Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lukster on January 23, 2007, 11:00:06 AM
-
Looks like we don't have an active global warming fearists thread going currently and I found this dripping with irony and perhaps a little alarming but still amusing.
The irony is in the call for "the American Meteorological Society decertify meteorologists who don't warn about climate change." and yet she follows up by saying "Freedom of scientific expression is essential".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245581,00.html
Coldest winter we've had here in Texas in the last few years.
-
"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming,"
Sounds reasonable to me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sounds reasonable to me.
The unreasonable part is where she calls for the discreditation of those who do not agree with her "science". These fanatics usually refuse to acknowledge the impact our sun has on the situation. There is much evidence to indicate that it is the source of increasing warming throughout our solar system.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
-
Originally posted by lukster
These fanatics usually refuse to acknowledge the impact our sun has on the situation. There is much evidence to indicate that it is the source of increasing warming throughout our solar system.
Could you explain how the sun is increasing global warming to me? Linky or something?
<----------idiot
I always thought the sun + carbon dioxide was the source of global warming. Carbon dioxide is IR (heat) active and therefore captures the sun's photons.
But maybe the sun heats up as it gets older and is pushing more energy our way? I think that violates one of the Laws of Thermodynamics. But I don't know. Science isn't really my thing :)
Edit: Thanks for link.
-
Or that heating and cooling follows cycles. We know that it does. The question is what causes it.
The same people who would have you believe that global warming was the result of man are the same people who would have you believe that the global cooling 40-50 years ago was the result of man. Maybe they are right, maybe not.
-
Um, actually, the sun is not a cause of "global warming", which might be better described as a Climate Shift, for the kinds of weather we are going to see in the future.
And, not so much the sun, which does have periods of greater output, but mostly associated with an 11-year cycle, but the Earth's orbit around the sun has three cycles:
*41,000 year variation in tilt of Earth's axis --- between 22.2 and 24.5 degrees.... we are at 23.5 degrees "heading toward the cold end".
* 26,000 year precession of Earth's orbit around the sun..... which changes where the tilt of the Earth happens in relation to the distance from the sun....the Earth';s orbit around the sun is not circular. IOW, the tilt of the Artic toward the sun for summer can happen when the Earth is closer to the sun (warmer), or furthest from the sun (colder).... we're several thousand years toward the colder summer situation.
* 100,000 year variation in eccentricity of the Earth's orbit.... or how big a difference there is between closest and furthest approach to the sun in our orbit. Also past the mid way point toward being more distant from the sun at times.... ie a colder season.
These three cycles led to some sci fi writers creating stories about Earth headed into another ice age, back in the 60's and 70's, before the effects of the changing atmosphere and global warming began to be sturdied. These 3 cycles in conjunction have resulted in the ice ages and melting events in the past.
-----------------------
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Um, actually, the sun is not a cause of "global warming", which might be better described as a Climate Shift, for the kinds of weather we are going to see in the future.
And, not so much the sun, which does have periods of greater output, but mostly associated with an 11-year cycle, but the Earth's orbit around the sun has three cycles:
*41,000 year variation in tilt of Earth's axis --- between 22.2 and 24.5 degrees.... we are at 23.5 degrees "heading toward the cold end".
* 26,000 year precession of Earth's orbit around the sun..... which changes where the tilt of the Earth happens in relation to the distance from the sun....the Earth';s orbit around the sun is not circular. IOW, the tilt of the Artic toward the sun for summer can happen when the Earth is closer to the sun (warmer), or furthest from the sun (colder).... we're several thousand years toward the colder summer situation.
* 100,000 year variation in eccentricity of the Earth's orbit.... or how big a difference there is between closest and furthest approach to the sun in our orbit. Also past the mid way point toward being more distant from the sun at times.... ie a colder season.
These three cycles led to some sci fi writers creating stories about Earth headed into another ice age, back in the 60's and 70's, before the effects of the changing atmosphere and global warming began to be sturdied. These 3 cycles in conjunction have resulted in the ice ages and melting events in the past.
-----------------------
Of course without the sun there would be no "global warming". ;) Nasa says that solar radiation has been increasing in the lull between the periodic sunspot activities which they claim could affect our global climate. To ignore this important fact in regards to climatology is to have a political agenda.
-
Now, those that would have you believe that mankind is not capable to changing his environment to such a degree to change the planet's climate, would also have you believe that smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer.
They look at the globe and see a great big world..... but forget only a very thin layer of that globe is where everything lives on the planet.
Now.... global warming, or climate change, is the effect that pumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has had on the Earth's atmospheres ability to retain solar radiation ---- thus heat. This began, by some studies, with the agricultural revolution, which put more methane in the air --- but this was a minor bounce ---, but really got a kick with the Industrial Revolution.
We are thickening the atmosphere, which is warming the planet a few degrees, which warms the world's oceans a few degrees (not a minor feat), which in turn melts the glaciers, sea ice, and shelf ice around the world.
There is one notable cycle still in effect here.... we are in the middle of an interglacial period, and the thermal pulse of coming out of the last ice age is still migrating down through the glaciers, which probably makes them a little more susceptible to melting than they would be otherwise.
This causes sea levels to rise, as well as become less salty (which can stall out the "great oceanic conveyor" flow of warm equatorial waters to the North Atlantic..... which is how global warming can cause an mini-ice age for the American NE and Northern Europe. Lack of pack ice in the Arctic is already starting to drown Polar Bears in significant numbers, which may go extinct in a decade or two at this rate. Shelf ice breaking up in the Antarctic has already cause low lying island nations to begin to evacuate to higher ground. Serious loss of the ice shelfs or Greenland's glaciers can raise sea levels between 10 feet and 40 feet.
Now 10 to 40 feet may not sound like much, but that has nearly half the world's population running for higher ground. That shuts down every port around the world, where goods are shipped in and out, every fishing processing plant, and probably drowns out 1/3rd of the industrial centers around the world. A serious lack of industrial goods and food shortages (read: famine). Oil terminals and refineries mostly gone as well.
Another worry is the permafrost in Siberia, and the methane stored in the deep sea beds. Either of these starts to "defrost" (which has started in Siberia) and more methane (a powerful greenhouse gas), can be released into the atmosphere than humanity could ever hope to release by it's activities. This will cause a relatively strong rise in world-wide temperatures. ALOT more melting of ice would result, and a rise in sea levels of 50 to 200 feet.
Now, I prefer climate change or shift to global warming because of the effects it would have:
Further desertification around the world, and the warmer air dries out the ground. All that extra heat in the oceans creates more and stronger storms around the world. Severe winds. Tornadoes. Hurricanes. Lightening storms. Drought in more locations around the world. Areas dependent on seasonal snow pack and glacier melt off for their water go without water.
Higher temperatures also bring more tropical diseases to higher latitudes (we are seeing this now already). This will only continue to increase.
Human factor.... War. War over resources, water, territory.
And all the evidence is there. From species migrating to northern attitudes and higher altitudes around the world, to rising sea levels, to data collected around the world on temperatures, ice thickness, and so forth.
Some would prefer to ignore it. Others worry that acknowledging it would cause them financial loss. Many just can't get their itty-bitty minds around the numbers or concepts involved.
-
Nasa's record includes some tangible results like putting men on the moon. Please list for me some tangible results of a prominent Global Warming Alarmist. Let's ignore the guy who invented the internet for now.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Looks like we don't have an active global warming fearists thread going currently and I found this dripping with irony and perhaps a little alarming but still amusing.
The irony is in the call for "the American Meteorological Society decertify meteorologists who don't warn about climate change." and yet she follows up by saying "Freedom of scientific expression is essential".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245581,00.html
Coldest winter we've had here in Texas in the last few years.
This sounds like a hyper-reaction to stories last year about scientists essentially being "gagged" and forced to edit research papers and findings to raise doubt about global warming.
