Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' | Uk News | News | Telegraph Having read the article, I decided to look up information on some of the people mentioned in it. So far, the only good article I found was by Tim Ball, but it only really stated his own views rather than information on the man himself, which is really what I was seeking. Still, an interesting read nonetheless.
Personally I've always been sceptical about the human influence on global warming. I don't deny it's happening exactly, I just don't think a lot of people are looking at the bigger, climatological picture. I also don't think many people realise just how mind-bogglingly huge the world is, mostly because we have maps of it and little globes in our offices and classrooms, and air travel and TV to show us all of it whenever we want. I believe that the planet is very powerful and that humans are pityful in comparision; no matter how much shit they create and bombs they detonate, they're a long way from affecting Earth in the way a lot of people claim that they are. Having said that, exhaust fumes, factory fumes, and carbon emissions are a disgusting filthy and primitive substance for us to have to live with on a more localised level. I would be very happy to see them go whatever excuse we come up with for getting rid of them. I had a conversation with someone yesterday about the suspected plots by oil companies to keep us using fossil fuels. I postulated that there could be a counter-plot by the world's major governments to undermine the oil companies and convince us all to stop using oil, eventually, all together so we don't have to rely on the Middle Eastern nutjobs for our fuel supplies.
My personal opinion is fairly close. *nod* I agree 100% on this. Preservation of the environment as we know it and having some actual clean air to breathe anywhere near an industrial area would be good. Hehe.
I am of a different opinion from you. I do believe the earth is powerful enough to recover from whatever we might throw at it, but I don't believe it would neccessarily recover into the same state as before. I believe it is possible for us humans to wreck it all up to the point where the earth is not longer a hospitable place for us, and take a good deal of species with us in the fall. Humans would become extinct. Some species would survive. I've heard cockroaches are strong animals. I am worried about climate change, and that we've reached a point where the snowball has reached enough momentum to eventually become an avalanche. I hope I am wrong, but I try to lead my life as if I was right. I put an effort into keeping my carbon dioxide emission low. I believe that this is a better strategy, when it comes to something as important as the continued existance of our species, than assuming there is no problem.
Well we both believe in cleaner air and lower carbon emissions, so either way we coudn't lose if everyone else felt the same way.
this reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother about it- she finally explained to me why she's skeptical of the whole concept by saying that when she was my age, scientists were predicting another ice age in the relatively near future. So she doesn't quite trust them to be on the money this time, either. Its kind of weird to have to remember that theories/hypotheses can change so much; I don't know if this one is because fo different data or a better way of looking at what they had, but its scary to think that we could put so much effort and money into stopping something and then have the scientific community go "well, we've looked at X phenomenon again, and have a bit more to go on now, so we really should have been worried about Y instead"
http://www.terrypratchettbooks.org/discworld/boardania/1268-environmentalism-debate.html I'm still pretty much with my -out of the sleeve- response in there, but I'd be glad if I were wrong. I think if measures are taken that prevent it, no one will actually be harmed - as Mal pointed out. We all *do* know there is no unlimited supply of oil and gas, too, and maybe this is what it takes to break the decades of refusal of some of the main industries to research environmental friendly energy resources . If you want to answer a conspiracy theory with an conspiracy theory, maybe stating publicly that you are being persecuted for your views relieves you of having them plucked apart again and again for their content, giving you the small comfort that 90% of your scientific rivals disagreeing with you is not based on facts, but on discrimination of the sceptic? I thought everyone that much in public with a controversial view, on both sides of the fence, received some sorts of threats from crazed lunatics who are out to prove that you don't need actual brain power to send out a mail or google a phone number. Not that that makes it any righter or nicer.
This is a very good point. This is why I want to find out more about Timothy Ball, Richard Lindzen, Myles Allen and possibly Nigel Calder. I want to find out more about their credibility, their general behavior regarding such matters. Basically, I want to find out what I can about their character.
Whilst the earth is proven to warm up and cool down every now and then, I do think that humans are having an influence on what is happening. There are over 6 billion people on the planet with millions of industries and collectively they make a difference. Not just pollution from factories, but pollution from all forms of transport, pollution from animals farmed (anyone for bovine methane?) and just plain CO2 debt from breathing. It's arguable about how much of a difference that makes, but it does make at least some difference. Of course, it's arguable that this is all inevitable due to the earth's inherent ability to sustain life. Maybe previous ice-ages or heat-waves were caused by some other advanced, industry-based lifeforms, which the planet managed to cover the tracks of during recovery. Regarding crazy death threats and such, that sort of thing seems to be de rigeur at the moment. Some people may remember the death threats sent to the football referee who sent off Wayne Rooney in the World Cup, and those sent occasionally to various controversial politicians around the world. As Hsing says, it's a sad consequence of making communication easy.
