Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on September 20, 2006, 11:48:26 AM
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Our board seems to be getting ripe with this method of posting for some reason. People, if you want to discuss something, the DISCUSS it, let's stop with the simple cut and paste operations berift of any substance from the thread starter.
-
Maybe because we aren't necessarily causing global warming?
All anybody is doing is guessing as to what is CAUSING global warming. There's no real proof or evidence for us doing it. It's just that the people who believe we are doing it are louder then the people who don't believe we're causing it.
-
You will be assimilated. Get in line.
-
Many steps of denialism are at the job.
Such as:
1 ain't happening
2 happened before
3 not us, nothing to do with us
4 nothing we will do about it so it's pointless trying to do anything
etc etc.
and :
5 We're stopping the next ice-age.
-
"Demand"
Only royalty US companies bow to is the almighty dollar.
-
Hehe. Exxon could have gotten really pesky and asked them who had offered to up their next round of grants and funding. :)
I can see why Exxon would not want to acknowledge climate change, but why would average Joe citizen deny our contribution to global warming?
Oh I don`t know..maybe because man`s contribution, if any, to the theory of global warming is based on a bunch of total smoke screens that cannot be supported nor proven by the hired guns who have took the money and ran to do the reports and so called findings of positive scientific data only to have them shot down one by one or upon closer scrutiny found to be based on nothing in the nature of proof or feasability.
That or if Joe Citizen would take the time to actualy look into the real goals of such groups, instead of the thinly veiled banner they are trying to hide behind and found out that The Wizard Of Oz had a better cover story than these cats.....or if old Joe were to actualy take the time to look into the claim that ALL are in agreement on this subject is far from the truth and leaning towards the opposite.............maybe that would explain it.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Many steps of denialism are at the job.
Such as:
1 ain't happening
2 happened before
3 not us, nothing to do with us
4 nothing we will do about it so it's pointless trying to do anything
etc etc.
and :
5 We're stopping the next ice-age.
Hehe. The denial would fall to the global warming for lunch bunch. So called proof, they don`t have. So called data and reports are based on non-proven, non-supported nor agreed upon statements. All of which are being denied by the "pay for say" groupies..................... but they can`t come up with anything more positive than maybe/maybe not...could be/could not be...Ifs.........possibly/possibly not........but mainly, "Keep sending the money and we will do more reports and studies. what would you like the outcome to say and who is the highest bidder".
-
Governments that keep themselves in power by ensuring that something will need regulating/controlling are about as objective and trustworthy as an oil company.
-
boycot exxon, burn your cars, ride horses, eat tofu, save the planet.
on second thought, burning cars would contribute to global warning, so just turn your cars into flower pots or chicken coops.
-
I will rather take the words of worldwide scientists who have no particular interests in the matter, backed up with measurements, than the words of those sponsored by companies who's direct profit will be affected with the promotation of the others.
There is no profit for governments to promote the issue of global warming, - it's trouble.
For an oil company, the reaction to fight CO2 emission means immediate trouble.
The money there is big.
So, there will be those sides.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I will rather take the words of worldwide scientists who have no particular interests in the matter
If you ever find one of these it will make history. It will be the first. They have all been paid and paid well to come up with the desired statements. You just got to look into who is funding who and............. why?
If I was going to put any faith in any of them, it wouldn`t be the hired guns of the global warming for lunch bunch, "pay for sayers". They have had to change their tune so many times from the start of original statements, all down through the line, in attempt to keep a faint glimmer of credibility, they would make a good juke box. The only thing that they have shown is an unproven, unsubstantiated, highly debatable theory for the effect of a non-supported and non-proven , off the wall, doomsday fairy tale. They have also tryed to state, as fact, the cause of something that cannot even be agreed upon or as a reality. The weather on earth is changing. Well no kidding. It has always been in a constant state of change.
They have exactly nada, zilch to prove the cause other than smoke and mirrors. They would find it much more agreeable if people would simply ignore this fact, turn off their brains, and not look any further than what they have stated. The main thing being........keep those grants and paychecks coming in and please include your desired outcome.
It`s Mo Money, Mo Money.
If I had to choose a cause, I would also rather pick one that had some kind of goal that had a snowball`s chance in hell of making any difference, one way or the other instead of one who only has vague suggestions that can clearly be seen through as unworkable and having the outcome equal to cutting your own throat for the number one target nation of the whole fiasco.
It`s a circus. A comical circus with no elephants, no cotton candy, no lions, tigers or bears, no tatooed lady, nothing but clowns with big pockets.
-
Who are the British scientists funded by? :)
As the Great Bob Dylan once sang..."You gotta serve somebody.."
-
A question to the denialists. Do you think there is a worldwide scientist conspiracy behind the man made global warming fuss? If there is, then who's behind it and what is there to gain for them?
If there's no conspiracy involved I'll have to go with the opinion of the vast majority of the scientists.
-
Originally posted by mora
If there's no conspiracy involved I'll have to go with the opinion of the vast majority of the scientists.
Copernicus was not in the vast majority.
Let's quash debate legislatively. That is true to the scientific method.
-
I don't think it's written in the Bible that man made CO2 emissions are the cause of the global warming, it's not an age old belief. The Royal Society is not a legislative body.
-
sorry... legislate was not the correct word...
Let's quash debate anyway. Quashing debate is always in the true interest of science.
Where in the bible does it say the planetary system is earth and not solar centered?
Copernicus was in the minority against a firm belief.
-
We're gonna need some new labels.
Global Warming Alarmists =
Global Warming Maybes =
Global Warming Denialists =
Fill in the <>
-
Originally posted by mora
A question to the denialists. Do you think there is a worldwide scientist conspiracy behind the man made global warming fuss? If there is, then who's behind it and what is there to gain for them?
Conspiracy? No. A conspiracy has some form of secrecy to it as a rule. These cats are just plain trying to play Jessie James without a gun.
Check out some of the real goals and some of the funding for the global warming for lunch bunch.
Here`s some food for thought that might answer your question.....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many indicators that a social agenda is what really drives Kyoto, not environmental concerns. Consider the following:
* Sir John Houghton, chief scientist of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calls global warming a "moral issue". Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will, he says, "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference."
* Canada's past Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart said, "No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony ... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world".
* And finally, David Anderson, Canada's current Environment Minister, is the President of the UNEP governing council, an organization that focuses, among other things, on global environmental governance. Kyoto is the flagship of this effort so one has to wonder where his priorities lie in this debate.
And why should we believe the political leaders of the various U.N. Conference of the Parties (CoP) get-togethers? After all, the CoP series of meetings are part of a U.N. environmental convention that has the mandate to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human caused) interference in the climate system". Michael Williams, of the Information Unit for Conventions of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP/IUC), explains, "The COP is a political forum about how to respond to climate change, and not a scientific forum." So, if it turned out that human activities had negligible effect on Earth's climate, this organization, and its extravagant international conferences, would have no reason to exist. Clearly, the globetrotting band of climate change bureaucrats and environmental groups have a vested interest in convincing us that the science behind their proclamations is conclusive no matter what specialists in the field actually say.
Paying developing nations billions of dollars to buy the pollution credits awarded by "environmental" treaties may be the real objective of many alarmists. The transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries should be discussed for what it is, not incorporated into environmental agreements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's no conspiracy involved I'll have to go with the opinion of the vast majority of the scientists.
The problem you run into there is it is not the opinion of the vast majority. Only to those who stand to gain from such pay to say bunch.
Here ya go. The other thread is ongoing with some good info that will sure put more than a shadow of doubt on what has been stated as fact, but in reality is unsubstantiated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is of course no consensus at all," according to Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. "There isn't even a consensus on whether the atmosphere is currently warming -- never mind on whether humanity should be held responsible."
Most people don't realize that there are in fact two parts to the IPCC report - a large science section (the 'main report') which is a description of research activities in climate science, as well as a highly politicized "Summary for Policymakers". The summary is what is commonly quoted in the media and by those supporting Kyoto. They present it as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. In fact, it is no such thing. It only represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), NGO's and business, rather than of scientists. The Summary for Policymakers has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty and presents frightening scenarios for which there is no evidence."
-
Interesting that you should call paid lobbying a debate.
The scientific community is doing debate within it all the time and only after the debate they reach conclusions. The conclusions now happen to be opposed by the oil industry lobbyists.
Corporations will always choose short term benefits over grand scale of things so they're ready to sacrifice the future of your children for the next quarterly numbers.
-
Jackal:
"If you ever find one of these it will make history. It will be the first. They have all been paid and paid well to come up with the desired statements."
Total and utter rubbish. "Those" scientists slash through many brands of science (Metreology, Biology, Oceanology, Physics, Chemistry, Agriculture, Herbology, etc etc), working for many countries, each and every one of them differing in multiple ways. I know some personally, and their "pay" is down to the dayly job of being a teacher. No lectures, no sponsors.
BTW, in who's interests is it to say "oops, we're warming the globe and fast as well" ?????
This is the other side:
"Corporations will always choose short term benefits over grand scale of things so they're ready to sacrifice the future of your children for the next quarterly numbers."
WTG Ripley
-
Originally posted by Angus
Total and utter rubbish. "Those" scientists slash through many brands of science (Metreology, Biology, Oceanology, Physics, Chemistry, Agriculture, Herbology, etc etc), working for many countries, each and every one of them differing in multiple ways. I know some personally, and their "pay" is down to the dayly job of being a teacher. No lectures, no sponsors.
Horse crap. They are funded, grant induced fairy tales with an outcome of findings before the fact. Pay to sayers.
BTW, in who's interests is it to say "oops, we're warming the globe and fast as well" ?????
Angus have you read any of the info posted explaining this at all or have you just decided the blinders fit perfectly? :)
This is the other side:
It`s all about the money . Mo Money...Mo Money.
-
Originally posted by lukster
We're gonna need some new labels.
Global Warming Alarmists =
Global Warming Maybes =
Global Warming Denialists =
Fill in the <>
Given the Xian penchant for ignoring scientific consensus and digging out the few who disagree, and the break-down on this board, you should probably reframe it for consistency:
Global Warming Alarmists =
Global Warming Maybes =
Global Warming Denialists =
-
Jackal:
"Horse crap. They are funded, grant induced fairy tales with an outcome of findings before the fact. Pay to sayers."