And "global warming" is a misnomer for some people...... consider it a Climate Change or Shift. The Earth overall grows warmer, but the New England states and Northern Europe could actually experience a min-ice age as a result. What warmer world wide temperatures does mean is more energy in the atmosphere, which means more storms and more severe weather:
powerful hurricanes, tornadoes at any time of the year, droughts, and more powerful storm systems..... including snow storms and cold fronts.
-
Im with Gore on this one. Pollution, greenhouse effect and the proven fact that the worlds reserves of ice covered terrain are dwindling all point to the same conclusion: Human industry and fossil fuel burning heating and transportation are acting to threaten our longterm survival in the very near term.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
This sounds like a hyper-reaction to stories last year about scientists essentially being "gagged" and forced to edit research papers and findings to raise doubt about global warming.
And "global warming" is a misnomer for some people...... consider it a Climate Change or Shift. The Earth overall grows warmer, but the New England states and Northern Europe could actually experience a min-ice age as a result. What warmer world wide temperatures does mean is more energy in the atmosphere, which means more storms and more severe weather:
powerful hurricanes, tornadoes at any time of the year, droughts, and more powerful storm systems..... including snow storms and cold fronts.
I think most people understand that "Global Warming" means climate changes. I take it then you have no problem with this prominent expert's very recent (not last year) exclamation that meteorolgist who fail to sound the alarm should have their acreditation revoked?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Nasa's record includes some tangible results like putting men on the moon. Please list for me some tangible results of a prominent Global Warming Alarmist. Let's ignore the guy who invented the internet for now.
NASA's record also includes a nightmare space station that originally was going to take 8 years and $8 billion dollars to build and orbit, and Space Shuttle that would make 100 trips per year for $100 per pound to LEO, not to mention many pretty (and expensive) graphics of the National Aerospace Plane which never went anywhere.
What's NASA's next plan to get into space and back to the moon? Syndicated version of the Apollo program.
And I always love the "prove it" responses.....
Union Of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/)
The United States Department of Defense Report
http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf (http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf)
The Hot Map
http://www.climatehotmap.org/ (http://www.climatehotmap.org/)
Tree Huggers Unite!
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp (http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/)
And the Guy you wanted to ignore
http://www.climatecrisis.net/ (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)
edumatate yerself!
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
....26,000 year precession of Earth's orbit around the sun..... which changes where the tilt of the Earth happens in relation to the distance from the sun....the Earth';s orbit around the sun is not circular. IOW, the tilt of the Artic toward the sun for summer can happen when the Earth is closer to the sun (warmer), or furthest from the sun (colder).... we're several thousand years toward the colder summer situation....
although the earth is further from the sun during the northern hemisphere's summer (furthest in the 1st week of july), kepler's 3rd law of orbits dictates that our summers are longer as well, but with reduced daily high temperatures. The net effect is none. OTOH, the southern hemisphere has short extra hot summers, which dictates that the southern hemisphere is for noobs from noobzealand & agtentinoob. it sux
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im with Gore on this one. Pollution, greenhouse effect and the proven fact that the worlds reserves of ice covered terrain are dwindling all point to the same conclusion: Human industry and fossil fuel burning heating and transportation are acting to threaten our longterm survival in the very near term.
NOT trying to bash here but, people with this outlook I consider one of the major causes. The modern tree hugging hippies that want world peace, "say NO to war" they want people to quit doing things that will shorten their lives, they want the cure for cancer and stuff are full of crap.
You know why the world is so polluted???? BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY FREAKING PEOPLE ON IT!!!!!!! Want to save the environment??? Pick up a rifle and go to war and kill a couple of hundred people. This world NEEDS the poputation culled by a good percentage and then we would be OK for anouther hundred years. Hell I had a heart attack and still smoke. I served in the first Gulf War and did my fair share then. I'm trying to do my part.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think most people understand that "Global Warming" means climate changes. I take it then you have no problem with this prominent expert's very recent (not last year) exclamation that meteorolgist who fail to sound the alarm should have their acreditation revoked?
I *do* have a problem with the above policy matter, unless, and only unless, it was restricted to official position papers contributed to by those people for that organization in particular, as part of official adopted policy (and not the decision of one person). Individuals should still be allowed to counter the official policy on their own. I didn't read the story, mostly because the main stream news tends to get the facts wrong so often, and often looking to sensationalize a story, or look for the ratings, I usually turn toward the more focused and "professional" outlets.
If I were thinking truly Machiavellian, I'd say that the controversial decreed was put out to get just that sort of negative reaction, and further muddy the waters in the global warming issue, as a counter to last years stories about tainted studies and scientists restricted in just the opposite manner. Sometimes I get the feeling the PR types that defended big tobacco all work in environmental issues now.
Actually, I don't believe most people understand about climate shift, and fewer still about climate "shelfs", sudden climate change due to the reaching of some "tipping point" in contributing factors.
I actually think too many of the "man-in-the-street" thinks global warming means everywhere will look like Miami on a sunny day. Less snow shoveling.
Or it's a "doesn't effect me" mentality: Those that don't live near the ocean, for example, don't mind if the ocean rise a bit..... but they don't realize that enough rise in oceans drowns out the ports, where many of the fruits and veggies his wife shops for in the winter have to come through from southern hemisphere countries.
Fly them in is the answer? Except the fuel for those planes can reach the drowned oil terminals or refineries.
There are potential HUGE domino effects with this issue.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im with Gore on this one. Pollution, greenhouse effect and the proven fact that the worlds reserves of ice covered terrain are dwindling all point to the same conclusion: Human industry and fossil fuel burning heating and transportation are acting to threaten our longterm survival in the very near term.
Mankind has been doomed from the first day some blob of flesh stood up and walked. If we do not kill ourselves, something else will. It is the nature of everything. Change is the only true constant of the universe.
We are far too ignorant to be able to know with absolute certainty what is happening with the environment of this planet.
-
Now.... global warming, or climate change, is the effect that pumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has had on the Earth's atmospheres ability to retain solar radiation ---- thus heat. This began, by some studies, with the agricultural revolution, which put more methane in the air --- but this was a minor bounce ---, but really got a kick with the Industrial Revolution.
Actually it wasn't the result of methane, but the process of increased deforestation fro agriculture. My roommate took a plant ecology/ethics class last fall and I read the paper written by the scientist who proposed this new theory on the start on the causes of the recent climate change.
I agree with Hornet33, probably the only thing that will have any short term effect on the environment would be population control. Pretty much every other form of life is subject to this law of nature except humans who through technology, intelligence, and medicine have been able to dodge the fate that is in store for us.
Eventually, and hopefully this is the start of it, the gods will force their hand to cull the human population, and all of this rabble and ruckus is because people are trying to solve the problem or blame someone for causing it instead of accepting this possible fate.
-
Ok.. so how could increased sun activity not have a warming effect on the planet?
Why is it that in all other global warming cycles that increased Co2 levels followed global warming not preceded it but now we are saying the reverse is true for this cycle?
lazs
-
oh noes! teh golbals warmings will melty your popsicles :O :eek:
-
It is fine to have theories about man made global warming and even do the research if you are so inclined as a scientist...
Just don't ask me to pay for it and.... if you do find some element of man that is causing some part of it... you had better have ironclad proof of not only that it is a part of it but that any solution you offer that costs me even one cent or inconvienences me in any way... that you have proof that it is not only true but that if I do as you say... it will have a noticeable affect.
Say for instance we are in a natural warming cycle or a sun anomaly... say you prove absolutely that we are contributing to that by oh..... .00005% or.. that if we continue to say, drive cars... we will make it so that they planet will be uninhabitable in 4,000 years but.... if we all stop driving today... right this second.... that it will stretch out the doomsday time by 14 minutes.. the world will then survive another 14 minutes... guess what... You can walk if you like but I'm gonna drive.
If you are less than 100% certain don't even bother me..
