you consistently fail to accurately present what scientists consider to be the reasons for concern
My site doesn’t go into the down-sides of global warming sufficiently for you?!? My main purpose is to explain the advantages. My site is part of the internet. You can obtain a huge mountain of information about the disadvantages by following the links. I do not expect readers to use my site as their sole source of information on the topic.
despite the fact that there is now virtually no controversy that global warming exists, that we are causing it, and that the negatives will outweigh the positives, many people will take any excuse to dismiss it.
There is little controversy that global warming exists. There’s quite a bit more controversy about the role of humans—though my personal view is that humans are implicated. Relatively few people seem to have given much thought to the optimal temperature of the planet for living systems. Certainly very few of those involved in the “global warming movement”.
Anyway, global warming is good. It may have saved the planet from reglaciation already, or it may do so in the future, but without global warming, the planet and our civilisation would be screwed for a long time, with high probabality. The effects so far have been pretty miniscule, though. We have to carry on warming up the planet on basic safety grounds. The only issue I see is: “how fast”.
My site doesn’t go into the down-sides of global warming sufficiently for you?!? My main purpose is to explain the advantages. My site is part of the internet. You can obtain a huge mountain of information about the disadvantages by following the links. I do not expect readers to use my site as their sole source of information on the topic.
Your representations of the downsides (forest fires and floods) are actively misleading to readers. You create a false comparison by weighing all the most significant pros you can raise against a few of the more trivial cons, and encourage readers to make a judgment on that basis. Remember that people tend to actively seek out information sources that support their own views, and once they have adopted a view, seeing arguments for it falsified will not tend to revise their confidence downwards. Additionally, there is no shortage of people who will seize on any remotely credible sounding excuse to vindicate them from having to worry about global warming. Your site runs counter to the purpose of informing the public.
Anyway, global warming is good. It may have saved the planet from reglaciation already, or it may do so in the future, but without global warming, the planet and our civilisation would be screwed for a long time, with high probabality. The effects so far have been pretty miniscule, though. We have to carry on warming up the planet on basic safety grounds. The only issue I see is: “how fast”.
If global warming has already prevented reglaciation (which, as I have stated repeatedly, is most likely the case,) then why should we continue warming the planet? Unless we slow it down by orders of magnitude, the warming is occurring faster than the geological timescales on which ecosystems without technological protection are equipped to cope with it. Onset of glaciation is much slower than the progress of global warming. We are closer to the “cliff edge” of warming the world too fast than we are to reglaciation.
You’ve already stated that you consider global warming to be a storm in a teacup because you expect to see weather control before it becomes a serious issue, but even assuming that’s realistic, it gives us a larger time window to deal with reglaciation, should we turn out not to have already prevented it.
there is no shortage of people who will seize on any remotely credible sounding excuse to vindicate them from having to worry about global warming
There is no shortage of people with smoke coming out of their ears about the issue either.
Look, I don’t just mention fires and floods. I mention sea-level rise, coral reef damage, desertification, heatstroke, and a number of other disadvantages. However, the disadvantages of GW are not the main focus of my article—you can find them on a million other web sites.
If global warming has already prevented reglaciation (which, as I have stated repeatedly, is most likely the case,) then why should we continue warming the—planet?
Repeating something doesn’t make it true. Show that the risk is so small that we need no longer concern ourselves with the huge catastrophe it would represent, and I swear, I will not mention it again. The current situation—as I understand it—is that our understanding of glaciation cycles is weak, our understanding of climate dynamics is weak, and we have little idea of what risk of reglaciation we face.
Of course, a warmer planet will still be healthier and better one—risk of glaciation or no—but then warming it up becomes less urgent.
Onset of glaciation is much slower than the progress of global warming. We are closer to the “cliff edge” of warming the world too fast than we are to reglaciation.
There isn’t a “cliff-edge” of warming nearby—AFAICS. If you look at the temperature graph of the last million years, we are at a high point—and about to fall off a cliff into a glacial phase. The other direction we can only “fall” in by rearranging the continents, so there isn’t land over the south pole, and a land-locked region around the north pole. With ice-age continental positions, warming the planet is more like struggling uphill.
One thing we could try and do about that is to destroy the Isthmus of Panama. However, that needs further research—and might be a lot of work.