Basically, yes, people can influence the climate to a huge degree. Americans today, for instance, have something like 600 times more lead in them than americans a century ago, purely because of lead petrol. Lead doesn't go anywhere, so when it's blown into the atmosphere it just floats about, being absorbed by people. CFC's as well, they can destory the ozone layer at an astounding rate. If ozone is is flattened out over the whole world, it'd only be about 2mm thick, so it's not the most abundant of materials despite being vital to us not all dying. I've not got the exact numbers, but a small amout of CFC can destroy a ridiculous amount of ozone. When you throw in the marvellous greenhous effects of CO2, then we're in a bit of bother. To be frank, if everyone in the world paid attention to their carbon footprints (go buzzword), the amount of difference it would make is really pretty small. The overwhelming majority of pollutants and crap is coming from industry. Until they change, you can turn off all the lightbulbs you want and walk to work every day, but you'll still be fucked.
Yeah, that's the most depressing part of it all. Even though I can change myself and choose what cooperations to buy from, I can't really affect the biggest sources of greenhouse gases.
doors? we've been using unleaded gas for my whole life. now, i'm inclined to come down on the side that says humans can have a biggish impact. however, given a long enough timespan, i imagine the planet can recover from almost anything short of complete sterilization, or the sun going nova.
Uh... I can remember leaded petrol being sold and the ban coming into place (wiki says this was 96). Some petrol forecourts still have the pumps they used for leaded, just lying there - inoperable. edit: hmm, this sentence is interesting: "However, fuel containing lead may continue to be sold for off-road uses, including aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines until 2008.". At least they are getting rid of it next year...
I Believe that humans do have an impact on Global warming, not just as individuals like Doors said but the big corperations. As individuals we probably don't create much CO2 or other greenhouse gasses. But it wouldn't hurt the Ozone to stop useing Offroad vehicles that do 12 miles to the gallon for dropping off the kids, wouldn't hurt your bank acount either. They say that the effect of fossile fuels and deforestation have thrown the CO2 Cycle out of whack and that it'll be a damn long time before it rights itself. However most of the Oxyen on Earth is created by Algea in the sea not Trees, and don't cattle make a hell of a lot more CO2 than cars? The plantes eco system has its ups and downs of its own accord but that doesn't mean we don't have an effect on it. Like Doors said, we as individuals might not make much of an impact but the big corperations/businesses do. they create a lot more CO2 emmisions that any individual plus godknows what other harmful gasses. As for the scientists, I was talking to my dad. he said that all the government funded scientists said that global warming is a myth. Almost every other scientist of any integrity said otherwise. that doesn't nesicerily mean that all scientists that argue that we don't have an effect on global warming are sellouts, but it puts it into perspective. The idea of receiveing death threats because of your opinions is unbeliveable, people should be respected for their opinions not told to sit in the corner. Personally i still try to keep as green as possible, i recycle whenever possible and i use public transport (if only because i can't drive) but sometimes it does seem a little futile.
Will you post what you find? The name of the organization rings a more than faint bell with me, for once - but right now, I'm to mushybrained to go and do some research myself...:redface:
The thing is, for me, I think we should all be worried about poisoning our air and environment on a more localised basis. We're choking ourselves to death on car and manufacturing fumes, littering our land with useless food and merchandise packaging, and sterilising our rivers with factory waste. We don't need any abstract idea of killing the planet, which to many of the brainless masses means pretty much bugger all anyway - something that's happening somewhere else. It doesn't do any good to have some stuffy politicians telling Joe Bloggs that the world is heating up and it's all China's fault, or America's fault, or even his own country's fault. Joe Bloggs, and everyone else, needs to know that car fumes cause brain damage to little babies, or drinking factory-tainted water will knock years off your life or turn you into a mutant. Most people these days don't give a shit about the future of their own village, let alone the planet. They need to hear about stuff that's affecting them now, or will affect them in the near future. Stuff they can really see, even if they never watch the news or read a paper. Things like the black soot you see on buildings that comes from car exhausts, which would all be gone if we cleaned it off and did away with fossil fuels. This thing in particular will happen anyway in the future when it all runs out, just think how different places like London (or any big city) will be with no fossil fuel pollution, and no noise from combustion engines - I think it will create a whole different kind of urban society when we have reduced unnatural noise pollution and carbon filth, sometime way in the future. I think a lot of people like the concept of global warming because they can moan about it in a relatively guilt-free manner, knowing there's not a lot they can do about it because it's someone else's fault, or everyone else's fault. The culprits are too generalised, too nameless. I don't think there's too many people at all, or anywhere near it. 6 billion, to me, isn't such a large number when you're talking about organisms, animals on a planet - planets are really big, people are really small - in more ways than one - and it's only an American 6 billion anyway I think, isn't it?
