An Inconvenient Truth

This subject wouldn't have dragged me out, but I see some massive misreps of what data says, as well as massive misreps of how science works.Let me start by saying that I not only studied geology, I studied/worked in paleoclimatology as a specific subfield for a time. While this was years ago, and data has changed since that time, I can tell certain people here claiming that we've had evidence for 40 years that they are talking way beyond what they know.At the time I did have the most up to date data and nothing was conclusive, much less suggestive. My professor and many others did not see data supportive of a conclusion that an upswing in temp was beyond natural bounds, much less caused directly by human sources, or that any such effects would not be something that could be mitigated by natural atmospheric mechanisms.Knowledge about our atmosphere, its mechanisms, and its extremely long history is developing as we speak. It is not perfect and it certainly was not so even ten years ago. Discussions of "unimpeachable" evidence, and suggestions that GW is something that could have been recognized decades ago as something beyond a mere theoretical possibility, is hyperbolic rhetoric. In fact it stands against commentary by the very scientific organizations which are pushing GW as an issue to deal with today. I think that there is sufficient evidence to maintain that use of hydrocarbons (though it doesn't just have to be for fuel) effects atmospheric temperatures. But this does not reduce the possibility of other causes working synchronistically with that factor, both natural and manmade. Massive deforestation and urbanization of landscape (both of which increase local temps and effect CO2 levels at the same time) cannot be helping things any.The graphs which have been shown do NOT prove anything about CO2 and its connection to temperatures. It is only suggestive. I'm going to leave aside the problems of CO2 and temp measurements on a global scale over time, and take them as is. Uncharted on those are factors we do exist and ARE having an effect, such as the general upward trend of temps since the last ice age and solar radiance. Thus what you see is a connection, but not causation. And even if influence is agreed upon (and I would agree there is a connection) the full amount is not known and what will happen without other coincidal factors.There is also no reason to believe that mechanisms will not "kick in" to adjust temperatures as they have in the past. None of your graphs show world temps beyond the 1800s, and I see in this thread there have been claims that we are reaching temps never seen before, both of which are inaccurate when actually trying to understand what is going on in the world. I'm not good with inserting images so bear with me... Here is a plot of CO2 and temp (anomoly) for the last 750K years. As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating above what we see today, without man's interference. And the earth has rebounded only to rebound again. Is there reason to believe human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution entirely? Here is a page on temp records.Obviously we can't use direct readings and must rely on other indicators. In any case, we find evidence that temperatures like we have today may very well have been around, and most likely have for long periods of time... again and again.I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't be mindful of human effects on the environment. I am simply trying to argue we must also be mindful of ideological or irrational effects on good science and so problem solving ability. If there is a problem with CO2, it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole. I agree with this assessment totally, and it IS what is being missed by those in industry and politicians supporting a singular view of how industry must operate. We can't count on natural cycles of the earth to conveniently work in conjunction with what we do, we must work with the natural cycles of the earth. Or at least if we want to live comfortably we must keep that in mind.I'd like to end by pointing out how cold the earth has been according to those temp records. If we saw temperatures beginning to plunge and a connection to a manmade influence, should we draw the same conclusions as we are now with an increase in temp? Should we worry about what cold will do to our quality of life?The facts are that temps fluctuate on the earth. There is no evidence to indicate that CO2 or other modern manmade influences can push us past what we have seen at any other time in earth's history... or at least not for the forseeable future. That is to say, while we may be in for problems related to warm climates, and we can thank our influence in part for what we face, we are not looking at an apocalypse.I'd urge restraint and progressive measurse to try and reduce human impact on the environment, but there is no way that that will "save" us from encountering the same problems mentioned above if/when the earth's environment throws us into one extreme end of the temp cycle or the other.Edited by holmes, : turning phrasesEdited by holmes, : general upkeep

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

It was entirely unintentional and the product of trying to address two different issues in the same sentence, while writing and editing very quickly. My main point was to state that temps have fluctuated above what we see today. Unfortunately I merged that with a comment about CO2 fluctuations in general, which while not reaching levels we see today have had periods of great increase.The sentence should have read something like: "As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating greatly without man's interference, and the latter to levels above what we see today."I find it interesting that you have concentrated on that error, rather than the more important points regarding its connection to world temps, and the history of world temps in general. The graph you just supplied only helps my position. You can see that both have fluctuated relatively in tandem but not necessarily directly, temps have reached above and beyond the temps we see today, and currently they are not rising in some direct way with CO2 levels. If that last point were true the temp spike should be as large as the CO2 spike.I agree, and said that I agreed, with the concept that CO2 levels are a factor in temperature increases we are seeing. I also agree with that it is possible we have reached CO2 levels higher than in the past, given many factors relating to modern human activity. My only caveat is that we can't be totally certain of such comparison given limits of technology related to estimating CO2 levels. But I am willing to accept that possibility and agree current estimates place modern levels above previous ones. I was specifically responding to the data charts RAZD showed within his post, and then linked to and discussed a more complete chart. Did you think by "your" I meant everyone else on the planet or something? This response typifies your lack of knowledge. In the face of? How do you, or they know what the trend is SUPPOSED to be? Given the natural fluctuations "longterm" continuity of a direction does not indicate what it must continue doing.As it is, the label of longterm seems a bit arbitrary to make. As you can see in this graph, evidence appears to show that we have been on an upward trend for the last 2-600 years. The authors you are citing have used a 2000 year scale which makes it appear that the temps have been relatively stable but generally cooling except toward the very end. That is called playing with a graph to make something look real to the eye, which is not totally accurate in the data. The recent "longterm trend", stretching back past mass human effects, is one of warming. If we take the data back further than 2000 years then we also see ourselves part of a different longterm trend (a back and forth at the upper portion of a rise from the last major ice age).As far as your claims about solar variance, you claim what is KNOWN about its contribution. While I am astounded you would make such a strong claim regarding anything in science, lets roll with it. So it is only 30%, that makes it a pretty strong factor. I'm not sure why 1/3 does not seem large to you. You say that it will likely start falling in the next 50 years, what does that suggest about temps? ??? We can see that CO2 levels and temps have fluctuated over earth's history. Thus there are natural mechanisms which control such things. They are not angels, unless you are claiming angels did so in the past.You have not shown any reason to believe that CO2 can drive temps indefinitely, that