You’ve already stated that you consider global warming to be a storm in a teacup because you expect to see weather control before it becomes a serious issue, but even assuming that’s realistic, it gives us a larger time window to deal with reglaciation, should we turn out not to have already prevented it.
Indeed. So, I only have one page about the topic, and thousands of pages about other things. As I said, this area is only of interest as a bad cause, really.
There is no shortage of people with smoke coming out of their ears about the issue either.
Look, I don’t just mention fires and floods. I mention sea-level rise, coral reef damage, desertification, heatstroke, and a number of other disadvantages. However, the disadvantages of GW are not the main focus of my article—you can find them on a million other web sites.
It’s true that there are people with an unrealistic view of the dangers that global warming poses, and hyperbolic reactions may stand to hurt the cause of getting people to take it seriously, but your expectations of how seriously people ought to be taking it are artificially low.
You don’t just mention fires and floods, this is true, but you invite readers to make a comparison of the pros and cons without accurately presenting the cons. If you don’t want to mislead people, you should either be presenting them more accurately, or outright telling people “This site does not accurately present the cons of global warming, and you should not form an opinion on the basis of this site without doing further research at sites not dedicated to arguing against the threats it may pose.”
You can claim that your readers are free to research the issue elsewhere, but what you are doing is encouraging them to be informationally irresponsible.
There isn’t a “cliff-edge” of warming nearby—AFAICS. If you look at the temperature graph of the last million years, we are at a high point—and about to fall off a cliff into a glacial phase. The other direction we can only “fall” in by rearranging the continents, so there isn’t land over the south pole, and a land-locked region around the north pole. With ice-age continental positions, warming the planet is more like struggling uphill.
As you have already noted earlier in this debate, ice sheet melting is a runaway positive feedback process. Once we have started the cycle, warming the planet is not an uphill struggle. If you look at the temperature graph of the last million years, you will not see that we are about to fall into another glaciation period, because the climate record of the last million years does not reflect the current situation. Even if greenhouse gas levels halted where they are now, temperature would continue to rise to meet the level they set. Our climate situation is more reflective of the Pliocene, which did not have cyclical glaciation periods.
Repeating something doesn’t make it true. Show that the risk is so small that we need no longer concern ourselves with the huge catastrophe it would represent, and I swear, I will not mention it again. The current situation—as I understand it—is that our understanding of glaciation cycles is weak, our understanding of climate dynamics is weak, and we have little idea of what risk of reglaciation we face.
I don’t have the articles on which I based the statement; I would need access to materials from courses I’ve already graduated. I may be able to get the data by contacting old professors, but there’s a significant hassle barrier, particularly since I’m arguing with someone who I do not have a strong expectation of being receptive to new information. If I do retrieve the information, do you commit to revising your site to reflect it, or removing the site as obsolete?
You can claim that your readers are free to research the issue elsewhere, but what you are doing is encouraging them to be informationally irresponsible.
You what? You are starting to irritate me with your unsolicited editorial advice. Don’t like my web page—go and make your own!
As you have already noted earlier in this debate, ice sheet melting is a runaway positive feedback process.
Yes—from the point of full glaciation to little glaciation, ice core evidence suggests this process is a relatively unstoppable one-way slide. However, we have gone down that slide already in this glacial cycle. Trying to push the temperature upward from there hasn’t happened naturally for millions of years. That doesn’t look so easy—while we still have an ice-age continental configuration.
If you look at the temperature graph of the last million years, you will not see that we are about to fall into another glaciation period, because the climate record of the last million years does not reflect the current situation.
That sounds more like ignoring the temperature graph—and considering other information—to me.
If I do retrieve the information, do you commit to revising your site to reflect it, or removing the site as obsolete?
You are kidding, presumably. The information needs to be compelling evidence that there isn’t a significant risk. Whether you retreive it or not seems likely to be a minor factor.
As I previously explained, a warmer planet would still be better, reglaciation risk or no. More of the planet would be habitable, fewer would die of pneumonia, there would be fewer deserts—and so on. However, the reglaciation risk does add urgency to the situation.
You what? You are starting to irritate me with your unsolicited editorial advice. Don’t like my web page—go and make your own!
