What is environmentalism, really?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Says who? Is that what you're asking? I'll tell you who says who. People who know what they're talking about. Your ignorance on this matter demonstrates that you are not qualified to discuss this.

Neither do you.  And if qualfications mattered in any such way, 70% of the signers to IPCC and all of Congress wouldn't have any say in it either.  That would actually be ideal, but unfortunately for the realists in this world the opinions of the unqualified most certainly matter.

You have the opportunity to remedy this by reading real scientific publications as opposed to recommended reading by your favorite libertarian.

I have read exactly zero on this matter published by anyone that I know was a libertarian.

You obviously are not knowledgeable in this area. I already explained this. Animals hit barriers. Those barriers are suburban and urban areas, bodies of water (or lack of bodies of water), mountains, etc.

So now I'm not knowledgable?  Keep digging.

Read this article to understand fully what is happening. If you don't, then I have proof that you wish to keep yourself within your own manufactured bubble of ignorance.

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

[1713519812]

1713519812

[1713519812]

1713519812

[1713519812]

1713519812

[1713519812]

1713519812

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.

That would require research into my own education over the past 30+ years.

Well, let's just deal with your education since the year 2000. I'm patient. Please provide me a list of people, scientists, authors and books related to the fields of ecology and climate science which you feel have most influenced you.

Don't be shy.

I'm not patient, and don't have the will or time to commit to such an endeavor.

I'm sure you can come up with something! Nothing comes to mind? You seem rather proactive about giving the standard libertarian answers regarding global warming. Please share.

What books or websites do you study to learn about the environment, ecology and climate change? I'm getting a sense that you're hesitant to share. Is that the case?

Google, Wikipedia, hundreds of websites & blogs, just to name a few.  Much of it collected by my own intellect.  I am not an authority, this is true, but nor am I some talking head with no independent thought.  Just keep thinking that I'm echoing libertarian thought, because if I am, then perhaps they are right?

[FirstAscent]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

[dree12]

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system.

Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus).

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada.  Lets not make such conjectures, okay?

If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea.

4 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.  

To be precise, 97% of climate experts do not contest that humans are a cause of global warming.  That does not conclude that they all agree thathuman activities are the predominate cause.  Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus, even if true, represents reality is historically false.  This is just a short list of the crackpots who truned out to be correct, contrary to the scientific consensus of the age.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

Crackpot isn't the right word; "heretic" is. Many famous scientists of yesteryear were heretics, as your list gives. However, unless one is a scientist oneself, it's probably better to listen to consensus than to isolated heretics. As your article states itself, "99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem".

Do you believe this alters my point?

I agree with this part of your point:

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus always represents reality is false.

But not with this part of your point:

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.

Historically, most heretics were wrong.

5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.  

I won't contest this, but that data point isn't actually an argument for human caused global warming.

It isn't an argument for human-caused global warming, true. But, it does indicate that some kind of global warming is occurring.

I never claimed that it wasn't.

Good.

6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

While it's true that the models were tweeked until they could accurately reproduce measurements we have seen in the  past, it's not true that those same models were able to predict the warming over the next several years, much less decades.  This is the great failing of the models, they simple arien't good enough

I'm not contesting this point, partly because I believe in the Bitcoin motto: "past results do not imply future performances". Models or not, however, the past 10-20 years are already a cause for alarm.

In true bitcoin fashion, it's also a cause for exploring Canadian REIT's

Go ahead and invest in Canada. If anything, this is a feedback loop: maybe everyone will move to a country where per-capita emissions are exceptionally high.

8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.  

Says who?  Who has the expertise to say that animals cannot adapt over a century by migration?  And so what if they can't?  More species go extinct yearly than we have ever caused.

Some animals cannot migrate. Polar bears, Arctic seals, and Antarctic penguins are examples.

Three examples of species that won't need to migrate, for they can all live in much warmer climates than they currently do.

Sure. Tell that to them when rabbits arrive in Antarctica.
I know it isn't that bad, but it'd be naïve to say penguins wouldn't need to move.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

And this alters my point, how exactly?

I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land.  Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost.  Cities are just collections of people.  Move.  Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter.  If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist.

"Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert.

16 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.  

But not over the past 10,000 years.  Again, roots have been found on islands north of Canada under several feet of permafrost.

Most technological advances occurred in the last 3000 years. The rest of the 7000 years in your timeline probably have nothing to do with human activity.

Thank you for making my point.

Then I guess we agree on this.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified.  It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies.

If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't?

20 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

 According to whom?  The movie "An inconvient truth" was so full of provablely false data points that a court ordered that it could not be shown to public school students because it might ingrain falsehoods into their education.