is to say that they will not face reductions or neutralizations based on natural mechanisms of energy distribution which have acted in the past. Your only argument has been to say that we haven't seen such levels of CO2 before and therefore any effects must be catastrophic and beyond balance. Again I pose the question to you: Is there reason to believe... and I would like evidence... that human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution?Given the extremely cold periods which have occured, why could whatever environmental factors that went into them, NOT take precedence over currently accumulating CO2 levels? That they have roughly paralleled each other in the past does not mean they are wholly dependent such that other natural forces might not be greater. Yes, I can read a graph. Based on your claims, you cannot.In any case, yes I urge restraint and progressive measures to reduce human impact. Just because we do not have the data to draw specific conclusions you feel might be warranted, does not mean there is no benefit to avoiding that possibility or simply reduce our effects for other practical reasons.I think it is clear that CO2, and other human factors (I notice you only focused on my mentioning of natural factors), are contributing to a rise in global temps. This has varied effects. I do not see any being as catastrophic as many portray, but there will certainly be inconveniences as change usually does mean inconvenience as people have to adjust. The more rapid the change, the greater the inconvenience.Since we are in a period where other cycles are creating an upswing, why exaggerate that swing? I just don't need hyperbole and misrepresentations of our knowledge to make that same point.Oh yes, and I should add something else. If true, what does this tell you we should do? What science do we have showing what to do? Given that we are beyond CO2 levels seen before, how can you argue stopping such production will help unless you are appealing to those exact same angels of mercy I was.And more importantly what active policies will result in the reductions we may want to see happen? Gore has pushed agendas that I see little merit in. Its sort of like agreeing with Bush that terrorist organizations do pose some sort of threat, but not as dire as he makes out, and even if true does not suggest any of his remedies. While a "nice" gesture, and something I would not have walked away from as Bush did, Kyoto was not a solution or really the start of one.I have not seen Gore's latest movie, but if it mirrors his past efforts in science and societal policy making, I am not confident it will be more than boosting policy based on scare tactics. I'm sure his intentions are great, but without reason and evidence to back real policy, it does not help anyone. I guess this is to say doing "anything" just to say we are doing something is not always the best option.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot". That it is missing the last century's data is irrelevant as I already agree that CO2 levels are higher than in the past, and yes they are spiking.I realize you want to keep nitpicking perceived mistatements about CO2 so as to change the subject which is TEMPERATURE. Fluctuating CO2 would mean nothing with the exception of what it means for temperature. That is what I keep trying to pull this back to.Look at both the graph I initially pointed to, or the one you have presented (in fact let's use that one since you keep pointing to it). What you see is that while Temp tends to vary with CO2 it is not a 1:1 correlation in change by any means. Interestingly temps (and CO2) have been climbing from well before the 1800s. The spike in CO2 is higher than seen before, but we see that CO2 levels have spiked in the past due to nonhuman sources.
Thus temps and CO2 fluctuation are not alien. We have only added a new source for CO2 spiking. First, can you please admit that you were mistaken in stating we have never seen world temperatures as high as we see today? That is pretty obvious in the graph you listed as well as the other graphs I linked to previously.Second, we have clearly seen as long of periods as we have today of sustained elevated temps. Your scale may distort that view but again, that is allowing your eyeball to draw incorrect information from the data presented in it. If you are refering to the lengthy hovering around 0 you will note that it is jagging around that point and starts back nearly 10K years ago. That is exactly what I mentioned in my last post, in response to your claim of a "longterm cooling trend". It all depends on how far back you go. As I stated, drawn back far enough you can see us bobbling back and forth at the peak stemming from the last great ice age.Although relatively "high" (again since before industrialization) we are in a period of relative temp stability (fluctuation around 0), and we have seen that kind of behavior in the past. From 200K forward we see several stable periods around a single temp (I realize it is anomoly but I am not going to say that every time).From a paleoclimatologist standpoint, I'd look at that graph and be interested that we seem to be seeing longer trends in stability around peaks and troughs, while maintaining some larger fluctuations.From a little before 10K on we moved up to a plateau which we are fluctuating around. The manmade CO2 spike has not resulted in an equal temp spike, and certainly not beyond anything we have seen in the past history of the planet. Have you seen the documents put out by the science organizations who are supportive of GW efforts? They use essentially the same language I do. Don't confuse my lack of definitive, explosive rhetoric to pretend I am arguing that there is no connection and that there are no reasons to address the issue.Let me posit quite the reverse. It is your hyperbole which prevents you from connecting with people that need to be convinced action is required, and alienates you from rational discussion on the topic.I have stated that I agree that there is evidence CO2 is accumulating more rapidly than in the past, and is at greater levels than in the past, and that it does have an effect on the climate. That I discuss this within the caveats inherent to the field is PROPER. When you don't you are the one making the mistake, not me. This is a perfect example of the kind of rhetoric which isn't necessary. My statement is that world climate and its mechanisms are not fully understood, and only recently have we been getting better models. There are factors beyond CO2 levels which effect climate, and more than man's interferences which effect BOTH CO2 and temp.You are trying to portray "unknown" factor as if I am talking about pink unicorns. I am discussing not well understood factors, some which may not yet be known, that work together to result in climate.Save New York? You think its going to be destroyed sometime soon? How is that going to happen exactly? And lets pretend (and that is really discussing pink unicorns) that NY could be wiped out in the immediate future. How is that different than any other natural disaster that hits large cities all the time.Mankind has been facing the ravages of nature all the time. Yeah increasing temps will call for having to deal with different ravages. Unless you are about to try and pull up the idea that we are Vena-forming our planet (it'll suddenly turn into venus) or noxious gas clouds are going to arise and kill everyone, we are not facing apocalypse we are facing inconvenience.Inconvenience should be enough to facilitate some action. Sometimes I get to wondering if people without gods yet raised in Abrahamic religion cultures find a need to reinvent their concepts of sin and apocalypse in science... it doesn't sell well to me. If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected. In any case, you have not shown any of the above are true. Where is your evidence for temps we have not seen before or increases we have not seen before? Even your commentary on "prolonged periods" lacks evidence, as well as a reason to be overly concerned if that were in fact the case. I did answer this question, which only leads me to assume that you are not reading my entire posts again. You can see that nature has dealt with varying levels of CO2 in the past. What leads you to believe there is some level, over which those same processes disappear?I am not suggesting that the processes will increase and so reduce and reverse manmade contributions. Just that the effects on temp may very well be limited, and if we cut back on CO2 production (as well as OTHER manmade factors), we can come back in balance with natural processes.Its like the pollution in certain great lake area lakes and rivers which were horribly polluted. They had levels beyond anything nature could have introduced. When reductions were made such that natural processes were capable of dealing with the loads, they returned to "pristine" states.And I repeat to you, if what you assert is true... that we have reached levels never seen before and there is a limit beyond which no processes do work, then why are we to believe anything can be achieved by stopping emitting all the CO2 we want? Think about this carefully, unless you are suggesting the end is nigh we are both appealing to the same processes when arguing for policy to help reverse climate trends effected by CO2 accumulation. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is apocalyptic in nature. You point to a data point, or a trend in data and conclude disastrous effects are necessary and irreversible... indeed beyond natural processes. Heck, you JUST referred to NY needing to be saved. Find where I said that. That is a gross distortion of my position. I'm sorry that science is incapable of supporting your level of exaggeration, but the rest of what you say does not follow from what I argued.Floods already do happen and they have for some time. Same for famines and droughts. We are certainly likely to see more flooding, but we are already facing that as a trend due to overpopulation, urbanization, and poor urban planning. Its hard to predict famines and droughts as we are likely to have more water in some areas, than not.Again, we have your apocalyptic vision of all sorts of catastrophes (some patently conflicting) visited upon man as some sort of divine retribution, in ways that we can't deal with? Although inconvenient, why do you believe humans could not change their technology and behavior to live within new parameters? I said I see that there is an issue. Remember, I urged restraint and progressive programs to deal with it? Yeah, I don't see that NY is going to disappear within my lifetime (though NO did without global warming as a significant factor), and you don't agree with my suggested route of dealing with the issue we face. I was simply using that as an example. You punked on my suggestion of restraint and progressive programs. I raised the question of what many Doom-sayers (like Gore) are pushing as "solutions".My analogy was apt. I am being pointed to a "crisis" which must be addressed with policy. What crisis, what policy? Bush claimed terrorists are a major threat and must be dealt with the way he says. I am pointing out in BOTH cases, that the threat is not as major as being broadcast, and none of the solutions so far placed on the table seem worthy.It should be clear that I think something ought to be worked on and there are workable solutions. Frankly I like cooler temps and glaciers and don't want to be inconvenienced with more storms or having to move to avoid them. I wasn't giving a review, I was stating my opinion based on previous encounters with his efforts on social policy. This is after all the guy that put the labels on records because Prince had "masturbation" in a song. Before he became the adoptive king of GW, he was known for distortion of facts and overreaction (even if robotlike calm on the exterior).As it is I have not seen the movie because it is not out where I am living, though I must admit I don't have a lot of time for movies and his would be lower on the list. I'm certain I will see it at some point and I'll give it a fair shake. Maybe he'll surprise me. People have before.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You are not undercutting my point. You know as well as I do that we did not have the data at that time to make the statements we are seeing here, especially with regard to comparisons to past climates on the earth.What we had was purely a theoretical issue that could go one way or the other. CO2 could trap temps and increase them, and maybe we should look into ways not to produce them. That is it.In fact there was a short time (around that same time) where dipping temps drove people to speculate that we were causing a new ice age to come on. I understand crash might be too young to know about this, but surely you remember it.The CO2 effect is only turning out to be different in that RECENT data is accumulating to back that as a legitimate concern. It is inaccurate to say we've KNOWN anything about GW from the body of scientific data for the last 40 years. Well I agree they are rising so you don't have to add it. Are people not understanding what I mean by restraint? I mean restraint on its emission, not retraint on making policy regarding CO2.We must try to be conservative in our emissions as they stand, while enacting progressive programs to reduce the amount we produce in a greater sense. Its sort of looking at it on the individual and societal level.But the question becomes regarding policy... what are we to do? I am hearing all this call to action, but right now it is empty of anything but urge to excitement. Give me something concrete to discuss. Well I think the reason for the denial is helped in part because of the hyperbolic delivery of the message. People have been making such claims from before we had the evidence, which taints the legitimate evidence we have been getting more recently. It allows for doubt. In addition, false claims continue to be made in excited tones which also cast doubt on what is being said.As it is we see crash here trying to make it look like I am rejecting CO2 as a factor, and as if I am only discussing natural factors for temp increases, when I am essentially "on his side".Clarity is not being achieved, with such hysteria and divisiveness. That is true, but that leaves it as an unknown, right? So all we are dealing with is a fear of the unknown. I agree that it would be wise not to tempt fate, but that is different than claiming something will in fact happen IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING (meaning anything) RIGHT NOW!!!! I'm not arguing for pushing that envelope. But the point is that we should perhaps be pitching that angle, the extreme inconvenience which may come with more chaotic weather patterns, rather than fictional apocalyptic scenarios playing out across the media.Honestly, if such things happen, we are likely to adapt and live with it right? Its just not the way we used to live. Don't you think pushing the fact that things will change lifestylewise to conservatives is more likely to get them to act than saying the end is nigh? What evidence is that? Its surface is practically molten, meaning we can't be sure of anything about its past surface conditions, and as far as I know atmospheric conditions cannot be traced without referring to evidence at the surface.Indeed what do you mean by much more temperate? Are you claiming life was likely to have existed there at some point? As far as I know temps were almost always beyond life sustaining, beyond exotic forms anyway.Do you honestly suggest that earth might suddenly tip into a Venus-type atmosphere? I'll admit it could be possible with enough work at it, but that is presently science fiction.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

First let's clear up some confusion... I never said the first thing. I never said the second thing. The closest thing to what I have been saying is the third sentence, except for the part about "so who cares". I have a very specific position. It has remained the same. Much of it is in agreement with what RAZD has put forward, as well as the general sentiment we should be addressing the issue of climate change and man's influences on it.I have only been challenging factual statements (or rather mis-statements) made by you and to a small degree RAZD regarding scientific data, as well as opinions on the immediacy and amount of danger GW (actually climate change in general) poses for us.Unfortunately, because I challenged your statements and opinions, you apparently need to cast me as some cardboard conservative GW-denier archvillain. It is as if a person that disagrees with you cannot hold any other position. You proceed to tell me what I am saying, even when it conflicts with what I have written, and when I attempt to correct your misrepresentation of my position, you play this out as if I am changing my position, rather than admitting you were wrong.Please, raise this discussion to a higher level. Try to understand what I am saying without shoving me into the archvillain role, and deal with the science as that was entirely what I was discussing with RAZD. No, and that is my point. You are certainly mistaken and if I could circle the areas on the graph for you I would. Those "brief spikes" as you call them lasted quite some time. It is an artifact