Enlighten me please. Where is the money?
While it is obvious that the oil companies do NOT want us to buy less.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Enlighten me please. Where is the money?
If you refuse to scroll up or read any of the info posted in the other thread............here. Let`s play monopoly with real money..only let`s use someone else`s money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many indicators that a social agenda is what really drives Kyoto, not environmental concerns. Consider the following:
* Sir John Houghton, chief scientist of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calls global warming a "moral issue". Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will, he says, "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference."
* Canada's past Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart said, "No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony ... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world".
* And finally, David Anderson, Canada's current Environment Minister, is the President of the UNEP governing council, an organization that focuses, among other things, on global environmental governance. Kyoto is the flagship of this effort so one has to wonder where his priorities lie in this debate.
And why should we believe the political leaders of the various U.N. Conference of the Parties (CoP) get-togethers? After all, the CoP series of meetings are part of a U.N. environmental convention that has the mandate to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human caused) interference in the climate system". Michael Williams, of the Information Unit for Conventions of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP/IUC), explains, "The COP is a political forum about how to respond to climate change, and not a scientific forum." So, if it turned out that human activities had negligible effect on Earth's climate, this organization, and its extravagant international conferences, would have no reason to exist. Clearly, the globetrotting band of climate change bureaucrats and environmental groups have a vested interest in convincing us that the science behind their proclamations is conclusive no matter what specialists in the field actually say.
Paying developing nations billions of dollars to buy the pollution credits awarded by "environmental" treaties may be the real objective of many alarmists. The transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries should be discussed for what it is, not incorporated into environmental agreements."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is obvious that the oil companies do NOT want us to buy less.
Well now that is a DUH moment. That`s a given. On the other hand they are not asking us to cut off our nose to spite our face based on unsubsatntiated fairy tales for profit.
Like I said.....It`s all about the money.
-
No money into it compared to the oil companies, and indeed, negative money. Countermeasures, expenses, and critique is what countries get out of it.
No money into it for myself standing up and saying "it's bloody warming", no special money for my cousin who is a Dr in maritime biology, - however, since I have sensed the warming, there is money in realizing it and benefitting from the warming, since I live in a place which is somewhat cold :D
Keep wagging the dog bro. :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
No money into it compared to the oil companies, and indeed, negative money. Countermeasures, expenses, and critique is what countries get out of it.
No money into it for myself standing up and saying "it's bloody warming", no special money for my cousin who is a Dr in maritime biology, - however, since I have sensed the warming, there is money in realizing it and benefitting from the warming, since I live in a place which is somewhat cold :D
Keep wagging the dog bro. :D
Angus it is pretty obvious that you have put on the blinders and refuse to see any other possibilities other than the one you set your teeth in when you first started buying into the unsubstantiated load from the global warming for lunch bunch........................ ..........even though the alternatives are many and far reaching.
"it's bloody warming"
Yes in your area. It`s called weather change. It has happened since the beginning of recorded history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say no money for you. Nope....you are getting the idea. No money in, but money out to the pay for sayers. Just the beginning as long as folks are willing to buy junk science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ottawa Citizen
By: Professor Tad Murty
Monday, December 12, 2005
Over the last 15 years more than $40 billion has been spent worldwide on climate change research, yet the role of humans in the past century's modest warming remains controversial. In fact, the mysteries of climate change have deepened, if anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wagging the dog? At least I`m not feeding the mongrel. :)
-
1
Senator James M. Inhofe
Chairman
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
“An Update on the Science of Climate Change”
January 4, 2005
As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, “much of the debate over
global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.” I called the
threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated
on the American people,” a statement that, to put it mildly, was not
viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist
organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that
those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising
purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer
dollars to finance their campaigns.
For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a
favored fundraising tool.
-
It`s all about the money . Mo Money...Mo Money.
If you want to put it that way, what exactly do the scientists have to gain from such claims? More money?
Ok, let's say the scientists would be funded by private parties (instead of individual governments as most are) who would those funders be and what gain could they have from making such claims?
Oh no, a worldwide conspiracy to make gas expensive in US. Could it be so..!?!?
-
Even when you repeatedly put it down in black and white...the blind cannot see. :0
It has nothing to do with gas prices. :rofl
-
Thirty years ago we were causing the next ice age, according to scientists.
Scientists adore the sort of funding brought on by "the next crisis" they predict just like government adores power brought on by the same, and they need each other to perpetuate the cycle.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Thirty years ago we were causing the next ice age, according to scientists.
Scientists adore the sort of funding brought on by "the next crisis" they predict just like government adores power brought on by the same, and they need each other to perpetuate the cycle.
WOOT? Never heard that one.
20 years ago however, there was an intense discussion about global warming, and that we'd bee starting to see something out of the ordinary, starting in the more delicate areas of the globe, typically the arctic, in about 20 years or so.
Maybe just a lucky guess. The discussion involved melting glaciers, changing habitats of animals, and changes to vegetation.
So, it turned quite true, so I don't have a problem with that.
Exxon can pay all the money in the world, but it won't change what I see.
And:
"Over the last 15 years more than $40 billion has been spent worldwide on climate change research, yet the role of humans in the past century's modest warming remains controversial. In fact, the mysteries of climate change have deepened, if anything."
Why would that be? Are them soddy scientists needing something to study? Well pardon me, but there's plenty to do.
Is NASA in that number? Or was it promoted by Exxon?
-
yeah... we sure don't want any of that pesky free speech now do we?
LOL... If we don't like what you say we will shut you down anyway that we can.
They ostracize and remove funding from scientists that don't tow the global warming line and then... when the scientists find other ways to get their message out... they try to stop em again..
all the while... they won't even say how much or how soon... just that it is happening and that we need to do something no matter how little affect it has...
We need to fund them and pay for all the silly ideas they get no matter how flakey the science and we need to shut down anyone who opposes them?
are we really that stupid?
lazs
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Given the Xian penchant for ignoring scientific consensus and digging out the few who disagree, and the break-down on this board, you should probably reframe it for consistency:
Global Warming Alarmists =
Global Warming Maybes =
Global Warming Denialists =
Actually,
Global Warming Alarmists =
Global Warming Maybes =
Global Warming Denialists =
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually,
Global Warming Alarmists =
Global Warming Maybes =
Global Warming Denialists =
Hehe, I stand by my original labels. ;)
-
Why don't you just answer a simple question with your obviously superior wit Jackal1.
Oh wait, you can't. :aok
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Why don't you just answer a simple question with your obviously superior wit Jackal1.
Oh wait, you can't. :aok
Tell ya what Ripley ole bud, things have been going along nicely in this debate, here and in the other thread. If you wish to be the one who starts commenting like a teen on saturday night you can pee up a rope. :)
Your question has been answered here and in the other thread on the subject. If you do not wish to take the time to look at the answer, then you are not too interested at all.
I can cook the meal, hand you a plate and silverware, but I`ll be damned if I`m gonna hand feed you.
There is no superior wit implied hoss. What there has been dished up is a wealth of information that might otherwise be overlooked.......from both sides of the coin.
-
angus needs to be worried about global warning, iceland will melt and disappear.
-
Originally posted by john9001
angus needs to be worried about global warning, iceland will melt and disappear.
If the worse comes we are going to ship Angus to Texas where we will partner up and go into the cattle and salted horsemeat business together. :D
-
Quit circling around the issue and validate your claims.
What exactly do the international society of scientists have to gain from this? And if they are not directly benefiting from being alarmists, who is funding the conspiracy you claim? And how will they benefit from it monetarily?
Simple questin, fast simple answer. If you can't answer, don't give any excuses either as above.
-
ripley... are you saying that they will not get huge lucrative grants to study the horrors of global warming?
Who pays em? In the end... does it matter?
You look at both sides data and both sides rebuttal of the others data and you make up your mind... that is 100 times more healthy than shutting down debate from one side...
You don't like their data? attack and disprove it.
Most of us looking at the thing come to the conclusion that none of the scientists on either side really knows much about what is going on.
One thing is certain... something this important to my freedom and lifestyle....
I want to hear both sides.
lazs
-
ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids.
Source (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html)
-
I live in southern Louisiana. There are refineries all over here. Now if u drive by one of them and look at all the crap the are pumping in the air day after day year after year and then look into the sky and use a bit of imagination to figure the volume of earths atmosphere, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure if u wrap a carbon dioxide blanket around the earth it is going to warm up. The last five hottest years recorded since weather record have been kept are 2001 to 2005. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
Now that being said, this is the rub. This is the fear. In chemistry many reactions happen exponentially. Sometimes by making minute changes, drastic results can happen.
I saw this super brain scientist on one of the learning channels a couple of years ago. He had a test model in a plexie glass case to replicate evaporation and perception of earths oceans and seas. Now this guy didn't have an agenda, he was just a scientist saying look at what happens when I do this. As he increased the temperature in his model not much happened for the first few degrees. Then he went up another few degrees and not much happened again. Then he went up another few degrees and all of a sudden there was drastic change. All of a sudden earth was uninhabitable. It had to do with the salinity of the water changing at a certain point and how this played into the revolving process of evaporation and precipitation. I can quite remember the science of the reaction. But I do remember within his model we were all dead meat.
Reactions within the realms of chemistry can be quite astounding. Look what happens to gunpowder when u put a spark to it or what happen to water when u cool it from 35 degrees F to 32 degrees F. Not much change makes a big big difference.
To say we don't know what will happen within our environment is one thing, to pretend like its not a possibility is just ignorant.
-
"But I do remember within his model we were all dead meat.'
computer models are funny things, if you don't get the results you wanted, you change the model until you do.
-
At one point last year there was clear lane to sail right to the north pole.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
At one point last year there was clear lane to sail right to the north pole.
Yes, this may be true as well. Now that u mention it I remember seeing on one of the learning channels some photos of vast icy area's somewhere up north that were taking by recon WWII airplanes in the 1940's. They went back to that area about 4 years ago and took pictures and that area is not icy anymore. It's all dry land. This plays into what I was saying about the oceans salinity, I think. As it becomes more diluted because of melting ice, it has less saline in its solution and this affects how it evaporates and then condenses. Then add in the exponential factor as I mentioned and this is all not good at all. Theoretically speaking or even hypothetically speaking. Obviously there are any number of factors that could play into this scenario. What gets me is they say were are headed for another ice age, so to me that would mean lets keep it warm, :lol
-
Originally posted by Angus
I will rather take the words of worldwide scientists who have no particular interests in the matter, backed up with measurements, than the words of those sponsored by companies who's direct profit will be affected with the promotation of the others.
