environmental groups that are skeptical of catastrophic man-made climate change

[Joe33]

Originally Posted by DCforever

Joe you need to stop with the silly fiction. Global cooling was never the "rage." That's just what the climate change denier web sites tell gullible people like you today.

Really? I happen to have written some articles myself in those days.
I have to say the Pro Climate Change folks are doing their best to hide the info but many people such as I still have our hard copies.

You are probably thinking of the faked 1977 Time Magazine cover.

I suggest you you look at Life magazine or newsweek or even Time Magazine again.

Then there is always the National academy of Science. Take a look. Report back.

[Stymie13]

Originally Posted by yofie

Let me expand my question: Are there environmental groups that hardly even mention climate change or global warming and that focus exclusively on any one of the other environmental issues?

Don't knows group but that's how I identify.

I'm not saying dumping co2 in the air is great... I'm just more worried about potable water, habitat infringement, poaching, etc...

To me, science of understanding climate, let alone climate change, is in it's infancy. Not much further advanced than our understanding of dark matter/energy.

[509]

Originally Posted by DCforever

Actually controlling climate change is way more important. The impact on the environment of a 2+ degree temperature change will be significant.

Nope.

I actually read that scientific paper on the effects of 2+ degree temperature change on natural landscapes. The change in California and the Southwest from cattle grazing and invasive species is much more than any change predicted by man caused climate change. The grasslands and other low elevation landscapes of California are TOTALLY different than those of 100 years ago. A 2+ degree change is minor.

My professional background is in western US landscapes, but eastern landscapes have been so change by man that there is much discussion of WHAT WAS a natural landscape. We don't even know what we lost!!

So climate change of two degrees is minor. Even when viewed against NATURAL climate change IF you accept the premise of man-caused climate change it is still minor.

Here is a good book for you to read. It covers the last 10,000 years of NATURAL climate change primarily in California. It is dry reading....with lots of footnotes. The author is a Professor at UC Berkeley. She believes man caused climate change, but this book ONLY cover NATURAL climate change.

Worth reading. It will get you upset about the politicians wasting money to fight man-caused climate change, when it looks like NATURAL climate change will devastate California and other states. We are doing NOTHING to address that issue.

https://www.amazon.com/West-without-...ag=googhydr-20

[DCforever]

Originally Posted by Joe33

Really? I happen to have written some articles myself in those days.
I have to say the Pro Climate Change folks are doing their best to hide the info but many people such as I still have our hard copies.

You are probably thinking of the faked 1977 Time Magazine cover.

I suggest you you look at Life magazine or newsweek or even Time Magazine again.

Then there is always the National academy of Science. Take a look. Report back.

I have looked Joe. You are wrong.

[Joe33]

Originally Posted by 509

Nope.

I actually read that scientific paper on the effects of 2+ degree temperature change on natural landscapes. The change in California and the Southwest from cattle grazing and invasive species is much more than any change predicted by man caused climate change. The grasslands and other low elevation landscapes of California are TOTALLY different than those of 100 years ago. A 2+ degree change is minor.

My professional background is in western US landscapes, but eastern landscapes have been so change by man that there is much discussion of WHAT WAS a natural landscape. We don't even know what we lost!!

So climate change of two degrees is minor. Even when viewed against NATURAL climate change IF you accept the premise of man-caused climate change it is still minor.

Here is a good book for you to read. It covers the last 10,000 years of NATURAL climate change primarily in California. It is dry reading....with lots of footnotes. The author is a Professor at UC Berkeley. She believes man caused climate change, but this book ONLY cover NATURAL climate change.

Worth reading. It will get you upset about the politicians wasting money to fight man-caused climate change, when it looks like NATURAL climate change will devastate California and other states. We are doing NOTHING to address that issue.

https://www.amazon.com/West-without-...ag=googhydr-20

I agree with you but if I recall correctly, there is only a 6 degree difference between today and the last ice age.

DCforever. How old are you? Im 75 and have been involved in this for most of my life. Not saying that I know more but I was THERE. I remember the professors pushing global cooling and requiring students to research it and the companies pushing better insulated homes to counter it.

The original global warming was to be based on CFC's. I could almost buy that and I was involved in Vienna and Montreal. But todays basis on CO2 is ridiculous.
CO2 is the basis of life as we know it. It is what we are made of and what we eat.
I have some flower farms in Africa. The flowers are grown in green houses. It is a good business. To get the flowers to grow faster, we burn coal inside the greenhouse. We used to burn propane but coal is a lot cheaper and labor is very cheap.
We can get the flowers to grow twice as fast and have many more blooms than without the added CO2. We measure the quantity of coal burned and measure the exhaust from the greenhouse and we get a round a 75% conversion efficiency of CO2 to plant growth. Ye if you ask any environmentalist, they will say that this is a non factor.
There are or were satellite scans of World wide CO2 emissions in a year round cycle on the internet. It was a Japanese company. I have them somewhere but Im sure you can find them somewhere. They showed excess CO2 emissions during just 3 months of the year. The rest of the time there was a deficit in CO2 emissions due to plant growth. Plants need CO2. Lots of it. The more growth , the more they need. The more there is the more plants grow . It is what they are made of.

[DCforever]

I'm mid 60s and until recently was a registered professional engineer working for utilities. I have sited wind farms and nuclear plants.

Global warming was never based upon CFCs. The worry with CFC was ozone depletion. Which would lead to an increase in UV. It's a different thing. Physics you understand?

What you are referring to as a "global cooling scare" was just confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles. At the time of their report Time Magazine pointed out that a Milankovitch ice ages was thousands of years in the future.

Additional CO2 helps some plants and not others. A greenhouse is not a model of the rest of the ecosphere because all other nutrients are in excess in a greenhouse. In the real world moisture is often the limiting resource affecting plant growth. Double the CO2 content in a desert and nothing happens. Double the CO2 in a forest and soil nitrogen becomes limiting. Double the CO2 in the ocean and you now have an acidic environment and many organism die.

At 75 I'd suggest senility is setting in because so much of what your are sure of, just isn't so.