PDA

View Full Version : Can this world be saved? How?



bamamick
09-21-2008, 06:37 PM
I have heard Mr. Obama talk about change for a year now but I haven't heard too much in the way of how he plans to implement that change. Now Mr. McCain is promising change. Change. What does that mean anyway?

The world's economy is is serious trouble. Extremists of all makes and models are being extreme. I am not so much worried about a 'world war' as I am about the whole world being involved in dozens of 'little' wars. The only thing that I see gaining momentum is chaos. In the year of our Lord 2008 there are millions of people who will not sleep soundly tonight because of fear. Are there no answers? Are there no leaders with enough understanding and foresight to get us through this without our civilization fading away?

Fiddling while Rome burns, except in this case, it's not only Rome that's burning.

Mickey Lake

skuthorp
09-21-2008, 06:51 PM
Self-interest rules, those at the top with more to lose will fight tooth and nail to hang on to their priveliges. The rest of us are just cannon fodder and can go to hell as far as they are concerned in spite of platitudes to the contrary. This is evolution at work, the gene survival plan, survival of the fittest and to some extent the luckiest. It has always been so. Those alive today have mostly descended from the 'middle class' of the past. "Lower orders" leave fewer descendents because their children die as children. The earth and probably our species will survive however, but maybe not or 'civilisation' as we know it.
It's a scary thing to be alive at a time of such change. Climatic, cultural and now financial and political. The Asian sphere is on the rise and the Western in decline, a natural process probably put off for 200 years by the establishment of colonial empires. I'm minded of the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times".
Going to be a hell of a ride, but remember, eventually we all end up dead. Enjoy it while you can!

Memphis Mike
09-21-2008, 07:59 PM
Sarah Polente will save us.

SaltyD from BC
09-21-2008, 08:12 PM
A couple thoughts.. Stop thinking everything is a war. Stop posting political threads on a boat forum. That would be a start to making this little part of the 'world' a much better place. :)

skuthorp
09-21-2008, 08:25 PM
Good advice Salty, I'll try to keep my black moods to myself.

I started to build a card model of the plans Steve Paskey sent me last night.

SaltyD from BC
09-21-2008, 08:27 PM
Good advice Salty, I'll try to keep my black moods to myself.

I started to build a card model of the plans Steve Paskey sent me last night.

:cool: Any goofy card model pics? :D

PeterSibley
09-21-2008, 08:33 PM
You mos well post in Oz Pol Jeff ...I tend to agree .A long view is hell .

WTF
09-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Quantum will set you free.

is global warming happening? Yes.

Is it it man made? who gives a f^ck?.

The point is, there is a drought in Kansas. Is it caused by global warming? Is it a natural warming trend?

If I was a farmer in Kansas I wouldn't give a sh!t, all I know is I don't have water.

The whole thing is not about who was right, who was wrong, who, where, what.

It's happening.

Now, other than argueing about it , what ya' gonna do?

:rolleyes:

MiddleAgesMan
09-21-2008, 09:34 PM
Hell, that's easy WTF.

First, we set up a corporation to bring water to the Kansas farmers.

Second, we get our buds in Congress to give us tax breaks for being so nice to the farmers in Kansas.

Third, we hype our business plan to Wall Street and benefit from a wildly sucessful IPO.

Fourth, we send the water to the Kansas farmers at a trickle so we can get them to pay us the big bucks.

Fifth, we pay ourselves huge annual bonuses (because we were so smart)... bonuses that eat up all the profit and more.

Sixth, we convince everyone that the Kansas farmers cannot survive without our water but getting it to them is costing more every day. Profits are down (but not our bonuses). If we can't send that water to Kansas the farmers won't be able to grow our corn. If they can't grow our corn our cattle will all die. If our cattle all die McDonalds and Burger King will be out of business and we will starve.

Seventh, we convince GWB, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke that the country is going down the chutes if future taxpayers aren't forced to save our company with future tax dollars.