There is no profit for governments to promote the issue of global warming, - it's trouble.
For an oil company, the reaction to fight CO2 emission means immediate trouble.
The money there is big.
So, there will be those sides.
Again I ask, I wonder who is funding these people and what would happen if they said, 'Nothing here, move along.' ?
No particular interest? Surely you jest? Do you think scientist who find nothing is the matter get funding?
-
Humans have dumped more waste and chemicals into the atmosphere in the last 100 years than all the previous years combined. Why would we be responsable for climate change?
-
in that case we're responisble for butterflies & pretty sunsets too
us
-
Originally posted by john9001
angus needs to be worried about global warning, iceland will melt and disappear.
No, it's solid. Best case scenario, one will grow wine grapes while Texas will be uninhabitable. Worst case: it will join the group of countries above boiling point.
And as for Ignorant Joe said, the answer is : No one in particular. Very often the governments, some times the public, some times institutions.
Pretty much the same setup as the fight was with the tobacco companies.
And what Clutz said, -
:aok
Who is funding him?
-
If the oil companies hire scientists and they come up with data you don't like then...
prove it is wrong. or.....I guess you could just burn em as witches.
I want to hear both sides no matter where it is coming from. If it is false then it will become apparent.
It seems the religious global warming funded scientists are afraid of any opposition....
Why do you suppose that is?
lazs
-
Is secondary cigarette smoke harmful or not?
-
"There is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming of the past century. We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science"
Statement of Principle, signed by 55 of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, issued prior to the 1992 Rio Summit.
-
That's old :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If the oil companies hire scientists and they come up with data you don't like then...
prove it is wrong. or.....I guess you could just burn em as witches.
I want to hear both sides no matter where it is coming from. If it is false then it will become apparent.
It seems the religious global warming funded scientists are afraid of any opposition....
Why do you suppose that is?
lazs
I don't like the princip. They hire scientists who only promote data in their interests. Just like the tobacco industry did. And what came out there?
-
well... with smoking we did see the effects of "scientists" that ran amuck with their "secondary smoke" theories and such... we have seen alarmist scientists for as long as anyone can remember...
Milk? good for you or bad? eggs? meat? needed or not?
I have found that scientists pretty much act like the mostly liberals that they are... if they don't get their point across or... no one cares... they up the danger...
They fabricate and add on danger.... they allways have had a large element of alarmists and doom and gloomers and have not been above fabricating evidence in the past.
If you can't trust the oil company scientists.... how is it that you can trust the grant fund ones when.... they all went to the same schools and they all have the same methods supposedly?
We should all be dead anyway of the new ice age predicted in the 70's by your alarmists or... the global winter that carl friggin sagen precicted would happen if the sadman lit even half of kuwaits oil fields on fire.
Face it... the doomsday scientists have allways been the most unreliable group of scientists ever to grace the planet. They have allways been wrong.
And... at least the oil companies are hiring scientists that have backgrounds in climate and climate change and plants and such..
lazs
-
Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS) (http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835)
Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/contents.htm)
National Cancer Institute (http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/)
Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/finalets.html)
Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cognitive Abilities among U.S. Children and Adolescents (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/7210/abstract.html)
International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/who-ets.html)
Secondhand Smoke: Review of evidence since 1998 (http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4101474&chk=%2BB7p/V)
In January 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared environmental tobacco smoke (also called ETS, secondhand smoke or passive smoke) a known human carcinogen. It was classified as an environmental toxin equivalent to asbestos and other hazardous substances. The EPA's report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," calls ETS a serious and substantial health risk for nonsmokers, particularly children.
Unfortunately, in 1998 a U.S. district judge in North Carolina, acting on a lawsuit filed by the tobacco industry, overlooked an enormous body of scientific evidence and ruled that the EPA based its 1993 report on inadequate science, failing to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between secondhand smoke and diseases. The EPA is appealing the decision to a higher court. Shortly after the decision, evidence was found that the tobacco industry had paid several scientists to make false claims about environmental tobacco smoke.
Source (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4521)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
"There is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming of the past century. We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science"
Statement of Principle, signed by 55 of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, issued prior to the 1992 Rio Summit.
Envirotruth.org - brought to you by ExxonMobil (http://www.envirotruth.org/GlobalWarming.cfm)
Evidence (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf)
-
akh... no one ever said that breathing any kind of smoke is good for you but...
Most of the alarmist scientists all said that it was WORSE than just smoking the damn cig! they can't help themselves... they allways exaggerate.
They aren't telling us that the earth is going through a warming cycle and that we are probly contributing to it in some small way.... they are saying that we caused it and that doom is less than decades away and all because of man... it is all mans fault and only giving them huge sums of money will save us.
lazs
-
That's just your opinion unless you can give some reputable sources to support your claims.
-
here in America we all heard that second hand smoke was worse for you than actualy smoking the cig. they even had commercials on it. America led the way in crucifying the tobaco companies.
Everyone heard carl nut job sagan say that lighting kuwaits oil fields would cause a nuclear winter.
If we let your scientists have total and uncontested say.. they will run amuck.
If the oil company scientists are wrong then simply show the evidence.
if the evidence is compelling enough then people will not listen to them.
What is the problem? You got something against free speach? If your scientists are right and can show us some tangible proof and some clear cut methods to make a real difference.... how could anyone dissagree?
You act as tho the proof is allready there.. you strangely wonder how people can see it and not be alarmed..
might I suggest that the "proof" is conjecture and that not enough is known yet for all of us to let the scientists change our way of life?
if there is fault it is that your side is not getting their point across with enough irrefuteable evidence.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
here in America we all heard that second hand smoke was worse for you than actualy smoking the cig. they even had commercials on it. America led the way in crucifying the tobaco companies.
Everyone heard carl nut job sagan say that lighting kuwaits oil fields would cause a nuclear winter.
If we let your scientists have total and uncontested say.. they will run amuck.
If the oil company scientists are wrong then simply show the evidence.
if the evidence is compelling enough then people will not listen to them.
What is the problem? You got something against free speach? If your scientists are right and can show us some tangible proof and some clear cut methods to make a real difference.... how could anyone dissagree?
You act as tho the proof is allready there.. you strangely wonder how people can see it and not be alarmed..
might I suggest that the "proof" is conjecture and that not enough is known yet for all of us to let the scientists change our way of life?
if there is fault it is that your side is not getting their point across with enough irrefuteable evidence.
lazs
The tobacco companies created their own problems.
Carl Sagan was an astronomer and astrobiologist, not a climatologist.
Evidence? What about Siegfried Frederick Singer?
I have nothing against free speech, just the presentation of opinion as fact.
-
Originally posted by AKH
The tobacco companies created their own problems.
Carl Sagan was an astronomer and astrobiologist, not a climatologist.
Evidence? What about Siegfried Frederick Singer?
I have nothing against free speech, just the presentation of opinion as fact.
Will you not agree that anyone predictng climatological disaster based on man made global warming is stating an opinion?
-
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
-
AKH,
:aok
hap
-
global warming? we have bigger things to worry about, just watched a show about yellowstone "volcano" blowing up, it would make global warming look like a walk in the park, and what about that 1 mile wide meteor that might hit the earth and wipe out all life on earth?
you people need to worry about whats important,........ this just in , al qaeda says they will blow up NYC with a nuke they smuggled in from mexico. put that in your worry hat.
:noid
-
I'll take that as an opinion is ok so long as you agree with it. I think it was once a scientific consensus that the world was flat.
-
The notion of a flat Earth refers to the idea that the inhabited surface of Earth is flat, rather than curved. It is believed to have been prevalent up to and including early Classical Antiquity, and is evidenced in early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus. The first person known to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth is Pythagoras (6th century BC).
By the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) at the latest, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. At that time Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude and longitude (see clime). His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favour of a flat Earth from a few Christian authors, usually on theological grounds.
The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century.
-
Actually, Christian authors were among the first to claim the earth round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville
What we don't have is agreement that there is a scientific consensus that man induced glaobal warming is occuring or what will be the results if it is.
-
Actually, Christian authors were among the first to claim the earth round.
Opinion as fact, again.
From Late Antiquity, and thus from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth)
-
I stated someone else's "fact" as did you. It is my opinion that what I linked is factual. Regardless as to who believed the earth flat there have been many instances in which there was a "scientific consensus" that was later proven faulty. Of course it is your opinion that there is a consensus, not mine.
Do you believe man induced global warming is present and that it will have disasterous results or not?
-
Who's the flat-earther here, me or you?
-
Originally posted by AKH
Who's the flat-earther here, me or you?
I'm not sure what you believe but I think the jury is still out on whether we should attempt to stop global warming. I know I'm certainly not persuaded enough to give anyone power over my life based on their beliefs.
This guy makes sense to me: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
-
"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."
-
Originally posted by AKH
"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."
I take it that Annan wasn't rooted enough in his faith to offer those odds?
-
"There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."
I'm sure he doesn't charge energy companies 2,500 a day for consultancy work, testify before a Senate committee on a trip funded by Western Fuels, or write speeches (your link) paid for by OPEC, either.
-
So, for the record, what does Lindzen actually believe? This is how Lindzen responded to Annan: "The quote [at Reason Online] was out of context. I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet." Lindzen and Annan subsequently haggled a bit over what would be a fair bet. From Lindzen's point of view, any such bet would be between people like Annan, who are convinced by climate model projections that average global temperatures should be increasing about 0.3C per decade, and people who think it's even odds that temperatures will be lower than they are now in 20 years.
Setting aside the bet that global temperatures will be lower in 20 years, Lindzen offered Annan an alternative bet. If the temperature change were less than 0.2C, he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2C and 0.4C the bet would be off. And if the temperature change were 0.4 or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds. After all, Lindzen is on record as saying that global average temperatures could rise by 1 degree Celsius over the next century. In contrast, climate model projections predict a warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, though a new study in January suggested global warming could be "Twice as Bad as Previously Thought," with an upper projection of average global temperatures reaching 11 degrees Celsius.