And, that is the way most people feel I think... and that is why there is such an outcry from the handwringers to shut down any debate on it. They want complete control of the discussion because they know their position is weak.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is fine to have theories about man made global warming and even do the research if you are so inclined as a scientist...
Just don't ask me to pay for it and.... if you do find some element of man that is causing some part of it... you had better have ironclad proof of not only that it is a part of it but that any solution you offer that costs me even one cent or inconvienences me in any way...
lazs
Becareful Laz it might soon be a crime to deny climate change is not caused by man...
:noid
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
oh noes! teh golbals warmings will melty your popsicles :O :eek:
:rofl
-
Ya'll are funny.
dim, but funny.
-
Now now MT, the possesion of theoritical data is no measure of intelligence. Anyone can substantiate a theory by picking the right data to back it.
Bush does it all the time. And I am sure you do not want to be in that boat. :D
-
Now now Skuzzy... what the heck is "theoritical data"?
Data is data and either it supports a hypothesis or it doesn't. The real comedy here is that NO ONE posting here has a clue what the evidence is or isn't regarding global warming. We are all counting on people smarter than us to do this work. Any other scientific study with nearly 100% unnanimity would be heralded as a breakthrough. LOL's all around for the silliness abounding with regards to this issue.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now now Skuzzy... what the heck is "theoritical data"?
Data is data and either it supports a hypothesis or it doesn't. The real comedy here is that NO ONE PERIOD has a clue what the evidence is or isn't regarding global warming. We are all counting on people smarter than us to do this work. Any other scientific study with nearly 100% unnanimity would be heralded as a breakthrough. LOL's all around for the silliness abounding with regards to this issue.
Fixed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now now Skuzzy... what the heck is "theoritical data"?
Hehe, you like that? Short-cut speak for, "Yes, I have data that supports the theory, but there is also data which contridicts the theory, so I will ignore that data.
It can also extend to data which has been made-up for the sake of the argument and presented as nearly factual.
Hey, if Colbert can get a word like truthiness created, I figure, what the heck. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is fine to have theories about man made global warming and even do the research if you are so inclined as a scientist...
Just don't ask me to pay for it and.... if you do find some element of man that is causing some part of it... you had better have ironclad proof of not only that it is a part of it but that any solution you offer that costs me even one cent or inconvienences me in any way... that you have proof that it is not only true but that if I do as you say... it will have a noticeable affect.
Say for instance we are in a natural warming cycle or a sun anomaly... say you prove absolutely that we are contributing to that by oh..... .00005% or.. that if we continue to say, drive cars... we will make it so that they planet will be uninhabitable in 4,000 years but.... if we all stop driving today... right this second.... that it will stretch out the doomsday time by 14 minutes.. the world will then survive another 14 minutes... guess what... You can walk if you like but I'm gonna drive.
If you are less than 100% certain don't even bother me..
And, that is the way most people feel I think... and that is why there is such an outcry from the handwringers to shut down any debate on it. They want complete control of the discussion because they know their position is weak.
lazs
Yep. SOunds about right. So, the answer to to raise the bar to an impossible height to "prove it". Unfortunately, there is NO way to be 100% sure about anything to such a high degree in a complex system such as the world's environment. It's like trying to nail down economic futures with 100% certainty. It's like knowing how the Super Bowl will end, with which teams and what score, before the pre-season has begun. It cannot be done.
So, since it cannot be done, then nothing should be done?
Solar input, water salinity, continental drift, biomass totals, atmospheric composition, population growth rates, world gross domestic product and accompanying environmental effects, volcanic activity, ice cap and shelf melting rates,.... the variables are endless.
lazs does emphasis the primary argument against addressing the global warming debate.... cost.... or immediate costs for this and the coming fiscal quarter. This or next years taxes. All concern on the immediate future, and 0 thought as to long term consequences. Do what you want so long as it does not inconvenience me or cost me anything.
This is the primary drive to not dealing with global warming, not dealing with health care problems in the United States, and not dealing with a Social Security system that is doomed to collapse, to not fixing a failed education system...... immediate costs. Never mind about tomorrow..... that will be someone else's problem. Besides, tomorrow never comes.
Or we can just turn to major religions.... the world is only 3,000 years old, so ALL the data is therefore false..... so no problem. Go to church.
Senerio:
We lose 1/2 of the Greenland icecap, and half of the endangered ice shelfs of West Antarctica. Sea levels rise 20 feet. This could happen in less than a decade. All coastal cities are drowned. All ports are out. No oil imports. Few oil refineries. No oil, natural gas, or gasoline available for transportation or heat or power generation. No products to stock the shelves at Wal Mart. No steady supply of groceries at the market.
To avoid the total economic collapse on this scale would mean the moving of all these capabilities to higher ground. Land would have to be seized as needed. Suspension of all property rights. Moving each major industrial center would be akin to the Soviets moving the industrial capability of western Russia to the other side of the Ural Mountains in WWII..... and all the deprivations and brutal excesses that those basically slave-labor workers faced in that effort. I doubt it could be done. For a people and civilization that shows little interest in trying to prevent such a situation developing in the first place, I seriously doubt they will be able to step up when the time comes.
And whether mankind's activities are responsible or not has become moot.
Sea level is rising, and continues to rise. The ice packs, caps, and shelfs are melting at rates never seen my modern man. The average temperature around the Earth is going up. Species are migrating to northern latitudes and higher elevations. Droughts and severe weather are happening more often and to a greater degree. A hurricane has developed in the South Atlantic, once that was thought impossible. Polar bears are drowning.
These are all happening. They are measurable and observable.
Pretending nothing is happening doesn't seem to be working. But just because it's not working so far is no reason to stop not trying.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I Heart MT
-
Perhaps you are not aware that the ice in Antartica is growing overall and not shriking tedrbr? I think the coastlines are safe.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
quote:
Originally posted by lukster
I Heart MT
Don't we all? ;)
-
Speak for yourself, I dunt schwing that way. :)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Speak for yourself, I dunt schwing that way. :)
Awe come on, just look at those cute little quips.
-
My Mom told me if I looked at those, I would go blind,..or something like that.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Perhaps you are not aware that the ice in Antartica is growing overall and not shriking tedrbr? I think the coastlines are safe.
antardic ice is bright green with gay pink polska dots
it is, ya knoe:aok
-
We just don't know enough to make any real hypothesis. Anyone who thinks they do is fooling themselves.
And I'll definately be anti environmental reform when the same people who are freaking out about global warming are the same people who hate business and success. Because of that connection, any environment reform legislationi will be anti business. I will not even begin to believe global warming scaredy cats until they distance themselves from anti business / pro communist organizations.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Perhaps you are not aware that the ice in Antartica is growing overall and not shriking tedrbr? I think the coastlines are safe.
Antarctica is a desert in terms of precipitation. However due to climate warming the Antarctic region experienced increased snowfall (1992 - 2003) which thickened the ice cover (East Antarctica interior in particular) of about 3/4 of an inch annually.
However, due to the same warming the edges of ice shelfs are braking off (two satellites launched in 2002 by NASA are monitoring the ice cover) at a faster rate then increased snow fall is replacing it.
The measurement shows a loss of about 35 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002.
Source: NASA
-
Originally posted by lukster
Awe come on, just look at those cute little quips.
And my rock hard adjectives.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Antarctica is a desert in terms of precipitation. However due to climate warming the Antarctic region experienced increased snowfall (1992 - 2003) which thickened the ice cover (East Antarctica interior in particular) of about 3/4 of an inch annually.
However, due to the same warming the edges of ice shelfs are braking off (two satellites launched in 2002 by NASA are monitoring the ice cover) at a faster rate then increased snow fall is replacing it.
The measurement shows a loss of about 35 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002.