Finally, everyone wins.

(Not)

Michael Beckman
09-22-2008, 02:04 AM
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20061114.gif

The Bigfella
09-22-2008, 02:26 AM
I think the world is a damn site better place to live now than in any prior period.

Yeah - there's some challengesm but we are adaptable.

Yes our population has spiked. Climate issues kept the population down to 4 million or so up until the Middle Ages.

The best way to save the world is to be positive, encourage innovation and adaptability and do things that leave it better than you found it.

LeeG
09-22-2008, 03:03 AM
don't forget, please and thank you

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-22-2008, 03:55 AM
I disagree with Ian on climate change, but I am confident that we will continue to discuss the subject rationally and calmly. Other than that, I agree with him.

Life is ever so much better than it has been.

Consider, if you are fifty or so, dentistry...or boat fenders, or any one of a thousand things.

However, there is a big political shift going on - East Asia is rising, and the Atlantic economies, including the United States, are in relative (not absolute) decline.

This is causing a lot of people to become rather agitated - the tremendous mileage of wingnuttery really boils down to folks whistling in the gathering dark and - yes - clinging to guns and religion - in the hope that they won't have to change what they do every day.

It does not mean that they are responding in a sensible way.

They will have to do things differently, and the more sensible response would be to see what changes are required in order to keep whar matters to them and do more of what they enjoy. This might include trying something different!

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
09-22-2008, 04:04 AM
....
Yes our population has spiked. Climate issues kept the population down to 4 million or so up until the Middle Ages.
...

That is a very strange choice of number - or perhaps the "Middle Ages" have been moved...

http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php

The Bigfella
09-22-2008, 04:14 AM
That is a very strange choice of number - or perhaps the "Middle Ages" have been moved...

http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php

Yep - I moved them. Sorry about that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/550px-Population_curve.svg.png

PeterSibley
09-22-2008, 04:14 AM
I think the world is a damn site better place to live now than in any prior period.



IF you are a middle class white citizen of a developed country it is especially pleasant .

The Bigfella
09-22-2008, 04:22 AM
... and to atone for my sins - here's something to back up my earlier wild claims:



Human beings for 100,000 years lived in tiny, separate groups, facing harsh conditions that brought them to the brink of extinction, before they reunited and populated the world, genetic researchers have said.


"Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction," said paleontologist Meave Leakey, of Stony Brook University, (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Stony%20Brook%20University&sid=breitbart.com) New York.

The genetic study examined for the first time the evolution of our species from its origins with "mitochondrial Eve," a female hominid who lived some 200,000 years ago, to the point of near extinction 70,000 years ago, when the human population dwindled to as little as 2,000.

After this dismal period, the human race (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=human%20race&sid=breitbart.com) expanded quickly all over the African continent and emigrated beyond its shores until it populated all the corners of the Earth.

The expansion marked the end of the Stone Age in Africa and the beginning of a cultural advancement that has led several archeologists to consider it the start of modern man, with the advent of language and complex and abstract thought.

The migrations out of Africa are estimated to have begun some 60,000 years ago. But little was known about the human trajectory between Eve and that period.

Published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Human%20Genetics&sid=breitbart.com) the study analyzed the maternally-transmitted mitochondrial DNA of human populations in southern and eastern Africa who appear to have diverged from other groups 90,000 to 150,000 years ago.

The researchers said paleoclimatological data suggests that Eastern Africa went through a severe series of droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago that may have contributed to population splits.

Tiny bands of early humans (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=humans&sid=breitbart.com) developed in isolation from each other for as much as half of our entire history as a species, explained the study's chief authors Doron Behar, a genographic associate researcher based at Rambam Medical Center, (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Rambam%20Medical%20Center&sid=breitbart.com) Haifa, Israel, and Saharon Rosset, of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, New York and Tel Aviv University.

"It was only around 40,000 years ago that they became part of a single pan-African population, reunited after as much as 100,000 years apart," said Behar.

