli=1

 

It's riddled with anecdotal evidence and non scientific language.

It started as an email, not knowing the gigantic extent of what I was getting into.  So it has a first to second person structure.  As I said elsewhere, these are the results of reading every word of OVER 1,200 WEBSITES.  They are "samples" not "anecdotes."  Behind each item, there are tons more info on that item.

 

There ARE excerpts from five scientific papers, plus some graphs.  You want more scientific language, try to read the original papers, especially the Wegman Report US Congress 2006.  They are very thick reads, and I showed you the nuggets and smoking guns.

 

Falsified data and an algorithm that makes hockey stick shapes from nothing at all from the primary proponent of alarming warming, another primary proponent is convicted on 11 counts of fraud, illegal math by Hansen "an embarrassment to NASA", is more than "anecdotal."

 

Read ALL the other links I provided.  Do your 2-4 hours before you draw conclusions.  As if falsified data weren't enough….

[Mike Larson]

When it comes to global warming, I think we might be focusing our attention on the wrong things. What we ought to do, in my opinion, is to start by asking the question, “Would an increase in global temperature (of even 3 or 4 degrees) be a net negative or a net positive for human life on earth. Until we can convincingly conclude that it would be a net negative, why waste any time or resources searching for a “solution” or even figuring out if the warming is actually occurring.

 

And for those “scientists” who have determined that global warming would be a net negative to humanity, I have a couple of questions.
-    What criteria are thy using to determine that it is positive or negative?
-    What time frame are they using? There may be negative consequences based on the current living arrangements of people on the earth today… and yet a warmer earth could be significantly better in terms of vegetation and comfort once people adapt (by moving further inland, for example) to it in the long run.
-    Also, how do you measure how much a person values something. Like how does a scientist compare the high value that I place on warmth to another person’s value of cheap flood insurance? How do you put that into a mathematical formula that will conclude with any degree of accuracy whether or not global warming is a net negative?

 

It may very well be that an increase in global temperature would be desirable for humanity in the long run.

Actually, I think this is one argument against the idea that the "alarmists" are just fabricating the whole thing. If it is true that it is all a big hoax that they have planned out, you would think they would have at least come up with something that is a verifiable danger to scare people with. It’s like trying to scare a child with an invisible fluffy teddy bear. First you have to convince the child that teddy bears are scary, then you have to convince the child that the invisible teddy bear is real. It would be much easier to start with an invisible dragon, don’t you think?

 

[PatrickC]

Actually Mike that is a very interesting way to look at this debate. Just to play devils advocate, haven't many of them already attempted to scare us with sea levels rising to catastrophic flooding levels being one that I can remember. I think that was the infamous Al Gore claim if I'm right. I'm certainly unconvinced myself. Not out of bloody mindedness, but purely because we were told 20 years ago that we would now be experiencing the beginnings of catastrophic climate change that was supposed to be noticeable.

 

So whilst I grant FriendlyHacker that taking daily anecdotes of the weather isn't the way to look at climate change. I can at least say that I haven't seen any noticeable warming since 30 years ago. If anything I've noticed a marginal cooling of summers and a warming of winters. At least here in the UK that is. Also 30 years ago it was global cooling that was the issue and we were heading for an ice age. Whilst I agree this isn't evidence, but it stil seriously hampers the enviromentalists position all the same. Particularly as each decade passes by and virtually nothing changes. There does come a point when your average Joe can say, 'what the hell are these climate scientists talking about?'

 

One of the worst aspects about the philosophy of enviromentalism is the sheer ignorance of the economic disaster that would ensue if enviromentalists got their way. It's really one thing to go back to an agrarian age when it's fully understood that we are definately heading for a climate disaster if we don't stop 'anthropegnic' climate change. It's quite another if the hazards are otherwise unknown, based on speculation and potentially benign even. The ensuing economic catastrophy could potentially kill millions in the process too.

 

That said, I don't see either happenning thankfully.

[FriendlyHacker]

Obviouslly if agriculture requires a certain temperature to maintain production, that will come to hault when changing temperature.

 

In Brazil for instance it was common to grow grapes in the South East and Sugar Cane in the northeast, now they grow sugar cane in the South East and grapes in the South. Soon there will be no place left to grow plants that require lower temperatures and sugar cane will only grow in the South.

In addition to that, Sao Paulo is having a major problem with droughts, and over 20 million people might end up without access to potable water in a few months.

[Mike Larson]

But you are talking about localized phenomena. I completely accept that a rise in global temperature might be unfavorable to some portion of the population.

 

On the other hand, if we look at the combined agricultural production of the entire earth, doesn't it make sense to assume that a warmer, more carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere would be a net positive. Also, wouldn't the net level of precipitation be expected to increase, given the melting of the ice caps and the increased evaporation of ocean water?

 

What about all of the previously uninhabitable land that now becomes habitable? What about all of the previously non-arable land that now becomes arable?

[FriendlyHacker]

This is not localized, Brazil makes a good chunk of the food people in places like Canada are not able to grow.

 

Plants are very sensitive to temperature changes, they won't get better at carbon-dioxidide rich atmosphere, because they will be dead from the heat.

 

Precipitation inreases in some areas, decreases in others. When you change the temperature of the place, you also change the spots that rain usually occurs. And in Sao Paulo, is not raiing into the actual water reservour, but rains in other places.

 

Brazil is becoming a desert up north. Canada will be as cold as Florida is right now, while everywhere else becomes hell.

If the algae in the ocean that produces our oxygen dies we are pretty much fucked, unless technology replaces the algea by something else.

[Mike Larson]

You are still talking about localized phenomena (although you are arguing that it could have a significant impact), but you are ignoring the fact that in other areas of the world could benefit immensely from an increase in temperatures. And given that, even in the worst case scenarios, the temperature change is projected to be gradual (maybe 3 or 4 degrees in 150 years), I think you might be underestimating the ability of humans, animals, and plants to adapt to change.

 

I don't know what you mean by "Canada will be as cold as Florida is right now". This is confusing to me. Do you mean Canada will be as WARM as Florida? And which part of Canada are you talking about... Nunavut, southern B.C.... the climates in these locations are extremely different. For Nunavut to become as warm as Florida, you would need a much greater increase in global temperatures than 3 or 4 degrees.

[FriendlyHacker]

I'm not saying there aren't solutions to this problem, if you read about what I wrote above you will notice I said it's problem that will be solved at some point, and usually for humans that means it will be solved in the last minute.

 

And of course small plants and animals will end up fine, last times it happened the planet lost 99% of the species, and the other one it lost 90% (including dinosaurs), but 10 thousand years later the planet was repopulated again with the species that survived.

 

Life on the planet will do fine, we are the ones who are going to go extinct if the problem is not solved.