Doug Freyburger wrote:
....
A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the
last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of
arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the
deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change?
Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How
much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is
a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in
amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the
human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt
build up in the soil?

The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land
as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading
Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect
reference.

a large portion of desertification is
from human activities like overgrazing
cows/sheep/goats and removing covering
forests for crops and firewood. some
areas the moisture in the forrests is
part of the local weather cycle. remove
the forrest, change the weather...

some desertland can be reclaimed by
doing simple things like lining up rocks
on the ground (which stops water from
flowing away quickly). soon these lines
trap seeds and the plants sprout and
that sets up a small windbreak which
further protects tree seedlings and
gives them a chance to grow.

as long as these are not grazed by goats
it can go a long ways towards getting some
growth going even in very harsh climates.

in China they are trying to reforrest
some areas, but i'm not sure how much
success they've had. i don't think they
have enough moisture or organic stuff
planted along with the saplings so they
bake before they can grow. instead they
probably need an approach like the one
above that starts small and works up
to supporting trees one step at a time.


songbird

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with
ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social
change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational
religion that battles with science when there are rational religions
with zero conflict with science that are nature based?

Somebody call?

Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what
people do.

It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof
one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims
certainty.

And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one
specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the
opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions
out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all
make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address
deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their
members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't.

What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the
world?

Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything.

As if all
other religions oppose science - They don't. As if all other religions
make the errors of biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism - They
don't. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the
existence of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region
with no visible mountains. Or to conclude the world is flat because
you've never been high enough to see its curvature yourself.

Faith isn't proof. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no
metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken
LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not
Christian, but spiritual none the less.

We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and
atheism are both a matter of faith.

Going on the objective only, the agnostic approach is the best
supported. Until you consider my "They don't" points above. I
personally accept, for myself, subjective evidence, knowing full well
that by definition subjective evidence is only available to myself and
does not apply to others. So I'm not an atheist. Nonetheless I decided
to join a religion that does not care if its members are atheists or
not.
Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion?

Spirituality and religiosity aren't exactly the same thing. The former
would be constrained by natural laws, the later wouldn't.

As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in
Greenland

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also
demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising
sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then?

Whew it would take a lot of sea level elevation to fill the San Joacin
valley!

It's done it before, but it won't be done quickly, if at all.

A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the
last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of
arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the
deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change?
Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How
much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is
a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in
amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the
human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt
build up in the soil?

The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the
world.

The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land
as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading
Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect
reference.

High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming
could be more than just inconvenient.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one
specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the
opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions
out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all
make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address
deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their
members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't.

In this case we have a person who was exposed to toxic religion when
young who has rejected religion based on that. Rather like hating all
fruit because of being forced to eat brussel sprouts as a child.

What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the
world?

Buddhism at least. Number three in the list of the big 4 based on
worldwide population.

There are also plenty of religions where the individual's belief in
deity is irrelevant even though the written scripture describes deity as
existing. Judaism for exmple. Also Hindu, number four in the list of
the big 4 based on worldwide population.

Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything.

Among other aspects. Note that science is a spiritual method in that
meaning so the spiritual means more than the religious.

To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the
existence of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region
with no visible mountains ...

Faith isn't proof.

Correct. Reading a map and seeing Greenland and thinking that Greenland
exists is an act of faith. Reading reports of deity written by others
and thinking that deity exists is an act of faith. The difference is in
how to convert that faith into conviction. Anyone can take someone else
to Greenland. No one can take anyone else to an experience of deity.
It's always only real to the individual - Subjective.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no
metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken
LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not
Christian, but spiritual none the less.

There are metrics which disprove the existance of specific gods, none
that prove the existance of them. That part of religion is always
subjective. There are necessary and sufficient aspects to religion.
Belief in deity is sufficient without being necessary.

Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion?

Buddhism is an entire faith which does not require any address to deity.
There are Buddhist sects that do address deity but it is always
optional. There are also religions that are theistic in their writings
that do not require it of their members. Once you're past Christianity
and Islam, numbers one and two in world population, few of the remaining
religions make such a requirement even in theory.

A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the
last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of
arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the
deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change?

The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the
world.

Only if the world population does not migrate to reflect the changing
location of arable land. Static humanity has never been true and can
not be expected to be true now. As the arable land shifts away from the
equator so does the human population. Such migrations across history
have triggered sigificant social change.

The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land
as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading
Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect
reference.

High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming
could be more than just inconvenient.

Could. Agreed. Human hunting has already triggered a mass extinction.
We do need the environmentalist movement. We do need to continue solar
cells on their exponential growth until they replace much of the fossil
fuel use. We do need to build soil as a part of our farming methods.
We do need to plant more trees and slow/stop the net cutting of trees.

Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

When has global warming happened in the past?

