Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 16766 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #375 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:27:00 PM »

oboe.. I don't think anyone knows if we have had an effect on the ozone layer with the banning of a few chemicals in some countries or if they were ever as big a problem as was presented... How can you trust these guys?

Second hand smoke.. I am sure that breathing smoke of any kind is not good for you. I was objecting to the lie that all and I mean all.. the scientific community got onto about how it was worse than the first hand smoke for people... that is the kind of stuff that destroys their credibility to me.

how lawyers can get them to turn mold into "toxic mold" and panic people and cause untold expense... the junk science of the EPA... it never ends with these guys.. they seem to have no scruples at all in exagerating and blowing things all out of proportion.

Did you calmly accept karl frigging sagans statement about the decades long winter we would have if the sadman lit half the kuwait oil feilds on fire and they burned for as little as a few weeks? He lit em all on fire and most didn't get put out for 6 months and there was no noticeable effects.

I am just sick of the con job. I have lost respect for science when so many are willing to jump on a bandwagon or able to be bullied into it.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #376 on:** February 15, 2007, 04:27:44 PM »

With apologies to Bob Dylan, I think its the case that we all gotta trust somebody. A person who trusts no one is completely paranoid. You've given up on science, but you've still got the NRA.

I don't really remember Sagan predicting nuclear winter related to the Kuwaiti oil fields. I do remember the nuclear winter theory regarding a nuclear weapon exchange. Glad that theory has not been tested.

I agree science needs to have dissenters. Opposing sides who challenge each other. Competition seems to bring out the best - in politics, in business, in science.

I blame the media for sensationalizing everything. Between the Weather Channel's disaster constant coverage and TV news' constant drumbeat of catastrophism my poor parents are afraid of virtually everything nowadays. Lately its been the flu, since two 8 yr olds and a 44 yr old died last week in Minnesota.

btw, did a little research on ozone depletion- the rate of depletion has been reduced quite a bit since the banning of CFCs. The problem has not been licked, but it does sound like it's a victory for scientific alarmism and government action.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #377 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:08:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
btw, did a little research on ozone depletion- the rate of depletion has been reduced quite a bit since the banning of CFCs. The problem has not been licked, but it does sound like it's a victory for scientific alarmism and government action.

Oboe, you're falling for the "false cause" arguement. You're saying that CFC's have been reduced AND the ozone depletion rate is lower THEREFORE reducing CFC lowered the ozone depletion rate. You are inferring a causal relationship because the events occured together. They may have but there are far too many variables to state this as fact. This is like me throwing an ice cube out in the yard and the next day the temperature is lower so I decide my ice cube did it. If it did, I think I've got the solution to "global warming".

ghi · « **Reply #378 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:47:37 PM »

I don't belive the warming comes from human made, CO2 emission,that's too insignificant
Look below, we live on a thin "orange crust", the 'orange juice" inside is hot molten lava,
i think any anomaly /change in the core would have way more influence on the temperature at surface, than CO2 in atmosfere
I undertood the high temperature/presure inside the earth are result of gravity, and are sensitive to Earth position toward other planets, stars

lazs2 · « **Reply #379 on:** February 16, 2007, 10:12:50 AM »

oboe... I haven't given up on scientists... just the alarmists. they have admitted to lieing about such things as second hand smoke... where were the "real" scientists who should have spoke up? that is why I don't trust em.

And yes.. sagan did predict the nuke winter.... I watched him do it. It was typical.. he knows nothing about climate but felt that he could predict it.

I have listened to the predictions of doom and gloom all my life. Even my beloved NRA as you put it, predicts doom and gloom... the difference is that they use my money to keep the alarmists from destroying my individual rights while the newfound man made global warming alarmists are using my money to attack my individual rights... do you see the difference?

As for the ozone layer... the results are mixed that I can find.. it appears that there is something much greater than some cfc's causing the change to me. I can't find any hard data.. it is like the aforementioned ice cube in the back yard making the city cooler thing so far as I can see.

I know I lived through the ice age of 1999 that froze most of the US and covered two thirds of the country in one vast sheet of ice... I survived the decades long nuke winter of the sadmans doing and... so far.. I have survived both first and second hand smoke just fine.... the mold that appears now and then in my house hasn't killed me either.

the treated waste water we dump on land is not destroying the ground water as the EPA told me and.... the MTBE that they DID TELL ME would save the planet has almost destroyed our ground water and resevoirs.

