# Climate change: "You are among the last people that will ever walk the Earth." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096 "2013-02-22T18:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/121 "2013-03-01T19:16:50Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > To ask a quick question related to my OP link: what, specifically, is wrong with the science of his assertions? Is the exponential increase he shows in his graph the same as the “hockey stick” I hear so much about wrt this issue? For starters, the IPCC does not report that the effects are going to lead to us being “among the last people that will ever walk the Earth” and that our “children won’t survive to middle age”. One bit that is not reported properly is the expected ocean rise, of course if nothing is done to control emissions then the most likely outcome will be the high estimates, but this blog is alarmist for not explaining properly that the rise will take hundreds of years, the more immediate threats of climate disruption with droughts and an increase on extreme weather is very bad, but not an end of civilization thing. Another item is that while it is true that humans are now mostly ignoring the warnings, humanity has demonstrated that eventually they will do the right thing, the unfortunate point is that in this tragedy of the commons industry has decided to leave the solutions to outfits like Green Peace. Instead of being proactive they, most of them and so far, have decided to go down the road of funding politicians that even deny that there is a problem to begin with. However, even there I expect a change because a continuation of their denials will only lead most of the population to the conclusion that Republicans are the problem in this case, they will have to act soon or be voted out of office. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/122 "2013-03-01T19:49:35Z")
Well, part of my question is, if he’s right about the catastrophic change occurring within 50 years, that’s not enough time for humanity to “do the right thing,” is it? Why is it so impossible that he’s right, given his graph (yes, I know, it means little, but I haven’t seen anyone say why the data in it is wrong; just that it’s wrong)? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/123 "2013-03-01T20:32:10Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Well, part of my question is, if he’s right about the catastrophic change occurring within 50 years, that’s not enough time for humanity to “do the right thing,” is it? Again, based on what scientists told alarmists like Lovelock there is no need to reach for the end of times levels mentioned by the blogger. > **[RealClimate: James Lovelock’s Gloomy Vision](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/james-lovelocks-gloomy-vision/)** > > RealClimate: James Lovelock, renegade Earth scientist and creator of the Gaia hypothesis, has written a gloomy new book called “Revenge of Gaia”, in which he argues that we should be stashing survival manuals, printed on good old-fashioned paper, in... Most scientists continue to report that the problem will be bad, but not at the levels of an extinction of the human race. > [@Leaper](#): > > Why is it so impossible that he’s right, given his graph (yes, I know, it means little, but I haven’t seen anyone say why the data in it is wrong; just that it’s wrong)? There is a basic problem here, that is based on an estimate that is bound to change. Not data. Scientists do report that the high provability is mentioned in the graph, but that is not the most likely warming predicted. ---
**Author:** ![David557](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7cd45c/32.png) [@David557](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David557)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/124 "2013-03-02T03:02:36Z")
Some people are generating their own green energy and even taking themselves off the grid. There are some great guides out there on how to do this, some of which are listed on this site [www.diyenergyreview.com](http://www.diyenergyreview.com) if you’re interested? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/125 "2013-03-02T03:53:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, the reason is to make the discussion honest and to check what exactly you are saying, this is just another bit in the painful education of contrarians everywhere, scientists indeed do not ignore that the sun in there driving the climate, it is still a dumb point to make the sun the main reason of the recent increase in temperature as most articles from the Australian and the Daily Mail fraudulently do, once again the teachable moment here is that you need to stop relying on deceiving sources of information. (Once again, skeptical science is a resource that should be consulted to make sure you are not being taken for a ride to public shame as it is here, you have to deal with what the scientists report, not just the messengers) You must be off your medication. Why should I respond to quotes I didn’t post or ideas I don’t hold? > [@](#): > > It just demonstrates to all that once again you are a complete ignorant, his position is just as an organizer, in essence his expertise is to put the real expert of a system to work together, and of course this demonstrates how stupid it was to put too much in this molehill of his statements, as he is just the organizer he is bound to make mistakes on what the specifics of the science is; indeed, then the efforts of the Daily Fail and others just managed to get a misrepresentation of what a manager says and they do not bother to confirm it with the experts and then use that misrepresentation as if it was very important (it is less so when the person is not a scientist, the contributors to the IPCC are) you are only showing even more evidence that your original point was even more stupid. > > As pointed before, it is very likely that Pachauri never say that you quoted, and even if he said something similar, he would be only partially right as in this case he is not looking at all the other evidence that shows how the whole earth continues to warm (and again this is \*\*if \*\*he actually said that, once again the report from the Australian does not quote him saying that) > > The point here stands, it is even more retarded to point out the fact that Paichiry is not a scientist \*\*as it shows that the original jab of yours was even more stupid \*\*as the only reason to bring it was to seed FUD and it comes from media with a record of misrepresentation and falsehoods on this subject. You did it! You actually did it!! You actually dodged his profession! Let’s see…“Pachauri has five toes on his left foot.” I’m taking bets here at work how that shows my position on black carbon or the DH rule. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/126 "2013-03-02T06:32:16Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You must be off your medication. > Why should I respond to quotes I didn’t post or ideas I don’t hold? And yet, you do, but that is not my problem. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You did it! You actually did it!! You actually dodged his profession! > > Let’s see…“Pachauri has five toes on his left foot.” > I’m taking bets here at work how that shows my position on black carbon or the DH rule. And no, I did not dodged his profession, you did; a manager in a hospital, for example, does not need to be a doctor, just another basic thing you need to learn about organizations, and you still need to learn to stop depending on Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda press. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/127 "2013-03-02T06:57:42Z")
Just one more point, although it is fun to see how you only want to haplessly triple down 🙂 on a “saying” of Pachauri that still has a dubious origin and misrepresents what the science says. What we have here so far is just a great example of how the tabloid press misrepresents what a manager said when the scientists are still there publishing the science that should be looked at; as evidence of the straws they have to grasp now, the reporters of the tabloids have reduced themselves to misrepresent or fake what a manager said in order to continue to tell some groups of people what they just want to hear, it does not matter that in the end it is just a self contradictory mess of FUD. And on this you want to say that I have the problem? Dream on. The problem is not realizing after the present and many previous examples how misleading The Australian, The Daily Mail and other sources are, and every one that still relies on them either has to demand better from them, or dump them as sources of information. It will increase exponentially the quality of your arguments and prevent stupid self-burning points like this one in the future. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/128 "2013-03-02T07:14:43Z")
> [@David557](#): > > Some people are generating their own green energy and even taking themselves off the grid. There are some great guides out there on how to do this, some of which are listed on this site [www.diyenergyreview.com](http://www.diyenergyreview.com) if you’re interested? I’m such an skeptic that that I have to inform you that your post looks like spam. 🙂 But just as a comment, after I get job nearby, I’m planing to stop using the car and properly insulating my house and getting some solar panels, and over here in Phoenix we do get a good amount of our energy from nuclear power too and I’m not complaining about that at all, we should set more nuclear and solar plants over here. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/129 "2013-03-02T07:32:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The U.S. is, by far, the largest per capita CO2 emitter. If one stipulates that a reduction in emissions is highly desirable, any opinion that _ **the U.S. should not be leading the way on reductions defies any morality.** _ > > This point is tangential, but let me nitpick it anyway. 🆒 In what scenario would the Earth have “no greenhouse gases”? Both Mars and Venus have atmospheres mainly CO2. An interesting question is: Why does the Earth have as little CO2 as it does? > [@Kepler1571](#): > > I have a feeling plants have something to do with it. It was a good feeling. [http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Perry\_Samson\_lectures/evolution\_atm/index.html](http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/index.html) > [@](#): > > Life started to have a major impact on the environment once photosynthetic organisms evolved. These organisms fed off atmospheric carbon dioxide and converted much of it into marine sediments consisting of the innumerable shells and decomposed remnants of sea creatures. > Cumulative history of O2 by photosynthesis through geologic time. > > While photosynthetic life reduced the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, it also started to produce oxygen. The oxygen did not build up in the atmosphere for a long time, since it was absorbed by rocks that could be easily oxidized (rusted). To this day, most of the oxygen produced over time is locked up in the ancient “banded rock” and “red bed” rock formations found in ancient sedimentary rock. It was not until ~1 billion years ago that the reservoirs of oxidizable rock became saturated and the free oxygen stayed in the air. The figure illustrates a possible scenario. The presence of the oceans on earth was also a big factor: > [@](#): > > The variations in concentration from the Earth to Mars and Venus result from the different processes that influenced the development of each atmosphere. While Venus is too warm and Mars is too cold for liquid water the Earth is at just such a distance from the Sun that water was able to form in all three phases, gaseous, liquid and solid. Through condensation the water vapor in our atmosphere was removed over time to form the oceans. Additionally, because carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water it too was removed slowly from the atmosphere leaving the relatively scarce but unreactive nitrogen to build up to the 78% is holds today. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/130 "2013-03-02T13:00:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And yet, you do, but that is not my problem. > > And no, I did not dodged his profession, you did; a manager in a hospital, for example, does not need to be a doctor, just another basic thing you need to learn about organizations, and you still need to learn to stop depending on Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda press. I didn’t know that the Met Office was own by Murdoch. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just one more point, although it is fun to see how you only want to haplessly triple down 🙂 on a “saying” of Pachauri that still has a dubious origin and misrepresents what the science says. You’re still on that? That is so page 1. It’s not like the Met Office know what they are saying. Maybe you’re still angry about my Hansen-is-a-deep-cover-sceptic joke, where you defended him like his girlfirend. (or was it Mann?) > [@](#): > > What we have here so far is just a great example of how the tabloid press misrepresents what a manager said when the scientists are still there publishing the science that should be looked at; as evidence of the straws they have to grasp now, the reporters of the tabloids have reduced themselves to misrepresent or fake what a manager said in order to continue to tell some groups of people what they just want to hear, it does not matter that in the end it is just a self contradictory mess of FUD. You’re right. The Met Office (the source of the really important quote, the actual science, the actual facts, the actual data and not the out of context, lies, drama from others) must be tabloid press. The Australian is JAMA compared to a direct, full quote from the actual scientific source. THe possible (mis)uses are the important things, apparently, never the actual data. You can always think you can win with the biased spins some people take with science and therefore focus on that, iving you an excuse to dodge science. Of course always trying to say I’m misleading even if I provide a full direct quote quote. > [@](#): > > And on this you want to say that I have the problem? Dream on. The problem is not realizing after the present and many previous examples how misleading The Australian, The Daily Mail and other sources are, and every one that still relies on them either has to demand better from them, or dump them as sources of information. It will increase exponentially the quality of your arguments and prevent stupid self-burning points like this one in the future. OK, let’s see what you do with this. I COMPLETELY AND UNRESERVEDLY DISOWN THE AUSTALIAN, DM, AND TELEGRAPH QUOTES UNTIL THEY CAN BE CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER SOURCE THAT WE BOTH AGREE IS UNBIASED. SO, WE’LL ASSUME PACHAURI DIDN’T SAY IT UNTIL WE FIND A VIDEO OR HIM SAYING IT. Now, let’s talk about the one source of data we both agree is full unbiased science, ie., the full link to the Met Office’s report. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/131 "2013-03-02T15:13:42Z")
Meltdowns are not pretty. Except by the people that notices how contrarian points are burned on the side. 🙂 It is clear that you still do not get it, it was the tabloids and contrarian sites that also came with the original “it has not warmed since X” point came from too, and it is still a dishonest point from them. > **[Statisticians reject global cooling](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna33482750)** > > An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming. > [@](#): > > In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. > Advertise | AdChoices > > “If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. > > Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller “Freakonomics.” > [@](#): > > Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it is not that simple. > > Temps rising once more > Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data. > > The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend. > > “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.” > > The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. > > Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. > [@](#): > > Early this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years’ temperatures against claims of cooling and found them invalid. > > Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument. > > “It pretty much depends on when you start,” wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote. > > Oceans influence short-term weather > Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino. > > El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records. > > Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record. > > The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, which probably will pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend “will be never talked about again.” And on this Gavin Schmidt was correct. > **[NASA GISS: NASA News & Feature Releases: NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied...](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/archive/20110112/)** > [@](#): > > The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.13°F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s. But it did not matter as it is clear some posters still go for the spin from the tabloids rather than what even the Met office says, as they reported, anyone pretending that there is no warming has their head in the sand. And this is again, (as the dishonesty of the tabloids and contrarian blogs was reported before but never learned by you) one has to look at longer trends to see that it is irresponsible to look at just recent slowdowns caused by natural cycles. **It is not only their dataset of the surface temperature** that the Met office uses to report that this idea of using their data in a deceptive way is still the wrong thing to do. > **[Archived blog posts](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/archived-posts/blog-posts-not-on-met-office-website)** > > Can't