[Matt Q]

Created in the hope that the argument now happening on Steve's thread (on the revolution in our experience which computers and personal computers have created) might find a more welcoming climate here.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Good thinking, Matt.

It's really hopeless when the threads go off-topic.

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

Brian. This is from something called Buzzle which discusses endangered species. It lists many, many species that really are endangered. However...

The government of Nunavut rejoices over the fact that their polar bears are not endangered and also about how their Inuits have once again proved to be right. However, the release of this survey has intensified the debate between scientists and Inuits. When questioned by the special agents from the Interior Department, Jeffrey Gleason states that their paper had no mention of polar bears being affected by global warming, and that if the link was made, it was all a misunderstanding. However, he does admit of being aware that it was based on their paper, that polar bears were placed under the Endangered Species Act.

The crux of the matter is that different claims are made based on scores of assumptions. What kind of effect climate change and global warming has on the population of polar bears is not clear. The data available today is not sufficient to deduce how global warming has affected the polar bear numbers and does not extend to all 19 subpopulations. Moreover, we must remember that the Nunavut government study was an aerial program, which is not as accurate as physical mark-recapture technique. If the number of polar bears are rising, we can only be happy, nevertheless, we have to remember, all these studies are approximations and further detailed studies are yet to be conducted.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/are-p...ndangered.html

The fact is that nobody really knows.

John,

I'd agree with you that nobody really knows. This was the point I originally made when when you first raised the polar bear issue. Equally the fact that they are coping now (if they are) is no reason to think they will continue to cope as conditions continue to change.

You originally cited polar bears as a counter-argument to global warming. That line of argument has no logic. Finding an example of a species that is currently coping with changing conditions is not a good argument against the fact that conditions are changing.

It's true, I think, that nobody knows for sure how global and habitat change will affect creatures adapted to certain environmental niches. It's difficult to predict such things. Ecosystems are complex dynamical systems after all, and are interlinked with other complex systems such as atmospheric and ocean systems. All are expected to be affected.

It's also true that this an emotional issue on which people have taken sides, and worse-case and best-case scenarios will be touted by both sides. Maybe the truth will lie somewhere in the middle, but equally maybe it'll be more extreme than anyone anticipated.

On the other hand, some processes seem much more predictable. As Lovelock pointed out back in the 60s there are positive feedback systems associated with warming and cooling. For example, ice reflects heat back into space. As the surface area of ice decreases, less sunlight is reflected back into space, and the planet heats up faster, more ice melts and so on.

More than this, the fact that we can't exactly predict the consequences of global warning doesn't meant that they won't be catastrophic. There are many possible major consequences (the death of the deep ocean, ocean levels rising, the gulf stream redirecting etc.). Rather than it being a case of "Oh we don't know what's happening, so it'll probably be fine" I think it's far more a question of not being able to predict exactly how and when things will wrong. That's my opinion anyway.

Matt

[Richard Meyer]

Back in 1923, long before the wrangle about global warming or climate change or whatever the currently preferred term may be, Robert Frost published one of his most well-known poems. Many Sphere participants or visitors will recognize the verse:

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Well, that pretty much sums up the issue.

Richard

[Quincy Lehr]

JOHN OLIVER IS PRETTY DEFINITIVE ON THIS.

[Matt Q]

Thanks for that Quincy. That cheered me up.

[Julie Steiner]

For shame, Richard. On the surface his "Fire and Ice" statement seems reasonable and balanced, but do you really think a guy named Frost was unbiased?

[Richard Meyer]

Of course Frost is reasonable and tenable in his poem! His last name is just a happy accident.

In addition to the various metaphorical interpretations possible in the poem, there is a valid scientific angle. I read long ago that Frost asked a notable astronomer how the world would end. The astronomer told Frost either the sun will explode and incinerate the Earth, or after the sun’s demise the planet will wander off into deep space and freeze. A year after that conversation, the astronomer was surprised to see “Fire and Ice” in print.

Richard

[Charlie Southerland]

I remember living through the summer of 1273. You cannot believe how hot it was. It was so hot that when I took my armor off, the chain mail took some of my private's skin with it. Couldn't set a horse for a month. And then when winter came early, snow covered the castle, froze the moat solid. Those damned barbarians skated across it and nearly killed us all. If it hadn't been for Kate Upton, we might well have not lived to tell the tale.

A serious thought just crossed my mind. Stars are known to blow up. Planets are known to die. What makes any serious person believe we had anything to do with those occurrences? We polluted Love Canal and it cost gazillions to clean it up. But we cannot control weather events or earthquakes or volcanos. We can't control the tides or the amount of sun that shines upon us.We can't stop an asteroid from destroying us, Bruce Willis, or the numerous rats The Pied Piper led to glory.

We can't even stop each other from killing us. And who in the world doesn't think the government won't tax us out of our homes based on a theory that only works for their advantage? I remember them trying it in the 1970's when global cooling was all the rage.

If you want to stop global warming, several billion people will have to die first. Good luck with that.

If you don't want to cool the world, you'll have to make more babies.

I suggest reading and embracing that all time globalist guide to health and wealth: Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

[Julie Steiner]

I dunno, Charlie, that sounds as if you've rewritten this...

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

...as this...

God grant me the serenity
To accept depressing stuff as it is,
So that I need not inconvenience myself and others by trying to change things
Through courage and wisdom.