Do you have a clue what the difference between “weather” and “weather pattern” means? The climate system is pretty darn complex, but as climate, it behaves in consistent and predictable ways. The weather may not be what I expect tomorrow, but the climate (long term sum of the weather) is a different animal.
As for which butterflies to squash, the ones intent on razing every square inch of forest they can get their paws on would be a good bunch to start with.
Poisoning the well. Knutson has noted the increasing tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and their correlation to hurricane intensity, along with correlating sea surface temperatures and greenhouse gases.
Cite? The closest I can find is this, which contains the eminently reasonable point that a species acclimatised to warm weather will have a wider area it can habituate to given an increase in warm weather.
The WHO (appropriately) address climate change from a health perspective. The WWF are helping people in the Eastern Himalayas adapt to water scarcity. Oxfam claim poor people bear the brunt of climate change. Climate Justice Now! likewise lists how the poor will be hindered by climate change. Friends of the earth seek to create “just societies”. Gaia mater advocates humanism and human progress. Global witness opposes the effect of corruption on human development. Greenpeace decries the impact of climate change on humans.
No valid antecedent for that anaphor. The sole organisation I can think of that resembles this would be the voluntary human extinction movement.
Lobell et al. in 2008 came to the conclusion that climate change could reduce crop availability in Southern Africa and Asia.
Fewer die due to heat, but the number that do is still substantial. Direct deaths due to the temperature will have less of an impact on human mortality than the incidental effects, though.
With impacts on oceanic acidity, mosquito prevalence and access to drinking water.
Cite? Also, see above for individuals taking a decidedly unMalthusian view of human populations - including the WWF and Greenpeace.
This is really, really sensible.
That’s nonsense. Something can be pollution whether or not we have the ability to prevent creating it when we do what we humans do for civilization. Something doesn’t start being pollution once we have alternatives.
Nuclear energy may provide energy that doesn’t release CO[sub]2[/sub], but there are still outputs that must be controlled, such as heat pollution, and spent nuclear fuel. Every form of power generation has unintended side effects. The scope of those side effects and the ways to use them for other purposes and the means of limiting them are all factors in evaluating any power generation method.
That’s not to say I don’t want civilization - understand the consequences and find ways to control and/or mitigate those consequences.
Iran is not considered a rogue nation simply because it wants nuclear power, but rather because it wants nuclear weapons, and has threatened to use them preemptively against Israel, and has a strong animosity towards the Western world, especially the U.S.
A slight warming of the planet in itself wouldn’t particularly be bad, but that warming affects the climate in complex ways. By shifting wind patterns and ocean currents. By melting ice caps to raise the sea level, flooding coastal regions, that incidently tend toward being populated by poorer people. Who do you think is going to withstand raising sea levels better, the U.S. or Bangladesh? Sure, it will be expensive to generate sea walls and other controls to, say, New York City, but even in our current economic situation we’re better able to support it than Bangladesh.
So, no cite.
Because the ecology is global, and changes affect us all.
And some organizations are trying.
Go to a post you wish to quote. Go to the buttons at the bottom right. Next to the Quote button is a “+” button. Select that button and it will turn orange.
Go to the next post you wish to quote and select the button. Etc. When you open the Reply pane, all the quotes will be there.
[quote=“Cmoore, post:19, topic:652462”]
If your definition of pullution is so broad then humans themselves might as well be classified as pollution, exactly what the environmentalists do. You’re saying that anything not caused by people is good and anything anthropogenic is bad, that displays a crusade against humans. How are people not part of the Earth’s dynamic system, but everything else is?
“Global warming” is inadequate because it does not fully describe the scope of changes that could occur. Shifting temperate regions north might sound okay (e.g. making more of Canada farmable), but the effects could also shift desert regions like the Sahara, engulfing more of Africa. Or it could shift rainfall patterns and thereby stop the rainfall to the Amazon, turning it into a matching Sahara. Or it could redirect the Jet Stream and make Europe a colder place. Etc. That’s why “climate change” is more appropriate. We don’t know what all the effects will be.
Well, butterflies might not be intent on razing every square inch of forest they can get their paws on, but that’s a fair description of caterpillers. Of course, caterpillers can’t get their paws on very many square inches per caterpiller, so there is that.
I think some posters are missing the point. This isn’t about whether global warming is a reality or not, it’s to do with Cecil being content that the public should remain ignorant of some facts in order to encourage their belief in global warming.
Once you begin protecting an hypothesis against any facts which tend not to support it you’re abetting ignorance rather then fighting it.
Right, and any atempt at humor will be punished. 
I just want to know what the flat-earthers think of global warming.
And one should indeed not rely on internet posts, the real fraud is coming from Montford.
…
As for the matter at hand, indeed, as reported by Cecil, hurricanes are not cased by AGW, but Global Warming is influencing the strength and frequency of extreme weather.
Greenhouse gases are the steroids of the climate system.
One can not point at an specific home run as caused by steroids, but the increase in distance and frequency are a result of their use.
Normally record high temperatures and record low ones happen with similar frequencies, but currently there are 3 record highs for every 1 record low, (IIRC for the last year, the northern hemisphere had more than 10 records highs for every 1 record low) together with increases of water vapor due to global warming we get to the only nit I have with Cecil’s article, it is not really OK IMHO to declare that we do not have evidence of hurricanes getting worse. All that increase in energy and material in the background has been measured and it has to fall somewhere when a hurricane comes.
And while it was touched upon in the SD article, I think that what the Skeptical Science link reports should not be ignored also, the rise of the seas thanks to global warming is also an already measured factor that is and will make hurricanes worse.
Maybe the earth is rotating more extremely in the opposite direction.
I am basing that on nothing. No science or empirical evidence.
There is a certain freedom in blatant guesses.
sheez,quit whining. That’s NOT what Cecil is saying. He’s saying that the while the evidence is flimsy on the HURRICANE aspect of climate destabilisation being man made, popularly known as global warming, the evidence of the actual climate destablization is overwhelming.
Also, those morons you speak of won’t be convinced one way or another. They will look at the manner in which Obama greets people for evidence for a government take over, are they
gonna be convinced if we just tell them the truth? Nope.
NOTHING will convince them, if they get wet feet, they won’t see it as proof of mmgw, but of the the Wrath of God. They won’t stop believing their false beliefs, not even at the threat of death.