Annan then countered with a bet pegged to some agreed upon average temperature in 20 years with payouts based on how many hundredths of a degree Celsius the loser was from the agreed upon temperature. Lindzen responded by skeptically asking how one would accurately measure hundredths of a degree Celsius on a global level. Their negotiations apparently ended there and, at least on the part of Annan, the blogging began.
-
Originally posted by AKH
"There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."
I'm sure he doesn't charge energy companies 2,500 a day for consultancy work, testify before a Senate committee on a trip funded by Western Fuels, or write speeches (your link) paid for by OPEC, either.
ad hominem?
-
"The skeptics assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it."
-
You and some others here seem quite devout in your faith and are more familiar with it's tenets than I. Nothing wrong with that, I think everyone needs to believe in something.
Fact is, I already drive as little as possible and a relatively small car (Honda) at that. I try to conserve other resources if for no other reason than that it saves me money. If you can figure out a way to get me better fuel efficiency without taking my job or otherwise inflicting hardship on me I'm more than willing to let you or anyone else save the world.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Horse crap. They are funded, grant induced fairy tales with an outcome of findings before the fact. Pay to sayers.
sez Jackal rather arbitrarily
Angus have you read any of the info posted explaining this at all or have you just decided the blinders fit perfectly? :)
sez Jackal from his own set of blinders
It`s all about the money . Mo Money...Mo Money.
sez Jackal defending the corporate cow which is much larger than any other cow could possibly be
:D
-
Originally posted by AKH
" they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it."
we are all listening, please tell us what to do about it. and i mean details, not a vague "use less oil".
-
What's so "vague" about use less oil? LOL :D
-
what i was looking for was how to use less oil, this is no time to make jokes, the seas will rise 50 feet and all the multi-million dollar waterfront property will be worthless, Bangladesh will become the gulf of Bangladesh.
we must save waterfront condos.
i asked for details, close factories, ration gasoline, only 12 hours of electricity per day, kill the methane producing sheep, we need answers to SAVE THE WORLD.
SAVE THE CONDOS.
-
Originally posted by john9001
what i was looking for was how to use less oil, this is no time to make jokes, the seas will rise 50 feet and all the multi-million dollar waterfront property will be worthless, Bangladesh will become the gulf of Bangladesh.
we must save waterfront condos.
i asked for details, close factories, ration gasoline, only 12 hours of electricity per day, kill the methane producing sheep, we need answers to SAVE THE WORLD.
SAVE THE CONDOS.
I don't think you're wanting methods as much as you're hoping those on the other side of this issue come across sounding as ridiculously extreme as you do. ;)
Have you missed this phrase over the last 3 decades: "Alternate fuel source"?
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
:Horse crap. They are funded, grant induced fairy tales with an outcome of findings before the fact. Pay to sayers.
sez Jackal rather arbitrarily
Angus have you read any of the info posted explaining this at all or have you just decided the blinders fit perfectly?
sez Jackal from his own set of blinders
It`s all about the money . Mo Money...Mo Money.
sez Jackal defending the corporate cow which is much larger than any other cow could possibly be
D
Ya big bully. :)
For 1.........everyone knows that I am the final word on the subject. I thought everyone knew that. :)
For #2...... That`s how myself and Angus wake each other up if one nods over a cup of coffee.
For #3....I have just as many hoofs prints on my back pocket as anyone from getting kicked from that herd. :)
If it wasn`t for the Mo Money........Mo Money aspect of this debate it would have been settled a long time ago with a shrug and a "big deal". That`s from all concerned.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Ya big bully. :)
For 1.........everyone knows that I am the final word on the subject. I thought everyone knew that. :)
For #2...... That`s how myself and Angus wake each other up if one nods over a cup of coffee.
For #3....I have just as many hoofs prints on my back pocket as anyone from getting kicked from that herd. :)
If it wasn`t for the Mo Money........Mo Money aspect of this debate it would have been settled a long time ago with a shrug and a "big deal". That`s from all concerned.
Well, if pressed, I'd freely admit I have my price. Unfortuantely nobody seems to think I have the qualifications. Go figure. :D
-
We have to install fart collectors to teh cows. It's a doublewin situation. You stop tons of methane going up in the air and you can burn it for heat.
(http://xs106.xs.to/xs106/06380/Fartcollector.gif)
-
yeah.. these are the noble scientists you want to go unchalenged...
Not knowing anything about climate didn't stop sagan... not knowing anything about climate doesn't stop the huge group of scientists who are on your side but have no experiance in climate. In fact.. the thing started in the 80's... are you saying they had a crystal ball... there was no evidence... or... maybe they simply had an agenda that they continued with...
"The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began to actively oppose nuclear power generation. Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical manner. In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed. At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Frank Press, the academy's president, warned the membership against lending their credibility to issues about which they had no special knowledge. Special reference was made to the published petition. In my opinion what the petition did show was that the need to fight "global warming'' has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience--a dogma to which scientists are not immune. "
-
Sagan had a point, and if he was right our global warming is bigger than we think.
Throughout countless milleniums, rough volcanic eruptions actually have shaded the sun enough for the climate to temporarily cool.
So, call Sagan a fool if it makes you feel better.
And for this:
"Most of the alarmist scientists all said that it was WORSE than just smoking the damn cig! they can't help themselves... they allways exaggerate."
Actually, the smoke you breathe through the filter is better than the one around you. It's more completely burned you see.
Both are bad, and no sciense that the tobacco companies funded could even turn the tables on that one. But they sure funded it :D
Guess what was the death cause of the Marlborough man :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not knowing anything about climate didn't stop sagan...
Or David Bellamy...
Global Warming? What a load of poppycock! (http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm)
-
Let's talk about nefarious petitions then:
The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.
The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.
The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."
It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.
Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yeah.. these are the noble scientists you want to go unchalenged...
Not knowing anything about climate didn't stop sagan... not knowing anything about climate doesn't stop the huge group of scientists who are on your side but have no experiance in climate. In fact.. the thing started in the 80's... are you saying they had a crystal ball... there was no evidence... or... maybe they simply had an agenda that they continued with...
"The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began to actively oppose nuclear power generation. Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical manner. In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed. At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Frank Press, the academy's president, warned the membership against lending their credibility to issues about which they had no special knowledge. Special reference was made to the published petition. In my opinion what the petition did show was that the need to fight "global warming'' has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience--a dogma to which scientists are not immune. "
Hehe. Classic. :)
That one even has Angus falling back to Saganisms. :)
There are billyuuuuns and billyuuuuuuns................ ..............
Sagan was one of the most repeated guests on the Carson show. At one time, for quite a while, it seemed that he was a quest at least once a week.
Carl ole boy never did figure out the reason that Carson kept having him on was because he made such a great fall guy for the jokes. At one point I think Ed was even worried about losijng his job to Sagan. :)
Sagan had a point, and if he was right our global warming is bigger than we think.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
We have to install fart collectors to teh cows. It's a doublewin situation. You stop tons of methane going up in the air and you can burn it for heat.
(http://xs106.xs.to/xs106/06380/Fartcollector.gif)
:rofl
Hehe. I knew you had it in you.
Thanks for joining the game.
-
"Human activities are transforming the global environment, and these global changes have many faces: ozone depletion, tropical deforestation, acid deposition, and increased atmospheric concentrations of gases that trap heat and may warm the global climate. For many of these troubling transformations, data and analyses are fragmentary, scientific understanding is incomplete, and long-term implications are unknown. Yet, even against a continuing background of uncertainty, it is abundantly clear that human activities - burning fossil fuels, emitting pollutants from industry, and clearing forests that are the habitats for plant and animal species, for example - now match or even surpass natural processes as agents of change in the planetary environment."
Frank Press, President, National Academy of Sciences, in the Preface to "One Earth, One Future: Our Changing Global Environment", National Academy of Sciences, 1990.
-
Jackal:
Is this :
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Your last ammo in the debate?
And as for ruminants causing global warming (which isn't happening in thefirst place :rofl :rofl :rofl ) it must be something to do with the industrial revolution, for they surely were around for a long time....before.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal:
Is this :
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Your last ammo in the debate?
Naw, that was just a freebie. :)
What debate? :rofl
-
Teh cow fart debate, silly!
Been trying them cans, but the cow's always make a quick escape :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Teh cow fart debate, silly!
Been trying them cans, but the cow's always make a quick escape :D
Hehe. Gotta talk real sweet to em. :)
-
Akh...
If man disapeared instantly from the earth...
What would the planets climate look like in the century that followed?
If you can't answer this question then there is no reason to listen to you or your "scientists".
lazs
-
Can you answer what you are in 10 years with accuracy?
A fattie, a rotting corpse, ashes, or just a guy?
Be a "Scientist" and answer.
Nothing with probability will do, just an accurate answer.
-
Does anyone else find Angus's absolute conviction disturbing?
Anyone else glad he's not leading a religion? Or is he?
-
Originally posted by IgnorantJoe
Does anyone else find Angus's absolute conviction disturbing?
Anyone else glad he's not leading a religion? Or is he?
Nah, not disturbing, perhaps naive. He wants to believe. I think everyone needs to believe in something.
-
Call it what you like. I also belive that water is wet.
-
Start here... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution)
"my" scientists? I tell you what - let's compare lists of internationally recognised scientific institutions that support both arguments. Your list should be pretty easy to do...
-
akh... would you agree that a "scientist" who is not in the field of climate or pollution should not be listened to any more than anyone else?
If you add water that has more salt or less salt to the ocean you are polluting it. everything we do is pollution.
I am simply asking for you to name what things we are doing that is causing the earth to heat up and how much it is doing so and..... what exact steps are needed to stop it.
I would also like for someone to tell me that the myriad of sacrafices that are asked of us and the tons of money poured into it will have some effect... that they will stop or slow, by some measurable degree... the warming.
What will our sacrafices achieve? How will they compare to the normal fluctuations in global climate?
If we suddenly started dropping a tenth of a degree a decade would we then be free to continue on with our lives or would this be some new "crisis" that we would have to look to these "scientists" to overcome for us?
I don't trust em. They do not appear to be playing very honestly. They appear to me to know a lot less about it than they pretend to and... they all have their hand out for the fame and power and money.
