Are we ****ed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Just wondering...

Have afew friends who are Green Party activists telling me over the last few months that mankind is, essetially screwed. We've messed up the environment so that it is now beyond repair. I get this all the time too, but am beginning to believe it. I'm in Mayo and it's bloody freezing. I'm told in 15 years time (not 100, not 50 not 30) it'll be extremly unstable (and I'm seeing the evidence here with my own eyes)

On top of that, transport costs are going to go through the roof. We're already witnessing that and it's not juts tax, it's greed and fear of dwindling stocks. We're told nuclear is the way forward, but isn't that just the same mistake again...? Too much waste and a limited supply.

So, is mankind ****ed. If so, are we bothered? If not, what are people's opinions and ideas for sustainability for the future? (As in, ones that will actually work and work long-term without screwing over other people... unless you're prepared to say you don't give a toss about other people)

Yes, none of this is news, but seriously... it seems to be getting serious and closer.

I know there's a seperate issue for the environment, but I want a wider range of opions, not just green party plans that may be good and practically, but that people are never going to buy.

Seriosuly. Is mankind phucked?

forbairt

"I’d like to share with you a revelation, I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species that I realized you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we...are the cure." - Agent Smith

I think that about sums it up ?

Ikky Poo2

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Just wondering...

Have afew friends who are Green Party activists telling me over the last few months that mankind is, essetially screwed. We've messed up the environment so that it is now beyond repair. I get this all the time too, but am beginning to believe it. I'm in Mayo and it's bloody freezing. I'm told in 15 years time (not 100, not 50 not 30) it'll be extremly unstable (and as a neutral, I'm beginning to believe them, bases on the evidence of my own eyes)

On top of that, transport costs are going to go through the roof. We're already witnessing that and it's not juts tax, it's greed and fear of dwindling stocks. We're told nuclear is the way forward, but isn't that just the same mistake again...? Too much waste and a limited supply.

So, is mankind ****ed. If so, are we bothered? If not, what are people's opinions and ideas for sustainability for the future? (As in, ones that will actually work and work long-term without screwing over other people... unless you're prepared to say you don't give a toss about other people)

Yes, none of this is news, but seriously... it seems to be getting serious and closer.

I know there's a seperate issue for the environment, but I want a wider range of opions, not just green party plans that may be good and practically, but that people are never going to buy.

Seriosuly. Is mankind phucked?

Activists :rolleyes:

Did you know that when Krakatoa erupted, the amount of ash, debris and dust it thrown into the atmosphere triggered years of global cooling because it blocked alot of the suns rays.
The earths climate changes naturally as well as man made causes.

chamlis

Seems that way. I've been on about this for years, but like you said, people are now able to see it with their own eyes. It's not just something that may happen in the future. It is real and is happening now.

The other thing of course is that the world is going through a cycle now anyway. Things are going to change no matter what we do.

Crucifix

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Is mankind phucked?

Yeah, pretty much. It seems like our best bet now would be to bank on nuclear fission and renewables, and put a lot of work into getting nuclear fusion useable.

RE*AC*TOR

Generally speaking earth's cycles of heating and cooling occur over thousands of years.

The changes we are seeing at the moment appear to be happening at a very fast pace.

fly_agaric

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Seriosuly. Is mankind phucked?

Basing our economies on ever expanding populations, use of energy, and natural resourses may be about to hit a brick wall [unless we can figure out another way around it] but that doesn't mean mankind is finished.

shnaek

The green party also said the minister for justice should negotiate with the Afghans last week. I take what they say with a pinch of salt these days, having been a supporter in the past.

Gurgle

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

So, is mankind ****ed. If so, are we bothered? If not, what are people's opinions and ideas for sustainability for the future? (As in, ones that will actually work and work long-term without screwing over other people... unless you're prepared to say you don't give a toss about other people)

We'll have a tough couple of decades in the 20s-30s as the oil/coal/gas runs out (accelerated due to WW3, damn you Jeb Bush) and everybody switches over to fission and renewables.

Theres enough renewables to run the world, but they're more difficult to control/profit obscenely out of so fission will be 'standardised' for a couple of decades before a few more Chernobles drive us to really have a serious go at renewables. Then of course fusion will be successfully introduced and renewables will be declared environmentally unfriendly by the green party (from the back seats of their chauffer-driven limos donated by BNFL).

By the end of the century the hole in the ozone layer will have fixed itself, as we'll have run out of CO2 generating fossil fuels and we'll be running on a combination of renewables and fusion.

My new hip, when I'm 126 will be fitted in an afternoon off work for which I won't be paid because unregulated capitalism will have taken over from socialist democracy. My pension plan will have been worthless when I will have tried to retire at 65.

Fanny Cradock

A nice quote, however, a virus isn't typically considered an organism.

Global warming is a widely accepted reality by the majority of the scientific community. Key to this theory is mans activities that act as a catalyst for what has been calld a situation that is potentially more dangerous than global terrorism.

I’m no expert, but I do know a little on the subject having indirectly studied this in college for the past number of years. The simple reality is that mankind (irrespective of countries) is now producing more harmful gases (e.g. C02, MH4 and the uber harmful N20 – 100’s of times more effective at trapping uv rays than C02). These gasses, especially C02, in no small way contributes to global warming. Just look up the any of the IPCC articles which unequivocally lay the blame at our feet.

Sinks of carbon (e.g. coal) that would otherwise remain as such in perpetuity are now having their gases released through burning etc. This coincides with an increase in the release in other greenhouse gases that are attributed to growing livestock numbers (MH4) and emissions from industry (N20). This increased rate of the release of these gases is NOT part of the “natural cycle”, nor is the dramatic rise in global temperatures and elevated sea levels that are directly attributed to the elevated levels of greenhouse gases.

Nobody knows exactly what is going to happen. There are many theories out there, but, unfortunatley, most point to some sort of dramatic change that borders on catastrophe.

Gurgle

Fanny Cradock wrote:

the dramatic rise in global temperatures

... of 0.8°C in 120 years.:eek: (:rolleyes:)

Fanny Cradock wrote:

and elevated sea levels

Even Google doesn't know about that, please quoth thy source.

btw, what exactly are MH4 and N20?
Google is finding sound systems and roads respectively.

cerebis

ever since bertie and his cronies got into power we have been phucked (in this country..) imo

Foxwood

Gurgle wrote:

btw, what exactly are MH4 and N20?
Google is finding sound systems and roads respectively.

It's CH4 and NO2. Methane and Nitriogen dioxide.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What idiot moved me thread...? Now all we'll get isactivists posting! No problem with that, but I wanted the wider view DAMN YOU MODERATORS!!!

Beyond that, so we are ****ed, but we don't care...? I can understand people who don't trust the greens or the scientists but it's getting to the point where all you have to do is look out the bloody window. Frost in May...?

SeanW

If we go the whole hog embracing Carbon Sinks, Biofuels, Renewables and Nuclear power, we might have a chance. That's just my view.

mang87

Nah. The human race will never be destroyed completely.

Sam Vimes

ronoc wrote:

Activists :rolleyes:

Did you know that when Krakatoa erupted, the amount of ash, debris and dust it thrown into the atmosphere triggered years of global cooling because it blocked alot of the suns rays.
The earths climate changes naturally as well as man made causes.

of course the temperature changes naturally too but that doesn't make it ok to cause it ourselves by pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere

people die naturally all the time. does that mean its ok to kill them?

Fanny Cradock

Gurgle wrote:

Even Google doesn't know about that, please quoth thy source.

global temperature are expected to increase by a further 2-6 degrees (or more) in the next 100 years. i know 1 degree in the last 100 years doesn't sound much, but what you must remember is that tis is just the beginning of a cycle.

as for my source:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm
or
http://www.ipcc.ch/

"IPCC’s Third Assessment Report stated ‘there is new and
stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over
the past 50 years is attributable to human activities’. It went
on to point out that ‘human influences will continue to change
atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century’ (IPCC,
2001c). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the greenhouse gas that makes
the largest contribution from human activities. It is released
into the atmosphere by: the combustion of fossil fuels such as
coal, oil or natural gas, and renewable fuels like biomass; by
the burning of, for example, forests during land clearance; and
from certain industrial and resource extraction processes. As a
result ‘emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually
certain to be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric
CO2 concentration during the 21st century’ and ‘global average
temperatures and sea level are projected to rise under all …
scenarios’ (IPCC, 2001c)."

Sam Vimes

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

What idiot moved me thread...? Now all we'll get isactivists posting! No problem with that, but I wanted the wider view DAMN YOU MODERATORS!!!

Beyond that, so we are ****ed, but we don't care...? I can understand people who don't trust the greens or the scientists but it's getting to the point where all you have to do is look out the bloody window. Frost in May...?

After hours charter wrote:

Larger audience
- Posting on AH simply "to reach a larger audience" may result in a ban. The thread will be moved/deleted. If your thread is more suited to another board then please post it there. After Hours is to discuss non-specific topics and issues in a general way. If you have a serious Political or News post, they should be posted on their specific forums.

that's why it was moved

antogrimes

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

look out the bloody window. Frost in May...?

I know I know,

Becoming an all to familiar sight,

Overall im just P**sed off with the weather in Ireland (i know -> boring topic to speak of)

Its just gotten outta hand to be honest,

Yeah theres loads of reasons for this -> pollution, global wariming etc.

Or maybe the fact that from 1945 until the 80's plenty of countries(USSR,USA,China,France,Israel,UK) tested over 3000 nuclear warheads of varying payloads on our earth,
At one point the yanks developed the Peacekeeper ICBM, which could hold around 11 33Kiloton warheads,
NASTY!!

But oh... I forgot, sorry..... its my fault for flicking my ciggy butt on the ground when theres no bin around, im such a f**king polluter!

Anyways... back to the weather, sunny, rainy, sunny, rainy, warm, cold
BULLS**T

That is all.:mad:

Fanny Cradock

Foxwood wrote:

It's CH4 and NO2. Methane and Nitriogen dioxide.

wasn't paying attention. my bad!

Gurgle

Fanny Cradock wrote:

As a result ‘emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 21st century’ and ‘global average temperatures and sea level are projected to rise under all …
scenarios’ (IPCC, 2001c)."

Ah OK, from your previous post you seemed to imply that these things had already happened.

Fanny Cradock

You're first assumption was correct. I'm stating that these things are happening as we speak.

Gosh

See here
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Oldtree

Yes i would agree that we've certainly Pu**ed things up for our future generations.
But how about this for a slant on things :
We are part of a natural system, therefore everything we do is natural and it appears that we are bringing about our own mechanism of necessary population control, wheather we like it or not.
A lot of the damage we are seeing now was created decades ago, goodness knows whats going to happen due to current activities.
I registered 2 degrees 2 nights ago in Mayo, and the rainfall had to be in the inches judging by the flooding.

Fanny Cradock

You could make that same assumption about any manner of illnesses, famines, wars etc. It removes accountability for something that is apparently our fault.

piraka

Fanny Cradock wrote:

global temperature are expected to increase by a further 2-6 degrees (or more) in the next 100 years. i know 1 degree in the last 100 years doesn't sound much, but what you must remember is that tis is just the beginning of a cycle.

as for my source:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm
or
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Is it not the case that the iconic "hockey stick graph" which the ipcc refer too as proof of gobal warming in the above report is based on flawed statistical analysis.

Foxwood

piraka wrote:

Is it not the case that the iconic "hockey stick graph" which the ipcc refer too as proof of gobal warming in the above report is based on flawed statistical analysis.

No. It has been attacked by climate-change sceptics, who used their own dodgy statistical analysis to try to discredit it. New Scientist had an excellent article on this in the March 18th issue - unfortunately the whole article isn't available online. I'm quoting a big chunk of it below, but you might want to see if your local library has a copy.

...

Broecker is less accommodating. He says that Mann's hockey stick cannot be right because it does not show the Little Ice Age from roughly 1550 to 1850 or the Medieval Warm Period after 1000, whereas most tree-ring chronologies do show these periods. It is a point seized on by many sceptics, but Mann is unmoved. His point of departure almost a decade ago was that tree ring records alone won't do when it comes to measuring global temperatures, because they are biased towards temperate North America and Europe.

Many other researchers agree. "The Little Ice Age is primarily a European and North Atlantic phenomenon," says Keith Briffa, a tree ring analyst from the University of East Anglia, UK. "And the geographical extent of the Medieval Warm Period is still massively uncertain, because data is sparse."

....

Most attacks on the hockey stick, however, focus on Mann's statistical methods. The meta-analysis he pioneered, in which different proxy records are merged, involves sorting and aggregating these signals and smoothing the result. Mann then meshed this proxy synthesis with the instrumental record.

Critics complain that by combining smoothed-out proxy data from past centuries with the recent instrumental measurements, which preserve more short-term trends, Mann created a false impression of anomalous recent change. "To be fair, Mann did correct that later on," Jacoby says. This made the blade shorter, but did not change much else. Mann also points out that he was one of the first to include error bars, which show how much variance is lost due to smoothing.

Flaw in methodology

A more serious accusation has come from two non-climate scientists from Canada, who claim to have found a flaw in Mann's statistical methodology. Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician and oil industry consultant, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, base their criticism on the way Mann used a well-established technique called principal component analysis. This involves dividing "noisy" data into different sets and giving each set an appropriate weighting. McIntyre and McKitrick claim that the way Mann applied this method had the effect of damping down natural variability, straightening the shaft of the hockey stick and accentuating 20th century warming.

There is one sense in which Mann accepts that this is unarguably true. The point of his original work was to compare past and present temperatures, so he analysed temperatures in terms of their divergence from the 20th-century mean. This approach highlights differences from that period and will thus accentuate any hockey stick shape if - but only if, he insists - it is present in the data.

The charge from McIntyre and McKitrick, however, is that Mann's computer program does not merely accentuate this shape, but creates it. To make the point, they did their own analysis based on looking for differences from the mean over the past 1000 years instead of from the 20th-century mean. This produced a graph showing an apparent rise in temperatures in the 15th century as great as the warming occurring now. The shaft of the hockey stick had a big kink in it. When this analysis was published last year in Geophysical Research Letters it was hailed by some as a refutation of Mann's study.

McIntyre and McKitrick say that their work is intended to show only that there are problems with Mann's analysis; they do not claim their graph accurately represents past temperatures. "We have repeatedly made it clear that we offer no alternative reconstruction," McIntyre states on his Climate Audit blog.
...

In the meantime, three groups had been scrutinising the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick. Hans von Storch of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, concluded that McIntyre and McKitrick were right that temperatures should be analysed relative to the 1000-year mean, not the 20th-century mean. But he also found that even when this was done it did not have much effect on the result. Peter Huybers of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts came to much the same conclusion.

The work of Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, New York, and Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, raised serious questions about the methodology of Mann's critics. They found the reason for the kink in the McIntyre and McKitrick graph was nothing to do with their alternative statistical method; instead, it was because they had left out certain proxies, in particular tree-ring studies based on bristlecone pines in the south-west of the US.

"Basically, the McIntyre and McKitrick case boiled down to whether selected North American tree rings should have been included, and not that there was a mathematical flaw in Mann's analysis," Ammann says. The use of the bristlecone pine series has been questioned because of a growth spurt around the end of the 19th century that might reflect higher CO2 levels rather than higher temperatures, and which Mann corrected for.

What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.
More variability

Some reconstructions show much more variability, especially those based only on tree rings, but every reconstruction to date supports the main claim in the IPCC summary: the past decade is likely the warmest for 1000 years (see Graphs). Whatever the flaws in Mann's original work, it seems the broad conclusion is correct.

McIntyre is not impressed. "There is a distinct possibility that researchers have either purposefully or subconsciously selected series with the hockey stick shape," he told one reporter.

The sceptics are unlikely to give up, whatever the conclusions of a panel set up by the US National Academies to assess temperature reconstructions. But for most climate scientists, the controversy is a sideshow. Whatever happened before 1860, the world has been getting warmer since that time, and there is no doubt in their minds that industrialisation is mostly responsible.

What really matters is the future. The IPCC is predicting a rise of between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by 2100. Now take a look at the scale on the hockey stick graph. As Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany points out: "If humanity takes no action and this century sees a temperature rise of 2 °C, 3 °C or even more, the current discussions over whether the 14th century was a few tenths of a degree warmer or the 17th a few tenths cooler than previously thought will look rather academic."

The subtext of many attacks on the hockey stick is that if the world was warmer 1000 years than it is now, this shows there is nothing unusual going on and we can all stop worrying. Not so, says Briffa. If the world was warmer 1000 years ago, it would suggest the climate system is very sensitive to outside influences, whether past solar cycles or present accumulating greenhouse gases. "Greater past climate variations imply greater future climate change," he says. From this perspective, it would be most worrying if all the hockey sticks really are wrong.

piraka

No. It has been attacked by climate-change sceptics, who used their own dodgy statistical analysis to try to discredit it. New Scientist had an excellent article on this in the March 18th issue - unfortunately the whole article isn't available online. I'm quoting a big chunk of it below, but you might want to see if your local library has a copy.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement between the scientists on this one (there was some notable disagreements on the IPCC TAR review team and resignations from IPCC 4AR review team). If you don’t agree with one camp you’re a climate skeptic and the other you’re an alarmists. While the majority agree that global is occurring, there is disagreement on how much, how fast and what impact it will have on climate.

What hope do we have if the scientists refuse to release data to allow their work to be reproduced?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Foxwood

piraka wrote:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

Big glossy article from Feb '05 entitled "Kyoto Protol Based on Flawed Statistics", explaining how McIntyre and McKitrick "debunked" the hockeystick.

http://www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf

7 page article explaining how McIntyre and McKitrick misused standard statistical techniques to do their "debunking", and effectively debunking McIntyre and McKitrick. The Hockeystick comes up smelling of roses.

Tar.Aldarion

Looks like we are pretty ****ed all right, not that far into the future too.

Nah. The human race will never be destroyed completely.

Oh ya, that's soooo true.

Gurgle

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Looks like we are pretty ****ed all right, not that far into the future too.

Nah, we'll stop significant polluting when we run out of fossil fuels.

dragonkin

Nah, we'll stop significant polluting when we run out of fossil fuels.

Provided we don't start a nuclear winter fighting for them

realitichek

I've been following this situation for many years....

Basic plot - for any species - it's population rises or falls as the availability of it's most vital resource increases or decreases over time.
Typically, the defining resource is food, tho' in our case it has been Energy.
The cheap & ready availability of which has enabled our food production to grow massively since the Industrial Revolution started with coal & later moved to oil. So from a couple of hundred million, we are now 6 thousand million plus souls, in only 200 yrs (!)

In fact we have 2 problems with this expansion....

The first is that supplies of coal & oil (fossil) fuels are finite. But it is not when they run out that's critical, it's when we can no longer continue to meet our year-on-year increase in extraction of them. (That there is an ever-increasing demand is also the fault of our system of (greed) economics..) This is the 'Peak Oil' problem. The peak of production is now expected in the next five or so years. Unfortunately, our glorious leaders were not listening when they were told of this some years ago & have not made the required plans to substitute non-fossil fuel energy sources.
So, rather than 2-3 % global economic (& approx., population) growth, it will be forced to decline by 2-3 % per year. The 'gap' being then 4-6 % annually, ongoing. This a very big deal for our (man-made) system which has been made to depend on infinite growth. A global economic recession is inevitable, & probably a depression from which it won't recover. At the bottom of the heap, especially in 3rd world, but 1st world too, people will experience greatly increased suffering & death from starvation & malnutrition. This has already been happening as a result of our political/economic systems that flow an ever-increasing share of resources 'upwards' to those who already have plenty. The divide in wealth, health, & life-expectancy is heading back to Victorian 19C levels.

The second problem is waste & pollution. We have been so successful (!) as a species that we are now so numerous that our output of 'greenhouse' gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, is threatening the life-supporting ecology of ourselves & other species. Our glorious leaders have again shamefully refused to take any kind of precautionary approach to this also. So, it's now too late to mitigate some of the likely effects which are already badly impacting peoples lives globally, notably Africa & New Orleans...& may get much worse whatever action we now take.

Both problems ensure that we must face what is the real issue -

Are we able to manage our way thru' substitution & reduction of our resources (& pollution), reversing & stabilising the 'growth' model & contradicting a 'natural' law of species ecology, without the suffering & pain of billions of premature deaths ?

The ultimate test of our so-called intelligence & self-proclaimed superiority over the animal kingdom perhaps ?

Time is running out.....we need to initiate drastic, sustained, globally co-ordinated action within the next few years.....or the business as usual, 'free/let the market decide' (sic) will mean premature death for probably 1 billion+ within decades.

IMHO we'll not succeed in preventing our messy, brutal & painful decline without a complete overhaul of the sham democracy, divide & rule, we are persuaded to accept by the selfish & ruthless ruling elite of business, politics & mass media.
They, I'm sure correctly, believe themselves well-cushioned by their wealth, not just in money terms, but also in other enduring assets such as land, precious metals etc.

The ideas are there (with effort) & it's all do-able, bar the apathy of 1st world slumbering masses...

piraka

Foxwood wrote:

........The Hockeystick comes up smelling of roses.

Something smells alright and it’s not the roses. The hockey team consistently refuses to release the data supporting their work and therefore prevent their work from being critiqued.

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Openl%20letter%20to%20Science.htm

Pocari Sweat

Well lets look ahead and get some figures together and some likely scenarios.

I remember in the early 80's that population was between 4 to 5 billion, and now it is 6.2 billion and it is expected to to rise to 10 billion by 2020.

In the next 14 years, coal, gas, oil, turf etc will start to accelerate in decline as use inevitably increases due to population despite energy becoming an expensive commodity along with water and other things we take for granted.

So if america carry on with usual arrogance and want to use 25% of the world's oil resources for just one country, then they are going to get even ****tier when making up excuses for going to war and exploiting other countries.

By 2020, we will want to use every possible resource at our disposal even though in approaching coal with a bit of snobbery with regard to C02 emmissions and deaths to miners and users, we will still be arguing about how clean it has become to use it, whilst destroying the planet.

Global temps will rise, weather will get madder as it has done for last 15 years and the arguments we have today will get turbocharged and mild mannered greens will appear to be on steroids.

While we are trying to send a large number of the growing young population to wars, who won't want to be arsed because they will probably know by then that governments are cynical war mongers, there will be wars fought at home between, greens, anarchists and the status quo whilst the poverty, rich gap continues to grow and the masses become more and more exploited.

Although collective optimism for the future will always be hoped for, the problems will carry on by individuals generally becoming more open in their thinking and less flexible to oppression by the rulers and wanting to do what is best for themselves and their families, despite what is recommended for the planet, and still eat what they want, burn what they want and despite laws and regulation, we will still have class divides and a lot of people not giving a sh*te what they do as is the case in current times.

Add a bit of spin and no definitive case for arguing what is best for one thing or another, we are on route for at least some big changes.

Many people will consider whether to bring children into an uncertain future at some point and ultimately there has to be a drop in population, but this may not happen until after 2050.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Foxwood

piraka wrote:

Something smells alright and it’s not the roses. The hockey team consistently refuses to release the data supporting their work and therefore prevent their work from being critiqued.

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Openl%20letter%20to%20Science.htm

More FUD.

We understand that some authors of paleo-climate reconstructions published in Science (Osborn and Briffa, 2006; Thompson et al., 1989; 1997; Esper et al., 2002) have failed to provide complete data archives.

I notice that list doesn't include "Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998)" who wrote the original Hockey Stick paper.

It's not as if these guys are doing the Tree ring counts themselves - they're using data fom other peoples studies. Even the "debunkers" McIntyre and McKitrick were abe to use the data (or the bits of it that suited their argument).