of scale which makes them seem small. And it is not just the "tip" we need to consider but the whole time spent above current levels. Draw a line across from current levels and this should be made more clear.This is what I mean that graphs can deceive the eye into drawing conclusions about data that are not there. It is a common error, and unfortunately employed by many who want to sell a cause, rather than understanding. Your initial claim was that we never saw temps like this. In your last few posts you are shifting to consistent elevated temps. Both are still wrong and the data is within your own graphs. Look at them, following along with what I say...From slightly before 10K and up until the present, temps climbed to about 0 C (anom). Can you agree that this major climb existed before industrialization and so the majority of man's influence? This is known to scientists as a major longterm warming trend coming off of the last large Ice Age. Eventually it reaches a top level at around 0 C.Once at that "peak" we have been relatively stable to that temp anom. By stable I do not mean that we stayed at that temp, only that fluctuations up and down remain tightly centered on that temp anom. You can see that is true as it is not a straight thin line but rather almost a thick blue line formed by scale of the graph condensing fluctuations both above and below 0 C (anom). And rather than a small peak, this stable fluctuation around a temp creates a plateau. That plateau is higher than other plateaus seen in the past, but not higher than regions of the highest temp anoms in general.We can then switch to more closed in graphs. If we choose one from 2K onward then the temp line appears relatively flat with perhaps a slight downward trend, before rising toward the end (the image of a "hockey stick"). Again this appearance is an artifact of the graph. From the larger scale graph we have already seen that temps have been going up and down around 0 for some time. This is what it looks like when stretched out.If we look carefully at the 2K graph, or better yet switch to one at the 1K scale, we see that there is a recorded dip which ends around 1600 and then begins to rise. That is also a "longterm" warming trend, and one which begins before man's effects could possibly be effecting global climate.At around 1900, we see an increase in that warming trend. It is not a reversal of the natural trend, but an increase. It is suggestive when coupled with other data, though one must admit not 100% conclusive, that human factors have generated this increase.When I say not 100% conclusive I mean that we do not know that such an increase is NOT possible given totally natural causes. But it doesn't seem likely , especially at this point in time, and we should deal with the evidence we do have and what it suggests. Thus I am supportive of measures to reduce human factors which increase temps, and one important one being CO2 emissions/accumulation.I hope this makes my position clearer to you, as well as why your interpretation of the graphs, or whoever stated them to you, were erroneous. The idea that GW is "in the face of" a long term cooling trend, is only possible by an arbitrary (one might say convenient) choice of scale. Closer or more distant scales show the trend is either one of warming or relative stability (fluctuation around a center) at the top of a much longer term warming.If this is not the case, I ask that you explain these points with specific reference to time periods and what you are seeing there. I can agree that CO2 appears to be one of the largest factors and that it is one that we can take a part in changing. However I disagree with the rest. I am sorry, but I do not believe science, and scientific conclusions, should be wagged by what the community feels are "important issues".While evidence suggests, meaning the current state of scientific understanding holds, that the world average temp is increasing, that CO2 accumulation is a large factor, and humans are major factors in that accumulation, there is no logic based... science based... reason for the public hysteria regarding ANY of those conclusions.The media is filled with unrealistic scenarios stemming from this understanding, and you clearly have glommed on to the negative energy, if not the exact messages being pumped out. This is not an imminent crisis, and well considered approaches should be taken.Getting people concerned in an irrational way will only lead to more irrational action. Right? Among other commentary which is alarmist in tone, you have directly suggested that NY will be destroyed if we don't act.If you do not see suggestions that NY will be eliminated, as well as references to widespread droughts and famines and floods, as apocalyptic in nature, then we must have quite different definitions of apocalytic visions.I've never been to NY, but I certainly am concerned if it got wiped out. How realistic is that scenario? Explain the mechanism and the time frame. Explain the evidence you have for that possibility. The Katrina disaster was almost wholly a result of human error, and quite complex. This was an issue known to scientists long beforehand, and was going to happen one day or another. The fact that GW hysterics have used this as a poster child for why we should worry about GW is kind of offensive to me on that score. GW is the totally WRONG thing to be pointing at (unless one is at least in part referring to GhWb).Contrary to your scenario, it is unlikely coastal cities are suddenly going to be swamped in 10 years, and those communities that could would have been swamped anyway within the next 20-100 years. There is a very real problem of humans settling and developing within coastal and floodplain areas which are set to disappear NATURALLY, without appropriate concern for longterm protection against natural events.IF GW is about to cause an increase in such issues, including within the next decade, then I suggest people build up coastal and floodplain defenses... or avoid such development activities entirely... rather than end up getting swamped.If they adequately prepare themselves for natural events... which is NOT what happened in NO... then why would Katrina-size storms be any more than a large storm faced countless times over the centuries?I currently live in a city that would not exist if left up to nature. In fact up to 1/3 of the Netherlands exists solely due to engineering against storms, subsidence, and natural elevations in water level. It has been this way for some time. Why am I to believe this is not possible for any other group of people choosing to live where conditions are set against them? My point on the matter of disasters is that they are a normal part of living. They will happen with or without GW. They are unlikely to all occur with greater frequency. And whether the potential for them increases, there are technologies available to deal with such issues.At this point in time there is no reason for famine. Yet it exists because of poor organization to prevent it. That is all. If there are increases in droughts in the future the same will still be true.Unless you are going to appeal to apocalyptic levels of droughts so that we actually cannot produce enough material to feed people, regardless of organization, then you are pointing your finger of blame in the wrong direction. If you believe mass droughts or deluges of that kind are likely, I would like your evidence for it. You are missing my point entirely. If you believe CO2 levels ARE reversible, then what sources of its reversal are you appealing to except the exact same ones I am, and which you have dismissed as "hoping for angels"?Also, if those sources can deal with levels of CO2 as we see them today, then why are they incapable of dealing with higher levels? When will the back of these natural processes be broken?I mean when you say we must do something, what is it we are supposed to do? Unless it is inventing some method of artificially scrubbing the atmosphere, you are logically supporting my position that natural process CAN deal with elevated levels of CO2. I do see them as serious issues and something we should be planning for. I think an overemphasis on GW issues removes our eye from proper planning for those issues. The promise seems to be if we deal with GW then we won't have to plan for them (or not as much). Regardless of GW we need better planning for such issues.Katrina is a perfect example (of failure to do so). The Netherlands is a perfect example (of doing so). Let me make this more clear to you. I was addressing the personal and societal level. On the individual level people should become more active in cutting down CO2 emissions. For example using alternative transport beyond a Hummer. That is restraint. On the societal level we find policies that will encourage manufacturing which will reduce CO2 emissions, accumulation, as well as sources of heat waste. That is called progressive programs.I do not believe we should engage in policies which sound good, and may reduce some emissions, but not effectively deal with the issue. Doing Anything is not synonymous with doing Something.You said everyone must be concerned, apparently so does Gore. What are your or his suggestions on how to go about it? I have yet to see something that would work based on scientific theory and practical reality.By the way in future replies I will refer to what we are discussing as CC rather than GW. Climate Change is more accurate, and encompasses the increase in Earth's average temp. Edited by holmes, : re-editing.Edited by holmes, : posting revised reply