"This new study ... illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," said Spencer Wells, of the National Geographic Society. (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=National%20Geographic%20Society&sid=breitbart.com)

"Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA," he added.

From a band of about 2,000 individuals, human beings have grown to a current population of about 6.6 billion.
Begun in 2005, the research was funded by National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation and the Seaver Family Foundation


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080425101050.cni2ks3u&show_article=1

... we are doing rather well at the moment, despite the naysayers

Oyvind Snibsoer
09-22-2008, 04:46 AM
Forget about the economy and terrorism, climate change is the most serious crisis that humanity has ever faced.

Yes climate change is natural, and large climate changes have, in previous periods, all but eradicated large parts of Earth's prehistoric creatures.

Humanity may well see a decline to a fraction of its current population - say down to 250 million or so individuals. Most of that population will live in the northernmost parts of North America, Scandinavia and Russia, in addition to Patagonia and perhaps some settlements in Antactica. Before that, humanity will have witnessed mass migrations and savage wars as the hungry attack their presumably better fed neighbors for food, which is what humans have always done when they were facing starvation, and those that have food desperately try to keep the hungry hordes away from their border. The first major conflict will more probably than not be between Russia and China, as the latter seeks more fertile land to feed their hungry masses. Besides, they've never really accepted Tsarist Russia's annectation of the easternmost parts of Siberia in the first place.

If the current trends in climate change continues, expect to see some major global upheavals in as little as ten - twenty years.

The Bigfella
09-22-2008, 04:53 AM
OK - let's accept your gloom forecast, the thing to do is work out how various scenarios will unfold. If, as you say, food shortages come to fruition (bearing in mind that climate change will almost certainly make some areas more productive, whilst others become less productive) .... how will this massive conflict eventuate. Will the protaganists have the ability to wage conflict?

Work it through.

btw - we have this history of being gloomy bastards through the years. 150 years ago the concern was that the world would be buried 20' deep in horse ****.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-22-2008, 04:58 AM
Ian, as an aside, can you find a source for the horse**** business?

I first heard it in 1975 and I happily passed it on for years, but I have never seen it in print.

I suspect it may be a suitable case for Snopes!

Oyvind Snibsoer
09-22-2008, 05:46 AM
I'll get back to you with some scenarios. It'll just have to wait until tonight when I get to my hotel.

Watch this space...

The Bigfella
09-22-2008, 05:59 AM
Ian, as an aside, can you find a source for the horse**** business?

I first heard it in 1975 and I happily passed it on for years, but I have never seen it in print.

I suspect it may be a suitable case for Snopes!

agreed - and here's a site that shoots it down (somewhat):

http://futuryst.blogspot.com/2007/10/parables-and-horse****.html

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
09-22-2008, 06:07 AM
Can this world be saved? How?

Not sure it's worth the bother.

I've decided to concentrate on just very small parts of it.

The Bigfella
09-22-2008, 06:15 AM
Andrew

The plot thickens:

http://www.bahistory.org/HistoryStreetcar.html

So - one of my predecessors in project appraisal worked on the outputs from horse-drawn streetcars in Boston.

Nothing much changes over the years - I just put a report in today that included a bit on the productivity improvements on the massive increase in artificial reefs in Korea in the last 35 years. Same sh!t, different century.

PeterSibley
09-22-2008, 07:16 AM
Interestingly these tracts are always written by journalists or engineers .I assure you the fresh daily food supply of most cities depended on the output of and trade in horse manure .Had it not been for the concurrent development of chemical fertiliser our grandfathers would have been in a fine pickle .

johngsandusky
09-22-2008, 07:17 AM
Back on topic.
Mick, there has always been trouble, there always will be.
Good people can and should do the only thing available: be nice. You're a really nice man, keep it up. Think carefully, and act according to your beliefs. Vote wisely among available choices. Get involved in your community, whether at church, civic, school board, charity or whatever. Behave honorably. Encourage others. Be kind, it's contageous.
You can't save the world. But if you help a few people, and we all do, you've made the world a better place. Fear not my friend.

