

A complete list of things caused by global warming - DanielBMarkham
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

======
maweaver
My favorite example of this is Katrina. It wasn't a hugely powerful storm like
say Andrew (it was only a Category 3 at landfall), it just happened to hit at
exactly the wrong spot. People have been talking about this happening since
before I was born, so it shouldn't have been a huge shock when it finally did.
Despite this, and despite the fact that we have had a string of mild hurricane
seasons since then, Katrina is often pointed to as an example of the kind of
worse-than-usual storms we can expect in the future.

~~~
ajross
Uh... Katrina _was_ a "worse-than-usual" storm, by pretty much every metric.
Not the biggest (though the cat-3-at-landfall was because of a luckily-timed
eyewall cycle, it was absolutely a cat-5 storm), but certainly one of the most
memorable. So what's wrong with using a memorable storm as an example of
similar storms?

~~~
fleitz
Nothing is wrong with it except that most of the damage was caused by the
genius idea of building below sea/water level in an area known to be inundated
with hurricanes which tend to cause increases in sea level and then neglecting
to maintain the levies to keep the water out. It surely wasn't individuals and
various levels gov't making cataclysmically bad decisions, no sirree, it was
global warming. Also, the gov't should have had more boats on hand for actors
to rescue puppies.

~~~
petewarden
Nothing is wrong with it except that most of the damage was caused by the
genius idea of adding gases to the atmosphere that basic physics tell us trap
heat, in a world where people love to live in low-lying areas next to bodies
of water, and then neglecting to worry about any curbs on this massive
experiment in 'what happens next?'

~~~
fleitz
The sea level used to be 300 feet lower than where it is today. The planet
changes, deal with it. Why is whatever the temperature was in 1700 the ideal
temperature? If we have the power to change the temperature of the earth we
should be thinking what the ideal temperature we'd like it to be is and do
that instead of picking the day we started burning coal.

------
mattmaroon
This is valueless and trollish. It proves nothing other than that uninformed
people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides
of the debate, which you already knew.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
As I said, I was pressed for time, but the first few links I clicked on all
had "research", "study", "survey", or "report" in the body text. That's not
just somebody's opinion. Usually with nouns like this there is funding and
somebody somewhat professional behind it.

But if it's just rampant speculation by uninformed people I apologize. I
certainly didn't mean to spam the board. Care to prove your point that somehow
all of these reports, surveys, studies, and findings are bogus? Or is this
just a way not to deal with the overwhelming amount of research with unusual
conclusions that somehow links into climate change?

By the way, my guess is that this is a conservative list, created for impact.
The actual list of suspicious links and conclusions is probably much more
boring -- and much more extensive. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

~~~
cromulent
The title you chose is "complete list", but your guess is "conservative list".
I suspect the difference between your guess and the H1 you chose is caused by
global warming. Perhaps.

I clicked on a few links - two were 404's, one said that it wasn't caused by
GW but was exacerbated by it (ozone repair slowed), one was speculation about
shark attacks by a shark expert. One said that nuclear power would probably
increase due to global warming. One said that New Zealand would have many
fewer melanoma deaths due to GW. The one about jet engines seemed to have
nothing to do with GW.

It's a good list and a good point. Global warming turned me into a newt.
However, IMHO, there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

Edit: Newt reference for those who may not have experienced it:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI>

~~~
DanielBMarkham
For somebody so busy? Here I am commenting for hours on HN. Dang, this site is
addictive. (sigh) Should have just blogged.

Yes. I mistook the H1 for the title. I assure you it was an honest mistake.

I also agree with you that there is truth in there. I further agree that the
more we work towards a nuclear/green electric future with zero emissions the
more enjoyable everything will be, and I support that overall strategy with
some caveats. I'm just a process guy at heart, though, and for a couple of
years the debate on GW has struck me as being badly broken. I think this is an
ominous sign for both politics and science. I hope the current debacle can
help reasonable people come up with standards, ethical guidelines, and
certification programs that will prevent this mess from happening again. I am
doubtful, though. I think climate science has gotten so political that there
is going to have to be a severe thrashing taken by one side before the
sufficient changes are taken. What can I say? Hopefully I'm very wrong about
this.

------
lhorie
From the site's homepage:

    
    
      Welcome to Number Watch  
    
      All about the scares, scams, junk, panics, and flummery
      cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats,
      so-called scientists and others who try to confuse you
      with wrong numbers.
    
      Working to combat Math Hysteria.
    

It basically looks like an extensive list of news articles about varied topics
that make mention of global warming (it being the fad-du-jour in journalism
and all)

------
Zarkonnen
Um. You do realise that this is how science works? People come up with
theories, and then they're discussed. Discussed, not used as a political
cudgel.

The people to blame aren't the scientists but the press who take "x may be
related to y" and turn it into "X CAUSES Y!".

~~~
thaumaturgy
One of my favorite takes on this:

<http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174>

------
DanielBMarkham
I've been meaning to blog about this for some time -- AGCC has reached the
point where it is included in just about any other piece of research, no
matter how tangential -- but haven't had the time. This site just throws the
data out there for your perusal.

Cato the Elder had the habit, no matter what the topic, to include the phrase
in his speeches "And Carthage must be destroyed" -- Carthago delenda est

No matter what came up, he always added "Carthago delenda est" The farmers
have had a good harvest this year, and Carthage must be destroyed. I am very
happy to receive this honor, and Carthage must be destroyed. Nice toga you're
wearing, and Carthage must be destroyed.

I think this list stands on it's own. No matter what the topic, climate change
is presented as a big factor. It's become the universal plug-and-play prime
mover. This is especially interesting in the context of no statistically
significant global warming in the last decade or two. Of course, all
generalizations are false, change doesn't necessarily mean warming, micro-
climate is not the same as macro-climate, etc, etc. But you get the point.

If the list isn't enough to make the rhetorical point well, perhaps somebody
with more time than I have can write it up in a good essay. I know I'd like to
read it.

Link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est>

~~~
thaumaturgy
"There might be dramatic changes in our global climate in the future."

"Pfft. Crazy talk. The Earth has always been exactly as it is now."

"We might be contributing to these changes because of our polluting ways."

"No we aren't. It's too big. There's no way that 6 billion people could have
any effect on the Earth's climate."

"We think we have some evidence. Look..."

"HAH! Look, here, see? Your numbers don't all match! You're a fraud! You just
want money to continue your prestigious work!"

"Uhm ... sure. But look, the climate affects a lot of things, y'know."

"Yeah, so?"

"So, here's a partial list of things which might be affected by climate."

"LOLOL! There's no way one thing could be blamed for all of these! No way!
That just proves you're a crock!"

...But, uhm, hey, thanks for contributing to the debate, or something.

~~~
miked
_"Pfft. Crazy talk. The Earth has always been exactly as it is now."_

One of the main claims of climate skeptics like myself is that the earth _has
always been changing_ , and that temperature changes seen recently are largely
a result of these natural (mostly solar) cycles. This would explain why Mars
was also heating up for a while.

You need to get another set of straw men.

------
realitygrill
I am actually really looking forward to reading Brignell's books. This
particular page might only be an indicator of how out-of-control the global
warming meme is, but I'm under the impression Brignell's stances are at least
an approximation of how you should honestly approach the subject/studies.

Who's read him? (I actually think I was linked to numberwatch on HN)

------
flabbergaster
Not complete: it's missing itself.