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Actually I wasn't. Is there a reason I should care? It really is a more appropriate description, and what we have to prepare for.In fact, I don't see how that helps them. If we agree that climate change is occuring and there are portions of that change we can control, isn't that reason enough to try to control it?But I guess thanks for the info, if you have some link to how/when it was coined I'd be interested in reading about it.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

As an advance warning, I am running out of free time, and so may have to drop out for a while. Not certain when, but hopefully I can bring this to a close very soon.There was a lot to cover, and I did, but am editing it down as much as possible. After saying you don't recall such statements, you go on to suggest an immediacy of the problem which is not supported by facts. Your statements regarding the state of scientific evidence on paleoclimatology, CC, and its potential results have been unreasonable and ill-supported and do NOT mirror the conclusions of the scientific community. This is something I've been trying to keep our eye on in the debate.I might add you even managed to razz me for using the same tentative language scientific orgs in support of CC policy have used. Thus when I directly mirror professional scientific statements you still managed to blame me.Again I ask you to shift your debate to the facts. Arguing you had a right to think I was denying them, is not going to convince me that you are dealing with them. Oh... Is that what you meant? To me it looks like you have shifted your goal posts twice now, but if this is what you are claiming you MEANT all along, then I'll accept your claim. Only give me credit that you NEVER said such a thing explicitly.But lets look at this position. You claim that it is backed by scientific consensus? Really? That means you did not bother to follow the links I gave (to simple Wiki pages no less) or followed them to prof refs which would have dispelled your claim. Since you are discussing man's experience as related to agriculture, which is well before the birth of Christ (still not sure why 2K maps are used beyond that or their "convenient" imagery), let's look at this map going back 12K.When you look at the map you will see several fluctuating temp estimates. A few of them clearly match and exceed the 2004 level as indicated on the graph. The different graphs are averaged to create the thick black line which clearly rises up from around 10 K and creates a plateau which oscillates around 0 but stays well below the 2004 level. Do YOU know what that means? I do because I know how to read paleoclimate data... read this from the description of the graph (actually read the whole thing, but these are the highlights): Now, what do you have to say? I never asserted that, it was a editing/typo error which I immediately corrected in full when you asked. You repeatedly made claims that we have not seen temps like this, then changed to sustained temps like this. While perhaps mispoken, they were repeated and never made fully clear until now. And as I have shown you above your true position is still errant. First of all that plateau occured well before man's influence. Right? I want you on record dealing with that fact. Man did NOT create the sustained temp situation you are pointing to. Second, what difference does it make that there are sustained temps higher than previous sustained temps? Why is that not simply a factual part of the record?If we had had scientific data back during the previous sustained temps at lower levels should we have been worried about that? If not, why not? As far as I know, there is no scientific justification for any concern regarding longterm stability around a temp. The small ice age is under debate, and I am glad to see you can understand that there are different models which we have to work with. However that does NOT change the fact that the graph YOU used did not show such a decline. Also that does NOT change the overall point I was making that "longterm trends" are an arbitrary (convenient) construct of choosing the right scale. We are still at a fluctuating plateau "high" coming off the last major ice age (long term warming trend) from well before humans were effecting the environment. In addition to suggestions that NY has to be saved in general, more problematic are mistatements about the state of scientific data, drawing connections to events which have nothing to do with CC, and using language which points to any trend seen in data as inherently meaning something must be wrong. Hysteria comes in all flavors, but its base ingredient is irrational thought meant to provoke emotional reaction as stimulus toward an uncertain goal. Witness... New Orleans flooded because of well known engineering and development issues, not CC. You have used this to "then imagine" MANY cities similarly being flooded but with CC as the reason. That is errant and the scale becomes apocalyptic, which makes sense otherwise the problem seems manageable. I mean really if we see that a city will likely be flooded in the next 10 years without construction efforts, why don't we build them?The indonesian/thai flooding was worse than NO. It also had nothing to do with CC. CC is unlikely to make any future tidal waves that much worse. Solving CC will not end the threat. See what I am talking about? Whoever buys that idea, has purchased a lemon. Its exactly like arguing if we reduce our sinful ways we'll see less retribution from God. You either have proper coastal defenses or you don't. You may have to build them for 1000 year storms rather than the assumption of 100 year storms, but the idea is the same thing.If you are prepared then it really can't do that much to you. Hoping that being "green" will solve anything means you are leaving preparations up to the judgement of mother nature. I misread your comment about 10 cities getting swamped within a decade to mean within a decade from now, rather than within a space of 10 years 50-100 years down the line. If they are going to be swamped 50 years from now, why are they not capable of building proper coastal defenses now? That is some serious pretzel logic... with cheese! If I can avoid a problem by doing X, then I have avoided a problem no matter how much its potential increased if I had not done X.What you are arguing is that that problem will occur more frequently if people do not do Y, and will be faced with the problem less frequently if Y is done. But that is fallacious. Regardless of an increasing or decreasing potential (which is a contentious claim in and of itself) the people will still face that problem at some point and so SHOULD do X.Now answer the question with a straight answer. If people can avoid the effects of increased coastal flooding with modern technology, why is there a concern, other than to use that technology?NO would still have gone under sometime, even if we had stopped and reversed current global temp trends. Action implies doing something or more of something. Restraint means doing less of something. On the individual level we should be curbing unnecessary CO2 emmission through NOT doing things we may have normally done. I also advocated progressive programs which is a form of action, but at the societal level, and still with regard to reducing activity.The result is less CO2 emission/accumulation, which is then acted on by natural forces to create a reduction.If you want human action to reduce CO2 levels, please tell me what that is and how it does not rely on the same natural mechanisms responsible for reduction as I am referring to. Oh man there is so much wrong with the above statement that I am simply going to hit the highlights... New Orleans' problem is not just that it is built on a