• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (2 Viewers)

I know your attitude toward AGW but are you saying that GW as such is not a serious problem? Surely, whatever the causes, ice is melting and sea levels are rising?

In my opinion GW has been taking place since the last ice age, which the earth will probably return to in only a few thousand years. In the meantime, it makes sense to plan ahead to avoid the impact of weather, volcanos, earthquakes, sea-level, etc. It also makes sense to eliminate/sequester man-made pollutants that are dangerous to human/animal health and to avoid destruction of the environment by unsafe drilling, fracking, and transport. But wasting money and other resources trying to control the earth's surface temperature is a massive exercise in futility, — and likely a dangerous one if we knew how to do it.

Take CO2 out of the political equation and I'm cool. We needlessly spend many billions of tax dollars on that stuff when it could be used for infrastructure repair and real environmental protection.

Gotta go. Uncle Sam is waiting.

Ed
 
In my opinion GW has been taking place since the last ice age, which the earth will probably return to in only a few thousand years. In the meantime, it makes sense to plan ahead to avoid the impact of weather, volcanos, earthquakes, sea-level, etc. It also makes sense to eliminate/sequester man-made pollutants that are dangerous to human/animal health and to avoid destruction of the environment by unsafe drilling, fracking, and transport. But wasting money and other resources trying to control the earth's surface temperature is a massive exercise in futility, — and likely a dangerous one if we knew how to do it.

Take CO2 out of the political equation and I'm cool. We needlessly spend many billions of tax dollars on that stuff when it could be used for infrastructure repair and real environmental protection.

Gotta go. Uncle Sam is waiting.

Thanks for the clarification of your views. Personally, I find your "we're in an interglacial so naturally temperatures are rising" argument facile to say the least but neither of us it going to change his mind about any of this so there's no point in further wrangling.

Taxes, now. . .. I wouldn't dream of doing them myself. That's why God invented the CPA, to relieve us of that particular burden. Costs a few bucks but definitely worth it IMO.
 
In my opinion GW has been taking place since the last ice age, which the earth will probably return to in only a few thousand years. In the meantime, it makes sense to plan ahead to avoid the impact of weather, volcanos, earthquakes, sea-level, etc. It also makes sense to eliminate/sequester man-made pollutants that are dangerous to human/animal health and to avoid destruction of the environment by unsafe drilling, fracking, and transport. But wasting money and other resources trying to control the earth's surface temperature is a massive exercise in futility, — and likely a dangerous one if we knew how to do it.

Take CO2 out of the political equation and I'm cool. We needlessly spend many billions of tax dollars on that stuff when it could be used for infrastructure repair and real environmental protection.

Ed

Is it just a coincidence then that the curb on CFC use and burning of fossil fules has seen the hole in the ozone layer, largely repaired?

So much so that you never hear it mentioned these days?


A
 
Is it just a coincidence then that the curb on CFC use and burning of fossil fuels has seen the hole in the ozone layer, largely repaired?

So much so that you never hear it mentioned these days?


A

The CFC ban did lead to the lessening of the hole in the ozone layer. The case against fossil fuels is the rate of change of CO2 levels correlating with fossil fuel consumption.
MJB
 
In my opinion GW has been taking place since the last ice age, which the earth will probably return to in only a few thousand years. In the meantime, it makes sense to plan ahead to avoid the impact of weather, volcanos, earthquakes, sea-level, etc. It also makes sense to eliminate/sequester man-made pollutants that are dangerous to human/animal health and to avoid destruction of the environment by unsafe drilling, fracking, and transport. But wasting money and other resources trying to control the earth's surface temperature is a massive exercise in futility, — and likely a dangerous one if we knew how to do it.

Take CO2 out of the political equation and I'm cool. We needlessly spend many billions of tax dollars on that stuff when it could be used for infrastructure repair and real environmental protection.

Gotta go. Uncle Sam is waiting.

Ed

Great posting...
 
Great posting...

But Trump is for all these things Ed mentions and you claim to deplore: fracking, unsafe transport of fossil fuels, deregulation of environmental pollution (lead shot, dumping of coal waste in streams, etc, etc). Yet you're one of Trump's most enthusiastic supporters. How does that not make you a hypocrite of the deepest dye?

Or maybe you don't really think Ed's post is all that "great" but are just playing the hypocrite again?
 
I agree with Ed on some things, I disagree on some things. Frankly it's the same way that I approach Trump.

But Ed comes at AGW with practicality and his postings are done with a measure of kindness even with those he disagrees. He has my respect.
 
I agree with Ed on some things, I disagree on some things. Frankly it's the same way that I approach Trump.

But Ed comes at AGW with practicality and his postings are done with a measure of kindness even with those he disagrees. He has my respect.

My, my, look who's had a personality transplant. No grins or chortles or lols or yawns or dumb emojis or animal noises of any kind! Has to be a strain! Just a matter of time, I predict, before your outraged system rejects the new personality and you revert to type.

We shall see. . ..
 
My, my, look who's had a personality transplant. No grins or chortles or lols or yawns or dumb emojis or animal noises of any kind! Has to be a strain! Just a matter of time, I predict, before your outraged system rejects the new personality and you revert to type.

We shall see. . ..

No, quite simple really. Post and banter with respect, and respect is given.
I have none for you and my past postings reflect that.
Your MO here is obvious: you don't like when others have dialogue with me; you instantly interject with the "You need to understand that litebeam is this....or that.." It's tiresome.

I enjoy this forum and I like people here, even some that I disagree with. They know how to have an exchange of ideas without the constant disrespect.
With you that isn't possible.
 
No, quite simple really. Post and banter with respect, and respect is given.
I have none for you and my past postings reflect that.
Your MO here is obvious: you don't like when others have dialogue with me; you instantly interject with the "You need to understand that litebeam is this....or that.." It's tiresome.

I enjoy this forum and I like people here, even some that I disagree with. They know how to have an exchange of ideas without the constant disrespect.
With you that isn't possible.

Oh, you poor soul, sinned against but never sinning. What a lot you have to put up with!

Sharia law, still worried about us "progressives" imposing it on you good folk out there in "flyover country"? Or have you moved on to some other obsession?
 
Um no. I think you may be confused here.
I'll reiterate: as it relates to you, same guy...same personality--the whole nine. No fuglian metamorphosis.
:king:

Go outside; enjoy the Spring, man. We sure are....


New calf on the fastnesses....
 

Attachments

  • fullsizeoutput_ad4.jpg
    fullsizeoutput_ad4.jpg
    216.9 KB · Views: 107
Um no. I think you may be confused here.
I'll reiterate: as it relates to you, same guy...same personality--the whole nine. No fuglian metamorphosis.
:king:

New calf on the fastnesses....

Little left of the new personality now but a few tatters. I knew you didn't have the self-discipline to maintain it for long.

Cattle raising, a most environmentally unfriendly form of agriculture. And it's in the fastnesses, btw, not on them unless, that is, you habitually perch on the parapets like a raven or some foul bird of prey. . ..
 
Last edited:
Little left of the new personality now but a few tatters. I knew you didn't have the self-discipline to maintain it for long.

Cattle raising, a most environmentally unfriendly form of agriculture. And it's in the fastnesses, btw, not on them unless, that is, you habitually perch on the parapets like a raven or some foul bird of prey. . ..

Meh.

And do some homework....Scottish Highlanders forage on weeds and everything else nature provides; they are one of the most environmentally-friendly domesticated mammals on Earth.
Another 'polluter' calved yesterday: We had to pull this little heifer out.
 

Attachments

  • 17240593_184406975392424_4171207423078493236_o.jpg
    17240593_184406975392424_4171207423078493236_o.jpg
    484.9 KB · Views: 100
Meh.

And do some homework....Scottish Highlanders forage on weeds and everything else nature provides; they are one of the most environmentally-friendly domesticated mammals on Earth.
Another 'polluter' calved yesterday: We had to pull this little heifer out.

And you do yours. . .. Animal husbandry in general--as opposed to plant agriculture--is a notoriously wasteful, inefficient and environmentally unfriendly means of food production. Cattle ranching on western rangeland is a particularly egregious example. The deleterious effects of highland cattle on marginal land differ in no important ways from those of other breeds.

Your operation is a small one on private land, is that correct?
 
Last edited:
The guy who wrote that wouldn't know a basic law of physics if it punched them in the nose. This statement, taken from that article is sheer lunacy:
... In brief: ...That evidence includes a physical understanding of how carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere affect the planet’s temperature; evidence from past climates (in which carbon dioxide has served as a key planetary knob controlling temperature); and a stark record of ever rising concentrations of the atmospheric gas [CO2] that have been predictably accompanied by rising temperatures.

He (or they) ignorantly conceptualize climate as a closed-loop control system, with CO2 as the controlled variable (i.e., control "knob"). Unfortunately, rising concentrations of CO2 are not, and never have been, accompanied by rising planet temperatures. In the real world (as opposed to climate models), rising temperatures have always preceded CO2 rise by as much as 800 yrs., judging by the paleoclimate ice-core records. In any event, if these pompous "experts" were to opine what the ideal surface temperature should be everywhere on the planet, that would really help dedicated engineers to design a wonderful planetary control system — all of which is well beyond their kill set. For that noble objective to be implemented in the interest of humanity I'm sure we taxpayers wouldn't mind dredging up a few more billions of dollars for 'climate control engineering,' would we? I mean, it sounds like a really nice thing to do for future generations.

Ed
 
The guy who wrote that wouldn't know a basic law of physics if it punched them in the nose. This statement, taken from that article is sheer lunacy:


He (or they) ignorantly conceptualize climate as a closed-loop control system, with CO2 as the controlled variable (i.e., control "knob"). Unfortunately, rising concentrations of CO2 are not, and never have been, accompanied by rising planet temperatures. In the real world (as opposed to climate models), rising temperatures have always preceded CO2 rise by as much as 800 yrs., judging by the paleoclimate ice-core records. In any event, if these pompous "experts" were to opine what the ideal surface temperature should be everywhere on the planet, that would really help dedicated engineers to design a wonderful planetary control system — all of which is well beyond their kill set. For that noble objective to be implemented in the interest of humanity I'm sure we taxpayers wouldn't mind dredging up a few more billions of dollars for 'climate control engineering,' would we? I mean, it sounds like a really nice thing to do for future generations.

Yeah, well, we've been here before. The consensus for AGW among the best and brightest--and best-credentialed--scientists continues to grow and now approaches near unanimity, while the dwindling opposition gets angrier and angrier and more and more strident by the minute. How do you explain this? Why in your opinion are mainstream scientists so resistant to what you regard as the truth? Are you sure you're not just being stubborn at this point?

And trillions, surely, not just a "few billions". . .. ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top