@xeno

If I were to listen to you on what the Libertarian stance on global warming is before listening to Spock, it would be no different than if I was to find out your viewpoint by asking Kemp.

@Kemp

I'm going to hold off my input until after Flint answers.  Good to see a reply, though. 

We'll see...

> Paininside wrote:

> we dont controle the earth, it controles us, the only thing we need to worry about is that at some point we need to realize that population controle is the thing what must be done to keep a balanced mother earth for long term (thousends of years) we cant keep growing and plundering earth at some point its all used up, and when that starts wars wil break out all over the globe, that wil be ww3. by then population might aswell be double from what we have now, but its getting there and fast.

so will we 'kill' people to ensure ww3 wont happen (greedy people want it all for themselves so genocide or forced castration/euthanasia), or will we be at war killing people afterall.
fact is we cannot keep going as humanity has been going. and us normal folk have not much power/options to controle that outcome ourselves.

Paininside,

We shouldn't have to control our population.  We should have developed the technology already to send anyone who might want to to colonize other planets.

That we even feel the need to have to control our population is evidence of our failure to explore the cosmos fast enough.

In a free market, it would be over-population, or, rather, the the scarcity of land that would motivate people to explore and colonize space: real estate prices too high here would cause humanity to go look around the cosmos for cheaper land. 

Controlling our population is just another form of intervention in the free market.

Well thanks to Chuck Wiese I now know some additional facts

1) The ice cores show this 'pattern' throughout Greenlands history

2) The amount of melting is in most places... about a milimeter

3) They are apples to oranges comparing via using Satelites now, theories and speculations from back when.

------------
Zidi,

Thank you for providing an example of my point. Work such as that, which I don't describe as deceptive or "garbage," is extremely limited (Which I've also described on multiple occasions). It's an examination of one correlation using multiple very limited sources of data for two different regions of the globe (ie, with subjective attempts at synchronisation at that).

First, any examination of this one correlation without consideration of the plethora of other factors effecting global temperatures is limited. No scientist has managed to build a decent model working in the man-caused CO2 global warming hypothesis precisely because there are so many other factors involved that they (we) don't understand. I can't stress this generally-overlooked-by-the-wishful-thinking fact enough. Scientists can't rule out countless other factors impacting lag-time between temperature and CO2. Studying this correlation, by itself, isn't conclusive of anything, regardless of the results.

Furthermore, studies such as this one are working with extremely limited data from extreme regions of the globe--and correlating data between different regions of the globe, subject to different changes in climate patterns, at that. Is one polar region necessarily indicative of the temperature and CO2 changes of the whole globe and their correlation? Is the other? Should we expect them to always be impacted by changes in temperature/CO2 at the same rates, despite different surrounding regions and different weather patterns (and different changes in those patterns)?

The answer to all of these questions is no, especially not necessarily. The data being analyzed is extremely limited.

Pretending that what you provided is conclusive evidence of anything, let alone man-caused climate change, is just silly. I'm not choosing to ignore it, I'm simply choosing to evaluate it like I have all of the academic studies I've ever read. I'm simply choosing to be aware of its limitations, which are many, which are huge.
--------------
I never claimed the paper did more then show that the lag between warming and CO2 may of been smaller then what is traditionally thought from looking at the previous cores, and that lag is something most climate skeptics jump on as proof that C02 comes after warming. I never said it showed proof of anything. Don't accuse me of saying things that i did not. You claimed that the 400 year lag in the Vostok showed by Al Gore in his movie (I agree that it was political manipulation, and if anything made climate scientists jobs harder) was proof C02 lagged temperature and couldn't be the driver. I simply showed a paper that provided evidence that this was not necessarily the case, and it is possible that they are more closely linked.

I know that a lot of news outlets have used this article to try stick the knife in climate change skeptics arguments. And this just highlights the problem with the media, and that this issue is a political issue. The media annoys the f*ck out of me. A scientist comes out and says "my climate models show that in 60% of cases Australia becomes dryer, and 30% it becomes wetter, and 10% it stays the same
and the next day the media has "AUSTRALIA TO BECOME DRYER OVER NEXT 100 YEARS."

This isn't what scientists want, and it makes me think a lot of the actual science is lost to the media and what makes it harder for the real science to be shown.

> Paininside wrote:

> that wil not happen on time, we invest way to much in warfair then on exploring new planets, the distances r simply to big.
and warfair is human nature, aslong u got masters playing the puppets, and that wont change til after we have our global anarchy uprise.

and even if that technology excist in the near future, countrys wil use it to colonise other worlds so they can call it theirs! that is a mental state, we need to be one earth. else simply colonising wont solve the problem.

I don't agree that anything will be solved by a global anarchy uprising.  I'm not saying it wouldn't; just saying I'm not convinced it would, for as history has shown, revolutions just tend to replace one form of tyranny with another. 

You say it is a mental state; that we need one Earth and colonizing won't solve the problem.  I would tend to think it would solve a big problem: the odds of the survival of our species would be significantly improved if we had self-sufficient colonies on other planets.  If one colony had a war and blew itself up, or if another had a rogue neutron star veer through it's atmosphere and suck out all life on the planet in a blink, or if another got hit by an asteroid, there'd be other colonies which would survive.  The more colonies we would have, the better the odds would be that one of them would not only survived but also develop a social system which actually would improve our human nature to the point where warfare were no longer possible for us; improve human nature to the point where we might even reach the next stage of our development of sentience (whatever that might be).

Oh, and regarding distances between stars: not that big an issue if ships travel close to light-speed.  According to the theory of relativity, time slows down aboard ships traveling at or near light speed to the point where on board flights from stars to stars might take only a couple of weeks, days or even less according to the colonists' perspective, all depending on how quickly a ship can accelerate / decelerate and how close to light speed a ship can cruise between destinations.  For instance, if you had instant acceleration / deceleration to a nearby star say 50 light years away and could travel at the speed of light between here and there, although 50 years would pass on Earth, from your perspective on the ship, you would arrive instantly at the other star system.