floodplain. NY floods, in fact sections just had record flooding. CC does not change the fact that people on coasts will always face an increased flooding risk, UNLESS it is a coastline which is moving out into the ocean. Seashores always move in and out, regardless of ocean levels moving up and down and the effect is essentially the same.But putting aside those other flaws regarding your claim, defensive technologies remain the same. You don't even need brand spanking new technology. The dutch have had competent solutions for 100s of years. The concept is keeping water out that wants to come in.Give me a scientifically sound explanation for how NY will be submerged, including mechanism and timeframe, and if not within the next 10 years, why technology will not be available to deal with that problem. Just to let you know, storm surge, tidal waves, and flash runoff are the most serious engineering concerns for any city, not higher equilibriums for the ocean's level.I'm not sure how you could claim that it would be. Man has been dealing with sea incursion, or subsidence, for as long as there has been civilization.One final note. Your position is currently that man has not faced as long of sustained high temps since the advent of civilization and use of agriculture. While I have already shown that that claim is NOT supported by the scientific community, let's assume that is true for sake of argument.Man certainly did face this before civilization and use of agriculture and survived. That is actually an argument that the threat is NOT as urgent as being made out. Our technology with regard to flooding defense and agriculture means we will be MORE able to deal with the issues than our ancestors faced, not less so.Edited by holmes, : hit the damn submit button, before editing, now I'm editing.Edited by holmes, : putting reply into play

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well you can almost never go wrong linking to a Daily Show clip. What an asshole. So yeah, I'm convinced the guy is an asshole and I don't like his intentions. That is separate from what comes next... Right, so because some other assholes decided to manipulate people using scary terminology to promote unclear agendas, I'm supposed to not use a term used to manipulate people by another asshole pushing unclear agendas?I'm picking between the most accurate terms out there. I notice many scientists have gone on to accept that phrase as well. I don't think we should be choosing scary phrases to discuss scientific findings and social issues, so as to achieve solutions. I believe in rational discussion. And in this case I don't think the term climate change is completely innocuous... not like clear skies and healthy forests (which is pretty offensive as names for those programs).

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Because realistically they don't need to. That doesn't rule out that some probably should (regardless of CC), or that people may not do so despite seeing the sea level rise and know they should. NO happened despite warnings for a decade or more. More warnings weren't going to change that, especially if they were related to CC instead of proper engineering. I've asked you to produce a scientifically supported description of this event, including mechanism and timeframe. You supply that and I'll give you an estimate. You are either not reading my entire posts or you are lying. Neither impress me much. Let me try to put this bogus ad nauseum argument to rest. We just got done discussing your assertion NY faces the threat of submergence. That is one. You have made references to increased droughts, floods, and famines that are not capable of being addressed by proper organization. After all if they could be dealt with then CC would not be what we have to discuss, current plans for such contigencies REGARDLESS of climate would be. IF you do not consider the above suggestions by you (at the very least goodbye NY) as apocalyptic then we are using different definitions of that term. I can change it to alarmist or catastrophic if it makes you feel any better. Then you are not looking at the graph I linked to, nor the discussion I linked to, and you are NOT in accordance with scientific opinion on this subject. I will place it again for others to see how you decide to assert your opinion in place of science...From this map going back 12K.... The very first paragraph deals directly with what you just said. The rest rejects every other point you tried to make in previous posts regarding temp, but I see you do not have the integrity to address that.I will add that you are still trying to defend the concept of "longterm cooling trend" which I have addressed in other ways as well. We can pretend for sake of argument that all maps show a smooth decline in temp from 10K to the late 1800s if you want. The concept of a "cooling trend" as if that meant something would still be totally bogus and a product of arbitrary picking and choosing of timeframes.DEAL WITH THIS FACT CRASH: If we start further back than 2K or 8K then we see that our current temps come directly after a major jump in temps before man's influence. The "cooling trend" as you call it is so minor compared to the previous jump in temps as to make that phrase meaningless. And even if there had been a trend... so what? Where on any graph besides irrational appeals to conveniently scaled 2K graphs do you find any support for an idea that there are "trends" in temperature such that it is unnatural for them to end, or that something is wrong if they end? I am well aware of which direction time flows on the graph. I posted the analysis which supports mine. I notice you chose not to addres that, much less to admit that the right hand of the graph represents the end of a major jump in temps such that the rest of the line that follows is essentially linear compared to it. Heck, you don't even seem to understand it is an average of various fluctuating plots which show high temps, despite them being printed on the same graph.It's pretty obvious to me you are uninterested in a factual discussion of the data, having spent only two assertive or insulting sentences on it. What a shame. It is unlikely humans had mass agricultural projects around the last ice age that would have effected the world's climate. I'm not sure what RAZD has to say on this point but if you have scientific evidence, cough it up. I will point out that this claim stands in stark contrast to your earlier claim that models only show an increase starting in the late 1800s. You only had one 2K graph in the post I was referring to so I don't understand the confusion. It was the one with the 2K timeframe, like I said. The 1K timeframe graph i linked to later makes it more clear, but even in the 2K you can see temps begin to move up before 1900. Because of ignorant politicians and a populace more interested in getting excited, rather than serious, in solving problems. By the way I didn't say you said NO had to do with CC, my point was that it hadn't so using it as an example for discussions about CC (to scare people) is not useful. No it isn't. You said people needed to get concerned about CC, and CO2 levels, which have nothing to do with people getting concerned about proper coastal development and engineering regardless of CC. Uh, I can't answer while you are writing your posts, so please stop playing frustrated like I am avoiding questions posed earlier in them. So yes, by this point I HAVE answered your question. It has nothing to do with a lack of concern for CC, and CC should not be the reason they get motivated to do so. Anyone waiting around for CC to concern themselves with the nature of dynamic environments (which all coastal and riverine terrains are) lack common sense. So people are cows who only act when you scare them, regardless of the underlying reality? I guess I don't share your pessimism. I might add that you have yet to show me that there really is a problem NYers will be facing. Wow, that's how the water cycle works? Water comes out of a faucet, down a drain and then back? That's amazing! Or are you claiming that if I turn on my garden hose it'll eventually flood the whole world? Hard to tell.Okay now find me some science behind your claim. Where is this extra water coming from? How much will be trapped in the atmosphere or other forms elsewhere (not all water in the middle of a continent ends up in the ocean), and so how much will actual sea level rise compared to NY's present level, and over what time frame?Sorry to spoil your fantasy with a request for realistic assessments. Are you kidding me? You have to be kidding me. Modern agricultural methods have pulled us beyond Malthusian limits, which is what did box in our ancestors. We are less dependant on climate, including for food, than we have ever been in our history.If this claim were true, why don't we just give up all of our technology right now and live safer lives?And once again with NY. You are right that we cannot pull up large settled structures as easily as tents. So what? Building such structures is harder than building a tent. Doing so makes a commitment to staying in one place and so altering the surrounding landscape to keep it "safe", because it will always keep changing!Anyone building next to a river or coastline has already commited themself to future engineering projects, but does not mean that they are "more vulnerable" than nomads to climactic change. If anything large scale cities are a testament to how much more independent we are from nature's ravages. That's not to say invulnerable of course, but certainly much more independent.