« FFFT3 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Empirical Evidence of Global Warming 

By: keystone in FFFT3 | Recommend this post (4)
Sun, 11 Jan 15 10:11 PM | 86 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought 3
Msg. 07457 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 07454 by Zimbler0)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

George Will aside, with his history of 15th Century famine, there is more than adequate evidence of global warming.

More than 90% of scientists and climatologists agree.
The planet is getting warmer.

No matter how some chose to politicize science, there is overwhelming evidence that objective, determined activity by man can and will have a beneficial effect on the planet.

Man did not put thousands of tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere until the industrial revolution.
Burning fossil fuels has a direct effect on the planet.

Burning coal in China has an immediate effect on tens of millions of people. Shortening lives. Causing cancer. This is death directly attributable to human action.

George Will can't supply respirators and face masks to one hundred million Chinese.

We live on a planet. It is a closed biosystem.
If we crap on it enough without opening the window it is going to get fouled.

Madame Curie played with chemicals. She was a scientist.
George Will is what? A political satirist with an audience incapable of handling his vocabulary?

Rightest bullshit about there being no climatological effect on this planet through human activity is base, low level, ignorance.

The idea that since human life is relatively eternal in terms of our lifetimes, we can ignore without peril warning signals, may or might or could destroy the future for generations unborn.

Desertification. The destruction of the rain forest. The overuse of ground water. Burning fossil fuels.

Since Rachel Carson the literate world has taken much note of this little petri dish we all live in.

The future of the human race is dependent upon how we care for this planet.
If you don't believe that you deny science and put the future in peril.

Human freedom is not challenged by ecological care.
It is enhanced.



- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Global Warming, History says . . .
By: Zimbler0
in FFFT3
Sun, 11 Jan 15 9:10 PM
Msg. 07454 of 65535

Warming Alarmists Could Use Lesson On History Of Climate

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/010715-733653-global-warming-believers-arent-backed-by-history.htm

Posted 01/07/2015

We know, because they say so, that those who think catastrophic global warming is probable and perhaps imminent are exemplary empiricists. Those who disagree with them are "climate change deniers" disrespectful of science.

Actually, however, something about which everyone can agree is that of course the climate is changing — it always is. And if climate Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim about weighing evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human activity?

Before wagering vast wealth and curtailments of liberty on correcting the climate, two recent books should be considered.

In "The Third Horseman: Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century," William Rosen explains how Europe's "most widespread and destructive famine" was the result of "an almost incomprehensibly complicated mixture of climate, commerce, and conflict, four centuries in gestation."

Early in that century, 10% of the population from the Atlantic to the Urals died, partly because of the effect of climate change on "the incredible amalgam of molecules that comprises a few inches of soil that produces the world's food."

In the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), from the end of the 9th century to the beginning of the 14th, the Northern Hemisphere was warmer than at any time in the last 8,000 years — for reasons concerning which there is no consensus.

Warming increased the amount of arable land — there were vineyards in northern England — leading, Rosen says, to Europe's "first sustained population increase since the fall of the Roman Empire." The need for land on which to grow cereals drove deforestation. The MWP population explosion gave rise to towns, textile manufacturing and new wealthy classes.

Then, near the end of the MWP, came the severe winters of 1309-1312, when polar bears could walk from Greenland to Iceland on pack ice. In 1315 there was rain for 155 consecutive days, washing away topsoil. Upwards of half the arable land in much of Europe was gone; cannibalism arrived as parents ate children. Corpses hanging from gallows were devoured.

Human behavior did not cause this climate change. Warming caused behavioral change (10 million mouths to feed became 30 million). Then cooling caused social changes (rebelliousness and bellicosity) that amplified the consequences of climate, a pattern repeated four centuries later.

In "Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century," Geoffrey Parker, a professor at Ohio State, explains how a "fatal synergy" between climatological and political factors produced turmoil from Europe to China.


(CrossPosted By: Zim.)


« FFFT3 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next