PeterSibley
09-22-2008, 07:34 AM
You can't save the world. But if you help a few people, and we all do, you've made the world a better place. Fear not my friend.

It's hard being a good cancer cell .

ishmael
09-22-2008, 09:40 AM
Mick,

Every night as I drift off to sleep, and more than occasionally during the day, I say a prayer. This is going to set some people off, but I don't care anymore. It's: Jesus Christ, son of God, save us from our sin and ignorance.

Now I'm not ostensibly a Christian. I was raised in an apathetic home regarding religion. And when I say that prayer I'm not looking out there to some cosmic goof to rescue a weak plot. I'm calling on what I believe is our destiny as humans, and if it suits you you can substitute the Buddha or Mohamed, or as the Amer-Indian called it "Great Mysterious." For me, in their better moments, they all have called us to be good sheperds of this place, this life. And we can! History is not destiny.

So don't despair. It's a tough corner we're trying to turn here, but I believe we will. We've been in hard spots before.

Oyvind Snibsoer
09-22-2008, 05:57 PM
OK - let's accept your gloom forecast, the thing to do is work out how various scenarios will unfold. If, as you say, food shortages come to fruition (bearing in mind that climate change will almost certainly make some areas more productive, whilst others become less productive) .... how will this massive conflict eventuate. Will the protaganists have the ability to wage conflict?

Work it through.

btw - we have this history of being gloomy bastards through the years. 150 years ago the concern was that the world would be buried 20' deep in horse ****.


OK, here's how it goes - short version.

This is freely after "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer. It was published a few weeks ago in Australia, from where I ordered my copy. It'll be published in the U.S. next month.

This is the scenario he describes with a mere 1.3 degrees Celcius (above the IPCC 1990 baseline) increase in global temperature by 2040. This is a very conservative estimate. Also, an average global increase of 1.3 degrees means that it's 2 degrees hotter over land, less over the sea, hotter in the center of the continents and even hotter at high latitudes - 4-5 degrees for the Arctic regions.

Looking at a globe, you'll see that the world's deserts more or less stretch in a band between 15 and 35 degrees, north and south of the equator. This is caused by moist air being heating around the equator, rising up into the atmosphere where it looses its moisture as it cools, and then falling down some 2500 to 3500 kilometers away as warm, dry air (a gas will heat up with increasing pressure), creating the world's deserts. Then the hot, dry air flows back to the equator to replace the air that rises up, creating the trade winds in the process.

As earth's temperature inevitably rises due to climate change, this activity will increase. There will be a stronger updraft, and consequently a stronger downfall which will inevitably push the desert bands further north and south, into the world's breadbaskets, which are located just north and south of the desert bands. There will still be rain, but much less than what we're used to and it will definitely impact the world's food supply - with which we don't have a lot of play as it is.

An Indian study has estimated that, if the global average temperature rises by only two degrees Celsius, India will loose 25% of its current food production. Given that India only just barely feeds its population of one billion people today, and that these people will not have the money to buy food on the international market, even if there is surplus food to go around, that's 250 million Indians with noting to eat.

A bit further East, the southern third of Bangladesh will be disappearing under the waves of the rising sea. At the same time, the glaciers of the Himalaya, that in the summer feed the rivers that makes Bangladesh habitable in the first place, are melting away. That translates to no water for irrigation in the summer months, and thus no food.

In Pakistan, however, it may get really nasty. Pakistan's very significant agriculture depends on rivers that originate in India. If India decides to divert these rivers to serve its own needs, it is highly unlikely that the Pakistanis will just sit quietly and watch that happen, especially given the already high tensions between these two countries.

Africa, of course, will be brutally hard hit and see numerous conflicts as people fight over what food is left. But given that we don't really care much about the numerous wars that are already going on there, and the brutal truth is that they don't really have any impact on the rest of the world anyways, we'll probably just ignore them. The Middle East will also ,most probably, see an increase along the already existing confrontations.