Source: NASA
I have to conceded the point that Antartica may be shrinking overall but it's hardly in danger of melting in 10 years swamping all coastal cities.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im with Gore on this one. Pollution, greenhouse effect and the proven fact that the worlds reserves of ice covered terrain are dwindling all point to the same conclusion: Human industry and fossil fuel burning heating and transportation are acting to threaten our longterm survival in the very near term.
How do you know that "the worlds reserves of ice covered terrain" have not dwindled in the past as they are now?
-
Originally posted by lukster
it's hardly in danger of melting in 10 years swamping all coastal cities.
Correct. The amount of melted Antarctic ice is good for a sea level rise of about 0.02 inches per year. It would take some 3 to 4 hundred years to melt completely if rate of melting remains at current level.
-
Guys, just keep an eye on global climate trends over the next four or five years.
Fact is that there is an ever increasing number of human beings feeding an ever expanding global industrial infrastructure generating an ever increasing load of greenhouse pollution. Scarey thing is that if this thing (global warming) should prove to be actually happening, there is a good chance it could be acting exponentially.
I hope you guys are right (global warming is a hoax), but everything Im seeing and experiencing, and just good old fashioned common sense tells me your wrong.
:cry
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Correct. The amount of melted Antarctic ice is good for a sea level rise of about 0.02 inches per year. It would take some 3 to 4 hundred years to melt completely if rate of melting remains at current level.
And if is limited to melt water only, and no further break-ups of the ice shelfs in West Antarctica occur in the future .... not that anyone saw the last couple break-ups coming before they happened so spectacularly..... then I'd concede the point that the ocean rise will happen slowly.
Nothing to say that those ice shelves won't break off in the future.... and the glaciers behind them now also have access to the sea --- previously they have been essentially held back. Domino effects. Almost everything in the overall climate model has a positive feedback/reinforcement loop associated with it, once you get past a certain point..... a tipping point..... where the original effects are no longer absorbed or dampened.
Large break ups of the ice shelf, melting of the pack ice, and large scale melting in Greenland are of concern. Sudden climate shifts also are a possibility; they've happened in the past, and we could be headed for another in the near future.
The one I personally worry about having the biggest effect in the shortest time period is the methane sequestered in Siberian permafrost, and the deep sea beds..... if the permafrost melts (open water over the Arctic Sea for longer periods each year, absorbing more solar radiation, thus heating up the northern latitudes, and melting the permafrost), or the seas warm enough to free up seabed methane, then all bets are off. There is so much methane there that can be released in a short span of time that we could see serious increases of world-wide temperatures .... and it is the worse kind of positive feedback loop...... Earth's version of the runaway greenhouse effect.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Guys, just keep an eye on global climate trends over the next four or five years.
Fact is that there is an ever increasing number of human beings feeding an ever expanding global industrial infrastructure generating an ever increasing load of greenhouse pollution. Scarey thing is that if this thing (global warming) should prove to be actually happening, there is a good chance it could be acting exponentially.
I hope you guys are right (global warming is a hoax), but everything Im seeing and experiencing, and just good old fashioned common sense tells me your wrong.
:cry
Four of five years hardly seems like a sufficient sample, especially when you're talking climate/weather. Heck, five years ago it was hotter here and I sold/installed more air conditioners than ever. Not much snow then either. The opposite seems to be true in the last year. Perhaps 20-50 years would suffice.
-
Im of the opinion we may be undergoing an exponential climate shift, that is to say, accellerated :rolleyes:
I remember reading an artical in a defense journal a few years back where the DoD was exploring the possibility of an event trigger with regards to global climate change where as there may be a tipping point where we could undergo an extreme climate shift in a ten year period. The DoD was looking into this because of the obvious ramifications a rapid global climate catastrophe would have on the viability of the nation.
But I will yield to 10-15 year window of extreme scrutiny. Better safe than sorry.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
And if is limited to melt water only, and no further break-ups of the ice shelfs in West Antarctica occur in the future ....
Actually it is for overall net loss, break-offs included.
Of course as the temperature rises so does the melting rate and the changing ice surface/mass ratio would even further accelerate the melting.
It is also possible that precipitation will increase as well due to warming and slow the shrinkage to more acceptable rates.
There's no doubt global warming is here. The question is what's causing it. Judging by all the available data, it is very likely that human activity is one of the contributing factors if not the main, although we can't be certain.
If you think that it took roughly 30 years of global effort to fix the ozone layer, then, this time, we're in for some rough ride no matter what we do.
-
If you want the truth about Global Warming (environmentalism) I suggest you go to this speech by Michael Crichton. If you have not already been indoctrinated into this scary new religion this will shed some light on why trying to deal in facts with these people is a waste of your time. Facts to the Global Warming crowd have no place it's a matter of faith.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
-
"facts go out the windoe when politix comes in teh door"
confucius said that.
for example u willl probably deny that goerge bush is gay even tho he was a male cheerleedar in collige, but OMG that is SO GAY. maybe he was just teh victam of some frat hazing, but L0L GAY :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hey, if Colbert can get a word like truthiness created, I figure, what the heck. :D
http://www.skuzzynation.com :D
-
Gunston,
That man made sense to me. Thanks for the link. Great read.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Gunston
If you want the truth about Global Warming (environmentalism) I suggest you go to this speech by Michael Crichton. If you have not already been indoctrinated into this scary new religion this will shed some light on why trying to deal in facts with these people is a waste of your time. Facts to the Global Warming crowd have no place it's a matter of faith.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
Blah, I don't care what religion is using global warming to further their pro/contra agendas.
I still leave open the possibility that I was indeed "indoctrinated" with false facts by NASA, NOAA, DOD, AAS, BMI and such and that Crichton is right, but what are the chances for that?
Common sense rather tells me that you were the one indoctrinated by a novel writer or TV show. "I want to believe".
What's next? Next time I get sick you'll suggest a voodoo priest?
-
2bighorn
Apparently you did not go to the link. The religion “using” Global Warming is called Environmentalism. I may be wrong but from your response I think your probably already a member so don’t bother to go to the link it will only challenge your beliefs (faith) with a bunch of messy facts.
-
Originally posted by Gunston
2bighorn
Apparently you did not go to the link. The religion “using” Global Warming is called Environmentalism. I may be wrong but from your response I think your probably already a member so don’t bother to go to the link it will only challenge your beliefs (faith) with a bunch of messy facts.
Huh?
Ya know what, those who say that there's absolutely nothing wrong are as bad as those who scream that world will end tomorrow.
When it comes to science I don't have to chose between liberal or conservative or anything else but science alone.
-
I read that crichton editorial last year and I did find alot of truth and valuable warnings in it, but at the same time I know what the result is from piping my car exhaust into a closed room with me in it. Stay smart on this and think for yourself.....use your best observational skills and use critical thinking.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I read that crichton editorial last year and I did find alot of truth and valuable warnings in it, but at the same time I know what the result is from piping my car exhaust into a closed room with me in it. Stay smart on this and think for yourself.....use your best observational skills and use critical thinking.
The earth does have built in filters and is one big recycling machine but I agree that I'd rather not breathe your car's exhaust. Are you willing to stop driving so that I don't have to?
I don't know about you but I also don't want to encourage or give to any world organization more power over my life. The government we have is already far too powerful.
-
Originally posted by Gunston
2bighorn
Apparently you did not go to the link. The religion “using” Global Warming is called Environmentalism. I may be wrong but from your response I think your probably already a member so don’t bother to go to the link it will only challenge your beliefs (faith) with a bunch of messy facts.
I agree with some, and disagree with other things from that article.
Have some turned environmentalism into a religion of sorts? Yes... the back to nature crowd and technophobes I look at suspiciously.
* Has forest stewardship been a fiasco, yes... knocking down all fires, preventing controlled burns, and allowing huge volumes of dead wood (read fuel) to build up in the forests was a mistake.
* Are wild claims made and put forth as iron clad fact? Yep. Happens in all debates any more. Put out enough contradictory information to make everything sound questionable. The alternative is to repeat the same sound bite long, and loud, and repeatedly until it becomes accepted as fact. Joesph Goebbels would have done well working for big tobacco.
