Can’t argue that those are forms of pollution, but I sure as hell can argue that those are the ONLY REAL forms (in the context of our CO2 problem).

“If you read the work of Victor Schauberger and those who have interpreted it since, like Callum Coats and Aleck Bartholomew, you will notice their interpretation of Global Warming. They clearly state how there is two different types of Hydrological cycles. One is the half hydrological cycle”

I’m not familiar with these authors, however I’m a bit dubious of the claim of a “half hydrolgic cycle”. The hydrologic cycle, put simply, is the movement of water through our environment. Evaporation, precipitation, snow/ice melt, ground water, run off, return of water to the ocean, etc. The cycle is not specific. ie. if you “don’t have the absorption of permaculture” that doesn’t mean you have a “half cycle”. The cycle simply is. It isn’t as much a quantitative measurement as it is a description of a process.

“In Iowa in America they have 100 year floods every 7. Is it because of Global Warming, no? Its because of a broken”

Actually it’s difficult to say whether or not this is caused by climate change (note the more accurate label), because you’ve given me no time scale to work with. The evidence for climate change is based on large scale trends. If you have a few cold years, even a decade, that doesn’t necessarily indicate that climate change is a dud. Look at the change in average temperatures over a 100 or 200 years time period and THEN we can look for trends. Oh, and the hydrologic cycle can’t be “broken”. It can change sure, but it’s not something we can really “break”.

“Put yourself in a greenhouse. Pump it full of CO2. What happens, plants grow, hell ask the dopers how they grow. Then pump water vapor in and you will be wilting and more disease and problems will enter your greenhouse”

This hardly suggests anything because there could be numerous reasons for this outcome. Also, no one is suggesting that climate change will kill plants off (due to excess CO2). (although it will to some degree due to alterations in the biogeoclimatic zones to which plants are currently adapted). What climate will do is alter climate (hence the title). Plants are adapted to particular climatic ranges and tolerances. Shifts in these will kill off some plants while causing others to shift geographically (if they are able). Climate change could also cause little problems like submerging Bangladesh due to rising sea levels, etc.

“we all agree change is needed and permaculture is a great tool to do so through connections”

I agree, but what is odd is that we are all essentially on the same side, yet for whatever reason people such as yourself refuse to believe in the overwhelming evidence that suggests climate change is happening and we are contributing to it.

“Thats it- old growth is dying in America because of a broke hydrological cycle”

Close but no. It’s being impacted by alterations in local hydrologic cycle patterns. In my area the alterations manifest themselves as warmer annual temps, which means less winter precipitation as snow (and more as rain–which isn’t retained as long) and longer, hotter summer droughts. And I should clarify, the winter snow that is the most crucial to my area is that which falls in the mountains, on glaciers, etc. Over the spring and summer this accumlation feeds the rivers which feeds the forest, etc.

“As people who study permaculture we must delve deeper into reasons why the old growth of the pacific northwest is dying. Could it be the acid rain that now comes from China, laden with mercury and other contaminants that this ecosystem has never dealt with before.”

This is a doubtful approach and wishfull thinking at best. the study which I referred to was conducted over 15 years by a large group of scientists. It was published in Nature last year and is probably much more thorough than anything we could muster.

“For many of us we see global warming as a tool to further tear us from the connection to nature.”

I can’t see from this perspective at all. If anything, anthropogenic climate change should suggest how intricately tied to nature we are, and how absolutely dependent we are on the environment for our continued survival.

I hear you re the accumulation of toxins. It’s called biomagnification.

Umm, yes. It’s called respiration, and NEARLY every living organism that isn’t photosynthetic does it. However, my mouth isn’t a tail pipe or a smoke stack. I don’t respire millions of tons of CO2 (amongst other things) on a daily basis.

“Where has the common sense gone?”

Respiring creatures (you, me, birds and bees, etc.) have been on Earth doing our nasty resipiration for millions of years. Autos and smoke stacks have not. Which do you think is more likely to upset the balance that creates the global environmental conditions we’re accustomed too?