But, as Ian points out, some areas will most certainly become more productive. True, and the great winners are Canada, Scandinavia and the above all, Russia. In addition the British Isles, most of France, the Low Countries (what stays above water, that is...), Germany and Poland should be quite habitable. Russia wins because enormous areas will be opened up to food production.

China is the big loser. China is already experiencing unstability in the monsoon that feeds its wheat production, and the problems will not be lessened by the disappearing glaciers and snow of the Tibetan plateau that feed the Yangtze and other major rivers.

WRT the U.S., it's a bit more complicated. The New England states will probably get along fine, with sufficient rainfall. However, the high plains west of the Mississippi will experience a huge loss in food production as the rainfall diminishes. California's central valley, which mainly depends on rivers that are fed by mountain snow packs, will probably also suffer severe problems if the rivers only flow in the winter. However, the U.S. may have enough farmland in the 'Old Northwest' and along the eastern seaboard, the Gulf coast and the Pacific Nortwest to feed its own population. Food exports will be a thing of the past, though.

The great new conflict line will be between the north and the south, between the countries that are able to feed their population and those that no longer can't. As I wrote in my previos post on this thread, China will most probably seek to expand its territory into the eastern part of Russia and will see this as its natural right since they don't really believe it belongs to Russia anyways. In Europe, the Northern European countries will see a high immigration of Southern Europeans, while Italy and Spain will experience huge problems with African refugees fleeing famine and wars. This may in turn lead to a breakdown of the European Union. As for the U.S., if you think you have problems with illegal immigration from Mexico now, just wait and see what the future holds in store for you...

OK, there's lots more to this, and none of it is pleasant. I really would urge you to get a copy of the book. Although it's not pleasant reading, the author seems to deliver a quite credible analysis of climate change and its political consequences, backing it up with interviews of the world's science heavyweights.

Rigadog
09-22-2008, 08:36 PM
Yes, materially we are better off, but this embarrassment of riches, all the trappings of modern civilization often crowd out the natural world, steal time. The media keeps us in a state of agitation; and advertising makes us desire things that mostly aren't good for us, marooning us in a sort of perpetual adolescence (present company excepted, of course).

Of all the crap we has ever been dreamed up and fabricated, there aren't too many I couldn't do without.

Here's my list of the good things civilization has produced. It is not a complete list, but off the top of my head.

Boats

Books

musical instruments

the bicycle

contact lenses

antibiotics

snorkeling gear

toothbrush

toothpaste

the frisbee

wine

beer

Feel free to add to it if you like.

LeeG
09-22-2008, 10:05 PM
Oyvind, this means Bakersfield will get even drier. Should generate a shift in country music.

to the topic, the neanderthals died for our sins. We are saved.

The Bigfella
09-22-2008, 10:26 PM
the problems will not be lessened by the disappearing glaciers and snow of the Tibetan plateau that feed the Yangtze and other major rivers


I thought that the last time we did this subject, the Eurasian glaciers were actually growing at present?

As for countries feeding themselves - ever heard of trade. Its an old concept.

PeterSibley
09-22-2008, 11:50 PM
Ever heard of total tradables ?

Oyvind Snibsoer
09-23-2008, 02:33 AM
I thought that the last time we did this subject, the Eurasian glaciers were actually growing at present?

As for countries feeding themselves - ever heard of trade. Its an old concept.

Well, historical Himalayan glacial data seems to be missing somewhat. Scientists that have used historic and present satellite imagery have concluded that the glaciers are retreating. A team of scientists from the University of Newcastle have done ground measurements and are concluding that, at least for the time being, the glaciers are growing.

There is far more glacial data from Norway and the Alps, and the conclusion here is that the glaciers are definitely retreating, and have been since the early twentieth century.