Its not that I don't agree or understand that there isn't a warming problem (halestorms a foot deep in the middle of summer anyone) but I think the major problem with the solution is that the problem seems so huge and dispersed that most people don't see the relevance to them or feel that as an individual they can't make a difference. Its classic theory of planned behaviour, where a positive attitude and a positive social expectation for changing behaviour is over-ridden by the perception that the behaviour is too hard or won't make a difference...
I'll do my best, as soon as I can divert enough time for this myself. Hopefully I'll have some time to invest a few hours in this venture later this week.
Has anyone here read/seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? I haven't looked into the science behind the numbers, but some Gore presents some pretty startling ideas. Including talking about a potential European ice age, and CO2 concentrations over the last 600,000 years. There is indeed a cycle, but currently the upswing far outweighs any previous ones. The Earth will certainly survive, after all it's just a ball of rock. But, as others have raised, will we survive? And ultimately, I think that Mal is right. People are only concerned with their immediate needs...
I have started my search with Professor Tim Ball. I ran into this blog entry among my first search entries, which is also a critical analysis of Ball. I took it with a grain of salt though, as the blog is quite openly trying to dig up dirt on those 61 scientists it mentions. So I went to investigate his connection to Friends of Science, a Canadian group which receives at least part of its funding from energy companies. Still, as Tim Ball was not mentioned as a consultant on as Desmog claimed, I decided to search for his name on this site. I did find several entries (Exhibit A, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4). Documents 1,2 and 4 did not mention Ball beyond a simple quote. Document 3, on the other hand, mentioned Friends of Science and Tim Ball as possible sharers of a mutual interest. There is a degree of doubt in me on this, though, due to it being a repeat of something a third party published. It could be that they indeed share a mutual interest, or it could be that FoS simply interviewed him sometimes. Onwards. The second point is Ball's alleged embellishment of his credentials. Ball filed a lawsuit against a Dr. Dan Johnson for questioning Ball's academic credentials, which apparently harmed his income from lectures. Having read the Statement of Claim, and the Statement of Defense by both Johnson and the Calgary Herald, the paper that published Johnson's claim, I must say that I have rarely seen so much nitpicking and bitterness written over and over again. Perhaps this is why I never wanted to study Law. To cut a long story short (which you can read yourselves here, here, and here) I find Johnson's nitpicking to be more credible. I'd much prefer to fully examine Johnson's claims, but at the very least Ball has embellished the true extent and length of his work as a Climatologist, as well as his position as the 'first' Canadian Ph.D in Climatology. Ball appears to be a bit on the pompous and proud side, and willing to bend the facts of his career if it suits him. Onwards to Ball and the NRSP. I find the NRSP to be questionable, as I don't like it when think-tanks hide their funding sources, but that's really the only important no-no on the NRSP mentioned by Desmog as far as I'm concerned. Membership, or even board-membership of several such groups is of little consideration as far as I'm concerned. Links in the Desmog entry for any who wish to see further. Regarding Ball's publications, I am as of yet unable to confirm or deny their existence or lack thereof. I'm loathe to believe that the man published merely 4 original publications, as academics live off them. A man who worked for at least 8 years in the field is unlikely to publish so little. Still, if this is indeed the case then the man is a deadbeat. That is all for now. More later.
That's some pretty extensive research you've undertaken there, it's obviously soething you're very passionate about. It's certainly interesting what you can discover when you start to dig. I wonder if many "serious scientists" would dare to challenge the current global warming theories, for fear of being discredited and such. You'd have to be pretty damn sure of your evidence to leap from that particular band wagon, unless you're a lesser-respected scientist/scholar/enthusiast with few credentials in the first place.
To tell you the truth, I'm just bloody bored and for some reason this specific topic took my interest.