find the blog post you're looking for? Some of our older posts have been archived and were not moved across to the Met Office website when we moved the blog. > [@](#): > > Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.” > > The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. > > As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade. > > Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual. Of course this was already mentioned before, but as usual, I expect only the usual rejection of even what skeptical scientists like Christie report on this issue, drop it or “you will kill us” -Pat Michaels. And the context of that is precisely what it was shown before, cherry picking just recent surface temperature readings (that are not all of them and they miss the ocean temperature rise) only makes the job of the skeptical fossil fuel funded scientists harder, their job now is to report the only card left, and it is that most of the scientists are correct on the temperature increase brought by human emissions, but that the warming will be on the low end of the predictions. They do not need the “help” from pseudo scientists that report that the warming has stopped. Returning to that discredited “lets only use the recent temperature record” is not used even by skeptical scientists, bloggers and tabloid press are reaching only for pseudo-scientist arguments that would only make astrologers proud. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/132 "2013-03-02T15:29:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meltdowns are not pretty. Except by the people that notices how contrarian points are burned on the side. 🙂 > > It is clear that you still do not get it, it was the tabloids and contrarian sites that also came with the original “it has not warmed since X” point came from too, and it is still a dishonest point from them. > > [Statisticians reject global cooling](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/#.UTINtjfld8E) I COMPLETELY AND UNRESERVEDLY DISOWN THE AUSTALIAN, DM, AND TELEGRAPH QUOTES UNTIL THEY CAN BE CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER SOURCE THAT WE BOTH AGREE IS UNBIASED. SO, WE’LL ASSUME PACHAURI DIDN’T SAY IT UNTIL WE FIND A VIDEO OR HIM SAYING IT. I thought it was enough. > [@](#): > > And on this Gavin Schmidt was correct. > > [NASA GISS: NASA News & Feature Releases: NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/) > But it did not matter as it is clear some posters still go for the spin from the tabloids rather than what even the Met office says, as they reported, anyone pretending that there is no warming has their head in the sand. > > And this is again, (as the dishonesty of the tabloids and contrarian blogs was reported before but never learned by you) one has to look at longer trends to see that it is irresponsible to look at just recent slowdowns caused by natural cycles. **It is not only their dataset of the surface temperature** that the Met office uses to report that this idea of using their data in a deceptive way is still the wrong thing to do. > > [Archived blog posts - Met Office](http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/) > Of course this was already mentioned before, but as usual, I expect only the usual rejection of even what skeptical scientists like Christie report on this issue, drop it or “you will kill us” -Pat Michaels. And the context of that is precisely what it was shown before, cherry picking just recent surface temperature readings (that are not all of them and they miss the ocean temperature rise) only makes the job of the skeptical fossil fuel funded scientists harder, their job now is to report the only card left, and it is that most of the scientists are correct on the temperature increase brought by human emissions, but that the warming will be on the low end of the predictions. They do not need the “help” from pseudo scientists that report that the warming has stopped. > > Returning to that discredited “lets only use the recent temperature record” is not used even by skeptical scientists, bloggers and tabloid press are reaching only for pseudo-scientist arguments that would only make astrologers proud. So, to be clear, you’re still incapable of talking about one, simple, full, direct link to an organization you respect in the field of GW? I guess there is no SkS page for that. PS: I’ve almost completely lost interest in this thread, but I’ve got too may friends watching and laughing at your Barry Sanders levels of evasion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/133 "2013-03-02T15:34:47Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I COMPLETELY AND UNRESERVEDLY DISOWN THE AUSTALIAN, DM, AND TELEGRAPH QUOTES UNTIL THEY CAN BE CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER SOURCE THAT WE BOTH AGREE IS UNBIASED. SO, WE’LL ASSUME PACHAURI DIDN’T SAY IT UNTIL WE FIND A VIDEO OR HIM SAYING IT. > I thought it was enough. > > So, to be clear, you’re still incapable of talking about one, simple, full, direct link to an organization you respect in the field of GW? > I guess there is no SkS page for that. > PS: I’ve almost completely lost interest in this thread, but I’ve got too may friends watching and laughing at your Barry Sanders levels of evasion. I don’t even think that you have that many friends, what it counts is what even skeptical scientists say, you are still cherry picking a recent temperature record to obtain a misleading point for all to see. I prefer to see what the overall message is, even the Met office reports on how incomplete their record is compared to others that show more warming, your point is still bananas, The Met office continues to report that the earth is warming. And it is still dishonest to grab recent temperature records and ignore the past ones, the only purpose is to tell others to ignore the big picture. A very useless effort as even skeptical scientists told you too. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/134 "2013-03-02T15:46:46Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, to be clear, you’re still incapable of talking about one, simple, full, direct link to an organization you respect in the field of GW? > I guess there is no SkS page for that. Just one more thing, this clearly demonstrates to all that you are even telling even your friends to ignore links from the Met office news department. (yes, that is the Met office too, it is clear that you only burned your sorry point with no help from me in this case) Hey, it is not my problem that you are willing to double down on not only discredited points, but ther is also a double-down on demonstrating to others a complete lack of an ability to check citations. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/135 "2013-03-02T16:22:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > In what scenario would the Earth have “no greenhouse gases”? Both Mars and Venus have atmospheres mainly CO2. An interesting question is: Why does the Earth have as little CO2 as it does? I doubt that the Earth will ever have “no greenhouse gases”, but the CO2 level is decreasing over geological time, and will eventually reach very low levels which will probably be insufficient to support plant life as we know it. See this wikipedia section; > **[Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere)** > > In Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide is a trace gas that plays an integral part in the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, photosynthesis and oceanic carbon cycle. It is one of three main greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Earth. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reached 427 ppm (0.0427%) on a molar basis in 2024, representing 3341 gigatonnes of CO2. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior... > [@](#): > > …the long term natural trend is for the plant life on land to die off altogether, as most of the remaining carbon in the atmosphere will become sequestered underground on a billion-years timescale, as natural releases of CO2 by radioactivity-driven tectonic activity will continue to slow down. If humans or their descendants are still around in a few tens of millions of years, it might be necessary to artificially release CO2 into the atmosphere to provide enough carbon for photosynthesis. A low level of CO2 would tend to cause an ice age on our world, but the slow, gradual heating of our Sun will bring the cooling to an end in the long term. By 500 million years from present our planet will be uninhabitably hot, unless our descendants take even more drastic action. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/136 "2013-03-02T19:42:54Z")
**Ají de Gallina** and **GIGObuster** , you are both out of line for Great Debates. Stop posting insults or open a Pit thread. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/137 "2013-03-02T22:15:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Ají de Gallina** and **GIGObuster** , you are both out of line for Great Debates. Stop posting insults or open a Pit thread. Mmm, I tried to concentrate on his points, not him, but if that is the case I will continue in the pit, although I don’t feel any anger, only amusement at the efforts seen by him so far. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/138 "2013-03-08T22:12:52Z")
Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years [http://news.yahoo.com/recent-heat-spike-unlike-anything-11-000-years-191131579.html](http://news.yahoo.com/recent-heat-spike-unlike-anything-11-000-years-191131579.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/139 "2013-03-11T15:15:43Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Yes…and? We have more than 3 times their standard of living, have been industrialized more than 3 times as long, etc etc. Our CO2 production is actually flat as well, or even declining slightly, while China’s is going up fairly radically. There are, of course, contextual reasons for that as well, but you don’t seem to like nuance, so we’ll just leave it there. **Why is it important that the average US citizen is individually responsible for more than 3 times what the average Chinese is responsible for (actually, I think it’s many more times more than 3, but that’s beside the point)?** > > Ok…how? Much of our (and China’s for that matter…and the EU, and pretty much every other nation that’s involved in world trade) prosperity and standard of living is tied to this, so how do we do this in a meaningful way? And if we cut it, how do we afford all this nice green(er) technology? > To me, the answer is not to try and assign blame through parsing the numbers, but to look at the overall problem and see what, if anything, can be done. Myself, I think that it’s going to take a combination of regulation, market economics and a realistic look at the problem and real world solutions (such as nuclear, as I mentioned earlier) to do anything. People simply aren’t going to radically cut back on their per capita CO2 foot print in any meaningful way if it cuts into their standard of living, and it’s unrealistic to even put that forward (bolding by CP) If we don’t assign blame by parsing the numbers, we won’t get to any solution at all, will we? Your failure to understand why a per capita proportion is the only one that matters suggests to me that neither you nor anyone who holds your approach will be able to ever come to any effective solution. You see, if Al Gore and I are living high off the hog at 20 tons CO2 produced/yr, and Joe Tanzania is living low off the hog at 300 pounds/yr, the idea that we should both pitch in and control an anthropogenic problem with equal gusto becomes ridiculous. The notion that I get to to holler about AGW without first conforming myself to the standard I’m calling out for Joe is so hypocritical that it’s a non starter. At a national level, if China’s output is one-third of the US output, China’s response should be simple to an AGW crisis: Hey folks; lets’ establish a norm of one-half of the current US output. That’s gives us room to give our peeps a better standard than their current crappy one, and allows the US to get in line with a standard that is less destructive to the world. Get it? No regulations; no painful solutions; no common agreements; no market economics are going to be agreed upon with an underlying assumption that the haves get to continue to have while the have nots should hold off having until we solve the CO2 production problem. Like me and Al, the average Chinese guy wants to live well right now; not at some vague future point after AGW is solved. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/140 "2013-03-11T15:42:24Z")