However, it would seem you missed the single most important point in my post. Climate change will most probably lead to a very significant reduction in food production, where each country will be most concerned about feeding its own citizens. There simply won't be a food surplus to trade.

The Bigfella
09-23-2008, 02:45 AM
So, we don't even know whether glaciers are retreating or growing, but we are certain that climate change means less food?

The Bigfella
09-23-2008, 02:47 AM
Here it is:

http://www.eoearth.org/media/draft/a/a1/Figure6.17_annual_glacier_vol_change.JPG

http://www.eoearth.org/image/Figure6.17_annual_glacier_vol_change.JPG

PeterSibley
09-23-2008, 03:09 AM
Don't argue with Bigfella Oyvind ,he doesn't accept any of the science and he'll twist and turn and start producing info from the Lavoisier Institute if you get too close .A bit of a Sam F on this subject .:D

The Bigfella
09-23-2008, 03:11 AM
Don't argue with Bigfella Oyvind ,he doesn't accept any of the science and he'll twist and turn and start producing info from the Lavoisier Institute if you get too close .A bit of a Sam F on this subject .

Information seems to get dragged from anywhere to support a very limited group of scientists. They have not and can not make a coherent arguement.

Research the links between the very small group that wrote the key IPCC material.

PeterSibley
09-23-2008, 03:18 AM
It's a conspiracy Mark ! :D It's catching !


I mean wow ! Climatologists know each other ! They even work together !

The Bigfella
09-23-2008, 03:26 AM
It's a conspiracy Mark ! :D It's catching !


I mean wow ! Climatologists know each other ! They even work together !

Sorry. Unable to respond. I've been nobbled

Oyvind Snibsoer
09-23-2008, 03:51 AM
Thank you,
the diagram you posted does indeed indicate that the Himalayan glaciers have been through a growing period. However, there are significant uncertainties WRT these glaciers, since very few measurements have been conducted in the past.

Glaciers in other parts of the world, and for which there exists historical data, nevertheless show an overall significant decline.

Hopefully India, China, and Pakistan will have enough water in the future. That does nothing to save the U.S. plains or California's Central Valley, nor Southern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Australia.

The Bigfella
09-23-2008, 03:54 AM
I don't doubt that we are facing significant climate challenges. If we can't deal with the easiest of them - deforestation, then we won't get anywhere with the rest anyhow.

Oyvind Snibsoer
09-23-2008, 04:02 AM
Information seems to get dragged from anywhere to support a very limited group of scientists. They have not and can not make a coherent arguement.

Research the links between the very small group that wrote the key IPCC material.

I'm unaware of the "links between the very small groups". Linky?

The Bigfella
09-23-2008, 04:26 AM
I'm unaware of the "links between the very small groups". Linky?

We did that a while back too. I'll see if I can find it.

The Bigfella
09-23-2008, 04:31 AM
The IPCC encourages us to believe that about 2500 climate scientists supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate. It fails to clarify that the claim was made in chapter nine of the working group one contribution and that the contributions of working groups two and three were based on the assumption that the claim was correct. The first eight chapters of the WG1 contribution were mainly concerned with climatic observations and the authors expressed no opinion about the claim made in chapter nine, and chapters 10 and 11 assumed the claim to be correct. The entire IPCC thesis therefore stands or falls on the claims of just one chapter.
We are also led to believe that chapter nine was widely supported by hundreds of reviewers, but just 62 IPCC reviewers commented on its penultimate draft. Only five of those reviewers endorsed it but four of the five appear to have vested interests and the other made just one comment for the entire 11-chapter WG1 contribution.

As is the normal IPCC practice, chapter nine has co-ordinating lead authors, who are responsible for the chapter as a whole; lead authors, who are responsible for sections of the chapter; and contributing authors, who provide their thoughts to the lead authors but take no active part in thewriting.

The IPCC procedures state that the authors at each level should reflect a wide range of views, but this is not true of chapter nine.