The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not
there.
Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life


--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

songbird wrote:

a large portion of desertification is
from human activities like overgrazing
cows/sheep/goats and removing covering
forests for crops and firewood. some
areas the moisture in the forrests is
part of the local weather cycle. remove
the forrest, change the weather...

Humans have done a large but unknown about of that over the millennia.
The Sahara used to be grassland, as was most of central Asia. How much
was human grazing and farming and how much was natural climate change?
Very hard to tell after the fact.

in China they are trying to reforrest
some areas, but i'm not sure how much
success they've had. i don't think they
have enough moisture or organic stuff
planted along with the saplings so they
bake before they can grow. instead they
probably need an approach like the one
above that starts small and works up
to supporting trees one step at a time.

It would need to be done a step at a time. Getting grasses and shrub
bushes then building generation to generation.

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it ... A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.

When has global warming happened in the past?

I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I
will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the
Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus
Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube
without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm
periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There
is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher
winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the
orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of
seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have
more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.

Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates
suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the
science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections
remain tentative not certain. To someone 20 the projections have not
changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific
revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to
me.

In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In
the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic
engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus
among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big
difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts
that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere
being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the
soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure.

Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a
concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual
atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA.

A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.

Doug Freyburger wrote:

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

If it is a "week" assertion, then you also cannot state that this is
century is not the warmest. This century could be the warmest in a million
years. I doubt cattle grazing has been going on for more that a millennia
or a good measure of past temperature recordings.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.

I also object that Ultra Right Wing Capitalist claiming the global warming
is not man made. That political view is a two way street. Let face it, your
belief is on a God, not science.

If your wrong and the human race continues on it's reckless path the earth
will be very uncomfortable place to live for short term gains. If global
warming is not man made what harm is implementing a policy of reducing CO2
and the human population. I think there should be a balance between humans
and nature vs destroying nature at a breakneck pace to support a growing
population that will consume more and more resources.

without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

I disagree with your presuppositions that global cooling is preceded by a
global warming. Their are cooling temperatures in the past followed by
normal temperatures. NOT above normal temperatures like today's time.

more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.

Yes! "And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity".
Thank for confirming that global warming ( Greenhouse Gasses ) from human
activities.

A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power? If so you have have really
really gone off the deep end of the Glen Beck World of grand delusions.

Yea I half read "Collapse", some of which has interesting theories. But I
do not buy it completely. This video may be of some interest here.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ja..._collapse.html

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
It appears to be more global cooling than global warming, as you might
expect considering the fiery origins of the planet.

not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

When has global warming happened in the past?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view


The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

Global warming can happen because of increased CO2 levels, or increased
solar luminance. Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL
MASS EXTINCTION'S.

Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not
there.
Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life


Note: "faith" means believing in something in the abscence of objective
proof.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
It appears to be more global cooling than global warming, as you might
expect considering the fiery origins of the planet.

not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

When has global warming happened in the past?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view


The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

Global warming can happen because of increased CO2 levels, or increased
solar luminance. Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL
MASS EXTINCTION'S.

Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not
there.
Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life


Note: "faith" means believing in something in the abscence of objective
proof.

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

songbird wrote:

a large portion of desertification is
from human activities like overgrazing
cows/sheep/goats and removing covering
forests for crops and firewood. some
areas the moisture in the forrests is
part of the local weather cycle. remove
the forrest, change the weather...

Humans have done a large but unknown about of that over the millennia.
The Sahara used to be grassland, as was most of central Asia. How much
was human grazing and farming and how much was natural climate change?
Very hard to tell after the fact.

What is "natural climate change"?

The graph on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Recent_past
indicates that the planet was "naturally" getting cooler.

in China they are trying to reforrest
some areas, but i'm not sure how much
success they've had. i don't think they
have enough moisture or organic stuff
planted along with the saplings so they
bake before they can grow. instead they
probably need an approach like the one
above that starts small and works up
to supporting trees one step at a time.

It would need to be done a step at a time. Getting grasses and shrub
bushes then building generation to generation.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

Lipids in algae. Stay tuned.


demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

When has global warming happened in the past?

The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not
there.
Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life

--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

The Sahara used to be grassland, as was most of central Asia. How much
was human grazing and farming and how much was natural climate change?
Very hard to tell after the fact.

What is "natural climate change"?

Change that is not caused by humans. There's been a lot of it in
geological time. Enough to ask if the human contribution in the current
trend is large or small. And that's independent of the real issue that
you point out in the graph - If global warming isn't really a good
thing.

The graph on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Recent_past
indicates that the planet was "naturally" getting cooler.

The graph also shows that life in general has done very well during the
warmer geological periods. We're all doomed - The history of life
thriving during warm periods proves it! We're all doomed - Humanity
evolved during the recent swings and highs. Our prehistoric ancestors
have already been through several ice ages and warming periods. The
"we" part is specific parts of human culture not humanity in general
and not life in general.

