Global warming shrinks mountains

[tundraline]

For now, I don't want to see anyone have to cut back on their enjoyment of the 14ers or other natural features in Colorado or elsewhere because some wealthy globalists tell me its for the good of the planet. This is still the United States, although it may not be for long. Elections, anyone?

Too bad everything seems to be, at its root, political in your world, where messy things like the facts just keep getting in the way. Climate change a problem for you or your children? Blame it on the "wealthy globalists" instead of looking at the facts. Or talk about volcanoes that might erupt sometime in next million years. Just because there are over six billion ravenous people on the planet who are laying waste to the world's forests and oceans, and who are spewing out tens of thousands of tons of trash, carbon dioxide and pollutants every day, and just because the rate at which species are going extinct on our watch exceeds that of previous mass extinctions in the geological record, doesn't mean there might be a problem. People today could care less about what John Kennedy said almost 50 years ago: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Today, in America, it would appear our freedom to consume trumps all other considerations. We have become an intensely selfish and foolish people in a very short period of time.

[Mark A Steiner]

Tundraline:
Actually, I agree with the point you made about pollution and greed. We have been poor stewards of what has been provided. Other threads have addressed the matter of trash on the trails and 14ers. If you go somewhere, leave it better than you found it, if possible. Don't make it worse.

You suggested freedom to consume trumps other considerations. May I suggest that with freedom goes responsibility. Irresponsible people are not vigijlant people. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Whether people discuss warming or cooling isn't an issue as long as people who clearly have an agenda don't lie and force me to accept it.

[JayMiller]

Mark A Steiner writes:

Whether people discuss warming or cooling isn't an issue as long as people who clearly have an agenda don't lie and force me to accept it.

What's this all about. Why do you have to call people liars who simply have an honest disagreement with you. Unless of course you can explain the clear agenda of the vast majority of climatologists. Note I said climatologists, not doctors, not lawers, not chemists, not geologists, not weathermen, but real honest climatologist who actually beleive in the science.

And don't come back talking about Al Gore. This is not about Al Gore, it's about the vast majority of the the climatologists for whom Al Gore is one of many spokespeople. It is the scientists you are calling liars, not Al Gore.

[covfrrider]

Leave Al out of this... he's not a liar, just a really BIG (in more ways than one) exaggerator! I mean, he did invent the Internet!

[Mark A Steiner]

Sorry, JayMiller. I wasn't suggesting that anyone one this thread was lying, nor do I discourage honest fair disagreements. All I am saying is Caveat Emptor when politicians speak ex cathedra and try to impose their will on the rest of us by either distortion of fact or other dishonesty to influence public policy. I stand firm for the right of all of you to speaks your minds, agree or not.

[lpf20]

If you are interested in learning about the current climate change research and debate (no global warming is not fact) you could try visiting http://climatedebatedaily.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Personally, there doesn't even seem to be much evidence supporting that land ice melting will cause much of a sea rise, considering that vaporization, evaporation, and even sublimation are all related to temperature as well.

[2_Salukis]

Why is the debate always whether or not it can be debated? The discussion is never allowed to be whether or not it's occurring, and if it is, is it a natural cycle, or the result of humankind? That's my first indication that it's best not to just follow the pack and press the "I believe" button when the topic comes up.

Besides those who deny the Holocaust and believe in a flat Earth, there are also scientists and researchers in their field who were adamant that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food, that killing off the wolf population was a good thing, and that introducing mongoose into the Hawaii Islands to control rats would be beneficial.

What allowed those "truths" to be debunked was not a stifling of debate, but an encouragement of it.

[1moremile]

Why is the debate always whether or not it can be debated? The discussion is never allowed to be whether or not it's occurring, and if it is, is it a natural cycle, or the result of humankind? That's my first indication that it's best not to just follow the pack and press the "I believe" button when the topic comes up.

Besides those who deny the Holocaust and believe in a flat Earth, there are also scientists and researchers in their field who were adamant that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food, that killing off the wolf population was a good thing, and that introducing mongoose into the Hawaii Islands to control rats would be beneficial.

What allowed those "truths" to be debunked was not a stifling of debate, but an encouragement of it.

+1

[sundog54]

Why is the debate always whether or not it can be debated? The discussion is never allowed to be whether or not it's occurring, and if it is, is it a natural cycle, or the result of humankind?