So long as they come off like this to people who are not of their cult.... then you will get people like me who look at them with distrust.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... would you agree that a "scientist" who is not in the field of climate or pollution should not be listened to any more than anyone else?
In principle, yes, since I can't see how the social sciences can contribute in a useful fashion. But, in practical terms, a great many scientists who aren't climate and pollution experts can, and do, become involved.
Your question is not unlike querying whether civil engineers have something constructive to say about hurricanes.
If you add water that has more salt or less salt to the ocean you are polluting it. everything we do is pollution.
Exactly.
I am simply asking for you to name what things we are doing that is causing the earth to heat up and how much it is doing so and..... what exact steps are needed to stop it.
Climate science from climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/)
I would also like for someone to tell me that the myriad of sacrafices that are asked of us and the tons of money poured into it will have some effect... that they will stop or slow, by some measurable degree... the warming.
What will our sacrafices achieve? How will they compare to the normal fluctuations in global climate?
You can google those questions.
If we suddenly started dropping a tenth of a degree a decade would we then be free to continue on with our lives or would this be some new "crisis" that we would have to look to these "scientists" to overcome for us?
Politicians, corporations and the media generate many more crises than scientists. I can't see that changing.
I don't trust em. They do not appear to be playing very honestly. They appear to me to know a lot less about it than they pretend to and... they all have their hand out for the fame and power and money.
Which do you trust more, scientists or corporations?
So long as they come off like this to people who are not of their cult.... then you will get people like me who look at them with distrust.
lazs
Skepticism is good, especially when one of the parties is intentionally misleading you.
-
akh.. so you admit that being a civil engineer does not make your opinions on how hurricanes form or move very useful?
you admit that you and the scientists have no idea how much or little we are affecting the global climate if at all.
You admit that at least one side of the scientific arguement is intentionaly missleading us? This is strange in the extreme to me. How can you give any credence to "scientists" as a whole when even you admit that they are capable of intentionaly missleading us.
you seem to be saying that only your side has scientists and that the other side is... is what? Corporations? they are scientists just as your guys are scientists and... they at least are scientists in the field they are talking about.
unlike you... I see this and make the logical step in assuming that they are all intentionaly missleading us... I mean... if one group will for money and power... what makes your group any more special or honest than the other?
I would submit that you want to believe what they say so.... you ignore anything inconvienient... I would submit that many... not only ignore but would like to shut up and stiffle any oppossite view.
That is much more dangerous than any possible man made global warming to me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh.. so you admit that being a civil engineer does not make your opinions on how hurricanes form or move very useful?
you admit that you and the scientists have no idea how much or little we are affecting the global climate if at all.
You admit that at least one side of the scientific arguement is intentionaly missleading us? This is strange in the extreme to me. How can you give any credence to "scientists" as a whole when even you admit that they are capable of intentionaly missleading us.
you seem to be saying that only your side has scientists and that the other side is... is what? Corporations? they are scientists just as your guys are scientists and... they at least are scientists in the field they are talking about.
unlike you... I see this and make the logical step in assuming that they are all intentionaly missleading us... I mean... if one group will for money and power... what makes your group any more special or honest than the other?
I would submit that you want to believe what they say so.... you ignore anything inconvienient... I would submit that many... not only ignore but would like to shut up and stiffle any oppossite view.
That is much more dangerous than any possible man made global warming to me.
lazs
As I recall, you were the one who demanded proof of and solutions to this problem that you believe is purely a science fantasy cooked up to make climatologist famous, rich and powerful beyond their wildest dreams. Maybe you also believe that Carl Sagan is behind this obvious plot to take over the planet and turn it into a technocracy?
Where did I admit that the "the scientists" have "no idea" - nowhere, thats where.
Actually, I said one party, and that is exactly what I meant.
What's "logical" in assuming that both parties are misleading us? It may be paranoid to assume they both are, but logical, no.
And I put it to you that you don't actually want to investigate what they say, so you ignore anything inconvienient.
You have had your say, but what have you contributed to the debate? No data, no facts, no links. Quite simply, you have brought nothing more than your own learned opinion to the table.
-
I cannot proof that I'll be dead in the year 2165, but I can say this:
1. I don't want to.
2. Yet I probably will.
Ponder on this Lazs ;)
-
angus... of course we will all die barring something really strange happening... this has been happening forever. Global climate change has been happening forever too... it happens with or without our help..
things will get warmer and things will get colder even if we do nothing... ponder on that angus.
AKH... what proof do you bring to the table? Where is the data that shows how much we are affecting the climate? where is the data that shows how much of the global climate change is man made.
It is all "it is apparent that we are affecting the global climate" that is not good enough. if they don't know how much or how much radical changes in our lifestyle will help or hurt... why should I listen to their doom and gloom?
When a scientist tells me that elevated C02 levels never come before a global warming event but only after it.... why should I get paniced about it?
When the "scientists" told me in the 70's that by now I would be able to see a glacier out my window.... why didn't I colapse in fear and agony?
Nope... I laughed at em then and didn't wring my hands these last 30 years... you guys are welcome to come all unhinged and tear out your hair for the next 30 years over global warming. I will pass tho.
Now... there is nothing wrong with treating the environment with respect and we should do what we can to improve things as the tech gets better and cheaper. but it should not be forced and it should not be at the word of a group of scientists who have no knowledge in the field and or... have been 180 degrees wrong in the past.
carl sagan... besides being dead.... he was dead wrong about doom and gloom in the very recent past... he predicted a global winter from the fires the sadman set in kuwait... the evil oil company scientists said that it was a gross exageration and that any global winter would be local and brief..
so far... in measurable doom and gloom scenarios... the altruistic non climate scientists (glory hound/publicity hound) have a much worse track record than the evil oil company specialists.
lazs
-
I guess what I am saying is that this is nothing new... respected scientists telling us that we are about to all be victims of a massive climate change that will throw civilization into the dark ages (maybe not such a bad thing after all)
It was the coming ice age last time.
I guess what I am saying is.... fool me once... shame on you... fool me twice... shame on me.
But... like I said... go ahead and weep and wail and tear your hair out for the next 30 years or so and... send in those contributions and wear the T shirt...
Just don't extort anything from me while you are at it.
lazs
-
The alarmist movement is gaining momentum. It's almost a sure bet it will cost us something in violation of our will.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what proof do you bring to the table?
Well, if seeing is believing, try to see Boston from a distance on a hot humid day. You cannot see it through the smog.
-
Ponder instead Lazs.
There are and have been and will be climate changes. My concern (as well as most scientists that are NOT payed by an interest-related company such as Exxon) is that we are causing a climate change. Following are some points:
We already know from the law of physics how greenhouse effect works.
Then we know that we are causing very fast increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which is both uniquely fast and the amount has already been manifested.
It's only beginning, for we are going to be pumping fossil fuel into the atmosphere as long as we are still around and can find any.
To add to the effect, we are deforestating the globe at an enormous rate with the huge benefit of slightly cheaper lumber, burgers and coffee.
Then the fun starts. Some old paranoids have seen this coming and their predictions slowly come true.
We have debates over issues such as whether it's getting warmer or not, but when the predicted melting of the polar caps (not just an odd glacier here or there, but something MASSIVE) starts at record speed, we still have a debate about it.
When debaters are getting cornered in about established facts, such as that ancient ice melting means it's warmer than in ancient periods etc, one sees interesting ideas popping up. I see Volcanoes, underwater volcanoes, normal swings in temperatures told to be the cause, etc etc, as well as the final "It's not any warmer".
None the less, it is, and many people are afraid to look at it. So, who do I trust, - the ones that are looking at it and already fighting for measures dealing with it, - or an oil company who is paying for an opposite opinion since any countermeasuer will harm their budget?
Not a hard choice, - sorry.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)
This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Throughout most of the record, the largest changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth's orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.
Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.
-
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison.
It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair representation of the range of results appearing in the published scientific literature. Hence, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.
-
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bf/Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png)
This figure shows the annual fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, in million metric tonnes of carbon, for a variety of non-overlapping regions covering the Earth.
Data source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
-
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/3/3d/Fossil_Fuel_Usage.png)
This figure shows the disparity in fossil fuel consumption per capita for the countries with the twenty largest populations. The large range of variation is indicative of the separation between the rich, industrialized nations and the poor/developing nations. The global average is also shown.
As most countries desire wealth and aim to develop that wealth through the development of industry, this figure suggests the degree to which poor nations may strive to increase their emissions in the course of trying to match the industrial capacity of the developed world. Managing such increases and dealing with the apparent social inequality of the present system will be one of the challenges involved in confronting global warming.
-
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c3/Fossil_Fuel_Efficiency.png)
This figure shows an estimate of how efficiently the world's twenty largest economies convert fossil fuel usage into wealth as expressed by the ratio of their gross domestic product (in US dollars) over the number of kilograms of fossil fuel carbon released into the atmosphere each year. The relatively narrow range of variation between most countries in this figure suggests that the pursuit of wealth in the present world is strongly tied to the availability of fossil fuel energy sources.
As countries may be reluctant to combat fossil fuel emissions in ways that cause economic decline, this figure serves to suggest the degree to which different large economies can decrease emissions through short-term improvements in efficiency and alternative fuel programs.
The two countries that produce the highest GDP per kilogram carbon, Brazil and France, are heavily reliant on alternative energy sources, hydroelectric and nuclear power respectively.
-
Originally posted by AKH
This figure shows an estimate of how efficiently the world's twenty largest economies convert fossil fuel usage into wealth as expressed by the ratio of their gross domestic product (in US dollars) over the number of kilograms of fossil fuel carbon released into the atmosphere each year. The relatively narrow range of variation between most countries in this figure suggests that the pursuit of wealth in the present world is strongly tied to the availability of fossil fuel energy sources.
As countries may be reluctant to combat fossil fuel emissions in ways that cause economic decline, this figure serves to suggest the degree to which different large economies can decrease emissions through short-term improvements in efficiency and alternative fuel programs.
The two countries that produce the highest GDP per kilogram carbon, Brazil and France, are heavily reliant on alternative energy sources, hydroelectric and nuclear power respectively.
I'm all for nuclear power but I'm wondering how that's gonna work out for Europe once terrorists decide to make France's nuke plants a target. Could get pretty uninhabitable there in a hurry.
