Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by jfuh
Climate change is a far more serious threat than many ppl think. This is not chicken little crying the sky is falling, this is the real deal and it would indeed effect everyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh
The key word you have here is "if". Climate change is not a matter of if, but "when".

Originally Posted by Stinger
Really, climate has never changed in the history of the earth?

Notice I said "when"? The past would still fall under "when".

OK so climate changes, has all through history and it will change in the future. You said climate change is a threat, but the climate changes every year, every decade, every millennium. It is constantly changing. Why is the mere fact that the climate changes a threat?

 

[Stinger]

Pah, yes what do scientists know? they think the eath revolves around the sun for god sake.:roll:

Care to shows us where Mr Hawking went wrong?

I haven't read what he said nor have I judged what he said and since he is not a climatologist I don't care much what he says about the climate. It would be the same as asking a climatologist what are the odds we will fall into a black hole.

 

[danarhea]

I haven't read what he said nor have I judged what he said and since he is not a climatologist I don't care much what he says about the climate. It would be the same as asking a climatologist what are the odds we will fall into a black hole.

That is a dishonest answer, of you ask me. Mainstream scientists do indeed state that man is the biggest contributor to climate change. Here is the climatology section at the Woodshole Oceanographic Institute. But don't take their word for it. Even President Bush admits to global warming.

Can't wait to see how you are going to respond to this, since the only way you are going to prove yourself correct is to prove Bush wrong. What a conundrum. I'd hate to be in your shoes right now. LOL.

 

[jfuh]

OK so climate changes, has all through history and it will change in the future. You said climate change is a threat, but the climate changes every year, every decade, every millennium. It is constantly changing. Why is the mere fact that the climate changes a threat?

Really? the climate changes every year? Perhaps you now are the one that needs to go and familiarize yourself with the variance between climate and weather.
Climate change is a threat, especially when it is brought on by dramatic and very rapid change that we do not have time to acclimate to (pun intended).
Today we are the source of this rapid change, hence we are also the solution.
Here's just one of the reasons why climate change is a threat, the failure of the monsoon season in south east asia and the amount of deaths and further contribution to greenhouse gases contributing to a feed back loop of more warming, to which then should the Siberian permafrost warm enough, the massive amounts of methane that would be released. To which then you can bet damn well that there would be massive effect on our lives here in North America.

 

[Stinger]

Really? the climate changes every year? Perhaps you now are the one that needs to go and familiarize yourself with the variance between climate and weather.

I only need to read the papers how the climate has changed from one year to the next.

Again by whatever time span you want to use the climate has changed since there was a climate and will change next year, and the year after and the decade after and the millennium after...

Climate change is a threat,

What if it changed to a degree cooler this year? Is that a threat?

 

[jfuh]

I only need to read the papers how the climate has changed from one year to the next.

Again by whatever time span you want to use the climate has changed since there was a climate and will change next year, and the year after and the decade after and the millennium after...

Wrong stung. The very definition of climate maintains that there is an established norm that does not change annually, that come winter the weather cools or chills, come summer the opposite holds true. In CA that would mean that come late winter and early spring there is rainfall, not much for the rest of the year. Climate change then says these established norms are no longer going to hold. Hence snowing and bitter cold in parts of So cal while Europe gets rain.

Now please answer clearly here so we can have a record of your statement. Are you acknowledging above in bold that there is climate change now?

What if it changed to a degree cooler this year? Is that a threat?

Elaborate. Where is this degree change? Is this a global average or a specific region or area?

 

[Stinger]

Wrong stung. The very definition of climate maintains that there is an established norm

No it doesn't. The very definition of climate does not mean it doesn't change and when it does it is "threatening".

Now please answer clearly here so we can have a record of your statement. Are you acknowledging above in bold that there is climate change now?

It's a phony question. Climate has changed since there has been a climate and will always change as long as there is a climate.

Elaborate. Where is this degree change? Is this a global average or a specific region or area?

All of the above. Your argument that the mere fact that climate changes is a threat is a specious argument.

And it is quite childish when you don't address people by the names they use.