Al Gore is not a magical leader. His economic policies and personal self-righteousness are despicable, in my humble opinion. The person's shortcomings does not impact the theory's validity.

Besides, most contrarian movies are also not allowed to be shown to public school students because they are just as inaccurate.

Still doesn't alter the point.

I don't intend to alter the point.

What I fail to understand is why people like me shouldn't exist. I am a libertarian, and believe in anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, I believe that a smaller state is the best way to solve it: after all, twice as much subsidy money is going towards oil companies as that going towards renewable energy.

[FirstAscent]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

[FirstAscent]

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are?

Please address this.

[FirstAscent]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

[nimda]

FirstAscent, I'll say it again. However educated you believe yourself to be, ad-hominem and condescension do not win debates.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are?

Please address this.

I'm aware of the effects of white ice on reflecting solar IR back into space.  Again, the regions near the poles could stand a great deal of warming and are likley to get most of it anyway.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

I am not familar with any particular petition.  I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system.

Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus).

That has zero to do with the point.

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada.  Lets not make such conjectures, okay?

If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea.

I question whether or not you even could accelerate it.  Again, if global warming is due to carbon-dioxide from long sequestered non-renewable fuels, then the problem is going to resolve itself soon after the global Hubbert's Peak.

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.

Historically, most heretics were wrong.

Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

And this alters my point, how exactly?

I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now.

It's entirely possible to predict a trend without having a complete understanding of why the trend continues.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land.  Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost.  Cities are just collections of people.  Move.  Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter.  If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist.

"Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert.

  Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified.  It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies.

If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't?

What about it?  How do I know that it isn't tainted too?
[

[dree12]

2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions  

Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false.  Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also.  Did we do that too?

Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change.

Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system.

Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus).

That has zero to do with the point.

The original point was that "it's the sun". Planets like Venus and Earth respond relatively little to solar forcing, while other planets respond greatly.

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.  

"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "

Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy.  It's simply not their field.  So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over  a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all.

Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result.

Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada.  Lets not make such conjectures, okay?

If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea.

I question whether or not you even could accelerate it.  Again, if global warming is due to carbon-dioxide from long sequestered non-renewable fuels, then the problem is going to resolve itself soon after the global Hubbert's Peak.

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.

Historically, most heretics were wrong.

Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.

In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized.

11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  

CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.

Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.

And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.

What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk?

12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.  

The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean.

The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.

And this alters my point, how exactly?

I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now.

It's entirely possible to predict a trend without having a complete understanding of why the trend continues.

Point ceded.

13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  

And contradicted by many others.

Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.

And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.

Unnecessary change is probably not good.

You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.

Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself?

14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.  

The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame.  Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame.

Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking.

I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land.  Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost.  Cities are just collections of people.  Move.  Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter.  If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist.

"Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert.

Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.

Yes in fact.

• More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
• This also applies for land area.
• No cold land is usable in the Southern Hemisphere. The only lands that exist are: 1) a huge mountain range and 2) a huge ice sheet (that probably isn't going away anytime soon).
• The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.
• Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.
• The Gobi desert is growing. Many other deserts are likely to do the same.

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides.

Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified.  It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies.

If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't?

What about it?  How do I know that it isn't tainted too?

Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?

[FirstAscent]

17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

I am not familar with any particular petition.  I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is.

Is that an example of willful ignorance?

[FirstAscent]

19 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.  

Most being the oparative word.

What's wrong with the word "most"? Do you understand what ice albedo feedback loops are?

Please address this.

I'm aware of the effects of white ice on reflecting solar IR back into space.  Again, the regions near the poles could stand a great deal of warming and are likley to get most of it anyway.

Why would someone say they need to be warmed?

[myrkul]

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

CFCs deplete Ozone. You'd raise skin cancer rates, but not significantly increase temperature.

[FirstAscent]

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

I don't care about your students, except for the fact that given how you let your ideology influence your study habits, it's a crime you would have any students.

What I'm witnessing here is a classic case of willfully putting on blinders for fear of putting a chink in your view of the world. The article is a reasonable and solid rebuttal to your silly conception of species migration. I must only assume that your refusal to read the article is a clear example of your general approach to things which disagree with your belief about various things.

[dree12]

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

CFCs deplete Ozone. You'd raise skin cancer rates, but not significantly increase temperature.

They're also a very potent greenhouse gas in the short term.

[myrkul]

I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.

Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.

CFCs deplete Ozone. You'd raise skin cancer rates, but not significantly increase temperature.

They're also a very potent greenhouse gas in the short term.

Ah, so they are. Still, bad idea. Bad idea to try and intentionally muck with any self-regulating system, frankly.