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Right back at you, buddy. But I have confidence most will be able to tell who actually fills that role based on their consistency and adherence to the data. Skip the first post. If you want to more carefully explain your position then go ahead, but let's stick to the data and conclusions from it, because that is all I care about.The second and third would be greatly appreciated. Don't go to this level of Bullshit. I've been linking to images and descriptions of images the entire time. The only thing I haven't done is place them as visible within post itself. If you can't open a separate window for the link to view it, the surrounding discussion, and my discussion at the same time, that is your problem and is not synonymous with refusing to provide evidence.In addition, I have referred back to your graphs which are viewable right in the post. So what's your problem? Why would people, including you, be incapable of going to the graph I linked to, as well as the discussion of the data as seen in the graph? As far as being misleading in my descriptions I posted a textual description of the graph representing scientific consensus on the data within it. Are you incapable, or unwilling to read it? It backs my statements and rejects yours. Why are you attempting to mislead people by not only mischaracterizing what is seen in the graph, but what scientists themselves say about the data within it?But let's take a look at your assertion... Here is the graph...At the far right we see a rather large cliff, that represents the end of a climb in temps from the last Ice Age and has nothing to do with human influence. It then reaches a relative stable point. I already posted a link to a discussion and here it is again... Unless you can't read yellow, the message from the scientific community to you is quite clear. Yet you are apparently pointing to the relatively higher level at 8K then the remaining portion to the left as an indication of a "cooling trend"? Yet I have already pointed to the discussion of the graph and what that higher level means to science... Where is your confusion? This is not me merely asserting this.Finally, toward the left end of this graph after 2K you see a dip around halfway, followed by a climb about a third of the way between 2K and present. That is a long time ago and you can see it in the smaller "recent proxies" graph as well... looking about 600 years ago. That means temps began a climbing trend which accelerates around 100 to 200 years ago.To choose 2K or 8K as a starting point in order to determine a "trend" is totally arbitrary. The most recent "trend" on the level of centuries is warming. If looking on the small 1000s scale it is perhaps slightly cooling but actually pretty stable. If looking at the greater than 10K scale we are at a stable period at some point in a large warming trend. Hell, if we look at the larger scale...... I suppose someone could suggest we are living through a truncated period of temps compared to previous steep climbs to higher peak temps.Thus I fail to see the validity in your claim regarding any "trend". Much more I don't understand what that concept even is, except a description of past events. There is no such thing in paleoclimatology as an expectation of temps to follow some long term trend indefinitely, or a reason to be concerned because one changes or ends. We see a relative pattern in historical records but nothing exacting or consistent where we can claim a current pattern is an anomoly. Change seems to be about the only pattern we have.You can keep insisting your "view" is the only valid read, but it is not valid. I want to repeat that last statement of yours. It is the work of the complete shyster. Just LOOK at the graph and you will see my conclusions are right? See how obvious the conclusion is by how it LOOKS? I have repeatedly stated that the eye canbe deceptive when drawing conclusions about data from a graph. That is why politicians and advertisers love them.You have to understand what you are looking at which means a discussion of what made it, what context to set it in, as well as what its details can tell you. I provided that to you. I said it and I gave you a discussion from someone else, and you have links at that page to other references on it.I can look at that graph, and whats more I can understand what I am looking at and explain it, and show you what the state of consensus is on what it says. That is hardly being deceptive.Before your 2nd and 3rd post, how about dealing with the data you've already been given?Edited by holmes, : fixes

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I should have known the idea that Luntz came up with CC was complete bullshit. I remembered it being used long before 2000 and 2004 within scientific circles. But still I fell for it... sheesh. Thankfully dealing with crash's bs made me turn extra skeptical and I double checked.Here are the facts: The term was used in international documents related to manmade effects on the global climate as early as (if not earlier than) 1992. The predecessor to the Kyoto protocol was UNFCCC, the last two Cs being for climate change. Now maybe Luntz wanted to run with CC because it sounds nicer than global warming, but clearly it was being used by those who were unquestionably concerned about the climate. Why do I think that Luntz's contribution was more about promoting himself as a coiner, or possibly just explaining to Bush how to use it as spin, rather than being the inventor and prolificator of the term?Really people, its this rhetoric that gets me so disappointed with the environmental movement. We need less demonization of individuals and worrying about how to scare people into caring with the right fear terminology, and more concentrating on the real problem.What's funny is that I have to argue this on the defensive, like I don't care, when I'll bet I'm one of the few (RAZD sounds like he may have) who actually has an education in the very subjects we are discussing, and went to work in a professional capacity to try to understand/deal with environmental problems we are facing.Okay I admit my greatest desire for a scientific career was in space exploration/research, but close second has been environmental concerns of Earth. And that's where I worked for many years. Next time you want to challenge the terminology I use, give me a reason that is not only apolitical in nature, but factually correct.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Okay, miscommunications happen. That makes more sense. Since I generally dislike politicians and stick with science I was unaware of this trend, or this Luntz fellow (despite the fact that I do like the Daily Show).I think the important point would be not to chastise those who use CC, but rather chastise anyone in politics or the media that represent it as meaning anything something people shouldn't be interested in.Apparently now we can show them that the spin doctor that got them to use it recognizes what it actually means.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Why? Though most of your post is itself ridiculous mischaracterization to my mind, I find no reason to get into a debate with you about it. People reading along can (or have already since we discussed much of it previously) come to their own conclusion about who is saying what about whom. I want to focus on analysis of the data and that seems wholly irrelevant to these other points.In fact that is all I will address, as I'm sure more people are interested in that anyway. My initial post to RAZD was pretty clear in what I was addressing and what you have yet to admit is true... Contrary to your statements... The scientific community:1) Has not had convincing evidence for 40 years that CC was occuring.