+1

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it permits the four pages of debate that preceded your statement above. The internet, and mass media generally, also enables people too busy to actually READ the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change to "debate" stuff on the basis of what they've heard from their pastors, radio talk show hosts, and political opportunists of all stripes. We live in a world where we can easily find a face we don't like, say, Al Gore's, or George Bush's, and use that person as a whipping boy, venting our rage against the "other half" of America, without really examining the facts. Threads like this enable us all to FEEL a wonderful sense of self-justification that's unrelated to what might actually be happening.
We, the masses, can generate tons of DOUBT about conclusions reached by any set of scientists, a group whom we would trust with our lives in a hundred other circumstances, such as getting on a plane, detecting bioweapons or keeping our food safe. That's the beauty of democracy; free speech, worth at least twice as much.

In short, this thread is barely a "debate" at all; I am willing to bet a dollar against each prior participant in this thread that they themselves have not read the reports of the IPCC, regardless of which side of the debate they're on. Take a look at the graphs, and remember Occam's Razor; namely, that the SIMPLEST explanation is most likely to be the correct explanation.

Whenever a consensus starts to emerge, as is happening regarding climate change, the internet and threads like this one will enable the LOSING side to start squawking that the "debate never happened", that they're being "stifled", etc. The losing side in THIS debate is now talking about the personal habits of Al Gore, and trying to focus on how much sea level might NOT rise, but if they had read the reports of the IPCC (yes, I have) they might be thinking about crop losses, invasive species, drought, insurance rates, etc... And, those who focus on Al Gore, sea level rise, their talk show host, etc. will be able to CONTINUE this "debate" for a hundred years, if they like. After all, it's a free society....and EVERYTHING has political bias, so NOTHING is true.

C'mon, any takers? Anyone actually read those two reports? I've got a dollar waiting for you if you can honestly say so, and have already expressed your opinion.

Sundog

[rob runkle]

Sundog...

Are you serious regarding the IPCC? The "bias" is clear in the Acronym itself... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Do you think that they will EVER publish anything that says, "There is no issue, we (the IPCC) have no reason to exist."

Here is some better reading... The IPCC under the Microscope - http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tundraline]

Whenever a consensus starts to emerge, as is happening regarding climate change, the internet and threads like this one will enable the LOSING side to start squawking that the "debate never happened", that they're being "stifled", etc. The losing side in THIS debate is now talking about the personal habits of Al Gore, and trying to focus on how much sea level might NOT rise, but if they had read the reports of the IPCC (yes, I have) they might be thinking about crop losses, invasive species, drought, insurance rates, etc... And, those who focus on Al Gore, sea level rise, their talk show host, etc. will be able to CONTINUE this "debate" for a hundred years, if they like. After all, it's a free society....and EVERYTHING has political bias, so NOTHING is true.

C'mon, any takers? Anyone actually read those two reports? I've got a dollar waiting for you if you can honestly say so, and have already expressed your opinion.

Sundog

A consensus (among the scientific community) regarding climate change is not "starting to emerge." It's been around for quite some time now. Reading two reports does one the Grand Vizier and Pooh Bah of Global Warming make. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the topic of global warming/climate change, and the last word on it is hardly confined to one or two selected reports or papers. Contrary to your statement that "NOTHING is true," the laws of nature and physical facts do, in fact, happen to be true. Ronald Reagan has died, and with him I wish the idea that "perception is reality" had gone as well (but of course it didn't). Much mischief has been done with this central precept of Mr. Reagan over the past nearly 30 years. Like Bush, Reagan talked about fiscal conservatism while tripling the national debt under his watch -- and no one called him on it. Climate change falls into a similar category. Rather than having a discussion on the merits and looking at the facts of this extraordinarily complicated subject, most people seem to prefer histrionics, conspiracy theories, believing in whatever it is they would like to believe, or believing in whatever is most expedient from a personal or financial perspective for themselves. Often such preferences are predictably wrapped in the American flag or sprinkled with little stars of avowed patriotism (as is the fashion nowadays). Reality and the truth regarding climate change could not be further from most people's minds.

[sundog54]

Sundog...

Are you serious regarding the IPCC? The "bias" is clear in the Acronym itself... [/b]

"Bias" is a bogeyman word enjoying recent celeb status. It's so easy to say that your opponent is "biased", that must mean "incorrect", therefore I can dismiss it's conclusions...

However, bias does NOT make something "incorrect".

Your logic regarding bias could be applied to any institution or effort.

If you happen to have a bias against "government" efforts, be sure to distrust all government agencies equally. Is it safe to assume you think the Pentagon is biased?

My point is that there is bias present in every human endeavor, but people choose to discount it when it fits with their prior worldview. In the end you have to choose to either trust someone, become completely paranoid, or READ THE REPORTS.