Given that people tend to seek out informational sources that flatter their biases, and your website is one of relatively few sources attempting to convince people that the data suggests global warming is positive, making another website has less utility to me than convincing you to revise yours.
That sounds more like ignoring the temperature graph—and considering other information—to me.
It is considering the temperature graph insofar as it is relevant, while incorporating other information that is more reflective of our current situation. Would you try to extrapolate technological advances in the next twenty years based on the average rate of technological advancement over the last six hundred?
Yes—from the point of full glaciation to little glaciation, ice core evidence suggests this process is a relatively unstoppable one-way slide. However, we have gone down that slide already in this glacial cycle. Trying to push the temperature upward from there hasn’t happened naturally for millions of years. That doesn’t look so easy—while we still have an ice-age continental configuration.
We had more or less the same continental configuration in the Pliocene, without cyclical glaciation periods.
You are kidding, presumably. The information needs to be compelling evidence that there isn’t a significant risk. Whether you retreive it or not seems likely to be a minor factor.
As I previously explained, a warmer planet would still be better, reglaciation risk or no. More of the planet would be habitable, fewer would die of pneumonia, there would be fewer deserts—and so on. However, the reglaciation risk does add urgency to the situation.
Climate zones would shift, necessitating massive relocations which would cause major infrastructure damage. If we alter the earth’s temperature to make larger proportions of the land mass optimally biologically suitable to humans, we are going to do tremendous damage to species that are not adapted to near-equatorial habitation, and the impact on those other species is going to cause more problems than the relatively small drop in rates of pneumonia.
How compelling would you expect the evidence to be in order for you to be willing to revise the content of your site?
We had more or less the same continental configuration in the Pliocene, without cyclical glaciation periods.
I am not sure what you are getting at there. Continental configuration is one factor. There may be other ones—including astronomical influences.
How compelling would you expect the evidence to be in order for you to be willing to revise the content of your site?
Why do you think it needs revising? A warmer planet looks remarkably positive—while keeping the planet in the freezer does not. I am not very impressed by the argument that change is painful, so we should keep the planet in an ice-age climate. Anyway, lots of evidence that global warming is undesirable—and that a half-frozen planet is good—would cause me to revise my position. However, I don’t seriously expect that to happen. That is a misguided lie—and a cause of much wasted energy and resources on the planet.
Why do you think it needs revising? Global warming looks remarkably positive—while keeping the planet in the freezer does not. I am not very impressed by the argument that change is painful, so we should keep the planet in an ice-age climate. Anyway, lots of evidence that global warming is undesirable—and that a half-frozen planet is good—would cause me to revise my position. However, I don’t expect that to happen. That is a misguided lie—and a cause of much wasted energy and resources on the planet.
Since you do not seem prepared to acknowledge the more significant dangers of rapid climate change, while substantially overstating the benefits of altering the entire planet to suit the biological preferences of a species that adapted to life near the equator, I doubt you would be swayed by the amount of evidence that should be (and, I assert, is,) forthcoming if you are wrong. I expect that most of the other members here already regard your position with an appropriate degree of skepticism, so while it frustrates me to leave the matter at rest while I am convinced that your position is untenable, I don’t see any benefit in continuing to participate in this debate.
Thanks for the link, though. It will be interesting to see whether their ideas stand up to peer review. If so, it seems like bad news—the authors seem to think the forces that lead to reglaciation are due to kick in around about now.
I don’t see any benefit in continuing to participate in this debate.
The reason for the shift to the term “climate change” over “global warming” is that climate zones would shift. Places that were previously not arable would become so, but places that previously were arable would cease to be. It would require a significant restructuring of our civilization to chase around the climate zones with the appropriate infrastructure.
Looking at a map …the warming occurs quite a bit more near the poles—and over land masses. So, mostly Canada and Russia will get less frosty and more cosy. That seems good. It would be hard to imagine a more positive kind of climate change than one that makes our large and mostly barren northern wastelands more productive and habitable places.
It would require a significant restructuring of our civilization to chase around the climate zones with the appropriate infrastructure.
Right—over tens of thousands of years, probably. The Antarctic is pretty thick.
My site doesn’t go into the down-sides of global warming sufficiently for you?!? My main purpose is to explain the advantages. My site is part of the internet. You can obtain a huge mountain of information about the disadvantages by following the links. I do not expect readers to use my site as their sole source of information on the topic.