2) That temps have never been higher. You have corrected my understanding of your position to be "sustained temps of this height (which are not the highest ever) since we have had agricultural based civilizations". I have gone on to show that is NOT a correct understanding of data from the Holocene period.
3) That the data is "unimpeachable". That is not a correct understanding of science, much less what the scientific community maintains at this point in time. CO2 being able to increase temps in general is pretty well substantiated. That human production of CO2 (in conjunction with other activities) has resulted in an increase in temps is strongly suggested by the data. However, other factors (including natural ones) play some role in the overall increases we have seen, and may play a syncretic role. Further we do not have strong evidence of how much CO2 increases can drive temps in a longterm way, what effects might occur from them, and that larger scale natural forces which have previously driven down temps might not do so again.More issues have been added, like the concept of "longterm cooling trends", but the above were the starting issues which RAZD seemed in part to be accepting (or at least letting slip by) and I was challenging. I also called into question the use of graphs to make points about paleoclimatology as they are deceptive. What you "see" is not necessarily a correct conclusion to make about the data. Points one and two are not in contention. I agree with them. The third is possible but not without some contention, even within scientific circles. Let us look at it... Expected to have? Based on what evidence? We do not have models that are specific/accurate enough to make such a claim. Famines already occur despite enough food and there is no indication there would be a realistic drop in food producation such that more famines would necessarily occur than they do today for those same reasons. In fact if glacial retreat, and regional warming occurs, it is possible that we will have more land on which to farm which we could not previously. It also does not consider increased use of aquaculture for both vegetable and meat products.Regarding inundation of coastal areas. As explained already ALL coastal or flooplain cities must deal with the problems of water incursion. Current models show a possible 1m rise within 100 years. Even if true that is more than enough time for those that would be effected to deal with those effects. If people choose not to do something, that is irrelevant to this discussion. That means they'd be facing the same problems at some other point just the same (just like we saw happen with NO or Indonesia).Obviously I agree that if we can avoid having to build stronger defenses, or postpone such enterprises, why not? It makes sense to me. But there is no evidence to support terms of "severity".As an aside, commentary in the 3rd point contains what I refer to as "apocalyptic visions". Historic maximums (as if that means something?). Drastic decline. Perhaps defenses will be erected, and I hope they do. If you dislike the term "apocalyptic", then substitute "alarmist", "catastrophic", "disastrous". The point is that it is loaded terminology to suggest a level of effect or consequence for immediate emotional rather than carefully considered rational response. This is not sober discussion, and seriously distorts the nature of science and scientific evidence on the subject.This is similar to using the disaster in NO, when discussing possible effects of CC. To my mind that is inaccurate and unhelpful. It is essentially abusing the victims of a wholly separate tragedy to scare people, rather than educate them about what they might actually face. The problems of rising sea level (even the most dire predictions) does not suggest cities will face what NO did, which was a breach in an existing water defense that was not properly maintained and strengthened given known conditions about NO at the time.You don't have to address this "aside", and especially not in the context of blaming you for using it. If you want to deal with it, then address what utility such references have in the discussion of CC before the public, particularly in the media. 1) You have yet to present any evidence on that "NY sinks beneath the sea" model.
2) All coastal environments experience erosion and therefore sea incursion. It is a "falling into" rather than "sinking under" but the results and defenses will be similar. The only exception are environments where the coasts are growing outward because of accumulation of material. I believe I HAVE mentioned this before. You let me know what littoral environment NY and especially manhattan is. This is a personal issue, but one I feel compelled to address. I HAVE provided a link to an image in a post. The only thing I had not done, up until that point, is provide a link such that a viewer would see the image directly in the post, rather than going to it or opening up a separate window to view it. You have yet to explain why that is something others would be incapable of doing, and so some nefarious device I was resorting to rather than hotlinking. I have yet to understand why you used that as a criticism of how I approached supporting my arguments.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not sure what your point is here, even disgregarding the factual claim which I don't think is true. The idea has never been that a single event causes some direct effect. Neither is it claimed that it does effect the ozone.The idea is that consistent buildup over time will effect changes in the environment we wouldn't like to see. I think it's pretty clear in the evidence that whether nature is responsible for warming our climate or not, we are certainly effecting that trend in an upward direction. But let's say it is wholly natural, the idea that that would mean it is beneficial is a fallacy.Neither side of this argument can justifiably assert that scientific data supports claims of benefit or deficit for humans. What it does support is a giant question mark, based on the fact that all it can say is that changes will likely occur. There is a change to the system.You certainly can't reliably bank on any of the possibilities that change might produce. Can I point out that the way you presented your position, you made the same claim about evidence, you just didn't use those words?Edited by holmes, : better statement

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This has already been explained to you. While rising ocean levels would reduce some land area:1) Rising temperatures and deglaciation POTENTIALLY (and I want to make that clear it is potential) means that there would be more land that can be farmed or lived on comfortably. That's certainly what the retreat of glaciers and warming climate gave us after the last ice age.2) Rising ocean levels are unlikely to wipe out farm land as much farmland is not in coastal areas. I notice a lot of that going on. Maybe you can set an example by posting evidence for your claims, particularly regarding "unimpeachability" as the poster seems to have an issue with that.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)