I have heard a lot of eronious comments regarding the size of the impact due to global heating of a few degrees. This is generally failing to grasp the actual issues. A very small heating effect increases evaporation rates of the oceans a lot and forces a lot more storm activity. Effects are not uniform at all, and will result in a shift in weather patterns. Should they shift substantially, or just become less predictable, they will have a very large effect on our food production. The best we can hope for is a predictable average warming. It is unclear if the recent mid west heat wave is going to become the new norm, but it is already having a very serious effect. I would recommend caution in under-rating the risks here without a lot more expertese in the subject.
And I hate it when people try to justify poorly thought out ideas with the scientific sounding "thermodynamics". Thats one of my favorite physics subject because so many get it so wrong so often.
Good question: I tend to think not. This is such a complex system that the hubris of the human condition shines through. Are we learning? Yes. Do we have all the answers? No. Should we panic? No. For instance, here is a little tidbit that turned out to be quite counter-inuitive: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/cfe-pst091012.php I am concerned that the models used as the tenets for the Church of Anthrapologic Global Warming or the Church of AGW may have serious flaws.
You are right, lets just use physics... or, actually thermodynamics.
The sun is the dominant heat source for the entire solar system. So much so that it can be deemed the only source.
The sun is turbulent, not a steady source of heat. It exhibits patterns of increased and decreased activity that does correspond to increased and decreased heat felt at the planets.
If the 'greenhouse effect' were occuring on a planet, the residents could expect to see nominal temperature extremes begin to converge. no longer would you see 20+ degree changes. Temperatures would moderate to an RMS value.
Even if the earth is warming 1° per century, it wouldn't cause extinctions for many centuries. Plants and animals endure far worse in season to season variations today. Besides - Ever hear of a little theory called evolution? You know, the method by which god designed his creation to endure.
Is it not safer to be wrong on reacting as if the threat of global warming is real? If the science really is wrong, as the 16 say, then all that happened was we spent a lot of money and time needlessly, and maybe we get some new technology out of it. If we chose to ignore the climate crisis and argue about whether or not it is real for ever and do nothing we could make our species extinct. Seems like an obvious choice to me, go extinction! If we can't make the right choice on this issue we should move aside and let the next dominant animal rule the world. Roaches, it's your time!
I think you're correct in pointing out that it's not a clear-cut question. That's partly because it's not one single question. As I perceive it, it breaks down to four questions, each with an increasing level of disagreement: A: Humans are pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. B: Global temperatures are rising. C: Item A is causing Item B. D: Rising Global Temperatures will have disastrous effects, such as shutting down the Atlantic Conveyor.
I don't think there's much disagreement about Item A, but there's a lot more disagreement about Item D. I'm pleased to see that these scientists seem to be mostly questioning item D only.
As for me personally, I have little doubt about items A-C, but I'm still undecided about item D. I certainly don't see much of anything positive about rising global temperatures, and I personally think its a technologico-economic growth opportunity to combat it, but I'm not certain that the future consequences are as dire as Northern Europe freezing over.
You folks are defeating yourself by questioning the obvious. The ice fields are melting back, and have been for around 200 years. The globe is warming. Much of the historic data is not particularly reliable, of course, and even the modern data suffers from a mixture of effects from local but protracted changes such as heat island effects, deforestation, and the like. But the CO2 greenhouse driving function is clearly there, like it or not. It is just physics. The rest of the question is what other effects, natural and manmade, are amelorating/enhancing this. In fact you may note that the effects of CO2 and airborn particulates may be a major balance in avoiding the much larger greenhouse originally predicted for the CO2 increase alone. And including all the effects of water vapor/clouds/rain/ocean and fresh water surfaces, absorption and sequestration of CO2, man that is a dificult whole world calculation. Tripply dificult when you attempt to get from local weather to global and back again. Water world anyone???
Again you are putting words in my mouth. My use of the term "contraception" implies all methods, including pharmaceutical, barrier, spermicidal, anti-implantation, etc. The overarching idea is that since population is driving the environmental destruction, the logical first line of action is population control. Also, any method to prevent pregnancy, including the methods you cite, is "contracepting" (to use your term), and I don't know about divorce rates as a function of methods used, but I suspect that is far more dependent on socio-economic issues than upon method used (e.g. the method used may depend stronbly on socio-economic status, thus tainting the statistics).
I don't much care about method so long as the method is effective, reliable and usable by a particular population. Education is also critical. The biggest threat to families is poverty (which, for example, forces husbands to work hundreds of miles from their families in parts of Africa), food and water shortages (which forces refugeeism), and wars, not divorce (which seems to be a largely Western concept). Children suffer far more if their developing brains and bodies are malnourished and developmental milestones are missed than if one of their parents is absent.
If you search for effectiveness of Sympto-thermal, Billings Ovulation or Creighton methods of natural family planning, you'll find large peer-reviewed studes that confirm effectiveness rates in the 98 to 99+ percentage range. Calendar rhythm was obsolete many years ago yet critics still quote its poor effectiveness as the only example of NFP. Concerning family destruction, the divorce rate among NFP users is a few percent, versus the high percentage of the general public (most of which is contracepting). The sexual frequency (per cycle) of NFP users was found to be the same as contraceptors. And there are many contraceptive side effects, like breast cancer, heart attack, right down to weight gain.
The choice is not between contraceptives and starvation, any more than your choices of computer operating system are only Windows and Mac. You can use something open source, safe, effective, and inexpensive, but nobody has heard of it. I like both NFP and Linux!
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.