But maybe there is a silver lining in it all somewhere...?!? http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121119-cleaning-solar-powers-dirty-side
Poorest regions hit hardest http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/18/world-bank-climate-change-report_n_2156082.html
One new development with good omens about it... it seems... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20583663
New study sheds light on the disappearance of a pre-historic culture A new study has shed light on the disappearance of a pre-historic culture, predating present day aboriginal inhabitants. Researchers from The University of Queensland, Central Queensland University and Wollongong University made the discovery while investigating rapid climate change and its catastrophic impacts in the remote Kimberley region of northwest Australia. Their findings were published last month (November) in the American Geophysical Union Journal. The article can be viewed here. Associate Professor Hamish McGowan from UQ's School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management said the studies in the north west Kimberley have shown there was a rapid change in climate around 5500 years ago. “This seems to coincide with the collapse of one culture until the climate adjusted to a level similar to what we see today and another took its place,” Associate Professor McGowan said. The region is home to one of the world's largest collections of rock art with two distinctive styles known as Gwion (Bradshaw) and Wandjina. The Gwion paintings date back at least 17,000 years, with the most recent extending to around 7000 years ago, while the Wandjina paintings start around 4000 years ago and continue to this day. Until now the gap before the first Wandjina rock art appeared was unexplained. “Our research shows that the likely reason for the demise of the Gwion artists was a mega-drought spanning approximately 1500 years, brought on by changing climate conditions that caused the collapse of the Australian summer monsoon,” Associate Professor McGowan said. He said a number of factors appear to have amplified the effects of the drought, such as a change in land surface condition and an increase in dust particles in the atmosphere, which caused a weakening or failure of monsoon rains. “This confirms that pre-historic aboriginal cultures experienced catastrophic upheaval due to rapid natural climate variability, and current abundant seasonal water supplies may fail again if significant changes to the climate occur,” he said. Following the mega-drought, Wandjina painters appear to have moved into the area when the climate again became more favourable about 4000 years ago. Associate Professor McGowan said this research supports studies conducted elsewhere in Australia that show rapid changes in climate underpinned environmental stresses on prehistory Aboriginal populations. “This is contrary to the conventional view that Australian Aboriginals lived a highly sustainable hunter-gatherer existence in which their knowledge of the landscape meant they adapted to climate variability with little impact,” he said. The research was sponsored by the Kimberley Foundation Australia, a not for profit organisation researching, preserving and promoting the rock art of the Kimberley.www.kimberleyfoundation.org.au Media release contact: Hamish McGowan [edited] Source Bloody Aboriginals with their SUV's and factories destroyed the world just like us now
When reading articles about man made global warming and how we are causing the world to meltdown, drown, dry out through floods or whatever, look for the use of the word "COULD" It is word "used as an auxiliary to indicate a possibility". That means the statement it contains has no basis in fact(s), not statistically significant anyway. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/05/canada-climate-change-ice-hockey http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...3_1_flood-insurance-flood-risk-climate-change http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-23/national/35495031_1_loggerhead-habitat-species
"Could" does not automatically mean it has no base in facts etc. It is a qualification acknowledging we have no total/absolute knowledge. Science is not the same as absolute/God-type knowledge, therefore "could" - which can be more or less possible... But being Human, we can not know for sure, when the phenomena discussed are so complex - we build models, get as close as we can, under the circumstances and then... One simply acknowledges that one has partial knowledge, even if one is at the top of one's profession. Anything else would be disingenuous! We do not need "scientism", which would be yet another religion if somebody decided they "have" all the truth... Like Zeitgeist fascist garbage, pretending they know it all and they would be our saviours, if we'd only trust them with power... Garbage! Do not believe this nonsense for a second, as methodologically this position is completely flawed and baseless!!! If one is honest and not completely deluded - then "could" is the way to go...
There is the truth which is absolute and then there is everything else. "Could" means you either have partial knowledge of none at all. Would make sense to shut their mouths until they actually know what they are talking about wouldn't it ?!