* Does anyone know for sure which way the global environment is headed? Of course not.... like he states, it is a very highly complex system to try and decipher. But, I've been alive for 38 years, I've followed the weather for much of it (I ride motorcycles and snowmobiles and skied.... keeping track of weather was habit), and I've noticed things in my life's experience, in addition to what I follow and read, that has me convinced that the world is growing warmer.
I also believe that, in addition to other cycles, that humanity is a major source of that warming. We, as a species, *are* capable of alternating our environment, intentionally or unintentionally.
* I see too much evidence that fits various models and theories that the world is growing warmer, and there will be consequences.
-
Those that believe that "science" is immune from politics are very ignorant. From the days of Galileo up to the present, there has and always will be science to support the status quo. That's why there is inconsistency and contradiction. All scientific theory is biased towards a specific belief. It is repeatable experimental evidence that demonstrates the validity (or truth) of that theory. Often in the past, experimental evidence generated new 'modern' theories because the accepted theory contradicted experiments.
Adding politics to pseudo science is a very volitile mixture. Taking scientific data and spinning a new "theory" to fit the data is nothing new. It's how work is funded. Not that all science is tainted, but for a very complex subject such as global warming that involves not only our planet but also our moon and sun it's not hard to make up a theory that coincides with a short term (~100 year) trend.
I am not saying scientist supporting this are intentionally being vague or untruthfull. However, if they believe in global warming, most if not all of their data will support that position until something conclusive is found. Even after something conclusive has been recognized, some will still look for 'loopholes' or chinks in the evidence to re-establish their belief.
The problem comes in when governments make sweeping changes based on inconclusive science. However, (and I am not sure global warming fits in this category) sometimes the risk described by scientific evidence warrants consideration of changes. Nuclear weapons fits in that category.
Not to stray too far off topic, but this reminds me of a chapter from "Gullivers Travels" by Johathan Switft. In one land, "learned" scientist locked themselves away in a ministry of science then came up with ideas which were made into law throughout the land. While this is extreme, the notion of goverments making stupid decisions based on "science" is not new.
Regards,
Malta
-
tedbr.. you accuse me of sitting on my hands and doing nothing and saying that the environmentalist whackos have to have 100% proof before I will act...
That is not entirely true.. I am saying that global warming is happening as a natural cycle and that even if we are contributing...I want to know how much. I want to know that I am not throwing a million dollars away to save a penny. Or.. that what I am forced to do will not only have a real and measurable effect on making things better but that it won't be worse in the long run...
On the other hand... you seem to be saying that... just because there is no proof is not a good reason to not destroy our economy and way of life. You are saying that if there is even a slight chance that the most fanatic of the environmentalists are even half right... that we need to do something.... and do it fast and damn the consequences.
If you tell me that for instance... I have to pay $4000 more for a car that will decrease pollution by half or... the same amount of spilling a couple of teaspoons of gas a year while filling the lawn mower... I am going to fight you..
The "recovery" nozzles we were forced to put on pumps make most people spioll more gas than the old styles they replaced for instance... this was a result of handwringing "we have to do something NOW" regulation way back when...
So was MTBE in the fuel... It is now polluting our groundwater worse than any other disaster... worse than all the corperate pollution combined (here in kalifornia at least)
No... "We have to do something cause the frizzy headed guy said the sky is falling" is not good enough. Unless doing something is the research. and... we are doing that.
environmentalism is the the back door into power for the socialists and it is mostly a scam... and a very cruel and dishonest one at that.
lazs
-
goron should go pedal his movie to the chinese who by far are out of control with their manufacturing processes .. but he won't as he has nothing to gain there ...
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I also believe that, in addition to other cycles, that humanity is a major source of that warming. We, as a species, *are* capable of alternating our environment, intentionally or unintentionally.
* I see too much evidence that fits various models and theories that the world is growing warmer, and there will be consequences.
That wouldn't happen to be the same evidence & models that said we were going to have a far worse hurricane season in 2006 than we had in 2005.. was it?
That really didn't pan out.
-
"Those that argue that a single quiet season debunks the global warming hypothesis are as statistically challenged as those that argue that a single active season proves it," said Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wake me up when somebody makes an accurate weather prediction :)
Might take some work... we'll all probably be dead by then.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"We have to do something cause the frizzy headed guy said the sky is falling" is not good enough. Unless doing something is the research. and... we are doing that.
environmentalism is the the back door into power for the socialists and it is mostly a scam... and a very cruel and dishonest one at that.
lazs
when looking up something for another thread on ethanol i found this about E85 ( E85 is fuel that is part ethanol,part gas), some cars already can use E85. But is against federal law (EPA) to change the fuel that the car was designed to originally use.
So, one part of the govt says to use more ethanol and another part of the govt (EPA) says you can't retrofit your car to use E85.
-
Originally posted by indy007
That wouldn't happen to be the same evidence & models that said we were going to have a far worse hurricane season in 2006 than we had in 2005.. was it?
That really didn't pan out.
2006 was a strong El Nino year (and there still is a strong El Nino, last I checked on it) .....which means strong equatorial winds sheer most developing hurricanes in the Atlantic. No big surprise that 2006 was a quiet hurricane season.
-
could El Nino be influenced by global greenhouse effect?
-
El nino could be affected by a butterfly's wings in China.
-
man, Ive heard that somewhere else before............was that a tom cruise movie?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
man, Ive heard that somewhere else before............was that a tom cruise movie?
It's chaos theory, discovered in the 60's by a meteorologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
-
THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
(http://www.sfondideldesktop.com/Images-Movies/The-Day-After-Tomorrow/The-Day-After-Tomorrow-0001/The-Day-After-Tomorrow-0001.jpg)
(http://www.sfondideldesktop.com/Images-Movies/The-Day-After-Tomorrow/The-Day-After-Tomorrow-0002/The-Day-After-Tomorrow-0002.jpg)
-
Wake me up when somebody makes an accurate weather prediction
6 months from now the vast majority of Western Europe and the US will be warmer than they are now. I'll bet you a year's subscription ;)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
6 months from now the vast majority of Western Europe and the US will be warmer than they are now. I'll bet you a year's subscription ;)
:lol
We could use the warmth. Driving on ice was not nearly as fun as I thought it would be (minus the wrx sti parking lot joyrides).
To the point of the thread. Yeah, global warming is real... but I'll debate man's role in it. I don't think our impact is nearly as big as .. say.. al gore would want you to believe.
-
ah tedbr... now I see... the predicted horrific hurricane season did not come about because the people who predicted it could not predict el nino?
What the hell can they predict?
lazs
-
I predict that the democrat's attempt at fear mongering through environmental issues will not have the impact they hope it will.
-
global warming...i remmeber old bill nye the science guy said..when mount saint helens erupted it put more carbon dioxcide than we could put out in a few hundred years or more...im not sure how much he new about it..lol..but a valcano proubly does put more carbon into the air than we can produce.
i dont believe in global warming...i believe in climate change..i think the ice caps melt off all the time threw the thousands of years...just look at the accounts by the vikings...greenland was a fertile land when they landed there..matter of fact they said the port were eric the red lived is nothing but ice now...but in the viking accounts it was a clear safe harbor...so at the time of the vikings it was alot warmer in arenas that are mostly ice right now..so did the vikings produce alot of greenhouse gasses back then?,,lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ah tedbr... now I see... the predicted horrific hurricane season did not come about because the people who predicted it could not predict el nino?
What the hell can they predict?
lazs
More likely, they were looking the previous two year's hurricane/typoon/storm seasons in the Atlantic, Pacific, and even Indian Ocean, and what got reported in news reports were the "doom and despair" predictions, .... after all, when it comes to main stream news, "if it bleeds, it leads"......with no thought put toward the effects of El Nino would have on the season.