There is little controversy that global warming exists. There’s quite a bit more controversy about the role of humans—though my personal view is that humans are implicated. Relatively few people seem to have given much thought to the optimal temperature of the planet for living systems. Certainly very few of those involved in the “global warming movement”.
Anyway, global warming is good. It may have saved the planet from reglaciation already, or it may do so in the future, but without global warming, the planet and our civilisation would be screwed for a long time, with high probabality. The effects so far have been pretty miniscule, though. We have to carry on warming up the planet on basic safety grounds. The only issue I see is: “how fast”.
Your representations of the downsides (forest fires and floods) are actively misleading to readers. You create a false comparison by weighing all the most significant pros you can raise against a few of the more trivial cons, and encourage readers to make a judgment on that basis. Remember that people tend to actively seek out information sources that support their own views, and once they have adopted a view, seeing arguments for it falsified will not tend to revise their confidence downwards. Additionally, there is no shortage of people who will seize on any remotely credible sounding excuse to vindicate them from having to worry about global warming. Your site runs counter to the purpose of informing the public.
If global warming has already prevented reglaciation (which, as I have stated repeatedly, is most likely the case,) then why should we continue warming the planet? Unless we slow it down by orders of magnitude, the warming is occurring faster than the geological timescales on which ecosystems without technological protection are equipped to cope with it. Onset of glaciation is much slower than the progress of global warming. We are closer to the “cliff edge” of warming the world too fast than we are to reglaciation.
You’ve already stated that you consider global warming to be a storm in a teacup because you expect to see weather control before it becomes a serious issue, but even assuming that’s realistic, it gives us a larger time window to deal with reglaciation, should we turn out not to have already prevented it.
There is no shortage of people with smoke coming out of their ears about the issue either.
Look, I don’t just mention fires and floods. I mention sea-level rise, coral reef damage, desertification, heatstroke, and a number of other disadvantages. However, the disadvantages of GW are not the main focus of my article—you can find them on a million other web sites.
Repeating something doesn’t make it true. Show that the risk is so small that we need no longer concern ourselves with the huge catastrophe it would represent, and I swear, I will not mention it again. The current situation—as I understand it—is that our understanding of glaciation cycles is weak, our understanding of climate dynamics is weak, and we have little idea of what risk of reglaciation we face.
Of course, a warmer planet will still be healthier and better one—risk of glaciation or no—but then warming it up becomes less urgent.
There isn’t a “cliff-edge” of warming nearby—AFAICS. If you look at the temperature graph of the last million years, we are at a high point—and about to fall off a cliff into a glacial phase. The other direction we can only “fall” in by rearranging the continents, so there isn’t land over the south pole, and a land-locked region around the north pole. With ice-age continental positions, warming the planet is more like struggling uphill.
One thing we could try and do about that is to destroy the Isthmus of Panama. However, that needs further research—and might be a lot of work.
Indeed. So, I only have one page about the topic, and thousands of pages about other things. As I said, this area is only of interest as a bad cause, really.
It’s true that there are people with an unrealistic view of the dangers that global warming poses, and hyperbolic reactions may stand to hurt the cause of getting people to take it seriously, but your expectations of how seriously people ought to be taking it are artificially low.
You don’t just mention fires and floods, this is true, but you invite readers to make a comparison of the pros and cons without accurately presenting the cons. If you don’t want to mislead people, you should either be presenting them more accurately, or outright telling people “This site does not accurately present the cons of global warming, and you should not form an opinion on the basis of this site without doing further research at sites not dedicated to arguing against the threats it may pose.”
You can claim that your readers are free to research the issue elsewhere, but what you are doing is encouraging them to be informationally irresponsible.
As you have already noted earlier in this debate, ice sheet melting is a runaway positive feedback process. Once we have started the cycle, warming the planet is not an uphill struggle. If you look at the temperature graph of the last million years, you will not see that we are about to fall into another glaciation period, because the climate record of the last million years does not reflect the current situation. Even if greenhouse gas levels halted where they are now, temperature would continue to rise to meet the level they set. Our climate situation is more reflective of the Pliocene, which did not have cyclical glaciation periods.