The NRA has worked to get people elected and laws passed to protect my rights...

the worst of the scientists have harmed me... the NRA has not. So how am I being paranoid?

When have the doom and gloomers ever been right? It is paranoid to not trust this small band of panic monger scientists? or... to simply take most of the more outlandish things they say as being overblown?

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #380 on:** February 16, 2007, 11:22:50 AM »

Unfortunately, its gloom and doom that sells papers and gets TV ratings. If enough people get sick of it, and tune it out, I suppose maybe the media will get wise and find something else to get our attention.

Regarding ozone depletion, let me first say I am no expert in the matter. But the course of events as I understand it, goes like this:

- some scientist or group of scientists theorize the chemical reactions involved in the maintenance of the ozone layer, describes why the ozone layer is important to life on Earth, and also notes a mechanism involving CFCs which could deplete ozone.

- early adopter nations (I think it was Sweden) phase out use of CFCs

- later, in 1985, a huge hole in the ozone layer in noted over Antarctica, and scientists are able to give an feasible explanation of this occurence using their CFC-ozone depletion model. Restrictive legislation in the US follows pretty quickly and CFCs are phased out over a period of years.

- We are now measuring a reduced rate of ozone depletion.

I think there is no direct proof, as Mace says.

Its too bad that science has become so sensationalized (and politicized).

Are you sure the global warming alarmists are already spending your money? AFAIK, pollution restrictions have been eased under GW, and while there is talk of carbon caps and trading, nothing is actually been done yet in the U.S.

If you've got links to scientific studies that show some other mechanism or ozone depletion and recovery I'd be interested to look at them.

oboe · « **Reply #381 on:** February 16, 2007, 11:26:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ghi
I don't belive the warming comes from human made, CO2 emission,that's too insignificant
Look below, we live on a thin "orange crust", the 'orange juice" inside is hot molten lava,
i think any anomaly /change in the core would have way more influence on the temperature at surface, than CO2 in atmosfere
I undertood the high temperature/presure inside the earth are result of gravity, and are sensitive to Earth position toward other planets, stars

ghi, I thought a planet cools as it ages? Does your theory of global warming via core temps account for the higher measured warming at the poles?

Mace2004 · « **Reply #382 on:** February 16, 2007, 10:35:22 PM »

Maybe some of you guys have seen this before.

Here

"I laughed, I cried, best story ever told....until the sequel." --Siskal and Ebert.

Your homework assignment is to compare and contrast this with current dire predictions. Here are a few samples:

Quote

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage inthirteen U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climactic change, or even to allay its effects.....the longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

These guys are just like freaking Nostradamous.

hardtack · « **Reply #383 on:** February 17, 2007, 07:50:37 AM »

Mace,

Very good. What publication was that? I'm still not sure of the wisdom of making fun of and discrediting the current group of scientists because a previous group of scientists was wrong about an issue, tempting though that is.

I don't know whether this is worse or better, but somewhere I know I've read that there is a theory that global warming is a temporary pre-condition to global cooling and the next ice age.

lazs2 · « **Reply #384 on:** February 17, 2007, 09:36:24 AM »

oboe... that is great.. but would fit in if I said that... I noticed that the tempreture in my town was increasing every day from a low of 87 in june to a high of 105 in august.. I decided to put an ice tray of ice cubes out in my backyard every day and the tempreture dropped to 87 again in october.

that is the problem... same for the ozone.. I searched for data on it and there is none... no hard numbers.... nothing to disprove the theory that it wasn't a natural fluctuation that we had little or nothing to do with.

As for the earths core cooling.. that is relative.... a shift in it has a lot more effect than a 1 degree drop every eon.

suns activity... earths core shift.. those are things that make sense.. huge things.... forces of nature that are more powerful than we can grasp...course... there is no money to made in those things.

As for what it costs me... are you saying that there are no countries that want me to pay for their theories with reductions and fees? That I am being paranoid by not agreeing to them and just... seeing how it goes?

lazs

Mace2004 · « **Reply #385 on:** February 17, 2007, 10:10:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hardtack
Mace,

Very good. What publication was that? I'm still not sure of the wisdom of making fun of and discrediting the current group of scientists because a previous group of scientists was wrong about an issue, tempting though that is.

