German Biologist: Global Warming Is Good For US

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]

SPIEGEL: Mr. Reichholf, are you worried about global warming?

Josef Reichholf: No. Personally, I'm even looking forward to a milder climate. But it will also not pose any major problems for mankind as a whole.

SPIEGEL: Where does your optimism come from?

Reichholf: The vast majority of people today already live under warmer and, in many cases, far more extreme conditions than we pampered Central Europeans. [censored] sapiens is the only biological species that can handle practically any type of climate on earth -- from the deserts to the polar regions, from the constantly humid tropics to the high altitudes of the Andes. Not even the animals that follow human society most closely, the rats, have developed such an astonishing ability to adapt in the course of evolution.

SPIEGEL: In what sort of climate does man feel most comfortable?

Reichholf: Biologically speaking, we are children of the tropics. Wherever man lives, he artificially creates tropical living conditions. We do this with warm clothing, and with heated offices and homes. A tropical temperature of about 27 degrees Celsius (80 degrees Fahrenheit) constantly prevails underneath our clothing.

SPIEGEL: But, as an ecologist, aren't you at least concerned about animals and plants?

Reichholf: Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change. The true danger comes from the destruction of habitats, such as the rampant deforestation of species-rich tropical forests. Particularly as a conservationist, I believe that focusing on the greenhouse effect is very dangerous. The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes. A typical example is the misleading debate over catastrophic flooding, which is in fact caused by too much development along rivers and not by more extreme weather events, which we can't change anyway.

[..]


[/ QUOTE ]

Read the rest here (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481707,00.html). It's awesome.

[PairTheBoard]

It's not the Greenhouse effect that worries me. It's the possibility of a sudden change in the heat conveyer systems of the oceans like the gulf stream which could bring on a new Ice Age. He agrees that an Ice Age would indeed be a big problem. I don't know why a biologist would have any apriori expertise on that question of climatology.

One thing that bothers me about the Ice Age scenarios they are promoting. Hasn't the Earth experienced long periods of much warmer climate than what we have now? It evidently didn't always automatically get thrown into Ice Ages right away due to disruptions of the oceans' heat conveyer systems.

PairTheBoard

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the Greenhouse effect that worries me. It's the possibility of a sudden change in the heat conveyer systems of the oceans like the gulf stream which could bring on a new Ice Age. He agrees that an Ice Age would indeed be a big problem. I don't know why a biologist would have any apriori expertise on that question of climatology.

One thing that bothers me about the Ice Age scenarios they are promoting. Hasn't the Earth experienced long periods of much warmer climate than what we have now? It evidently didn't always automatically get thrown into Ice Ages right away due to disruptions of the oceans' heat conveyer systems.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The current configuration of the continents is fairly recent in terms of how long the earth has been around. The heat conveyor systems we have now are specific to the arrangement of the continents.

Edit/ I'm not sure how long ago you're talking about so I could be totally wrong, just wanted to throw that out there.

[doucy]

Global warming is all Greenland's fault! They are the only nation on Earth that will gain usable land by the icecaps melting /conspiracy

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming is all Greenland's fault! They are the only nation on Earth that will gain usable land by the icecaps melting /conspiracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Greenland is not a nation. It actually belongs to Denmark. Compare the size of Denmark to the size of Greenland. Those sneaky Danish bastards.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
it will also not pose any major problems for mankind as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: not all 7 billion of us will die.

[Piers]

Yes, I think we are around the middle of the temperature the earth oscillates around. Admittedly large changes in temperature like an ice age often tend to lead to large-scale extinctions, but there always seems to be species able to adapt and survive.

Intelligence is a useful trait for coping with adverse environments.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think we are around the middle of the temperature the earth oscillates around. Admittedly large changes in temperature like an ice age often tend to lead to large-scale extinctions, but there always seems to be species able to adapt and survive.

Intelligence is a useful trait for coping with adverse environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'll still suck balls.

[slickpoppa]

So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming is all Canada's fault! They are the only nation on Earth that will gain usable land by the icecaps melting /conspiracy

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, blame Canada.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[/ QUOTE ]

Most wouldn't choose any of those options.

d) Not enough data to support a valid scientific opinion either way.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[/ QUOTE ]

Most wouldn't choose any of those options.

d) Not enough data to support a valid scientific opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless the data indicates that there is exactly a 50/50 chance that global warming is occurring, the data that we have must lean one way or the other, even if it does not support a definitive conclusion.