Now, onwards to Richard S. Lindzen. From reading his MIT Faculty page, I must say I'm impressed. His publications, at least from the sheer amount of them in forty-so years, is also impressive. Academic credentials, as well as research credentials relevant to the topic at hand, are correct. This man isn't a deadbeat like Ball appears to be. I found an article of his on the Wall Street Journal Editorial. An interesting read. I have also located an extremely critical blog post regarding Lindzen, but I find many of the answers (as well as the questions) to only suit those who examined the issue in a shallow matter. And as the website in question has a goal to "defend the international scientific consensus and summarize the industrial misinformation campaign in a way any layman can understand", I can only hazard the theory that anyone who disagrees with the consensus is viewed as part of the "misinformation campaign" by this website. Big no-no. In any case, to address their points. How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus? Easily. The question is loaded, in that it assumes that people treat scientists as perfect beings who never go wrong. And if people do, then we have a problem. Lindzen has a minority view, that much is true, but saying "because he has a minority view then he is wrong" is counter-productive to actually using one's brain. Does he have any conflict of interests? It would depend on just how long Lindzen worked as a consultant for a coal company, which I would like to find more details on. Unfortunately, the evidence starts and ends with this article. From 1995, at that. To quote the relevant part from it: The OPEC bit is also interesting. But what I don't like is that this is an article that is twelve years old. And the only relevant article on the topic I could find. Everyone else who speaks of Lindzen's questionable interests always mentions and/or links to this article, at least of what I could find so far. I would have liked to know the full extent of Lindzen's consulting work, and just who he was consulting over the years, but as this is what we have then this is what will do. Possible conflict of interest in the past, current situation unknown. Will he put his money where his mouth is? Completely loaded issue, completely loaded answers. Have his scientific theories ever been wrong before? A good issue, but then again what researcher can safely say to be right all the time? Without sounding like a pompous windbag, that is. Sounds a bit like the first question the blog raises. Lindzen says we can't explain the Greenland icesheet. I thought this was a fairly important issue, until I realized that what they're saying here is not why the Greenland icesheet is growing while still melting at the edges, but the how. I'm assuming Lindzen knows the how (increased snow) but argues that these changing snow patterns can't be simply explained away by increases in the water level. Correct view or not, it is still a valid view. But at the same time, Lindzen's sweeping statement that there is no explanation for this phenomenon is a bit on the arrogant side. Has lindzen ever lied on TV? Well, I would wager that opinion is not lying. Has he ever lied to Congress? On this one I found my brain melting. But I would say that it's possible that Lindzen stretched opinion and gave it the appearance of having more backing than it in fact has. Borderline, but not lying. Still not good though. Have any of Lindzen’s claims regarding the consensus been published in a peer review journal? I would have liked to investigate this matter further, but I from a brief glance of his recent publications that weren't newspaper-related, I think that at least some of them touched on the issue. Does Lindzen have a standing paper in any peer review journal that can provide a mechanism as to why current global warming isn't something to worry about? They claim none, and if none is indeed the answer then this is a good point. Lindzen should present his views on the matter in a scientific matter to other members of the scientific community, in an ordered and thought-out manner. This is actually the best point here, as I see it. Lindzen says there is a study that proves there is no consensus, is this true? Having read through the links provided for this entry, I can only say the following. The study was conducted in a crappy manner. So was the study it was trying to debunk, which attempted to show that there was no real objection to the consensus. Both researchers took crappy statistical samples of a collection of peer-reviewed articles (which is to say, they entered three words into a search engine and pressed 'Search'). The filing of the articles also appears to have been mismanaged, and Benny Peiser (the author of the second study) just barely managed to notice this after trying to present a crappy study as valid. I'm not sure he even noticed that he managed to discredit both his study, and the study he was trying to discredit at the same time... Neither proved anything, beyond the fact that members of the scientific community can be as lazy and as inattentive as the next guy. He says scientists are creating a scare to get funding, is this true? This is a bad one, actually. I don't like this kind of stupid thinking. Big no-no for Lindzen. He issues reports on climate change and pontificates in front of Congress. Therefore his testimony must be infallible right? Just another "explanation to idiots", nothing to see here, move along... Lindzen dismisses anthropogenic climate change as "religious belief”. How much basis is there in this claim? Having read through what Lindzen claims on this matter, he has a point. Anything under "scientific consensus" will receive little doubt from the layman public, much like religious dogma. I think on this one the blog author simply misunderstood Lindzen's point, possibly due to a personal bias. He’s from MIT, surely that means he’s infallible does it? Answers, idiots, move along... Well what exactly is wrong with the science behind Lindzen’s testimony? This one is a good point. If Lindzen wants to back his claims better, he needs to publish on the matter himself, showing just what he sees as backing his theories. Possibly he published on the matter, I don't know, but so far I have not found evidence of this. The rebuttals of Lindzen's claims (linked in below this entry at the site) might be worth a read if you have trouble sleeping. Overall, very good credentials, research and specialties seem to be relevant to the matter at hand, but no apparent specific research and/or publications on just global warming. A bit on the prideful side, has a penchant for spreading stupid conspiracy theories when writing for a newspaper. Possible conflict of interests with regards to funds paid from oil and coal industries. Not a deadbeat by a long shot, a very long shot, but possibly out of his specific fields of study and thus not able to see the big picture. I think this one is worth reading into further if Global Warming is your current interest, though, if you seek to hear an view that opposes that of the consensus for any reason.