-
WTG AKH!!!! :aok
While indeed the graphs show a gloomy picture, they also point out that something can be done, and some countries are doing something.
We're not into deforestation yet, just fossil emissions. The only continent who is on the right balance in deforestation, - that is, is NOT loosing forests any more, is - - - Europe.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'm all for nuclear power but I'm wondering how that's gonna work out for Europe once terrorists decide to make France's nuke plants a target. Could get pretty uninhabitable there in a hurry.
According to what I've learned in this BBS France is already uninhabitable .
-
That's just because of the guys and the Garlic :D
The femmes and wine is still all fine ;)
-
hmmm.. interesting charts.. the global climate change... we are talking what? 2 degree incriments here? sometimes half a degree or less? can you just see the "scientist" in 100 AD holding out his hand and saying "yep... half a degree warmer than it was last year"? laughable.
Co2 variations... it is "proven" that there never were higher levels? I don't think so. I have also heard that despite the "proven" theory of how the greenhouse works... in real life.... higher levels of Co2 allways follow global warming not preceed it. By your charts we are well on our way to recovery.
fossil fuel usage and conversion... availability and productivity... it is complicated but I would not mind if we did put in a lot more nuke plants.
Soo... lot's of charts. none mean much. It is a fact that putting fresh water into the ocean pollutes it... the oceans health is vital to the survival of the planet... If I showed you charts on how much water we are putting into the ocean compared to years eons ago.... if the graph showed huge spikes... what would you have us do?
What would you have us do about global warming? How much of it is man made? where is that chart? If we made all the charts go the opposite way they are going now.... how many seconds would it shave off the natural global warming cycle we are in?
That is the question... Where is that/those charts? How much are we adding and how much would it change the natural global warming cycle we are in right now if we reduced Co2 to nothing?
how many minutes or seconds would it save?
lazs
-
Lots of charts mean nothing for the one who can not understand them.
It's like letters from the alphabet, a book doesn't say or prove anything if you can't read.
Not to mention if you can't even see the book.
-
One could easily interpret the temperature chart to mean that industry staved off an ice age. If true, perhaps it's not too late to get that ice age going again if we shut down all industry.
-
Originally posted by lukster
One could easily interpret the temperature chart to mean that industry staved off an ice age. If true, perhaps it's not too late to get that ice age going again if we shut down all industry.
What I find facinating is the bizarre logical convolutions you had to through to draw such a ****ed up conclusion.
hey lukster, it's possible to interpret that raised heart rated experienced during an orgasm might be an indictator of a potential heart attack....so lets all cut off our dicks to prevent it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What I find facinating is the bizarre logical convolutions you had to through to draw such a ****ed up conclusion.
hey lukster, it's possible to interpret that raised heart rated experienced during an orgasm might be an indictator of a potential heart attack....so lets all cut off our dicks to prevent it.
Bizarre? How so? Many have said we are due an ice age. How do you know that wasn't it?
You guys are taking this global warming crap way too seriously.
-
Why worry about the temperature, aliens will inhabit the earth, they will all speak spanish! :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmmm.. interesting charts.. the global climate change... we are talking what? 2 degree incriments here? sometimes half a degree or less? can you just see the "scientist" in 100 AD holding out his hand and saying "yep... half a degree warmer than it was last year"? laughable.
:rofl Classic.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmmm.. interesting charts.. the global climate change... we are talking what? 2 degree incriments here? sometimes half a degree or less? can you just see the "scientist" in 100 AD holding out his hand and saying "yep... half a degree warmer than it was last year"? laughable.
You mocking this just exposes your continued ignorance of the topic, it doesn't invalidate the data.
This has been discussed like a billion times on this BBS. Climatologists use ice-core samples to determine annual temperatures from ages ago.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You mocking this just exposes your continued ignorance of the topic, it doesn't invalidate the data.
This has been discussed like a billion times on this BBS. Climatologists use ice-core samples to determine annual temperatures from ages ago.
Which have shown many dramatic and unexplained temperature changes throughout the last several thousand years.
-
we are talking tempreture changes that the scientists admit that they can only estimate by looking at core samples... certainly not down to 1/2 a degree in 50 or more years.
look at the scale fer chris sakes... it is less than 2 degrees in temp covering thousands of years. the scale is such that if it were in 1 degree incriments it would be a frigging.......
flat line.
this is panic mongering in the extreme..
nothing to explain any of the other changes before or during... No answers to how much is normal climate change and what is not..
thrawn actually hit it pretty close with his analodgy..
the charts and graphs are a doctor looking at elevated heart rate durring sex and recomending cutting off a mans noodle to save him from a heart attack.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
One could easily interpret the temperature chart to mean that industry staved off an ice age. If true, perhaps it's not too late to get that ice age going again if we shut down all industry.
WOT?
FYI, the isage ended a very long time before industrialization began.
Actually, the industrial age amounts to something very much smaller in a proper measure from the time since the end of the ise age than some 1% . So, if you want to run a graph comparing CO2, industrialization and warming, they'll dance side by side. Ice age was way before.
Funny isn't it, - and Lazs, - 1 or 2 degrees Celcius on a global scale at the before PREDICTED speed are enormous. So, instead hacking at the donut, it's perhaps time for the head.
And the bonus, - Ice core samples are used, fossils, tree cores (fossilized as well as not, - there are trees about older than Jesus), then history and animal distribution. Those form a picture of the temperatures of the years after the iceage with somewhat decent accuracy.
-
I just find it ironic that an English society feels the need to try to tell a company in another country what they should/should not fund. :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I just find it ironic that an English society feels the need to try to tell a company in another country what they should/should not fund. :D
Mo Money! :D
Let`s divide the resources up between the properous countries and the less properous countries. Level the playing field and start over. (Read that as taking away from those who have worked for it it and contributed to it and giving it to those who have and will never contribute to aything) Pretty clear to see some still have not taken the time to see what the global warming for lunch bunch is really about.
How many little offbeat countries do you think would be chomping at the bits to take in industry that was not allowed in our and other countries if the more than lame guidelines of Kyoto were actualy followed? Kyoto be damned.
I noticed one poster even went so far as to ask what it would hurt to follow the lame guidelines. Open your eyes. Jesse James at least had the integrity to use a gun. Sheeeeesh! :)
-
I am not a fan of world socialism.
If world socialism is the only thing that will save the planet then I would rather lose the planet.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not a fan of world socialism.
If world socialism is the only thing that will save the planet then I would rather lose the planet.
lazs
Then you're being daft.
BTW, I am not a socialist.
-
now you are making sense to me.... you feel that the act of taking your next breath is so important to you that you don't care what you have to do to get it?
I say, nope... some things I won't do. and.. come up with another solution.
I am all for doing what we can to not polute. I am in the business actualy.
I am also well aware that many of the solutions are ill thought out and punitive for no reason at all. I see it every day. I see the Water Quality Control Board using junk science and an iron fist to make bizzare regulations that have no grounding in anything but.... PC and a hunch. the scientists are not alone.. they have an army of buerocrats who make the regulations based on theory.
In just a few decades... I have seen "science backed" regulations in the Water/wastewater industry that have been completly reversed... regulations that caused harm and huge amounts of expense. I have seen them use panic mongering to get their way.
So no... I am not gonna buy it until the proof and the solution are a lot more clear. This looks dishonest and fishy to me.
lazs
-
So, give another solution.
It seems to be floating near if you compare the US vs Europe Emissions, the efficiency with GNP pr cubic of CO2 etc. The difference is too great to ignore, and how much of it is contributed because of one arm working more than the other?
And now, Lazs, for the surprize:
"I am also well aware that many of the solutions are ill thought out and punitive for no reason at all. I see it every day. I see the Water Quality Control Board using junk science and an iron fist to make bizzare regulations that have no grounding in anything but.... PC and a hunch. the scientists are not alone.. they have an army of buerocrats who make the regulations based on theory.
In just a few decades... I have seen "science backed" regulations in the Water/wastewater industry that have been completly reversed... regulations that caused harm and huge amounts of expense. I have seen them use panic mongering to get their way."
The surprize is: I think you are right. There is too much of this.
Take a single thing, the catalyzator..........
-
Give another solution? to what? the possibility that our contribution to the natural global weather cycles is enough to get excieted about?
Ok... my solution? We wait for free enterprise to come up with at way to make it cheaper to use another type of power over the $70 a barrel oil.
seems to me tho that the anti nuke "scientists" were screaming a different tale of doom and gloom and forsaw nuclear power as the real world ender.... "whatever will we do with the waste?"
seems that hybrid and electric cars are a net loss so far as pollution in manufacture and creating hazardous waste and the creation of electricity to run em... along with the battery waste.
Seems a lot of the solutions are pretty bad... we might not want to rush into an ill thought out and complex solution to a problem that may or may not exist in any dire way.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I just find it ironic that an English society feels the need to try to tell a company in another country what they should/should not fund. :D
Maybe they feel the need because ExxonMobil are in their country too (http://www.esso.co.uk/UK-English/Operations/UK_OP_CyInfo_PrinOpCom.asp)?
Multinationals do tend to have offices and sell products in more than one country. Otherwise they can't be called their called multinationals. It's a tradition or an old charter or something.
If you read the letter the Royal Society sent to Esso (ExxonMobil's UK division), their problem with Exxon funding includes their funding of the UK-based think tank, International Policy Network, so they have a local interest. And the Royal Society has had the odd US member too - Benjamin Franklin for one.
The Royal Society is specifically a scientific organisation, so if they feel Exxon is funding bad science, then why shouldn't they write to them? Science isn't localised -- bad science in the US is equally bad science anywhere else.
-
Exxon is a company that is based in a country other than England, that was my point. They arent an English company. Many companies/corporations have international offices.
The global warming issue isn't something that is unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists. If it were, you would be able to say Exxon is funding bad science....but.....it isn't. Even among those scientists who say global warming is an issue, don't all agree on the causes.
-
Lazs:
"Give another solution? to what? the possibility that our contribution to the natural global weather cycles is enough to get excieted about?"
It is. Again, - was calculated, predicted and is now being measured.
And Elfie:
"The global warming issue isn't something that is unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists"
Not quite but almost. This cuts across many parts of science and research, (such as metreology, oceanology, physics, and even agriculture).