[PLOlover]

imo you can tell global warming is some kind of tax scam thingee because things like
a) DU radioactive munitions
b) GMO crops

pose a far more riskier threat, a) being kinda low level persistant badness and b) being potentially quickly catastrophic in a cascading way.

both on a global scale. also both manmade and man controlled.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
imo you can tell global warming is some kind of tax scam thingee because things like
a) DU radioactive munitions
b) GMO crops

pose a far more riskier threat, a) being kinda low level persistant badness and b) being potentially quickly catastrophic in a cascading way.

both on a global scale. also both manmade and man controlled.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell is any threat from DU munitions 'cacading'? Isn't it automatically contained in war zones? I don't think I've seen any DU munitions lately....

c

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[/ QUOTE ]

Most wouldn't choose any of those options.

d) Not enough data to support a valid scientific opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless the data indicates that there is exactly a 50/50 chance that global warming is occurring, the data that we have must lean one way or the other, even if it does not support a definitive conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, both sides of the issue are so distorted by propaganda that it's impossible to come to any kind of conclusion at all.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change. The true danger comes from the destruction of habitats

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, because global warming wont destroy any habitats.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[/ QUOTE ]

Most wouldn't choose any of those options.

d) Not enough data to support a valid scientific opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless the data indicates that there is exactly a 50/50 chance that global warming is occurring, the data that we have must lean one way or the other, even if it does not support a definitive conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, both sides of the issue are so distorted by propaganda that it's impossible to come to any kind of conclusion at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a really ignorant statement, especially considering that you are making it on a gambling forum. You can attach a probability and confidence interval to anything. There is certainly enough information out there for an intelligent person to place a probability on the likelihood that global warming is occurring. Taking a position of complete agnosticism is a cop out and based on faulty reasoning.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
How the hell is any threat from DU munitions 'cacading'? Isn't it automatically contained in war zones? I don't think I've seen any DU munitions lately....

c

[/ QUOTE ]

no i meant DU is low level persistant
and
GMO has the potential to be a cascading problem in the sense that ecosystems can be in balance for a long time and then something changes and then they can just collapse.

so, DU is gonna be around a long time and radiation is not good and also it gets aerosolized and gets blown all around the globe so it doesnt just stay in iraq or whatever.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats a really ignorant statement, especially considering that you are making it on a gambling forum. You can attach a probability and confidence interval to anything. There is certainly enough information out there for an intelligent person to place a probability on the likelihood that global warming is occurring. Taking a position of complete agnosticism is a cop out and based on faulty reasoning.


[/ QUOTE ]

the problem I see is that the pro global warming side uses a very narrow set of data relating to greenhouse gasses and plugs that into a computer model and that gives them an answer that really can't be argued with.

Unfortunately this doesnt take into consideration things like variable solar output and other stuff.
It's kinda like if I only drew conclusions about holdem from the UTG position and formed all my opinions on that. It would lead to me getting ATo and instamucking onthe button when everyone folded to me.

[m_the0ry]

I sort of agree with this statement. Life has existed for long enough and through enough ice ages (incredibly dramatic environmental change in <10 years) to show that it has the know-how to survive almost any climate change. The real problem happens when the timeframe is reduced to <1 year as is the case when a forest is obliterated in weeks. There is no room for adaptation in that window. There's no selection process only species obliteration.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[/ QUOTE ]

Most wouldn't choose any of those options.

d) Not enough data to support a valid scientific opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

The devil is in the details. Global warming will not be good for you if you live in Bangladesh, New Orleans, or Florida, as your home will probably end up under water. It might be good for you if you live in Russia, Canada, or Alaska. Milder winters, longer growing seasons, etc., might make farming possible in places where it isn't now, and generally make life more pleasant. There's a lot of unknowns in the whole global warming scenario. Things we know for sure. The climate will get warmer overall (duh!) sea level will rise. How much and when? Who knows? If Greenland and Antarctica melt out completely, about 300 feet. That's the worst-case, reality might be anywhere from a few feet to that. Rainfall patterns will change. How much? How will that affect agriculture? Will we see a net gain or net loss in food production? Uncertain.

Also, warmer overall doesn't necessarily mean warmer everywhere. There is a possibility that melting ice in Greenland will shut down or weaken the North Atlantic thermohaline system (Gulf Stream, etc.). If this happens, Europe and eastern North America get a lot colder.

So, while it is not inconceivable that some people will benefit from global warming, it's not something we should count on.

[wacki]

I love it. When the scientific community says global warming is a looming disaster then all the scientists on the planet are apart of some giant swindle and global warming doesn't exist. Yet you find one single scientist that says global warming is good for us then it's suddenly time to trust the scientist.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I love it. When the scientific community says global warming is a looming disaster then all the scientists on the planet are apart of some giant swindle and global warming doesn't exist. Yet you find one single scientist that says global warming is good for us and then it's suddenly time to trust the scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

For many people, it is all in the message and the wish to justify the individual biases and preconceived notions of their particular pet agenda. Not unlike religions, in a way.

I hope this does not come as any surprise to you because it should not.