No Human can pretend they have "absolute truth"! Learn that those who do that, of religious persuasion, are committing a blasphemy, too!!! I.e. "knowing God's mind" is the ultimate BS one can try to commit on one's fellow Humans!!!! Not in this life, not as a Human!!! It seems to me I will have to teach here a "little" bit, "The ABC of Philosophy of Science" and "Methodology of Science" (my profession). Science is NOT a new religion and it can not, by its very nature, aspire to become a new religion!!! Any semi-decent Scientist (never mind a Philosopher) worth his/her salt, knows that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
So you have different shades of the truth ? I will give you an absolute truth , you will die we will all die. Your argument is bull now on topic please.
There is no truth in what you are saying - not because we shall all die eventually (a "deep" thought, obviously...) but because you are jumping to conclusions from this simple fact. One would be tempted to say you have very little quality education, if you are "rushing" to such complex conclusions from such simple facts. Imagine, for a nice, jolly example, me having a one night stand with a hot, gorgeous, young Hungarian woman (YUM!) and then rushing to conclude that "all Hungarian women are dead hot and sexy"... Ahem... Elementary logics, my dear Watson, elementary...
That's such a stupid example, you are comparing stereotyping beauty to death Why I would never say that all Hungarian women are beautiful is because I know all women are not beautiful. Also using beauty as an example is fundamentally stupid since beauty is subjective. Death on the other hand is absolute, there is NO evidence that you can evade death. Death is written in your dna, from the time you are born you start dying. Before you go playing psychiatrist or whatever it is you think you are, find out first what a fact is really ! Beauty is an opinion, death is a fact.
Ah but can you say with absolute certainty that this death is just an illusion. No just like you cant claim with absolute certainty that your entire life isn't a computer simulation. Its a trick often used by denialists conflating certainty and absolute certainty. Its meant to be misleading. There will always be doubt but that doesn't mean we cannot make future predictions based on observations.
Well the issue is irrelevant what happens after. Whether you live on and what not is not the issue, you die. Changing the definition of death is also irrelevant, you can say we all end up in the same state, simulation or not.
You do not understand: this is a simple fact. how far can you go on that fact? I am talking about seriously complex phenomena. Lots of variables. Not possible to extrapolate anything from a simple fact! Not this far fetched, anyhow...
Global warming is a big problem faced by the earth, which humans created. Due to the need of comforts humans started using many non-renewable resources which caused pollution. This lead to increase of co2 levels and eventually temperature rose on our earth.
My point is that "alarmists" if I may call them that use "could" all the time but the people who do not believe in AGW seem to have to "prove" their case beyond all doubt to avoid being labelled a "loony", "heretic", "skeptic", "users of death trains of coal" (Hansen). It's not a fair playing field by a long chalk and the alarmists haven't convinced everybody yet which must mean something. For one moment I was thinking that you were referring to how the climate works. In any case I think your point should still be valid for that.
Problem being the alarmists as you call them are not the ones publishing the research, Your getting your science information from newspapers what else do you expect. As for this not being a level playing field your right it isn't level just like Astrology vs. Astronomy or Creationism vs. Evolution one side is for all intensive purposes proven and the other is conjecture. Science isn't a democratic process, If you are a libertarian worried about the impact this will have on government involvement in the economy oh well sucks to be you.
Sound the alarm alarmists are alarmed however progressive thought is what brought us out of living in caves. I can think of many instances where man has directly impacted his environment significantly .. It's not a big jump for me to believe those impacts have significantly contributed to man made climate change. Are there those who have tried to capitalize on human fear and ignorance for profit? certainly .. It's time for a little reality .. Modern capitalism is the enemy of the planet we live on .. There are plenty of examples that prove that to be so .. Whether you are talking about climate change or human caused environmental catastrophe the Status quo will bring only ruin .. Where's the proof ? look around you and open your eyes
Wrong, fail. I do not read the newspapers but scientific journals and respected scientists websites. You know so little about me to make such a remark. How arrogant. I'd ask for an apology but I don't think you're worth that. Perhaps you would offer an apology without me asking since you obviously can decide so much on so little information. Some websites http://www.drroyspencer.com http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ http://www.davidarchibald.info/ http://climateaudit.org/ http://jisao.washington.edu/ Ba yoo, sucks to be who?