 

[jfuh]

No it doesn't. The very definition of climate does not mean it doesn't change and when it does it is "threatening".

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's a phony question. Climate has changed since there has been a climate and will always change as long as there is a climate.

Yes or no, are you asserting that the climate is changing now.

All of the above. Your argument that the mere fact that climate changes is a threat is a specious argument.

Hardly; I'm sure the ppl of New Orleans would argue quite differently from you about such events as Katrina; as would us Tax payers who have had to foot the bill for re-construction of the city and it's levees. Your insurance agencies have also agreed that climate change is a threat.
That's only the very tip of the matter, drought, flooding, higher frequencies of tropical storm systems, all come along with the package of global warming.
You argue "big deal, climate change has happened before". Yes it has, however no where in history has there been as severe a variance as there is today.
~100 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is the difference between an ice age and a warm age. Today we are 300ppm of CO2 higher than any point in the last 650,000 years.
You can choose to remain oblivious to the facts, or you can accept the facts and face the truth that there is a problem and we need to address this immediately.
But then oh wait, you're investment in the oil business would go to waste, hey how about reading the writing on the wall and invest in the future - ie alternative energy companies.

 

[Stinger]

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's clear your statement is erroneous.

Yes or no, are you asserting that the climate is changing now.

I couldn't have been more clearer in my previous response and I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Hardly; I'm sure the ppl of New Orleans would argue quite differently from you about such events as Katrina;

I live on the Gulf Coast and went through Katrina myself and hurricanes for the last 53 years so the ppl of NOLA can't tell me a thing. What happen to the levies in NOLA had nothing to do with climate change. But you should listen to the hurricane experts who clearly state that Katrina had nothing to do with "climate change" or GW and in fact if this years season is a result of the "threat of climate change" then bring more of it.

The fact remains climate is in constant change.

 

[Red_Dave]

And it isn't just Hawking either. Those at the meeting represent the mainstream scientific community. Of course, those who argue against global warming do have a few scientists on their side - paid by the oil companies, and whose credibility within the scientific community rank right there with Velikovsky. LOL.

And yet aparently this is all dwafed by the logic of stinger. Clearly we should listen to this wise one as he explains where these foolish scientists went wrong. Yet by the looks of things that doesnt seam set to happen.:roll:

 

[Stinger]

And yet aparently this is all dwafed by the logic of stinger. Clearly we should listen to this wise one as he explains where these foolish scientists went wrong. Yet by the looks of things that doesnt seam set to happen.:roll:

We debate issues here not people. If you object to something I say then address it to me. So post the statement I have made that is not true in this debate. And while you are at it post a statement from a hurricane expert who claims Katrina was caused by so-called Global Warming.

 

[American]

They said the Sahara Desert use to have vegetation, now it doesn't. Was that due to man-made global warming factors?

 

[jfuh]

It's clear your statement is erroneous.

There you go again, spinning and now attacking me because you have realized just what a ridiculous mistake you've made in regards to the variance between climate and weather.

I couldn't have been more clearer in my previous response and I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

No, what you did was restate what you stated formerly, how is it that it's so difficult for you to state a yes or a no to such a simple question. Oh right, because you don't want to say yes, but then you can't say no do to your political blindness.

I live on the Gulf Coast and went through Katrina myself and hurricanes for the last 53 years so the ppl of NOLA can't tell me a thing. What happen to the levies in NOLA had nothing to do with climate change. But you should listen to the hurricane experts who clearly state that Katrina had nothing to do with "climate change" or GW and in fact if this years season is a result of the "threat of climate change" then bring more of it.

See, there you go again spinning and twisting the statements made. Show me where I said Katrina had anything to do with AGW.
I stated very clearly that AGW will lead to higher frequencies of tropical storms such as Katrina, I also stated clearly in response to you that the ppl of NO would disagree with you that climate change is not a threat. You live in Arkansas for crying out loud, since when did a land locked state suddenly become the gulf coast?

The fact remains climate is in constant change.

So is the climate today changing? And since you make this claim, tell me, what caused the changes in the past? Green house gases?