Bottom line is that MOST scientists agree upon it. MOST people also agree upon the earth being round, but there are some who still belive it's flat.
-
angus if that is true then it should be simple to just spell it all out for everyone.... not some charts that show a two degree difference but are 12" high.
Even you must admit that the global warming guys are playing kinda dirty with the "facts"
When the facts become more apparent then we can do something... it will probly be the wrong thing considering sciences record for avoiding doom... but.. something.
Right now... I don't see any problem worth the horrible solutions being suggested...
akh says we pay too much for oil for what we get out of it... but... offers no solution.. Why is that? would a ban on houses no bigger than say 1500 square feet go over? How bout a ban on living more than 2 miles from a major city?
let's hear some of the solutions besides "we need to make less Co2
lazs
-
Two degrees on a global scale are hard to "feel", but none the less, ENORMOUS.
Two degrees jumping at the speed they did, and while being parallell with CO2 emissions (and methane emissions, and deforestation) are UNIQUE.
To top that, this was being predicted from calculations.
So?
-
Originally posted by Angus
To top that, this was being predicted from calculations.
So?
I've seen climate models that show rises of 2 to 7 degrees by 2100.
If the rize is actually the lower end model, a skeptic that predicts a zero degree rize is closer than the model which predicts 7.
I am not skeptic that the climate is warming, as I know it is changing. To remain static would be very strange indeed. What I am skeptical about are all the divergent expert opinions as to how much things will change, and all are confident about their precision.
-
That is the hard side with metreology. Even seeing the weather tomorrow.
Yet there will be some weather tomorrow, and in most cases the guess is pretty close.
-
Not close enough to predict what the climate will be like in 10.. 20 or 50 years. Meteorologists are often wrong even though they have solid historic records to base their predictions on. In comparison, global warming alarmists have gas bubbles in old ice and blind faith in their cause, and not much else as far as I can see, to base their unfounded speculat err predictions on.
Six months after the weather gurus predicted a warm and relatively dry winter we just got through the coldest wettest winter we have had in decades. And now they are predicting a dry El Nino summer... I think I'll ask santa for an umbrella to go with my socks.
-
It is well established (as well as described in this thread) how greenhouse effect works.
So, the wobbly factor is our earth,- this is all a big and complex thing, and the mass and sizes we are dealing with are enormous.
Bottom line though is that if we just carry on pumping and deforesting, that blue globe is one day hitting the boiling point. From that one there is no return.
Wanna have that land on your grandchildren? Me not.
-
there is no return from an ice age either angus. The vast majority of your scientist priests predicted that we would be in one by now.
Either they are just guessing (like the local weatherman) or... they are missing something in the model.
either way... the average person sees that the scientist priests can't even predict next weeks weather and that is why there is so much (justified) skepticism.
oh... is butter good or bad for you this week? you have an in with the scientists maybe you can ask?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
To add to the effect, we are deforestating the globe at an enormous rate with the huge benefit of slightly cheaper lumber, burgers and coffee.
Actually, you'll find that deforestation has very little to do with cheaper lumber, burgers, and coffee. For example, when you order a home to be built, and the lumber is delivered, you're ordering for new trees to be planted. It's a renewable resource, and that's how the logging business works.
Massive deforestation is happening in poor countries by people trying to establish sustainable agriculture to feed their families. Things that "environmentalists" constantly protest against like genetically engineered crops and globalization are the keys to solving the problem.
Also, you can't have cheaper lumber if the supply is diminishing. The price would go up, not down.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
there is no return from an ice age either angus. The vast majority of your scientist priests predicted that we would be in one by now.
Either they are just guessing (like the local weatherman) or... they are missing something in the model.
either way... the average person sees that the scientist priests can't even predict next weeks weather and that is why there is so much (justified) skepticism.
oh... is butter good or bad for you this week? you have an in with the scientists maybe you can ask?
lazs
Ice ages come with a return, - without routing out all life.
Find me life on Venus as a contrast.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Actually, you'll find that deforestation has very little to do with cheaper lumber, burgers, and coffee. For example, when you order a home to be built, and the lumber is delivered, you're ordering for new trees to be planted. It's a renewable resource, and that's how the logging business works.
Massive deforestation is happening in poor countries by people trying to establish sustainable agriculture to feed their families. Things that "environmentalists" constantly protest against like genetically engineered crops and globalization are the keys to solving the problem.
Also, you can't have cheaper lumber if the supply is diminishing. The price would go up, not down.
Lumber is cheap while natural forests are being hacked down without being replaced. The supply isn't diminishing in a very visible way.
The coffee quote is on the same rod. Clean a forest, sell the lumber, then use the fertile topsoil to grow coffee or other sorts in untill the nutrition runs out, then you're down to grassland where you can still use as a pasture. Doing it in a balancing way is much more expensive. So, cheaper lumber, coffee and burgers until you run out of land, then the prices are up.
There is only one continent AFAIK that has this in equilibrum.
BTW, there is a lot of lumber available, but the important areas are in S-America, - effective photosyntesis needs warmth and sun.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lumber is cheap while natural forests are being hacked down without being replaced. The supply isn't diminishing in a very visible way.
The coffee quote is on the same rod. Clean a forest, sell the lumber, then use the fertile topsoil to grow coffee or other sorts in untill the nutrition runs out, then you're down to grassland where you can still use as a pasture. Doing it in a balancing way is much more expensive. So, cheaper lumber, coffee and burgers until you run out of land, then the prices are up.
There is only one continent AFAIK that has this in equilibrum.
BTW, there is a lot of lumber available, but the important areas are in S-America, - effective photosyntesis needs warmth and sun.
Lumber will continue to be cheap, at least for Americans, because of the way logging businesses operate. Using lumber leads to more trees being planted, because owners are greedy and want their profits to continue indefinately.
However, everything you've said still does not address the fact that the evironmental groups you're very fond of supporting for their global warming views are the same groups that fund the fight against solutions to deforestation in continents like South America and Africa. I'll give you some examples...
DDT - the studies upon which the laws banning it were completely debunked.. yet it's still illegal, crops that could be protected are not (resulting in more land usage per pound of harvestable food), and millions a year die from Malaria.
Genetically Engineered Food - "environmentalists" or their groups "street teams" will stand outside of a grocery store in skull masks and signs declaring the government is trying to kill you with GE food.... even though the food has passed testing by the EPA, FDA, & USDA. Now, the FDA is good enough to trust for your antibiotics, but they're trying to kill you with GE food? It's a political arguement with little to no basis in reality. This is the same food that can solve world hunger and put a dent in the deforestation that is a problem by again, producing more food per acre, with less susceptability to disease, and draining fewer resources from the soil allowing for faster re-use of the same land.
Behind the vast majority of "environmentalists" is an anti-globalization or "corporate greed" arguement waiting to happen. You've done it yourself going on about cheap coffee and burgers (even though, for example, McDonalds is sourced predominately from established American farms).
There's a place for anti-corporation arguements. The environment is not one of them.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Exxon is a company that is based in a country other than England, that was my point. They arent an English company. Many companies/corporations have international offices.
And my point is that they are based in the UK as well as many other countries. Their headquarters may be in the US (actually ExxonMobil Marine and ExxonMobil Aviation are uncannily enough, headquartered in Leatherhead in Surrey which is in the UK), but they trade in the UK and -- what's more germane -- they fund climate change denial in the UK too. And as previously pointed the Royal Society wrote to Esso -- ExxonMobil's UK division -- not ExxonMobil. Indeed I expect that the majority -- if not all -- of the Fellows of the Royal Society are or have been Esso customers. Customers complaining to a company -- how ironic!
The global warming issue isn't something that is unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists. If it were, you would be able to say Exxon is funding bad science....but.....it isn't. Even among those scientists who say global warming is an issue, don't all agree on the causes.
I didn't say the global warming issue was unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists (although it does seem to be the majority). I said that the Royal Society, as the premier group of scientists in the UK, is entitled to its opinion that Exxon is funding bad science, and is thus entitled to write and tell them so, because science is a universal rather than regional thing.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
I said that the Royal Society, as the premier group of scientists in the UK, is entitled to its opinion that Exxon is funding bad science, and is thus entitled to write and tell them so, because science is a universal rather than regional thing.
So... trying to end an argument by saying, "Stop argueing with me my mind is made up." is in the spirit of good science?
-
indy is an obvious shill for the lumber industry and he should be made to shut up by the royal scientists before he does any more harm.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
indy is an obvious shill for the lumber industry and he should be made to shut up by the royal scientists before he does any more harm.
lazs
Damn, figured out by Lazs of all people. You're not dead yet?
:)
Catch you in the EWA, flying as "ndy".
-
Originally posted by indy007
Lumber will continue to be cheap, at least for Americans, because of the way logging businesses operate. Using lumber leads to more trees being planted, because owners are greedy and want their profits to continue indefinately.
However, everything you've said still does not address the fact that the evironmental groups you're very fond of supporting for their global warming views are the same groups that fund the fight against solutions to deforestation in continents like South America and Africa. I'll give you some examples...
DDT - the studies upon which the laws banning it were completely debunked.. yet it's still illegal, crops that could be protected are not (resulting in more land usage per pound of harvestable food), and millions a year die from Malaria.
Genetically Engineered Food - "environmentalists" or their groups "street teams" will stand outside of a grocery store in skull masks and signs declaring the government is trying to kill you with GE food.... even though the food has passed testing by the EPA, FDA, & USDA. Now, the FDA is good enough to trust for your antibiotics, but they're trying to kill you with GE food? It's a political arguement with little to no basis in reality. This is the same food that can solve world hunger and put a dent in the deforestation that is a problem by again, producing more food per acre, with less susceptability to disease, and draining fewer resources from the soil allowing for faster re-use of the same land.
Behind the vast majority of "environmentalists" is an anti-globalization or "corporate greed" arguement waiting to happen. You've done it yourself going on about cheap coffee and burgers (even though, for example, McDonalds is sourced predominately from established American farms).
There's a place for anti-corporation arguements. The environment is not one of them.
Indy, You're making a mistake here.
Firstly, I never mentoned any environmental groups that I am "fond of"
Actually, I am not fond of any particular ones.
Then back to the trees....