Better to have news stories warning of another potential "Katrina", than.... oh, no, gonna be a quiet season. Those predicting a horrific season got air time after all, did they not?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
man, Ive heard that somewhere else before............was that a tom cruise movie?
Jurassic Park.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
could El Nino be influenced by global greenhouse effect?
El Nino is a build up of warm water in the mid to eastern Pacific when the trade winds fail to push it all to the western Pacific. It's effects are felt world-wide.
Global warming's effects on it could change the trade winds to result in more or fewer El Ninos periods happening...... the increase in air and sea temperatures might make the occurrence of an El Nino stronger than what we normally experience, or the effects of a La Nina (cold ocean waters) less pronounced.
Again, a very complex system.... with everything having an effect on everything else, so very hard to nail down predictions.
The current El Nino started in February of 2006, and hit it's stride in April of 2006, and is predicted to continue through March to May of 2007. So, why hurricane forecasters were looking at a strong hurricane season in 2006 is beyond me...... but maybe next year, eh?
:aok
-
every spring in florida we get the "annual hurricane prediction", they ALWAYS say "this will be a bad year, be prepared, stock up on......"
they try to scare people into being "prepared".
the forecasters who cried wolf.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Jurassic Park.
Being responsible for maintenance of weather radar I heard it from a weather observer long before that movie was made.
-
The Crichton article was a great piece. I amost forgive him for Airframe.
-
I´m sure the government will come up with a fix...
-
Not that it will matter much in here but....
over 900 papers puplished in peer review publications over the period 1993 to 2003 refered to Climate Change. NONE... read that as ZERO ... NADA... GOOSE EGG... ZIP ... disagreed with the position that Global warming is due in significant measure to human activity.
Keep on saying we don't know. It just sounds foolish.
Oh, and here is a link and a quote.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
-
Originally posted by stantond
Those that believe that "science" is immune from politics are very ignorant. From the days of Galileo up to the present, there has and always will be science to support the status quo. That's why there is inconsistency and contradiction. All scientific theory is biased towards a specific belief. It is repeatable experimental evidence that demonstrates the validity (or truth) of that theory. Often in the past, experimental evidence generated new 'modern' theories because the accepted theory contradicted experiments.
Adding politics to pseudo science is a very volitile mixture. Taking scientific data and spinning a new "theory" to fit the data is nothing new. It's how work is funded. Not that all science is tainted, but for a very complex subject such as global warming that involves not only our planet but also our moon and sun it's not hard to make up a theory that coincides with a short term (~100 year) trend.
I am not saying scientist supporting this are intentionally being vague or untruthfull. However, if they believe in global warming, most if not all of their data will support that position until something conclusive is found. Even after something conclusive has been recognized, some will still look for 'loopholes' or chinks in the evidence to re-establish their belief.
The problem comes in when governments make sweeping changes based on inconclusive science. However, (and I am not sure global warming fits in this category) sometimes the risk described by scientific evidence warrants consideration of changes. Nuclear weapons fits in that category.
Not to stray too far off topic, but this reminds me of a chapter from "Gullivers Travels" by Johathan Switft. In one land, "learned" scientist locked themselves away in a ministry of science then came up with ideas which were made into law throughout the land. While this is extreme, the notion of goverments making stupid decisions based on "science" is not new.
Regards,
Malta
Stantond
I should have mentioned when I poseted the link to Michael Crichton that you can go to his website from that article and find other speeches from him including the one at the following link when he testified before Congress concerning Science and Politics. It's a good read you should check it out.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote09.html
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not that it will matter much in here but....
over 900 papers puplished in peer review publications over the period 1993 to 2003 refered to Climate Change. NONE... read that as ZERO ... NADA... GOOSE EGG... ZIP ... disagreed with the position that Global warming is due in significant measure to human activity.
Keep on saying we don't know. It just sounds foolish.
Oh, and here is a link and a quote.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
midnight target rather than another link just a quote from Michael Crichton
"Okay. With this as a preparation, let’s turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. "
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
"And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
-
Of course science is not a matter of votes for or against, but you completely misunderstand the article I posted. All of those 900 reports were scientific experiments or an afirmation of scientific experiments. They aren't votes or a consensus, they are just a whole bunch of people who came to the same freakin conclusion. And NONE of them came to the opposite conclusion. You can choose of course to believe whomever you want. I choose to believe 900 plus scientists in agreement while you choose to believe one guy.
Shrug... heh... whatever.
-
I looked at the link you provided and could not find anywhere that it pointed to the actual science that was used by any of the 900+ papers. it only reported about "the consenses" of the papers. and had quotes such as the following
"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."
-
i think if somehow the superbowl became politicized, then even women & homosexuals would watch it.
the NFL could make some sirius $ on that...
-
i thought women & homosexuals already watched football, men in tights and pretty uniforms grabbing each other and rolling on the ground. :O
-
Originally posted by Gunston
Stantond
I should have mentioned when I posted the link to Michael Crichton that you can go to his website from that article and find other speeches from him including the one at the following link when he testified before Congress concerning Science and Politics. It's a good read you should check it out.
I miss something here? Last I checked, Mikey Crichton was writer, film producer, film director, and television producer, and held an MD from medical collage. Works with techno-thrillers and IIRC wrote an introductory book on BASIC programming language.
Some good works, some not-so-good.
But since when has he become a scientific expert in any field, much less be the person to testify before Congress on any issue beyond Hollyweird?
-
Chrichton also doesn't believe the germ theory of disease. I suppose that is another religion in his book.
However, he does believe in the paranormal, especially the bending of spoons.
At least he consistently favours the fictional side of science.
-
tedrbr
I'm not pitching anything about him I just happen to think he has alot of good points you should read the testimony and then dispute what he has to say if you disagree. But I guess you would rather attack his qualifications rather than debate his logic.
I can site many other sources of information that dispute the concept of man made Global Warming or as you stated eairler "Climate Change", an intresting choice of words I might add I found a quote concerning it.
"Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink."
How about some other quotes on the subject:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations
"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT)
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated."
Dr. David L. Lewis
(27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda)
(in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)
"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
-
Originally posted by AKH
Chrichton also doesn't believe the germ theory of disease. I suppose that is another religion in his book.
However, he does believe in the paranormal, especially the bending of spoons.
At least he consistently favours the fictional side of science.
Yea this guy dosen't believe in germs
CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.
You'll have to show me where you found that at
-
Wikipedia
"In his autobiography Travels, Crichton outlined in detail his beliefs and alleged personal encounters with paranormal phenomena. He endorsed the validity of psychic spoon-bending, claiming to have seen it successfully accomplished. In a late chapter, Crichton also casts doubt on the truthfulness of the Germ Theory of Disease, saying the existence of microbial pathogens and the precise causes of human illness had not been demonstrated to his satisfaction and that the medical establishment had adopted the untested theory too quickly, perhaps with unethical economic incentive."
Maybe it needs an edit?
-
Or a source. I've seen less controversial things been immediately removed for the lack of a source.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Or a source. I've seen less controversial things been immediately removed for the lack of a source.
In his autobiography Travels
-
whenevar i edit stuffs its always gone nextime i look@it.
jerks:mad::mad:
-
from,Revelation 21
The New Jerusalem
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2
Soo, After the War predicted in Ezekiel 38, Muslim vs Israel/West blahhhhhhh, the world must change climatic, geografic,acording with books of revelations, and this must be the begin of the changes, and get ready for the 1000s years peace with Mesiah/Jesus as global governor.
But most of you "christians" you don't belive !:(
-
:lol
Ghi you should take a job as therapist for people with stress issues... just take care not to kill them from laughter.
-
I gotta go with MT. This thread is getting goofier by the minute.
Ahh hmmmm.
The Alarmist: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
The Pessimist: "We are all going to die."
The Scholar: "I told you so."
The Religious Nut: "We have angered the gods!"