I don't know whether this is worse or better, but somewhere I know I've read that there is a theory that global warming is a temporary pre-condition to global cooling and the next ice age.

That was from Newsweek, Apr 28, 1975. I don't know about how unwise it might be to point out apparent failures in scientist's pre-cognitive skills. I think that if most people were half-way intelligent they would take all of what we're told with a grain of salt and isn't that what this is really all about right now?

There are those in the world that would have us risk the entire economic future of the world over what is essentially a trumped up theory, exactly as was done in 1975. Dire predictions, blaiming any unpleasant weather on the current trendy thing, hand-wringing that the politicians won't do something in time. It's all the same crap but this time they've improved their story line and added a ton of special effects including movies and concerts.

I don't know for sure how much of this is intentional (although there is obviously a ton of profiteering going on) and how much is just sheer stupidity. It seems to me that many scientists are like some kid bumbling around in a dark basement with a dim flashlight. They're looking, and looking, and all of a sudden they turn around and see a 2-inch mouse and run away screaming about the giant 2-foot rat that tried to eat them. The next day they go into the basement again and this time it's the giant 4-foot spider. They need to either turn the light on or stay out of the basement.

lazs2 · « **Reply #386 on:** February 17, 2007, 10:21:00 AM »

It was also in Time magazine. You could not find one bit of the media that was against the whole "doom by ice age in our time" scenario...

Everyone was on board. No scientist would speak out on how ridiculous it was and many "scientists" who had absolutely no experiance with weather were all on the band wagon.

Anyone who disagreed was a flat earther.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #387 on:** February 17, 2007, 10:36:23 AM »

............................. ............................. ..........................

............................. ..

..You mean the earth is not flat?

................Sheesh....... ..I just bought a new lazer level too.

oboe · « **Reply #388 on:** February 17, 2007, 11:51:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mace2004
There are those in the world that would have us risk the entire economic future of the world over what is essentially a trumped up theory, exactly as was done in 1975.

One thing I am quite confident of is that the entire economic future of the world will not be risked over the theory of global warming. I think your statement smacks of the same kind of sensationalism as some of the current global warming hype, and the article from Time in '75. I guess each side feels it necessary to use hyperbole.

Speaking of staying out of the basement, didn't Bush eliminate or curtail NASA funds for Earth studies, wanting them instead to concentrate on space exploration?

Laz, if you think hard about it there is alot wrong with the scientific methodology of your ice cube theory experiment.

I am saying that I think your money is not currently being spent to combat global warming. Not yet anyway, not here.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #389 on:** February 17, 2007, 12:20:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
One thing I am quite confident of is that the entire economic future of the world will not be risked over the theory of global warming. I think your statement smacks of the same kind of sensationalism as some of the current global warming hype, and the article from Time in '75. I guess each side feels it necessary to use hyperbole.

Speaking of staying out of the basement, didn't Bush eliminate or curtail NASA funds for Earth studies, wanting them instead to concentrate on space exploration?

Laz, if you think hard about it there is alot wrong with the scientific methodology of your ice cube theory experiment.

I am saying that I think your money is not currently being spent to combat global warming. Not yet anyway, not here.

So to simply point out the sensationalism and hyperbole of others is sensationalism and hyperbole? Typical response.

The environmental industry is the one instigating this, they want trillions of dollars of other people's money poured into solving a theoretical problem and a strongly refuted one at that...oh, it's also a theory diametrically opposed to what some of the same groups were claiming only 30 years ago.

I'm not trumping up stories or facts or paranoia or making dire predictions. I'm not asking for anyone to make sacrifices or give up their money for my pet project. I said that there are those that would have us risk the future world economy over what is essentially a trumped up theory and you cannot realistically deny that to pour trillions of dollars into this would have a huge effect on the world's economy. That's not a dire prediction, that's just an inconvienient fact.

There have been doom and gloomers since the beginning of history. Casandra turned out to be right, Chicken Little wrong. This is nothing more than the priests that saw a drought, sacrified a virgin and then rejoiced when it rained since they were proven to be right.

Think about this one also, supposed the globalcoolingists of the 70's had been successful in panicing the world into "solving" the cooling problem and poured millions of tons of soot on the polar icecap to melt it. Where would we be right now?