 

[Stinger]

They said the Sahara Desert use to have vegetation, now it doesn't. Was that due to man-made global warming factors?

In ice cover parts of Greenland the Vikings once farmed during the warmer periods.

 

[Stinger]

There you go again, spinning and now attacking me because you have realized just what a ridiculous mistake you've made in regards to the variance between climate and weather.

:rofl it was a accurate observation. Your statement that climate change, as it has since there ever was a climate, is a threat is a specious statement.

No, what you did was restate what you stated formerly, how is it that it's so difficult for you to state a yes or a no to such a simple question.

My statement was clear, concise, and doesn't need to be repeated.

See, there you go again spinning and twisting the statements made. Show me where I said Katrina had anything to do with AGW.

:spin:now look who is trying to :spin: there way out of what they said.

I stated very clearly that AGW will lead to higher frequencies of tropical storms

Facts not in evidence and I asked you to present one hurricane expert who said Katrina or the intensity or frequency of storms in 2005 was effect by so-called GW. You can't.

such as Katrina, I also stated clearly in response to you that the ppl of NO would disagree with you that climate change is not a threat.

And I stated clearly that I live on the gulf coast and went through Katrina and I don't need the people of NOLA to tell me anything. I've lived through them for over 50 years.

You live in Arkansas for crying out loud, since when did a land locked state suddenly become the gulf coast?

No I don't. I live on the coast of Alabama. I once live in south Louisiana and travel extensively in Arkansas. Get your facts straight before you start your crying.

So is the climate today changing? And since you make this claim, tell me, what caused the changes in the past? Green house gases?

The climate is in constant change. That's your problem, change in and of itself is not threatening.

 

[Red_Dave]

We debate issues here not people. If you object to something I say then address it to me. So post the statement I have made that is not true in this debate. And while you are at it post a statement from a hurricane expert who claims Katrina was caused by so-called Global Warming.

Well if your intrested in debateing the issue then explain where mr hawking went wrong.

 

[Stinger]

Well if your intrested in debateing the issue then explain where mr hawking went wrong.

If it is your position he is right then post the cite you think it right and why you believe he knows more than the experts in climatology that disagree, Hawkings is not a meteorologist nor a climatologist. He seems to have enough on his hands try to defend his unproven string theory than to start spouting juke science about GW.

My debate here is about whether climate change in and of itself is a threat as jfuh asserted. It isn't, it changes all the time, ever since there was a climate. Perhaps jfuh might want to rephrase his statement but as it stands it is not a statement of fact.

 

[jfuh]

it was a accurate observation. Your statement that climate change, as it has since there ever was a climate, is a threat is a specious statement.

:roll: That's all you neocons can do, draw from semantics and make a spin argument on it as if it has any merit. The Climate Change Dr. Hawking made is in obvious reference to the current climate change we are causing and the threat it poses to the human race. You're dishonestly spinning it as if the position were in response to the threat of earth. Every climate change has always posed a threat to the dominant species on the planet since there ever was life. The planet will still be here, but we may not. How the hell do you justify the threat to millions of ppl from global warming as anything but a threat?

My statement was clear, concise, and doesn't need to be repeated.

Simple yes or no, is there climate change now.

now look who is trying to spin there way out of what they said.

What's good though is you finally admit to being a spinner.:lol:
Like I said, show me where I said Katrina was caused by global warming. It's clear you have no basis of this statement and are trying to spin your way out of it. Otherwise you would've done what you typically do and posted my quote.

Facts not in evidence and I asked you to present one hurricane expert who said Katrina or the intensity or frequency of storms in 2005 was effect by so-called GW. You can't.

Why would I do that when it's not my argument. I claimed that global warming leads to "higher frequencies of tropical storms."
Want a source? Simple Nature good enough for you?

My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.

And I stated clearly that I live on the gulf coast and went through Katrina and I don't need the people of NOLA to tell me anything. I've lived through them for over 50 years.

The climate is in constant change. That's your problem, change in and of itself is not threatening.

:roll: you don't get it do you? Climate is constant, though on a geological time scale it fluctuates. ie, What is closer to the poles is always going to be colder. Weather is what is in constant change.

