Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change

It didn’t run on fossil fuels as his pet was one of them GAR.

We didn’t have guns 2000 years ago but people were in fact killed back then, therefore guns can’t possibly kill people because people were killed before guns were around.

I think we can see the fallacy in that logic replace SUVs with guns and……

We do affect the climate just as there is pee in your pool if I pee in your pool.  The question is by how much and is that bad or good.  The answer is more and more but more by .00000000001% can be an ignorable amount.  Bad or good, well it was good that we prevented a new ice age but bad if we keep going to a possible tipping point where the end result means much less of the earth surface is feasible for humanity to live economically.

and in some cases the natives exterminated the herds -without- any help from anyone else.  Sure there may have been an isolated incident where a food supply was targetted by europeans.  But I can’t find an actual incident of that recorded, and in all likelyhood the food supply was just as plausibly targetted by other natives.

Garg, perhaps you could peruse the following….

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/buffalo.htm

Under the heading:

E. US POLICY TO EXTERMINATE THE BUFFALO

. Officers and enlisted personnel also killed buffalo for food and sport, though the impact of their hunts was minute when compared to the organized efforts of the professionals." (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) "In 1874, Secretary of the Interior Delano testified before Congress, “The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the Government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization.”

Perhaps a better source of information

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-great-american-bison/8950/

I for one live 1/2 mile from one of the 5 great lakes.  Until rain stops falling in the northeast of North America climate change won’t affect me much.  Sucks if you live on the ocean coast I guess or near a newly emerging desert…… I’m ok Jack, keep your hands of my stack!

I have no doubt horses and guns help natives hunt for sustenance more vigorously, but natives tend to use and eat what they killed unlike the white man.

Rather than rehashing that debate lets review how others debated the topic of ‘Buffalo being killed to control the Natives’

http://www.westerncivforum.com/index.php?topic=2284.0

From:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/bison-back-from-brink-of-extinction

In the United States, the decimation of the buffalo was part of a deliberate, and successful, effort to starve the Plains Indians into submission. As Geist recounts in his book, many high-ranking U.S. officials were explicit about their intentions. “The civilization of the Indian is impossible while the buffalo remains upon the plains,” declared secretary of the interior Columbus Delano in 1873. Two years later, Gen. Philip Sheridan told a joint session of Congress that buffalo hunters had done more to settle what he called “the vexed Indian question” than the entire U.S. army. Sheridan urged the politicians to continue to support the hunters. “For the sake of lasting peace,” he said, “let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated.”
The Canadian government didn’t go after the buffalo quite so vigorously. But commercial over-hunting to supply the fur trade achieved much the same result. In both countries, the demise of an animal that had dominated the landscape for so long proved astonishingly swift - by 1890, only a few hundred head remained.

I try to play devils advocate with myself before asserting claims that are easily refutable.  Googling the contra-position from yours helps to make your argument more sound.

@Gargantua:

2. I’m proving is that the migration/forced adaption of people is NORMAL, and has occurred in very recent history.

those are the points I wish to convey that relate to the climate change discussion….

So why can’t reduction in carbon emissions in order to preserve the current climatic system be part of the adaptation process? Kind of like trying to preserve the Buffalo from extinction?

Doesn’t that seem like the rational choice?

Please explain your opposition to this course of action, it seems completely in congruence with your perspective.

I read this article this morning and thought of this thread.

The Register is a British IT/Science ‘rag’ somewhat off the wall but often an interesting source of news with usually a science/technology twist.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/06/climate_change_articles_survey/

Saw this today and thought it was relevant to our discussion: Global warming ended 15 years ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13212-global-climate-warming-stopped-15-years-ago-uk-met-office-admits
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

:roll: Can’t let this nonsense go and since I addressed this already in my first post with the “pre-emptive strike link.” Either argument 5 or 9 or 52.

Direct link to 52 which illustrates the statistical lie trying to be called a scientific one: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

Oh and there’s this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

Check your sea-ice data Garg. Lowest in recorded history by far this last year. (Continuing the trend since record began.) Blew the scary science predictions away.

Also, you still haven’t addressed my suggestion/question. It seem sliek you want to help multiple opinions here:

1. You admit that climate change is occurring but state that there is no reasonable way to fix it

then when someone presents a reasonable way to fix it you revert back to:

2. Climate change is not occurring.

Please address this for the sake of your scientific discussion.

P.S. The sea-ice data records are quite good. They record is actually maintained by the US department of defence. They needed an accurate record of sea-ice thickness at the north pole so that they could strategically place nuclear submarines as close to Russia as possible while still allowing the subs a thin enough ice pack to surface for oxygen.

So someone that has NO interest in distorting the data has been keeping an eye on this one since the early seventies. (The science doesn’t lie.)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Check it every day if you like. They update it every 24 hours.

PS

nice debunk frimmel

My guess is that Garg will conveniently choose not to address this or admit that his statistic was silly.

We have done this discussion many times.  Let me sum it up for you:

This is the one time in history - IN HISTORY MIND YOU!!! - that NCSCSwitch and I agreed on ANYTHING!  The universe almost imploded on itself.  Some might say it both exploded and imploded simultaniously having a complete negation on each other - we do not know.  What we know is, Herr Switch and I agreed on this topic way back in, what, 2000?  I know it was around the time of the election then, maybe it was 2001, dunno…go look it up.  Very lively debate, was a lot of fun and then I beat the ever living SNOT out of Herr Switch in a game of KJF - AA Revised!  Hillarious!

@frimmel:

Oh and there’s this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

Interesting…

I love this graphic…

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

@Cmdr:

We have done this discussion many times.  Let me sum it up for you:

This is the one time in history - IN HISTORY MIND YOU!!! - that NCSCSwitch and I agreed on ANYTHING!  The universe almost imploded on itself.

Okay, so climate science tells us that humans need to cease pumping carbon into the atmosphere or we’ll bring about calamity for much if not all of humanity.

Switch and Jenn are/were in agreement that we don’t need to worry about how much carbon humans are pumping into the atmosphere.

Switch and Jenn in agreement is to be seen as a sign of the impending apocalypse.

Does that fit the definition of irony?

Oh my gods, we are all going to die!

And with the segue we have this article…

Last month ties for WARMEST September on RECORD

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/15/ncdc_september_2012_report/

For people like Switch and Jenn.  An honest question of them to ask is:  What would it take to convince you?

I don’t believe in magic, but if some dude snapped his finger and I was rich and had a harem and more importantly my girlfriend DIDN’T mind, then I would change my mind and declare I believe in magic.

I wonder how many of the those who are labelled as deniers of man made effect have as their premise that god will keep things in check so no amount of proof is enough.  Much like the belief in God, no amount of proof to the contrary matters as the belief transcends proof.  I think the rest believe man has an effect but is small or not dangerous.