Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 9:46pm:


And how would that be? well do you know or do you just believe? i always love the excuses that come in the future like "we didn't relise back then", "we thought we were doing the right thing" you know you are wrong but your greed over rules common sense.

MOTR wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 7:09am:

A no means yes and yes means no and no means no and yes means yes.

So I will take your answer as a resounding Yes to "do you just look for the 'skepticalscience' site tick of approval"

I'm just going to go back to the original post instead of adding to the stream of argument... Localised climate change is different from global climate change (it can be a massive contributing factor if enough localities are having this change). Local climate change due to human action bringing down a civilisation is not just relevant to that single case.

Take for example the original inhabitants of Easter Island. Archeological evidence (note, climate scientists didn't discover this or add CO2 emissions stuff to it) suggests that the island was once covered in large trees and supported a large civilisation.

Obsession with building moai meant cutting down trees to make logs. The same trees were used for fishing, sea-faring and burning for fuel. When the people arrived, they also brought rats with them (most likely as a food source), this decimated the forest at a fast rate as the seeds are eaten by the rats. Once the forest lost protection around the coast, the wind and salt did further damage and eroded once fertile soil. The island became barren, society broke down but there were no more trees for boats. People starved and fell to disease and war amongst the tribes. This is a clear case of man-made localised climate change.

It's idiotic to speak as if the localised climate change of the past is an indication that localised climate change cannot cause global climate change. We live in an industrialised age for those who haven't noticed. Industrial techniques are used all over the globe now rather than at a few 'hotspots' of activity. We are also doing much more over all, and we can see modern examples of localised climate change (destruction) at mining outposts and felled forests in Africa. The drought and soil erosion leading to desertification in Africa is not simply the result of sunlight.

The quote from the initial post about forcing is complete pseudo-scientific drivel. It makes absolutely no sense, and shows a distinct lack of understanding of over all global climate change effects. By saying that the sun provides the only 'forcing' in climate change, the poster ignores the fact that the Earth also regulates its weather patterns through currents and winds as well as the lay of the land and cloud formation. We live in a complex system, and it's at our own peril if we choose to misunderstand it.

Not sure why I'm posting this, since I assume we're talking about the same thing. That we live in a complex system, and that we are currently ignoring the fact that we live in such a system. That seems to be what you're saying with that last portion, and is exactly what I said.

The process happened over the course of maybe some hundreds of years (if you think this is slow, you are not suited to climate science), and it happened with primitive tools (stone axes) rather than industrial machines. They couldn't move because they were on an island. I was using this as an example of localised climate change.

Those in Africa today are indeed dying off because they can't escape the drought that is encroaching on their entire region. I'm also fairly sure that if the cities of today were suddenly cut off from the outside world, they would quickly die (we've already changed the climate of our major cities, there would not be enough food supply generated fast enough to feed an entire population of millions). And since I kept saying this was an example of localised climate change in history, I am further confused by comparison to modern city states.

The Easter Island population could not move 'back' because the entire island became barren. This is the same as in Africa and Mongolia where the climate change and desertification is permanent. You can move as long as your body and your supply of water can last you, but where ever you go there is dust, not soil.

I didn't make anything sound like anything with regards to Easter Island. It's what happened. They basically sat there and tried to survive as best they can on limited food and resources. They began living in caves instead of houses (no wood to build with, and caves made it easier to hide from conflict). There were literally no boats, no way off this island, and later European visitors took slaves from the remaining population, gave the rest diseases, and didn't help those left behind. I would like to know what part of this is an assumption.

I left out CO2 on purpose as a case in point, that humans have done plenty of damage without CO2 in the past, and now that we're pumping that additional forcing ingredient into the atmosphere all over the world, it's silly to assume that it would have no effect or less effect than a primitive civilisation clearing their forests.

Also unsure about the CO2 statement. I get what you're saying, but it's not actually a sound argument. No one (and certainly not me) was arguing people could have survived if they had CO2. I simply removed CO2 from consideration to show those who are obsessed with that particular point that climate change does not occur only due to CO2, it is just the exacerbating factor in modern, global climate change.

Again, your last sentence is exactly what I said. I have no idea what your problem with my post is.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 7:21am:


Either have or you haven't read Scafetta's work. This is not a difficult question to answer. Your refusal to answer, once  again, demonstrates your intellectual cowardice.

As for your question, I read skeptical science along with a handful of other climate blogs everyday. Thanks to them I'm already quite familiar with Scafetta's work. When you're ready to debate the science let me know.

You can start by telling me why you are so willing to accept his bimodal distribution of the lengths of the solar cycle. Although I very much doubt you have any idea what I'm talking about.

Coward.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:32pm:


Stop arguing like a child and answer a direct question. Have you read Scafetta and do you have enough mathematical knowledge to discuss bimodal v normal distributions.