The Actor: "It's all Bush's fault!"
The Researcher: "I can find 100 reasons why it is happening!"
The Researcher: "I can find 100 reasons why it is not happening!"
The Politician: "Ohhh, there is some money to made here!"
The Comedian" "Hehe, ."
The Expert: "I have read about this and you are wrong, no matter what stance you take."
The Mook: "I r teh brain. U fart too much!"
The Rebel: "Eh? Clueless lot."
Alfred E. Newman: "What? Me Worry?"
The Pragmatist: "Yep, now let me drink my beer."
That last one might be too subtle.
:D
-
I dunno skuzzy... in some ways it may be even simpler than that..
In all of this.. the alarmists.. the ones who want big brother to do something NOW before some of us boil and some of us freeze....
Well.. they all say that we are "contributing" to global warming... this is a little less precise than is needed to get up a real good scare worthy of lifestyle changes and money in their coffers sooooo..
They have escalated to using the even more scientific term of "significant" to describe mans contribution.
Like the old song goes.. "they tell me it will kill me but they won't say when"..
On the other side.. (and I am one of those) we have seen science politicized many times in order to raise its own funding or importance... they are as hungry for the spotlight as the worst movie star these "scientists" we have also seen them fall flat on their face in the most dire of their predictions..
The "consensus" of "scientists in the 70's warned of global ice age that was a mere 30 years off... I am sure a lot of money was dumped down that rat hole...
The horrific hurricane season that never happened this year... Hell... the consensus was out to kill galeleo.
continents move... pluto isn't a planet and we have no ice age or horrific hurrican season and the "scientists" still can't cure the common cold or tell you what the weather will be next year.
then... in the end... they still won't tell us what to do if we go into a global ice age next time around.
I think I will wait till I see something better than "consensus" or "significant effect we think"
If you are really frieghtened... I would suggest sending a check to whatever whacko researcher that scares you the most.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The Alarmist: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
The Pessimist: "We are all going to die."
The Scholar: "I told you so."
The Religious Nut: "We have angered the gods!"
The Actor: "It's all Bush's fault!"
The Researcher: "I can find 100 reasons why it is happening!"
The Researcher: "I can find 100 reasons why it is not happening!"
The Politician: "Ohhh, there is some money to made here!"
The Comedian" "Hehe, ."
The Expert: "I have read about this and you are wrong, no matter what stance you take."
The Mook: "I r teh brain. U fart too much!"
The Rebel: "Eh? Clueless lot."
Alfred E. Newman: "What? Me Worry?"
The Pragmatist: "Yep, now let me drink my beer."
LMAO good one
Originally posted by Lazs
...On the other side.. (and I am one of those) we have seen science politicized many times in order to raise its own funding or importance... they are as hungry for the spotlight as the worst movie star these "scientists" we have also seen them fall flat on their face in the most dire of their predictions..
The "consensus" of "scientists in the 70's warned of global ice age that was a mere 30 years off... I am sure a lot of money was dumped down that rat hole...
The horrific hurricane season that never happened this year... Hell... the consensus was out to kill galeleo.
continents move... pluto isn't a planet and we have no ice age or horrific hurrican season and the "scientists" still can't cure the common cold or tell you what the weather will be next year.
then... in the end... they still won't tell us what to do if we go into a global ice age next time around.
I think I will wait till I see something better than "consensus" or "significant effect we think"...
LOL Lazs, I like your 'anti-science' rants. Just don't forget that all you hold on so dearly was brought to you directly or indirectly by great scientists, inventors and philosophers. Cars, guns and little bit of freedom.
:aok
PS
It wasn't scientific consensus who accused Galileo of heresy but Church...
-
This still comes down to 2 camps who beleive they are correct based on collections of data that is very compeling. In fact the data from either side is neither 100% correct but neither unconvincing. Neither will be 100% untill the event happens or dosen't happen.
The pro global warming groups in the end result seem to want the worlds population and particularly that of the U.S. to do exactly what they deem neccessary to save the planet. The only absolut way this can be accomplished is if the collective populations make the ultimate sacrifice of giving their freedoms over to the nebulous scientific\political groups who are crying this so THEY can save us from ourselves and the impending DOOM. But,,,,,they cannot tell us if it will happen or when it will happen. They can only make theorys that project it may happen given x, y, z, a, b, c...etc...adfinitum. In the mean while they resolve to a fundimentalist statement: BUT IT WILL HAPPEN and you are stoopid, uneducated, unenlightened and evil if you dissagree with us.
The con global warming groups cite sun spot cycles, earth orbit cycles, ocean current fresh water cycles, volcanic eruption cycles and cycle upon cycles of sampled physical earth data. Then tell us the planet has done this before and will do it again. Funny no one metions how much CO2 was emitted from Pinitubu and St. Helna.....but I digress. Still they only present theories that can negate the pro theories fact for fact until this becomes and act of faith to beleive.
I don't see either camp proving themselves RIGHT. But in a funny way I do see a parrallel to how Christianity and the act of FAITH in God is being turned around here. Anyone who does not beleive in Global Warming and the end of the world as we know it are unbeleiving, uneducated heritics. But as of yet NO ONE has any solutions other than ignore the global warming crowd as lunies or the world is ending give up your freedom and hard earned MONEY so we can save you.
-
2bighorn...how are my posts anti science? I am merely stating that they have been wrong many times in the past and... when it comes to doomsday... they are always wrong. When it comes to the weather.. they can't even predict it while it is happening. They have a long way to go so far as global climate change prediction and cause goes... start with telling me what will happen in a couple of months and do better than the farmers almanac.
I believe in science... I don't believe in politicized science and neither should you. science should not have an agenda and science should not try to shut out debate.
Inventors are scientists? Ok.. kind of a loose definition but then I guess, as a fabricator and inventor of sorts that I am a scientist too. I guess my "scientific" opinion on global warming is just as valid as some nutritunists or such.
sooooo in my "scientific" opinion....
so far as galileo... I don't think he had a consensus of scientists defending him. That is not the point tho is it? I believe he was right. No harm was done believing either way tho was it? Acting on beliefs did cause a great deal of harm tho.
I really don't see much difference in religions here. To believe in man made global warming and it's "significant" effect at this point is a fervent leap of faith.
lazs
-
back in the mid seventies there was funding available for the doomsayers if the prognosticated another ice age. predictably there were plenty of articles prognosticating an iceage trend by the turn of the century. the reasons given? smog not allowing the sunlight to warm the oceans and the resulting cooler temperatures.
the "scientists" are human, follow the grant money and you'll see where the politics influence the "science".
-
Originally posted by storch
back in the mid seventies there was funding available for the doomsayers if the prognosticated another ice age. predictably there were plenty of articles prognosticating an iceage trend by the turn of the century. the reasons given? smog not allowing the sunlight to warm the oceans and the resulting cooler temperatures.
the "scientists" are human, follow the grant money and you'll see where the politics influence the "science".
No ice age today, money well spent. :aok
Let's not pay the Global Warmingists, they might send us into an ice age. ;)
-
Originally posted by moot
:lol
Ghi you should take a job as therapist for people with stress issues... just take care not to kill them from laughter.
Hey, bloody heretic, don't laugh !, you should obey the dogmatic rules of your religion, and trust holy bible's prophetic msg,amen !
I used to work few years on the cruise ships for Princess Cruises, in "96 i've been first time in Alaska inside pasage, to Glaciar Bay and we used to have park rangers on board explaining the passengers the lanscape, ever since i belive in global warming
(http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/glacier_bay012905.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ghi
Hey, bloody heretic, don't laugh !, you should obey the dogmatic rules of your religion, and trust holy bible's prophetic msg,amen !