 

[jfuh]

If it is your position he is right then post the cite you think it right and why you believe he knows more than the experts in climatology that disagree, Hawkings is not a meteorologist nor a climatologist. He seems to have enough on his hands try to defend his unproven string theory than to start spouting juke science about GW.

1. Hawking is not in String theory.
2. Dr. Hawking is the prodigy genius of the late 20th century, practically on par with Dr. Einstein. What he says of science obviously bares merit and credibility.
3. What "experts" in climatology disagree with Dr. Hawking's statement?

 

[Stinger]

:roll: That's all you neocons can do,

Has nothing to do with neocon or beocons or geocons.

draw from semantics

It's not semantics, you are making a factually false statement. If you want to try and reword it then go ahead.

and make a spin argument on it as if it has any merit.

If you are going to try and make a scientific argument then you better do it accurately and factually.

The Climate Change Dr. Hawking made is in obvious reference to the current climate change we are causing

Well first the jury is still out on whether we are causing anything.

and the threat it poses to the human race.

Second the jury is out on whether it is threatening anymore than previous changes in the climate have "threatened" anyone.

You're dishonestly

Nothing dishonest at all, if you are going to talk science then do so accurately and concisely your misstatements do not hold up to scrutiny.

Simple yes or no, is there climate change now.

I have given you my clear concise answer, climate is constantly changing.

What's good though is you finally admit to being a spinner.:lol:

Such lies from you do not make you look very good.

Like I said, show me where I said Katrina was caused by global warming.

You supported your argument by stating I should ask the people of NOLA about Katrina, if you meant to say something different then reword it. The fact is the problem in NOLA was faulty levies they didn't get hit by the brunt of Katrina.

It's clear you have no basis of this statement and are trying to spin your way out of it. Otherwise you would've done what you typically do and posted my quote.

I don't even think you know what your argument is at this point.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Facts not in evidence and I asked you to present one hurricane expert who said Katrina or the intensity or frequency of storms in 2005 was effect by so-called GW. You can't.

Why would I do that when it's not my argument.

Then why did you bring it up?

I claimed that global warming leads to "higher frequencies of tropical storms."

Facts not in evidence and when you can point to any hurricane experts who say so let me know.
Last year with it's high temps produced no major storms.

Want a source? Simple Nature good enough for you?

When it's going to cost $30? NO

So try this free one

Leading Hurricane Experts Downplay Global Warming

"....James J. O'Brien, director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University, and numerous other hurricane experts dispute the theory that global warming primes and intensifies hurricanes. These scientists say that if global warming has any effect on hurricanes, it would be small. They also attribute swings in hurricane activity to natural, 25- to 40-year cycles.
Theory 'Demonstrably False'
O'Brien was among a group of five climatologists and other experts on climate change who wrote U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in September 2004 a letter calling "demonstrably false" the theory that global warming was creating a surge in hurricane activity. They said the theory was based on two misconceptions: That hurricanes are increasing in intensity or frequency and that continued ocean surface warming will generate more frequent and intense storms."
Leading Hurricane Experts Downplay Global Warming - by Dennis Byrne - The Heartland Institute

:roll: you don't get it do you? Climate is constant, though on a geological time scale it fluctuates.

OH.........now you add the caveat "fluctuates", ie it changes constantly. It goes back and forth, it gets warmer it gets cooler, it gets dryer it gets wetter, the winds change, the currents change. It has always changed and change in and of itself is not threatening.

 

[Stinger]

1. Hawking is not in String theory.

Yahoo! Answers - what is stephen hawkings famous for?

"Stephen Hawking is most famous for his "String Theory." However he has made other contributions to theoretical physics. He is one of my favorite scientists of this decade, although, many people consider "String Theory" a philosophy more than a science because it has no possible way of being proven."

 

[Roberdorus]

I hate that Stephen Hawking guy. Why doesn't HE get off his lazy azz and help out with global warming???

Oh....

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1,000,000 X 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000 people?

Thats funny. :lol:

 

[jfuh]

Yahoo! Answers - what is stephen hawkings famous for?