Here is to the warming climate and the fervent hope that soon mankind will be just a footnote in the history of this cosmic ball of vomit as it spins its' meaningless way around some insignificant thermonuclear factory.


Le Misanthrope

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[/ QUOTE ]

Most wouldn't choose any of those options.

d) Not enough data to support a valid scientific opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless the data indicates that there is exactly a 50/50 chance that global warming is occurring, the data that we have must lean one way or the other, even if it does not support a definitive conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, both sides of the issue are so distorted by propaganda that it's impossible to come to any kind of conclusion at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a really ignorant statement, especially considering that you are making it on a gambling forum. You can attach a probability and confidence interval to anything. There is certainly enough information out there for an intelligent person to place a probability on the likelihood that global warming is occurring. Taking a position of complete agnosticism is a cop out and based on faulty reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... subjective probability does not a valid scientific position make.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what's the breakdown of global warming skeptics among the following positions:
a) Global warming is not happening,
b) Global warming is happening but it won't effect us at all
c) Global warming is happening and will be good for us

[/ QUOTE ]

Most wouldn't choose any of those options.

d) Not enough data to support a valid scientific opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless the data indicates that there is exactly a 50/50 chance that global warming is occurring, the data that we have must lean one way or the other, even if it does not support a definitive conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, both sides of the issue are so distorted by propaganda that it's impossible to come to any kind of conclusion at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a really ignorant statement, especially considering that you are making it on a gambling forum. You can attach a probability and confidence interval to anything. There is certainly enough information out there for an intelligent person to place a probability on the likelihood that global warming is occurring. Taking a position of complete agnosticism is a cop out and based on faulty reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... subjective probability does not a valid scientific position make.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about just pulling a number out of one's ass. I'm talking about an educated scientist using the data that is out there (and yes there is a lot of data out there) and making the best prediction that is possible from the information that we have.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I sort of agree with this statement. Life has existed for long enough and through enough ice ages (incredibly dramatic environmental change in <10 years) to show that it has the know-how to survive almost any climate change. The real problem happens when the timeframe is reduced to <1 year as is the case when a forest is obliterated in weeks. There is no room for adaptation in that window. There's no selection process only species obliteration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, LIFE survives. But the majority of SPECIES do not. Who cares about the bacteria?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem I see is that the pro global warming side uses a very narrow set of data relating to greenhouse gasses and plugs that into a computer model and that gives them an answer that really can't be argued with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be more specific. What "very narrow set of data" are you talking abuot here?

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately this doesnt take into consideration things like variable solar output and other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong. Modern models take just about every variable you can think of into account.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just wrong. Modern models take just about every variable you can think of into account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, well then let's see the model and quit arguing and look at the actual model and the specific variables it uses etc.

[HoldingFolding]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] sapiens

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell is any threat from DU munitions 'cacading'? Isn't it automatically contained in war zones? I don't think I've seen any DU munitions lately....

c

[/ QUOTE ]

no i meant DU is low level persistant
and
GMO has the potential to be a cascading problem in the sense that ecosystems can be in balance for a long time and then something changes and then they can just collapse.

so, DU is gonna be around a long time and radiation is not good and also it gets aerosolized and gets blown all around the globe so it doesnt just stay in iraq or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, read Lewis and Clark's journals from 200 years ago and think about the changes that have occurred across this continent in just that short of time. Then think if DU weapons are having anywhere near the kind of impact on the planet.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
...think

[/ QUOTE ]
I was with you right up unitl there lol.

seriously the radiation is gonna be with us forever practically speaking, not sure what exactly will happen but it can't be good. for example, I have heard preliminary reports that the spike in lung cancer over the past 5-15 years (starting with kosovo I guess where DU ordinace was first widely used or I guess the first gulf war) can be attributed to DU radioactive dust.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...think

[/ QUOTE ]
I was with you right up unitl there lol.

seriously the radiation is gonna be with us forever practically speaking, not sure what exactly will happen but it can't be good. for example, I have heard preliminary reports that the spike in lung cancer over the past 5-15 years (starting with kosovo I guess where DU ordinace was first widely used or I guess the first gulf war) can be attributed to DU radioactive dust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at New York today. 200 years ago it was mostly small farms. You think there's any increase in health risks living there now? My point is that there are changes occuring on a global scale that pose far greater risks to us... that's all. End of diversion.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at New York today. 200 years ago it was mostly small farms. You think there's any increase in health risks living there now? My point is that there are changes occuring on a global scale that pose far greater risks to us... that's all. End of diversion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know London 200 years ago was really a horrible place to live unless you were rich I guess.

but I guess my point is that DU is like DDT contaminating the environment execept that DU never breaks down and goes on contaminating for like a million years. And it's a known verified problem. Of course if the solution to DU was to implement a global tax then I guess it would get a lot of attention.