I don’t have the articles on which I based the statement; I would need access to materials from courses I’ve already graduated. I may be able to get the data by contacting old professors, but there’s a significant hassle barrier, particularly since I’m arguing with someone who I do not have a strong expectation of being receptive to new information. If I do retrieve the information, do you commit to revising your site to reflect it, or removing the site as obsolete?
You what? You are starting to irritate me with your unsolicited editorial advice. Don’t like my web page—go and make your own!
Yes—from the point of full glaciation to little glaciation, ice core evidence suggests this process is a relatively unstoppable one-way slide. However, we have gone down that slide already in this glacial cycle. Trying to push the temperature upward from there hasn’t happened naturally for millions of years. That doesn’t look so easy—while we still have an ice-age continental configuration.
That sounds more like ignoring the temperature graph—and considering other information—to me.
You are kidding, presumably. The information needs to be compelling evidence that there isn’t a significant risk. Whether you retreive it or not seems likely to be a minor factor.
As I previously explained, a warmer planet would still be better, reglaciation risk or no. More of the planet would be habitable, fewer would die of pneumonia, there would be fewer deserts—and so on. However, the reglaciation risk does add urgency to the situation.
Given that people tend to seek out informational sources that flatter their biases, and your website is one of relatively few sources attempting to convince people that the data suggests global warming is positive, making another website has less utility to me than convincing you to revise yours.
It is considering the temperature graph insofar as it is relevant, while incorporating other information that is more reflective of our current situation. Would you try to extrapolate technological advances in the next twenty years based on the average rate of technological advancement over the last six hundred?
We had more or less the same continental configuration in the Pliocene, without cyclical glaciation periods.
Climate zones would shift, necessitating massive relocations which would cause major infrastructure damage. If we alter the earth’s temperature to make larger proportions of the land mass optimally biologically suitable to humans, we are going to do tremendous damage to species that are not adapted to near-equatorial habitation, and the impact on those other species is going to cause more problems than the relatively small drop in rates of pneumonia.
How compelling would you expect the evidence to be in order for you to be willing to revise the content of your site?
I am not sure what you are getting at there. Continental configuration is one factor. There may be other ones—including astronomical influences.
Why do you think it needs revising? A warmer planet looks remarkably positive—while keeping the planet in the freezer does not. I am not very impressed by the argument that change is painful, so we should keep the planet in an ice-age climate. Anyway, lots of evidence that global warming is undesirable—and that a half-frozen planet is good—would cause me to revise my position. However, I don’t seriously expect that to happen. That is a misguided lie—and a cause of much wasted energy and resources on the planet.
You are proposing an additional mechanism to a phenomenon that we can now model with considerable confidence without it
Since you do not seem prepared to acknowledge the more significant dangers of rapid climate change, while substantially overstating the benefits of altering the entire planet to suit the biological preferences of a species that adapted to life near the equator, I doubt you would be swayed by the amount of evidence that should be (and, I assert, is,) forthcoming if you are wrong. I expect that most of the other members here already regard your position with an appropriate degree of skepticism, so while it frustrates me to leave the matter at rest while I am convinced that your position is untenable, I don’t see any benefit in continuing to participate in this debate.
Continental configuration is not an unnecessary “additional mechanism”. It is a well known factor—see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Position_of_the_continents
Thanks for the link, though. It will be interesting to see whether their ideas stand up to peer review. If so, it seems like bad news—the authors seem to think the forces that lead to reglaciation are due to kick in around about now.
OK, then—bye!
Do you have a feeling for how much of the planet would be temperate if it were warmer?
Imagine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperateness with the bands further towards the poles.
And a bit further away from the equator.
The reason for the shift to the term “climate change” over “global warming” is that climate zones would shift. Places that were previously not arable would become so, but places that previously were arable would cease to be. It would require a significant restructuring of our civilization to chase around the climate zones with the appropriate infrastructure.
Looking at a map …the warming occurs quite a bit more near the poles—and over land masses. So, mostly Canada and Russia will get less frosty and more cosy. That seems good. It would be hard to imagine a more positive kind of climate change than one that makes our large and mostly barren northern wastelands more productive and habitable places.
Right—over tens of thousands of years, probably. The Antarctic is pretty thick.