The environment is something I feel strongly for, and about. It's my opinion that all humans should do this, because frankly, mother earth will survive without us, we however cannot survive without her. Global warming is happening, there's no doubt about it. The reasons can be many, not only man made. Take in consideration, for example, that there's always a great upswing of the temperature in the world right before an iceage, add to that the fact that iceages occur in cycles and it's about time for the next one. All the pollutioning we're doing is not good, in any way, shape or form. And if I can do a little thing, I will, because if everyone does a little thing, that little thing will become a large thing. Just spending an extra few minutes on what groceries to buy can save the world a lot of nasty things. Also, if all the lightbulbs in the world were exchanged for energy-saving alternatives, the world's energy consumption would sink with 30%. That's a lot.
We're at 6 500 000 000 people now. I always confuse the English billions, in German it's Millionen (million) - Milliarden - Billionen. I suppose just changing behaviour, especially in the industrialized countries, where each of us has a larger ecologic footprint than four people from a poor country together, could make a difference. For whatever you're thinking of, be it climate change or general environmental matters. My personal consequence was a) changing the lightbulbs for energy saving ones -don't know the English word- and using the car for nothing else anymore than housemoving related matters- driving tons of stuff to the Recycling facility, buying materials at the hardware store, etc. Seeing my car is 14 years old, that should spare a few kilos of co2 over the time...
energy-saving lightbulbs :razz: I need to do more recycling - I've got papers and bottles littering my room which I keep meaning to take to a recycling place but keep forgetting... I also have a mighty hoard of plastic bags. I do turn off unnecessary lights which my housemates leave on and wear more layers rather than turn the heating right up if it's cold and I have an economical car (more by affordability than design when I was buying it), but now I could afford a slight upgrade, I don't feel the need to as it is economical and I don't need a big car - plus it's still pretty nippy as it's small :wink: I've taken to turning the temperature on my washing loads down one setting, with no noticable loss in cleaning power so far. But there's still so much more I could do if I put my mind to it, especially in terms of recycling. Lack of facilities doesn't help, sure there are bottle, can and paper banks, but nowhere I know of that recycles plastic bags, metals or general plastics. I'm tempted to storm the council offices in complaint but you know... effort.
Taking up the cause, I searched the uni databases for Tim Ball and climate and came up with these articles (I can't get full text because they are so old)... The date of these publications indicates the guy hasn't been in academic circles for quite a long time. I got this list from ISI web of Science which tends to only list the top journals in a field so it can be reliably said that these articles were published by Ball in decent journals a long time ago. Lord knows what he's been doing since 1994 though. And to the persons statement that 4 articles in 8 years doesn't seem like a lot, well for academics this is considered pretty reasonable depending on your level of employment. If he was in my position then it would be considered brilliant but if he was a professor (about 5 steps higher) then its abyssmal to OK depending on the field. My concern is more about the date of publication. This guy hasn't done anything academically with the rigours in place for truth in research etc for a long time. He could be anyone's patsy.
And Dr R.S. Lindzen gets his listings in ISI as well: The times cited indicates how many people have referenced him who are also published in ISI so its either a measure of acceptability or people saying he's rubbish I'd have to follow the links and see what they said and I have other things to do.
We have around 200-250 years of fossil fuels (2005 data from a resource conference in LA I'll have to find the slides I was given) left but America for example only has around 50 years before pollution screws them over. Australia has a better figure but then that illustrates how the populations of each country are very different. It is just a matter of volume. Climate change is a reality, but then the climate was never static in the first place. That is the first bad assumption people make. The second is that they think globally but forget to realise that they can only act locally for the most part. As Spiky said, it depends. Research takes time. Particularily if you have to teach students or don't have a army of research students to do it for you. If anything it may indicate that he has worked extensively in the private sector where he has been under confidentiality agreements with his employer. That blog you have been going throught seems overly zealous (He’s from MIT, surely that means he’s infallible does it? come on)and playing overly to much to the 'mob' of fools who don't actually understand the issue and have just jumped on the conspiracy theory bandwagon. I mean when it comes to global warming and climate change. Yeah we have a effect. But people do not appreciate how complicated the weather is.
Spikey, these are great, thanks. Ball's publications seem dated and very few for his position, but as Pepster said he could have had extensive research constraints and later turned to the private industry. Well, he's only a potential deadbeat then. I agree wholeheartedly. And yeah, that blog was fairly zealous, to the point of being downright obnoxious. I only took it because it linked to all the other relevant pages I found so far, and consolidated them all into a single page. Thus saving me a great deal of effort in linking to each and every one of them. Perhaps I was mistaken in that approach, but I can sadly attest that so far, the potentially negative information that I can find on people is contained in the websites of those who apparently have decided to have a mission of digging up dirt. Fairly angry and biased people, mostly, who do the position that they so zealously try to defend a grand disservice. In any case, I will continue with Myles Allen tomorrow, if time allows.
This is why the near-extinction of many species of whale is such a critical issue. The problem with cutting down trees is less to do with the gasses they produce, and more to do with their effects on local climates, soil erosion and so on. Yes, but how many people can the world sustain with our current effect on our environment. Only 10% of my cup of tea is milk, but that doesn't mean I can keep on adding milk and still expect to have a nice cup of tea. There is a delicate balance in the matter of ecology and we don't know if we're pushing the limits or not. Only 10% of the UK is built-up, but that doesn't mean we can afford to build on more.
I'm not so sure that this is true. I also wonder sometimes why humans think of themselves as being outside the equation of ecology, affecting it like they're some kind of alien infestation rather than being part of it like every other animal on Earth. For me there are no limits to how many humans there should be, not limits we need to think about anyway. The human animal will expand to its upper number limit naturally, whatever that is, and contract accordingly. People always talk about the things that we do, medical practices and technologies etc, in terms of being unnatural - as if we exist outside nature - but to me they are how the human animal lives, it's what it does. Obviously the human animal also debates the way it does things, and eventually modifies its behaviour in order to survive, when it realises that creating poisenous gases etc will harm it. It is a slow process when view from the point of view of the individual, and very frustrating for those of us that can see or imagine a future without wars, death and famine - but I do believe it is a process and we are evolving all the time into something more suited to our environment, the same as all the other creatures and the Earth are too. I don't know why sometimes people boldly say things like, "Global warming exists, and that's a fact" when their only source of information is what someone else has told them, what they've seen on TV news programmes or in papers, when logically, historically, a lot of these predictions we're fed are totally wrong - or turn out to be something slightly different to what we expected.
Global warming does exist, as part of the regular pattern of ice ages and warming that the earth has been through. The debate is over whether we have caused the warming stage to break its usual bounds to the extent that we may have begun a process that will end with the extinction of humanity. Mal, I'm not sure if you thought that what I said implied I thought humans are outside the equation of ecology. I think precisely the opposite, as I believe do most proponents of the case for global warming. That's the whole point. The number of human animals will indeed expand to its upper limit naturally, and we can raise that upper limit by not being so stupid as to shit in our own nest. What you are saying seems to be exactly the same as most people think about this except that you are unconvinced that global warming is a species-threatening issue.
I know the Earth is warming up, but I don't know one way or the other what is causing it - though I do think it's very likely to be a normal Earth process and not influenced anywhere near to the degree by humans that the all ecompassing term "Global Warming" suggests, or at least the way a lot of people use the term. The remarks about people talking as if humans are outside ecology were not directed at anything you said, just a coincidence that you used the same word really, but it is something I see all the time and it sort of irks me a bit sometimes. I think humans are pretty insignificant in comparison to the whole Earth organism and feel we should focus more on not poisening and killing ourselves with our pollution more than the abstract idea of causing ice to melt and the atmosphere to heat up which, to my thinking, is probably more to do with things beyond our control or more likely connected to the same reasons Mars is heating up a bit.