"Stephen Hawking is most famous for his "String Theory." However he has made other contributions to theoretical physics. He is one of my favorite scientists of this decade, although, many people consider "String Theory" a philosophy more than a science because it has no possible way of being proven."

A blog was the best you could do? A simple typing of his name would've given you his website
Stephen Hawking
Then a google search for scholary articles would show that he's not "most famous for string theory" but for black holes and space time.
At least be honest with yourself that you've no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jfuh]

Has nothing to do with neocon or beocons or geocons.

Perhaps not, but you certainly spout the stereotype of one.

It's not semantics, you are making a factually false statement. If you want to try and reword it then go ahead.

Again, no premise, just more attack

If you are going to try and make a scientific argument then you better do it accurately and factually.

More attack

Well first the jury is still out on whether we are causing anything.

some spin

Second the jury is out on whether it is threatening anymore than previous changes in the climate have "threatened" anyone.

More spin

Nothing dishonest at all, if you are going to talk science then do so accurately and concisely your misstatements do not hold up to scrutiny.

More attack and disregard for the actual argument.

I have given you my clear concise answer, climate is constantly changing.

Avoiding the question

Such lies from you do not make you look very good.

more spinning

You supported your argument by stating I should ask the people of NOLA about Katrina, if you meant to say something different then reword it. The fact is the problem in NOLA was faulty levies they didn't get hit by the brunt of Katrina.

Yes to ask the ppl of NO whether or not Katrina was a threat to them. The frequencies are about to get much worse. hence the threat of global warming means there will be many more Katrina like hurricanes to come. Yet here you stand oblivious to the facts.

I don't even think you know what your argument is at this point.

More attack with disregard to the argument.

Facts not in evidence and I asked you to present one hurricane expert who said Katrina or the intensity or frequency of storms in 2005 was effect by so-called GW. You can't.

More spin
I answered that it was never my argument to begin with, it was your spin. My premise was clearly and consistantly that GW leads to higher frequencies of tropical storms.

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't you did.

Facts not in evidence and when you can point to any hurricane experts who say so let me know.
Last year with it's high temps produced no major storms.

I have, as in my former post.

When it's going to cost $30? NO

The abstract is free to read for anyone. Know what an abstract is? It's the conclusion of the study.

So try this free one

Leading Hurricane Experts Downplay Global Warming

"....James J. O'Brien, director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University, and numerous other hurricane experts dispute the theory that global warming primes and intensifies hurricanes. These scientists say that if global warming has any effect on hurricanes, it would be small. They also attribute swings in hurricane activity to natural, 25- to 40-year cycles.
Theory 'Demonstrably False'
O'Brien was among a group of five climatologists and other experts on climate change who wrote U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in September 2004 a letter calling "demonstrably false" the theory that global warming was creating a surge in hurricane activity. They said the theory was based on two misconceptions: That hurricanes are increasing in intensity or frequency and that continued ocean surface warming will generate more frequent and intense storms."
Leading Hurricane Experts Downplay Global Warming - by Dennis Byrne - The Heartland Institute

Somehow the heartland institute is now a peer reviewed scientific publisher? Koch Family funded. Perhaps you know who kock is? The US's largest energy producer?
Yes the energy industry is really going to say otherwise:roll:
This source has absolutely 0 credibility whatsoever as any form of scientific researcher.
The author of your article is none other than Dennis Byrne, tell me, just what scientific degrees does he hold exactly? And you bitch about Hawking not being an expert?:roll:
I give you a nature article that you can at least read the abstract. I even gave the relevant quote from the article and you present heartland institute.
Hell here's the entire abstract for your reading pleasure

Theory1 and modelling2 predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency3, 4 and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.

The author of this Nature paper is Kerry Emanuel of MIT. And here's the full paper in pdf format.
Also here's another more recent publication
Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. EOS, 87, 233-244

OH.........now you add the caveat "fluctuates", ie it changes constantly. It goes back and forth, it gets warmer it gets cooler, it gets dryer it gets wetter, the winds change, the currents change. It has always changed and change in and of itself is not threatening.

There you go again.