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant] If we don’t assign blame by parsing the numbers, we won’t get to any solution at all, will we? [/QUOTE] How has assigning blame worked out so far? 😛 I’m sorry, but your assertion here is ridiculous. The only way we are going to get solutions is to look at the whole problem, and work on realistic solutions, not try and assign blame, which does dick wrt actually solving a gods damned thing. > [@](#): > > Your failure to understand why a per capita proportion is the only one that matters suggests to me that neither you nor anyone who holds your approach will be able to ever come to any effective solution. And, frankly, I feel exactly the same way about your assertions…it won’t and, more importantly HASN’T solved anything by trying to parse the numbers and assign blame. The US and EU have flattened out or even begun to decrease their emissions, while China and India has exploded in their own. Any realistic decrease by the US or EU is not ever going to keep up with the explosive growth in those other countries. The only solution is to find realistic ways to begin addressing the gross CO2 production across the board, not ridiculous parsing of the figures in some effort to point fingers. > [@](#): > > You see, if Al Gore and I are living high off the hog at 20 tons CO2 produced/yr, and Joe Tanzania is living low off the hog at 300 pounds/yr, the idea that we should both pitch in and control an anthropogenic problem with equal gusto becomes ridiculous. The notion that I get to to holler about AGW without first conforming myself to the standard I’m calling out for Joe is so hypocritical that it’s a non starter. No, the notion that by parsing the numbers in this way will actually do something is the non-starter…which should be obvious, since folks like you have been doing this literally for decades now and thus far it’s done dick. No one questions that the average US or EU citizen produces more CO2 emissions…the trouble is doing something about it. And, by you ignoring the fact that China is now the number one CO2 emitter (by parsing the number and dividing by billions, as if that matters in some way to the actual environment) you simply muddy the waters and basically make it so nothing gets done. Because, the reality is that you and Al Gore are not going to substantially reduce your emissions simply because you try and run a guilt trip about per capita emissions…in fact, you are smugly sitting there posting on a computer and probably in a climate controlled building, demonstrating exactly why your emissions are so high compared to your theoretical Joe in Tanzania. > [@](#): > > At a national level, if China’s output is one-third of the US output, China’s response should be simple to an AGW crisis: Hey folks; lets’ establish a norm of one-half of the current US output. That’s gives us room to give our peeps a better standard than their current crappy one, and allows the US to get in line with a standard that is less destructive to the world. At a national level, China’s CO2 output is the highest in the world. It’s not 1/3 of that in the US, assuming that’s what you are talking about. You are attempting to cloud that fact by dividing their CO2 output by the one and a half billion people that live in China, which is meaningless…the only important factor is that they are putting X amount of green house gas into the atmosphere per year, and that this number is going to continue to climb as their standard of living climbs…and it’s going to climb a hell of a lot faster than any realistic drop by either the US and EU is going to be. And that this is going to have a major detrimental impact on this planet and on our climate. > [@](#): > > Get it? Do you? Seemingly not. > [@](#): > > No regulations; no painful solutions; no common agreements; no market economics are going to be agreed upon with an underlying assumption that the haves get to continue to have while the have nots should hold off having until we solve the CO2 production problem. Like me and Al, the average Chinese guy wants to live well right now; not at some vague future point after AGW is solved. The last part of your sentence is pretty much what I’ve been saying, so no idea how you think that helps your argument (such as it is). I’m not seeing the ‘no regulations’ part, since the irony is that both the US/EU AND China have regulations…but of the 3, only the US and the EU actually and systematically enforce them. As for the ‘no painful solutions’, yup…because human nature being what it is, that’s not going to fly in the face of a problem like this one. Instead, you need to think of real world and realistic solutions. Might want to start by getting the folks blocking nuclear energy out of the way. As for ‘no market economics’, that’s horseshit…we are ALREADY seeing market impacts on green energy solutions. Cars (in the US and EU) have gotten a hell of a lot more efficient, and continue to do so. Companies are much more focused on saving money through energy efficiency, and again that continues to expand. Green technology has literally billions in R&D happening today, and has even begun to be installed in production systems (IIRC, the US is the number one users of wind power in the world in the total number of wind turbines and actual generated power). Market solutions are the only realistic method to start addressing any of this…not trying to parse the numbers to set blame. Market solutions coupled with government regulation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=8)