Independent of the size of human contribution to global warming that's
the interesting point - Earth's life thrived under warming conditions.
Ancient humanity thrived under warming conditions. Therefore global
warming *must* be *entirely* human caused and we're all going to die
as a result of it! It's political BS at its finest. It ignores what has
actually happened during prior warm eras.

Even glancing at the graphs tells a different story. Life and humanity
have thrived under warmer conditions across geological time. Except for
folks living in Florida which will eventually be innundated, exactly how
again is life and humanity thriving a disaster? Last time I checked
there are planes, trains and automolbiles capable of evacuating Florida
in a lot less than the several centuries it will take for it to flood.
We'll need to replant the citrus groves elsewhere, completely
disasterous.

The degree of human contribution just doesn't matter in real terms -
Life in general and humanity in specific has thrived on Earth during
eras of warmer climate.

Is it bad just because it's different? Really? I look at those graphs
and I don't buy it. I look at those graphs and I wonder why I support
green energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear. Because fossil fuels
are limited resources, that's why.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a
socialist plot to be used for political power?

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Thanks for the clarification on the point that you can't tell effect
from cause and that you do not believe that someone can attach to an
idea and use it for their own ends that don't have anything to do with
that idea. And yet you report that you were raised by fundies who use
exactly that strategem.

Take a look at your last posting. Forty three words in one super long
disjointed sentence. Your postings are difficult to read and rather
cryptic. I wonder how you ever graduated from any school writing the way
you do.

I will not respond to your rantings until you learn to write.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements.
Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We
still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is
the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion.

The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it ... A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then
proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that
the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that
approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite
independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about
it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the
Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is
the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused
or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of
causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors
the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the
Soviets we should try it again now.

When has global warming happened in the past?

I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I
will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the
Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus
Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube
without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have
two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century
of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record
that does predate the invention of the thermometer.

The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm
periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There
is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher
winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the
orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of
seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have
more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse
gases from human activity.

Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates
suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the
science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections
remain tentative not certain.

Food for Climate Skeptics

"The frigid winter now ending may be, unhappily, no fluke. The warming
trend that had dominated world climate during most of the years since
1880 appears to have come to an end. Murray Mitehell, Jr., of the U.S.
Weather Bureau reported that mean annual temperatures have dropped in
both Northern and Southern hemispheres by 0.2 degree Fahrenheit since
the early 1940s. In many areas climatic conditions have already returned
to those that prevailed in the 1920s. The downturn has allayed fears
about the 'greenhouse effect,' in which a rising concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, due to increased use of fossil fuels, was
supposed to be trapping more and more solar energy. But the reasons for
the cooling are unknown."
--
Daytime temperatures had fallen during the 1940s and 1950s as aerosol
haze created by industrial pollution reflected sunlight.

Scientific American, March, 1961
(reprinted in the March, 2011 edition)

To someone 20 the projections have not
changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific
revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to
me.

In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In
the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic
engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus
among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big
difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts
that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere
being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the
soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure.

Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a
concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual
atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA.

A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not
the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative
approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is
not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to
be doing something, anything.

The Soviet Union was never a Socialist, much less a Communist country
any more than the colonialists who threw tea into Boston Harbor were
Indians. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship under Uncle Joe, and an
oligarchy afterwards. Any social benefits were incidental.

An understanding that climate change need
not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to
get power is not denial.

To what end is this power of which you speak? My view is that it is the
power to keep corporate sponsors to fund election campaigns, which is
contingent on legislation which increases corporate revenues. 87% of
corporate stock is owned by 1% of the population. By and large, it is
the extractors of fossil fuels (which are responsible for the release of
CO2 into the atmosphere) which are the most vocal deniers of Global
Warming.
----

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore

MICHAEL MOO America is not broke. Contrary to what those in power
would like you to believe, so that you'll give up your pension, cut your
wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is
not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.

Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans - 400 - have more wealth
than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. And please,
someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once. We're not
greedy; we'll be happy to hear it just once. Four hundred obscenely
wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks, most of whom benefited in some
way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008, now have
more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans
combined.
------

Politicians (the RNC & the DNC) are just sock-puppets of the super-rich.
Democracy in America is an illusion.
----

Geologically, there isn't a fixed, standard temp for the planet. Among
those who deny Global Warming, are those who will benefit from the
continued release of CO2. Politicians who oppose taking action against
Global Warming benefit from campaign financing provided by corporate
deniers. Corporations deny Global warming, because it reduces the income
of its investors. Democracy doesn't exist, because if it did, it would
interfere with the (mythical) free-market.

There is some small disagreement about whether "Global Warming" is
actually occurring. There is no disagreement on the rise of CO2 levels.

Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL MASS EXTINCTION'S.

Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost.
---

Meanwhile back at the ranch,

Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden.
- Orson Scott Card

After 2 days of heavy rain, the peas are lookin' good :O)

If you like weekends, thank a union.

==
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw