How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Rory]

Fukishima is a threat, and one with long term harm and potential for unpredictable genetic mutation and other health impacts.

Climate Change is a short to medium term threat, with extinction level potential consequences.

Simply put - we may be long dead as a species (by thousands of years) before the peak harm of fukishima occurs

[Sounder]

Thanks Rory for your answer.

Big thumbs up for your direct dealing with the question and your answer.

(I will answer to your answer when there is a larger set of responses.)


Lets see, Dahr Jamail,- He currently works for al-Jazeera English in Doha, Qatar.

Well now, that's a real credibility booster.

But so much detail, he must be one of those real serious kind of 'journalists'.

[Elihu]

how can melting ice cause sea levels to rise (concomitant disaster waaaa!)? water, in the form of ice, occupies a greater volume than same water in the form of water. it's my understanding that there is no landmass under the north polar ice cap. that this ice cap covers thousands (millions?) of square miles and is many miles thick in places. that the southern polar ice cap extends hundreds of miles out into the ocean beyond the antarctic landmass. i know the image of more and more water pouring into the sea causes a preliminary juvenile reaction of "waaaaaaa!". until we realize that it is juvenile to believe that there is more and more water pouring into our oceans. its the same water that's there right now in the form of ice displacing what must be an incredible volume of its liquified brethren. so how if this were to melt, would the sea levels not fall? and fall majorly?

would i be wrong to say "melting faster" or "melting more rapidly" are moronic phrases? didn't high school chemistry demonstrate that short of vaporizing temperatures, ice melts and water freezes at the same constant rate? so if we were to waive a magic wand and make it 50 degrees at both poles tomorrow we could accurately calculate how long it would take the poles to melt? a couple of hundred years? or longer?

tell a big lie. an incredible lie. they'll believe it.

o em gee. try to decide if it's the environment you care about. or some repressed guilt or resentment begging for punishment, because the predators attempting to slip a carbon tax trading system around our necks could give a *&^% about the environment. its the money and deputies they want.

[Rory]

how can melting ice cause sea levels to rise (concomitant disaster waaaa!)? water, in the form of ice, occupies a greater volume than same water in the form of water. it's my understanding that there is no landmass under the north polar ice cap. that this ice cap covers thousands (millions?) of square miles and is many miles thick in places. that the southern polar ice cap extends hundreds of miles out into the ocean beyond the antarctic landmass. i know the image of more and more water pouring into the sea causes a preliminary juvenile reaction of "waaaaaaa!". until we realize that it is juvenile to believe that there is more and more water pouring into our oceans. its the same water that's there right now in the form of ice displacing what must be an incredible volume of its liquified brethren. so how if this were to melt, would the sea levels not fall? and fall majorly?

would i be wrong to say "melting faster" or "melting more rapidly" are moronic phrases? didn't high school chemistry demonstrate that short of vaporizing temperatures, ice melts and water freezes at the same constant rate? so if we were to waive a magic wand and make it 50 degrees at both poles tomorrow we could accurately calculate how long it would take the poles to melt? a couple of hundred years? or longer?

tell a big lie. an incredible lie. they'll believe it.

o em gee. try to decide if it's the environment you care about. or some repressed guilt or resentment begging for punishment, because the predators attempting to slip a carbon tax trading system around our necks could give a *&^% about the environment. its the money and deputies they want.

In short, no. Also, see degraded air quality and ocean acidification for clarity on risks beyong rising sea levels

[brainpanhandler]

Lets see, Dahr Jamail,- He currently works for al-Jazeera English in Doha, Qatar.

Well now, that's a real credibility booster.

But so much detail, he must be one of those real serious kind of 'journalists'.

I'll take Dahr Jamail, Guy McPherson, James Hansen, Neil Dawe and NASA, Nature, Science, The IPCC and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences over Anthony I'm-a-paid-shill-for-exxon-Watts any fucking day. Puhlease.

A better question to ask would be something like, "Do you think the Fukushima disaster is a greater threat (to the environment and life on planet earth) than are the effects of anthropogenic global climate disruption?"


How bout, you first.

Honestly, I am not terribly well informed about the magnitude of the threat from the radiation leaked from Fukushima. I don't have enough reliable data to assess the threat level. But even if I got reliable data from credible sources I am uncertain how to assess the harm to the environment and life on the planet, let alone how to compare that with the harm from anthropogenic global climate disruption. What metrics are we using?

Ultimately, I think Rory is right when they say , "Climate Change is a short to medium term threat, with extinction level potential consequences." So asking whether Fukushima is a greater threat is like asking whether contracting a potentially life threatening disease is a greater threat than having one's head cut off or whether the fire in the galley of the Titanic is a greater threat than the millions of gallons of water rushing into the hull.

[Rory]

As regards this idea that AGW is a carbon tax, stealth scam perpetrated by TPTB - I don't get it.

I mean, sure, I understand that it will be exploited for profit by the very agencies that are profiting from the fossil fuel industry, but why the presumption that the science must therefore be false.

I'm certain that first world economics are unsustainable and damaging to the wider biosphere (as it pertains to supporting mamallian life). Climate Change is supported by all of the science and dovetails with existing understanding of environmental degradation caused by industrial practice.

There is this inexplicable credulity from some in the conspiracy world that AGW is a scam because it is supported by some of the elites. Despite that these same elites have more to lose from mandated reductions in industrial capacity (as part of a planetary move to mitigate harm caused by Climate Change).

There is such a thing as playing the game from both sides. So what if carbon trading is a verifiable scam. The science is real and the implications are of a culture ending danger.

The real scam is by the fossil fuel industries that tell you the science is bunk. Because if you believe the conspiracy there then you are perpetuating lies and propoganda from the very elites you purport to be against

[Sounder]

Honestly, I am not terribly well informed about the magnitude of the threat from the radiation leaked from Fukushima. I don't have enough reliable data to assess the threat level. But even if I got reliable data from credible sources I am uncertain how to assess the harm to the environment and life on the planet, let alone how to compare that with the harm from anthropogenic global climate disruption. What metrics are we using?

Ultimately, I think Rory is right when they say , "Climate Change is a short to medium term threat, with extinction level potential consequences." So asking whether Fukushima is a greater threat is like asking whether contracting a potentially life threatening disease is a greater threat than having one's head cut off or whether the fire in the galley of the Titanic is a greater threat than the millions of gallons of water rushing into the hull.

OK. now we are getting somewhere, Thanks

I'll take Dahr Jamail, Guy McPherson, James Hansen, Neil Dawe and NASA, Nature, Science, The IPCC and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences over Anthony I'm-a-paid-shill-for-exxon-Watts any fucking day. Puhlease.

False equivalency, I never appealed to Anthony in the first place. How about the credibility of Al-jazeera and the go to warmist Guardian, after viewing the fraud and coverup of fraud (facilitated by the dynamic duo) shown by Alice in the Egypt thread? Oh right, some things just cannot be faked. Or Hanson endorsing nuclear power, do you go along with him that far?

I suppose also it means nothing that Al-jazeera is located in Qatar, the petrocapital of the world.

[brainpanhandler]

Honestly, I am not terribly well informed about the magnitude of the threat from the radiation leaked from Fukushima. I don't have enough reliable data to assess the threat level. But even if I got reliable data from credible sources I am uncertain how to assess the harm to the environment and life on the planet, let alone how to compare that with the harm from anthropogenic global climate disruption. What metrics are we using?
Ultimately, I think Rory is right when they say , "Climate Change is a short to medium term threat, with extinction level potential consequences." So asking whether Fukushima is a greater threat is like asking whether contracting a potentially life threatening disease is a greater threat than having one's head cut off or whether the fire in the galley of the Titanic is a greater threat than the millions of gallons of water rushing into the hull.

OK. now we are getting somewhere, Thanks

I'm glad you think so, I guess.
So what about my question:

How about you (Sounder) explain why you think the Fukushima disaster is a greater threat to the environment and life on earth than is anthropogenic global climate disruption first. And while you're at it explain how it is a threat "many orders of magnitude greater."
Defintion of ‘many’
Defintion of ‘Order of Magnitude’

I'll take Dahr Jamail, Guy McPherson, James Hansen, Neil Dawe and NASA, Nature, Science, The IPCC and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences over Anthony I'm-a-paid-shill-for-exxon-Watts any fucking day. Puhlease.

False equivalency, I never appealed to Anthony in the first place.

I never said there was an equivalency. In fact just the opposite. But yer buddy BenD certainly favors him as a source. Do you care to distance yourself from that or not?

How about the credibility of Al-jazeera and the go to warmist Guardian, after viewing the fraud and coverup of fraud (facilitated by the dynamic duo) shown by Alice in the Egypt thread?

Don't know. You enlighten me.

Oh right, some things just cannot be faked.

What does that mean?

Or Hanson endorsing nuclear power, do you go along with him that far?

Absolutely not.

I suppose also it means nothing that Al-jazeera is located in Qatar, the petrocapital of the world.

I wouldn't know.
All that seems like so much deflection. One thing at a time Sounder:

How about you (Sounder) explain why you think the Fukushima disaster is a greater threat to the environment and life on earth than is anthropogenic global climate disruption first. And while you're at it explain how it is a threat "many orders of magnitude greater."
Defintion of ‘many’
Defintion of ‘Order of Magnitude’

[brainpanhandler]

So what if carbon trading is a verifiable scam. The science is real and the implications are of a culture ending danger.

I'm not sure you understand the depth of this nefarious conspiracy to further enslave mankind though. It encompasses 97% of the greedy, lying bastard climate scientists.

And besides, what's really real?

[Sounder]

Sounder wrote:How about the credibility of Al-jazeera and the go to warmist Guardian, after viewing the fraud and coverup of fraud (facilitated by the dynamic duo) shown by Alice in the Egypt thread?

Don't know. You enlighten me.

You’re being needlessly rude again BPH. The example, a typical case of MSM fraud, is currently here:
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... start=1905

Jeese, talk about associations.

But yer buddy BenD certainly favors him as a source. Do you care to distance yourself from that or not?

You think what you want about your associations; you will think what you want about my alleged associations. (My thoughts on AGW are not in the least bit derived from Anthony or Ben D, they have more to do with confidence that major foundation money is directed at maintenance of its sinecure rather than the general benefit of society)

Would you like to talk about that without sneering at me?

So so what, you have no call to make ‘purge’ demands on me. (What kind of people do those kind of things anyway?)

All that seems like so much deflection.

It goes to the issue of fraud.

BPH, I am hoping to get some discussion going sans the standard derision component of a hard topic. You need not play along, but really? I do have more going on than the critical thinking abilities of a two year old.

At any rate, Rory is now being civil and brings up points I can work with.

So that is what I will attend to now.

[Ben D]

So Anthony Watts to the rescue...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/w ... hokalskiy/

[Rory]

Is that the Anthony Watts who shills for heartlands institute and Exxon?

Why should we listen to a proven liar and oil propagandist like him?

http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/f ... hony-watts

[Sounder]

Is that the Anthony Watts who shills for heartlands institute and Exxon?

Why should we listen to a proven liar and oil propagandist like him?

It sounds to me like you feel able to put all responsibility for climate denial on Anthony, -and thereby discredit all questioning?

I don't think so. That is the same way that AD uses Icke, and it's simple purpose is to shut down or inflame discussion.

If that is what you want, you go right ahead.

The more you do it, the more obvious your purpose shows itself to be.

Besides its a cartoon and it is funny that a bunch of warmists hoping to find some spring ice melt to film, for purely scientific reasons no doubt, got caught in a shit ton of ice.

And you could laugh too if you were not so dependent on this mind control agenda to keep the salt of your sub-consciousness safely buried.

[Rory]

Is that the Anthony Watts who shills for heartlands institute and Exxon?

Why should we listen to a proven liar and oil propagandist like him?

It sounds to me like you feel able to put all responsibility for climate denial on Anthony, -and thereby discredit all questioning?

I don't think so. That is the same way that AD uses Icke, and it's simple purpose is to shut down or inflame discussion.

If that is what you want, you go right ahead.

The more you do it, the more obvious your purpose shows itself to be.

Besides its a cartoon and it is funny that a bunch of warmists hoping to find some spring ice melt to film, for purely scientific reasons no doubt, got caught in shit ton of ice.

And you could laugh too if you were not so dependent on this mind control agenda to keep the salt of your sub-consciousness safely buried.

I honestly don't understand what you typed above.

Watts is a paid propogandist for big oil - he lies for money. End. Of. Fucking. Argument.

[Sounder]

Watts is a paid propogandist for big oil - he lies for money. End. Of. Fucking. Argument.

But I did not argue that, maybe he is. As I said before my stance has nothing to do with Anthony Watts and citing him is not a legitimate way to discredit questions.