While you said this:
"Lumber will continue to be cheap, at least for Americans, because of the way logging businesses operate. Using lumber leads to more trees being planted, because owners are greedy and want their profits to continue indefinately."
..There are some things already there. The important thing IMHO is that the "owners" usually are looking at VERY short time profit, and instead of indefinate you can put "within a persons lifespan".
As for the coffee, I belive my argument stands quite well. You'd be surprized perhaps to realize how big a business it is. Then to burgers - well, I said "burgers", should have said "beef", - you said McDonald's and I didn't.
Anyway, the cheapest beef of the world as well as coffe and lumber is produced with a short term profit of huge deforestation. And exactly that is worth quite a concern, it's not all about the car you drive and how much the emission is, it's the other end as well.
-
I didn't say the global warming issue was unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists (although it does seem to be the majority). I said that the Royal Society, as the premier group of scientists in the UK, is entitled to its opinion that Exxon is funding bad science, and is thus entitled to write and tell them so, because science is a universal rather than regional thing.
I dont believe I ever said they werent entitled to their opinion. They most certainly are. Just because they have an opinion doesnt mean anyone wants to hear it, or that they should voice it.
The irony that I see isnt because they voiced their opinion to an American company. I would see the same irony if a group of scientists in say...Nigeria voiced their opinion to a company based in say....Japan.
-
Originally posted by Angus
It is well established (as well as described in this thread) how greenhouse effect works.
So, the wobbly factor is our earth,- this is all a big and complex thing, and the mass and sizes we are dealing with are enormous.
Bottom line though is that if we just carry on pumping and deforesting, that blue globe is one day hitting the boiling point. From that one there is no return.
Wanna have that land on your grandchildren? Me not.
I don't believe everything I read from one source as gospel truth on any subject, especially something as contentious as global warming.
The issue is not too big and complex for a lot of people to realize that they're being herded like sheep into believing in absolute answers, when science can't even agree on the equations to use to make a consistent and convincing educated guess.
And if that aint enough reason to be sceptical, then the tactics used by highly politicised global warming alarmists of muting the nay sayers (and people in general that ask lots of awkward questions) for the apparent effect of giving the appearance of consensus amoungst the scientific fraternity, should at least raise a flag.
-
An abslolute occurance is that if you put a pint of water in a pot, then put it on fire, or on an electric heater, the water will at one time be influenced enough with the invisible forces at work, and...BOIL.
Be sceptic, but it will.
-
Originally posted by Angus
An abslolute occurance is that if you put a pint of water in a pot, then put it on fire, or on an electric heater, the water will at one time be influenced enough with the invisible forces at work, and...BOIL.
Be sceptic, but it will.
Unless you watch it. ;)
-
Watching it won't stop it boiling ;)
-
Originally posted by AKH
Watching it won't stop it boiling ;)
You are unfamiliar with the old saying?
-
Ok.. we are making progress... we can all pretty much go with the boiling water theory... put enough heat under it and it will boil.
What that has to do with the current global warming issue is a little vauge tho...
Do you mean that if we all held our breath or quit driving cars the water would take longer to boil?
lazs
-
Actually, so long as the pressure is great enough the water won't boil but I guess that's beside the point. ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Actually, so long as the pressure is great enough the water won't boil but I guess that's beside the point. ;)
If you use distilled water and microwave it (causing the molecules to rub together extremely fast), it will be superheated but perfectly calm... and then introduce impurities into it (like a metal spoon), it will explode into steam.
Kinda neat. :)
-
Co2 in the air should matter too but how much will someone in china holding his breath change the time it takes to boil my water?
lazs
-
Bottom line is that if under a static heating, such as our sun is providing us with (we are incredibly accurately close and yet not too far etc), one needs a certain amount of warming gases (established science) to warm the sphere up. Punktum. Doesn't matter where you are, and same goes to the chinaman. If you bring the globe up to the boiling point, you'll be sharing the same bubblebath.
Rather uncomfortable.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Bottom line is that if under a static heating, such as our sun is providing us with
Nasa Earth Observatory (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/ACRIMSAT/acrimsat_2.html) The ACRIM I instrument was the first to clearly demonstrate that the total radiant energy emanating from the sun was not a constant, and varied in proportion to solar magnetic activity. However, the suns output changes so slowly and solar variability is so slight (less than 0.00425% of the total energy per year on time scales of days), that continuous monitoring by state-of-the-art instrumentation is necessary to detect changes with climate significance. Scientists theorize that as much as 25% of the 20th century anticipated global warming of the Earth may be due to changes in the suns energy output.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
but wait... there's more...
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt)
Sun more active than for a millennium (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321)
Sunspots are more frequent now than any time for 1000 years (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn4321/dn4321-1_550.jpg)
The sun is more active now than the last 8000 years (http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/)
-
It's not a constant. Just very close to it...at the moment.
Eventually the sun goes wild and will gobble up our blueball before making "pop" and becoming a smallball. Another thing.
However, THE BOTTOM LINE is that with enough greenhouse gases it is possible to:
A. Warm the earths atmosphere
B. Bring it to a very hot point.
If the solar activity is up, this doesn't get better.....sad but true.
-
Ok...so one chinaman not breathing should affect the time it takes to boil water right?
Is that important enough to make him stop breathing?
lazs
-
Originally posted by indy007
but wait... there's more...
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt)
Sun more active than for a millennium (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321)
Sunspots are more frequent now than any time for 1000 years (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn4321/dn4321-1_550.jpg)
The sun is more active now than the last 8000 years (http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/)
Yeah but there's nothing we can do about the sun so what's the point in noticing it may be the cause of our slight temperature rise? No political power to be gained there. ;)
-
If solar effectiveness is up, greenhouse effect means even more trouble.
And Lazs, - Chinamen would be a heck of trouble if their emissions per persons were as high as pr. US citizen ...
-
Originally posted by Angus
If solar effectiveness is up, greenhouse effect means even more trouble.
And Lazs, - Chinamen would be a heck of trouble if their emissions per persons were as high as pr. US citizen ...
What "trouble" might that be? I've seen a few of the disaster movies but I'm not inclined to put any faith in them.
-
Lukster, - grenhouse effect is a fact. That's why people in colder areas of the globe (nothing very cold, since Holland is the record breaker in greenhouse building) build...greenhouses.
This effect can also be done with the correct gases.
If you emit enough, you will hit the effect....which is being manifested.
This may go to more than a slight "trouble", so a disaster movie scenario might actually occur.
For real-based disaster movies about things that shouldn't have happened, start with Titanic. Unsinkable...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lukster, - grenhouse effect is a fact. That's why people in colder areas of the globe (nothing very cold, since Holland is the record breaker in greenhouse building) build...greenhouses.
This effect can also be done with the correct gases.
If you emit enough, you will hit the effect....which is being manifested.
This may go to more than a slight "trouble", so a disaster movie scenario might actually occur.
For real-based disaster movies about things that shouldn't have happened, start with Titanic. Unsinkable...
Ah, I missed the may or might in your earlier post. Is it not just as possible that instead of "trouble" the greenhouse effect may result in increased prosperity worldwide?
-
Originally posted by Angus
For real-based disaster movies about things that shouldn't have happened, start with Titanic. Unsinkable...
Had White Star Lines shown some doubt in expert opinion of unsinkability and put on enough lifeboats...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lukster, - grenhouse effect is a fact. That's why people in colder areas of the globe (nothing very cold, since Holland is the record breaker in greenhouse building) build...greenhouses.
This effect can also be done with the correct gases.
If you emit enough, you will hit the effect....which is being manifested.
This may go to more than a slight "trouble", so a disaster movie scenario might actually occur.
For real-based disaster movies about things that shouldn't have happened, start with Titanic. Unsinkable...
Greenhouses work by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside the same effect that heats the inside of your car when its parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate.... but neither the atmosphere nor greenhouse gases block convection, so there is no literal atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Any more knowledge you wanna drop on us Angus?
-
It was necessary, since some on the thread hadn't got this figured out :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
It was necessary, since some on the thread hadn't got this figured out :D
One of those algore exaggerations that's ok because people aren't excited enough about the sky falling?
-
I can read the "exaggerations" on my termometer. To make it worse, I was told more than 20 years ago that it would be so.
Excited? Yes, I bloody well am.
-
sooooo.. if we have a cold winter the crisis is over?
lazs
-
No.
-
I just hope it never seriously progresses beyond, "is too, is not, is too, is not"
Let's hope governments don't unite in oppressing industry in the name of the almighty CO2.
-
Scientists also agree that through the years, many of them, that the earth has itself gone through climate changes. Man wasn't here for some of them...and for some of them he was. It was also predicted this year that it would be one of the worst for numbers of hurricanes. Guess what...it wasn't.
Not being partial to either side, warming or not warming....I've found no evidence that I find credible to make me believe the earth is warming due to greenhouse emissions. What I have found is that man is still very weak in predicting what mother nature will do. I've even read some papers that state an Ice Age is coming.
The same old "The Sky is falling" Pay attention to me!
Hey...if we stick around for a million years a warming trend or ice age is sure to come. Just like earthquakes in California....ya wait around long enough one will show up....eventually.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I can read the "exaggerations" on my termometer. To make it worse, I was told more than 20 years ago that it would be so.
Excited? Yes, I bloody well am.
If your getting excited over the point we are at in the current warming cycle you probably would have had kittens if you were living during the periods of 125,000, 250,000 and 400,000 years ago when it's suspected the temperatures peaked high enough from those warming cycles to melt much of the Antarctic ice sheet.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10404929
As for the other aspect of climate change and the claims made because of it, i.e. man's wear and tear on the planet is going to toast us all in <insert year very soon > is imo totaly unfounded and is nothing more than hysteria created by bad science.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
If you ever find one of these it will make history. It will be the first. They have all been paid and paid well to come up with the desired statements.
I desiderate that what you say Jacka1 is not true 100% of the time.
Regards,
hap
-
I think that most people fall into the excell category when it comes to the doom and gloom predictions...
Most of us have been there and seen that with the doom and gloom scientists... too many baby boomers still alive for the scam to work perfectly right now... works good on the young musheads from public school indoctrinization.
Ane that is about it really... the academics are used to censoring other academics who don't tow the line... hence the call for a censorship here.
lazs