I didn't say that and I don't like having my words misrepresented. Climatic processes are states of disequilibrium by definition and I was specifically referring to the biosphere, changes in which the atmosphere is by far the most significant causal agent. The biosphere is self-creating and the way this is understood in biology is in terms of homeostasis. In layman's terms self-creating systems are those which "seek" equilibrium states without ever actually achieving them but in such systems effects are routinely raised to a power of their causes, a phenomenon commonly known as the butterfly effect which we have discussed elsewhere. The consensus is that if average global temperatures increase by more than 2 degrees C within the next fifty years then such a tipping point would be reached and that this would initiate a cascade of biological consequences whose effects are literally unknowable. This has occurred many times previously, for a number of different reasons, in the history of life on earth and on each occasion it brought about a mass extinction of greater or lesser severity. I'm not for a moment suggesting that our planet is in any peril because that's exactly the way evolution works. Such mass extinctions have ALWAYS brought about greater biological diversity on the planet and the next one will be no different. I'm only suggesting that for homo sapiens to be the main cause of such an extinction is rather ironic since he's likely to be the most significant casualty of it.Hobbes' Choice wrote: I did not say global warming was a hoax. You are the idiot that thinks the climate ought to be in equilibrium.
By the way I didn't accuse you of suggesting that global warming was a hoax. I know that many people are claiming this but I understand that your scepticism is of the science itself and that you are not supposing a dastardly plot on the part of those conducting this science. Scepticism of any scientific claim is always justifiable but the true sceptic must always stand willing to change his stance as the evidence mounts against him. No alternative explanation for the current global warming has stood firm against even the most cursory scientific scrutiny and many of the most distinguished sceptics of the past few decades have now hoisted the white flag of defeat. This is a very real problem which demands urgent measures and I am gratified that this has finally been acknowledged by the movers and shakers in this world.
I'm not being hysterical at all. I'm being a realist. There are many highly distinguished biologists who feel that the long-term effects of global warming are being vastly underestimated rather than exagerrated. I'm content to sit on the fence with respect to the possible consequences but only an idiot could simply pretend that it isn't happening. As a last point. There are a host of other valid environmental, public health, and economic reasons for eliminating the use of fossil fuels so even if the entire thing turns out to be a storm in a teacup we should be doing it anyway.Hobbes' Choice wrote: I don't see your hysteria as any more convincing than anyone else's.