The expansion of the full list of authors of each paper cited by this chapter reveals that 37 of 53 chapter authors form a network of people who have previously co-authored scientific papers with each other: or make that 38 if we include a review editor.

The two co-ordinating lead authors are members of this network. So are five of the seven lead authors. Thirty of 44 contributing authors are in the network and two other pairs of contributing authors have likewise co-authored scientific papers.

In other words, the supposedly 53 independent voices are in fact one dominant voice with 37 people behind it, two voices each with two people behind them, and perhaps 12 single voices. A closer check reveals that many of those 12 were academic or work colleagues of members of that larger network.....

All up, the 53 authors of this chapter came from just 31 establishments and there are worrying indications that certain lead authors were the superiors of contributing authors from the same organisation. The very few viewpoints in this chapter might be alleviated if it drew on a wide range of references, but among the co-authors of 40 per cent of the cited material are at least one chapter author.

Scientists associated with the development and use of climate models dominate the clique of chapter nine authors and by extension the views expressed in that chapter.

Perhaps the increase in the processing power of their computers has increased their confidence in the software they have been nurturing for years. Imagine, though, the consequences were they to imply that the accuracy of the models had not improved despite the extra funding.

These models are said to require a human component to reasonably match historical temperatures and the modellers claim that this proves a human influence on climate, but the human factor is an input so a corresponding output is no surprise. A more plausible reason for the mismatch without this influence is that the models are incomplete and contain errors, but of course chapter nine could never admit this.

Garnaut didn't need to evaluate the science behind the IPCC's claim to find that its integrity is questionable and that the report's key findings are the product of scientific cronyism.

The IPCC has misled us into believing the primary claims were widely endorsed by authors and reviewers but in fact they received little support and came from a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers.

We should now ask what else the IPCC has misled us about and why Garnaut, a skilled academic, so blithely accepted its claims.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html

I also linked to this at the same time:



A SERIES of fossilised forests the size of small cities have provided prehistoric evidence of how tropical rainforests are destroyed by global warming.

The fossil remains represent the first rainforests grown on the planet and their demise more than 300million years ago "points to the future" of the modern-day Amazon.

Six petrified forests, dating from 303.9 million to 309 million years ago, have been discovered in coalmines in the United States.

Because they straddle a period of intense global warming researchers have been able to see the effects of climate change on an ancient landscape.
One forest that stretched 10,000 hectares is the largest fossil forest yet found, dwarfing a 1,000ha forest that was announced last year as the biggest.

Howard Falcon-Lang, of the University of Bristol, said that the forests were frozen in time and show changes in the tree cover before and after the global warming began. Fossils reveal that the landscape now deep beneath Illinois and Kentucky was covered in huge club moss trees, horsetails and ferns 309 million years ago.

Once global warming had taken place 306.5 million years ago, the landscape altered enormously and the trees were replaced with "weedy ferns". "These are the remains of the first rainforests to evolve on our planet," Dr Falcon-Lang said at the British Association yesterday.
"They had lush rainforest vegetation, not dissimilar to the Amazonian rainforest. These are the largest fossil forests in the world. It's quite extraordinary to find a forest landscape preserved for miles."

The forests were buried during earthquakes and the vegetation was swiftly preserved as the sea rushed in and buried it under sediment. Proof of their existence can now be seen in more than 50 mines where the coal seams have been dug out.

Walking along the mine tunnels was an extraordinary experience, Dr Falcon-Lang said: "The coal represents the soil on which this rainforest was growing.

The trees are on the roof. You can see roots hanging down." He said it appeared that the huge trees suffered enormous stress and died out when faced by global warming.

"We are beginning to show there appears to be a threshold in ancient rainforest systems beyond which the whole system begins to unravel quite quickly," he said.

"The rainforest dramatically collapses during this period of warming.
This was very, very extreme global warming. Giant club moss trees vanished overnight to be replaced by rather weedy fern vegetation. All this points to the fate of the Amazon."