“Carbon Dioxide is one of the primary elements on earth. Plants need it in order to survive.”

Plants also need the limited environmental conditions to which they are adapted to survive. Did you know that all across western North America old growth forests are weakening and dying due to climate change? Want to know why? It’s because as average temperatures rise less water falls as snow during the winter (falling instead as rain). This accumulated winter snow pack is what hydrates our forests during the summer drought, but because the winter snow pack has been decreasing there is less water available to nourish our forests and they’e become weaker as a result.

This is only one example of how climate change will affect our environment.

“If anything would be affecting the earth temperature it would be water vapor”

True, water vapour does play a role in the greenhouse effect. However, water vapour is continuously cycled through the environment in a process known as the hydrologic cycle, therefore atmospheric levels of H2O are in constant flux (but maintained within an equilibrium). Here’s another tid bit: As CO2 levels rise and average temperature follows, MORE H2O vapour will enter the atmosphere which will alter rainfall patters, global atmospheric energy transport, and (surprise) average global temperatures.

“Global Warming has been proven as a lie”

Really? That’s funny, this news hasn’t reached me yet, nor the scientists I learn from every day, or the VAST majority of REAL scientists (ecologists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, etc.)that claim the opposite.

“It is another sham created to rob more money from people”

Please, enlighten me as to how reducing my consumption or choosing to bicycle over drive (amongst other things) is meant to “rob me of my money”? Because on the surface it would seem the opposite is true and therefore one of us must be crazy or lacking in our analytical capabilities.

“true scientists assert the science “facts” behind Global Warming is weak and faulty”

Again, I’d REALLY like to meet these people. It amazes me that the vast majority of scientists whose work actually relates to our climate/environment are saying the opposite.

“There are other more important and REAL forms of pollution occurring today”

Could you elaborate on these REAL forms of pollution (other than the spread of misinformation and corporate propoganda)?

And for Rob and everyone else, on the climate issue, please clear the multifaceted smoke screen surrounding the issue, and get back to basics for me.

And for Jacob, although not on the climate issue (please see previous link in this comment on that one), I agree with you in many other areas. This post about the real reasons behind the food crisis may interest you.

“The freaks come out at night…”

“Aren’t you happy to be living in this world, just now, in the 21st Century? Or you rather be living in those Golden Days of Yesteryear, when diseases and famines were the norm, and people reaching old age the exception that confirmed the rule?””

This statement is awful and incredibly limited in view. Why is it that those who would protest any sort of change assume this change would be a step BACK rather than a step forward? The majority of us who are sane and concerned about climate change aren’t advocating a return to a past filled with higher mortality rates and widespread famine, but rather a more practical and sustainable form of existence. What ever would make you think that addressing climate change would involve giving up modern medicine, or any of the knowledge we’ve acquired over the past 200 years for that matter?

“every one of us has more to eat, in both developed and developing countries”

Really? if that’s the case then WHY is there still famine in the world? Why are there malnourished people? Another point worth considering is that along with our growing food production is growing food waste. Food that never reaches mouthes it’s intended to feed. What good is increases production if it is offset by wastage?

“ITS NOT CO2 WE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT”

Actually it is. Granted CO2 is only one detrimental product of a short-sighted society but it’s also the primary catalyst in climate change. We should be VERY worried about CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

“We need to quit worrying about fake problems such as climate change that is only being used to create a global tax that is intended to fund a global government”

Seriously? There are several articles available illustrating that if climate change were a hoax it would have to have begun over 150 years ago and stretched across an international network of completely unconnected players. The notion that climate change is simply a scam for creating a new world order is absurd at best.

We need to think critically. No matter what side of the argument you stand on, if you take what you’re told on faith rather than taking a hard look at the factual and scientific validity of the information you preach; then you’ll be no closer to the truth than the fanatics on the opposite end of the spectrum.