I used to work few years on the cruise ships for Princess Cruises, in "96 i've been first time in Alaska inside pasage, to Glaciar Bay and we used to have park rangers on board explaining the passengers the lanscape, ever since i belive in global warming
(http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/glacier_bay012905.jpg)
Don't know about you ghi but the 2004 pic looks far more inviting to me. Tell me why we need penguins again? Other than to amuse the kiddies at the theater.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Mankind has been doomed from the first day some blob of flesh stood up and walked. If we do not kill ourselves, something else will. It is the nature of everything. Change is the only true constant of the universe.
We are far too ignorant to be able to know with absolute certainty what is happening with the environment of this planet.
The Merry Minuet (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8490962512827460940) :D
-
Dunt know what that linky is about Dred. Nothing shows. Not unusual, as Yourturd, er YouBoob, er YouGoob,.. does not work for me either.
I take it you support my opinion. Thank you fer yer support.
-
A guy at work (ret USAF pilot, very smart cookie) keeps telling people (me) to invest in property in Siberia and Iceland because in 30 years thats where several billion people will want to be.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Dunt know what that linky is about Dred. Nothing shows. Not unusual, as Yourturd, er YouBoob, er YouGoob,.. does not work for me either.
I take it you support my opinion. Thank you fer yer support.
odd. works for me.
Anyone who cant see it should be able to find it by doing a google video search.
Song written in 1958, performed by the Kingston Trio and done showing more recent headlines and images
Funny just how little things have changed
anyway. the lyrics go like this
but looks better int he video LOL
The Merry Minuet
They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain
the Whole world is festering iwht unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like Anybody very much.
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lucky day
Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away
They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow Man
-- Sheldon Harnick @1958
-
Originally posted by ghi
Hey, bloody heretic, don't laugh !, you should obey the dogmatic rules of your religion, and trust holy bible's prophetic msg,amen !
I used to work few years on the cruise ships for Princess Cruises, in "96 i've been first time in Alaska inside pasage, to Glaciar Bay and we used to have park rangers on board explaining the passengers the lanscape, ever since i belive in global warming
(http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/glacier_bay012905.jpg)
How does one know that the bay did not look like it does now many years ago?
People point to pics like these and say it's due to global warming. Actually it is...things warmed up and the glacier melted. What's to say that it has not done this freeze/melt thing many times in the past?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
People point to pics like these and say it's due to global warming. Actually it is...things warmed up and the glacier melted. What's to say that it has not done this freeze/melt thing many times in the past?
Probably it has. But that said, there were no people around to be affected.
I don't care bout doomsayers and I really do not wish politicians to come out with crazy measures to protect the world.
But I'm also selfish enough to be afraid of significant climate change during my life time. As it is now, a little bit of ice rain causes chaos in half the country. A single hurricane brings south to still stand. We, the most powerful country in the world have problems with few inches of rainfall above the average, etc...
You get the idea.
Lazs, I've listed inventors separately to scientists, but yes, a good inventor who understands its work is a scientist of sort, its ideas are proved with practical rather than theoretical work. If you're inventor, than more power to you and you just climbed up on my respect list.
You are correct that scientist were wrong in the past, but for every time they were wrong they were right hundreds of times.
Definitely I trust them more than world of corporate bandits, sleazy politicians, church dogma, religious environmentalists or internet forum know-it-alls.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Probably it has. But that said, there were no people around to be affected.
I don't care bout doomsayers and I really do not wish politicians to come out with crazy measures to protect the world.
But I'm also selfish enough to be afraid of significant climate change during my life time. As it is now, a little bit of ice rain causes chaos in half the country. A single hurricane brings south to still stand. We, the most powerful country in the world have problems with few inches of rainfall above the average, etc...
You get the idea.
Lazs, I've listed inventors separately to scientists, but yes, a good inventor who understands its work is a scientist of sort, its ideas are proved with practical rather than theoretical work. If you're inventor, than more power to you and you just climbed up on my respect list.
You are correct that scientist were wrong in the past, but for every time they were wrong they were right hundreds of times.
Definitely I trust them more than world of corporate bandits, sleazy politicians, church dogma, religious environmentalists or internet forum know-it-alls.
Do your part then, you can start by selling your car and walking everywhere you go.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Do your part then, you can start by selling your car and walking everywhere you go.
As I've said I'm selfish. Just because I believe scientists are right about global warming it doesn't mean I wanna sacrifice my comfort for some higher cause. I love my gas guzzler and I like to use it, thank you.
I'll leave the task of saving our country to patriots like you...
-
Originally posted by lukster
Do your part then, you can start by selling your car and walking everywhere you go.
Actually just selling the car and walking isn't enough because the car's new owner will continue to burn fossil fuels and stink up the environment. No, what he has to do is to give th car to the recycler and start walking today.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
As I've said I'm selfish. Just because I believe scientists are right about global warming it doesn't mean I wanna sacrifice my comfort for some higher cause. I love my gas guzzler and I like to use it, thank you.
I'll leave the task of saving our country to patriots like you...
Thank you. I hereby declare that global warming will not have disasterous affect. Go about your life without fear.
-
I sugest taking the Global Warming test at the following link. It will shed light on what you think you know about the subject.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
But first let me give you a cheat sheet so your prepared:
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause: manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect."
Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
There with that little cheat sheet you should probably do pretty well.
-
LOL, You see Gunston, Lukster, there's difference between us.
With all the evidence, common sense tells me there is global climate change happening. At the same time I'm honest about my desire to do nothing and I very much love my life as it is and I really don't wanna sacrifice my living standard no matter what and I'll resist to all sweeping measures undertaken by our corrupt politicians, whether being blue, red or yellow. To me all their colors appear to be of chitty brown tone anyways and our once great country is nothing more but the biggest banana republic on the planet.
You on the other hand, are rather hiding behind your party line and deny, deny deny... Logic, common sense, science, all irrelevant because in reality you're the guys who are scared to think for themselves to no end.
It's given that your party leaders will make 180 degrees turn and maybe you'll feel stupid for a brief moment, but eventually you'll continue with the program like nothing ever happened.
Gutless sheep if you ask me...
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
LOL, You see Gunston, Lukster, there's difference between us.
With all the evidence, common sense tells me there is global climate change happening. At the same time I'm honest about my desire to do nothing and I very much love my life as it is and I really don't wanna sacrifice my living standard no matter what and I'll resist to all sweeping measures undertaken by our corrupt politicians, whether being blue, red or yellow. To me all their colors appear to be of chitty brown tone anyways and our once great country is nothing more but the biggest banana republic on the planet.
You on the other hand, are rather hiding behind your party line and deny, deny deny... Logic, common sense, science, all irrelevant because in reality you're the guys who are scared to think for themselves to no end.
It's given that your party leaders will make 180 degrees turn and maybe you'll feel stupid for a brief moment, but eventually you'll continue with the program like nothing ever happened.
Gutless sheep if you ask me...
You assume too much bighorn and frankly I could find it offensive should I be inclined to be offended. I accept that our global temperature has increased almost a degree in the last howevermanyyearsitwas. I am just not willing to grant to anyone power to change my life over it.
I'm also not willing to concede that human produced CO2 is the most significant factor.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You assume too much bighorn and frankly I could find it offensive should I be inclined to be offended.
Not at all, Lukster. You did assume I'm one of those environmentalist and as such I could be offended but I wasn't since I know you don't really know any better.
Originally posted by lukster
I am just not willing to grant to anyone power to change my life over it.
You already did when you started repeating rhetorics of your party leaders. You trust them with your life, I don't...
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Not at all, Lukster. You did assume I'm one of those environmentalist and as such I could be offended but I wasn't since I know you don't really know any better.
You already did when you started repeating rhetorics of your party leaders. You trust them with your life, I don't...
You accuse me of rhetoric? How is it you know I don't of my own volition want my life changed to accomodate the doomsayers? There you go assuming again.
-
2bighorn
I think you better look in the mirror. The fact that politics and not science is driving this debate is what has me most worried. Believe me my opinions on this subject have zero to do with any political partys position but rather my own common sense. You on the other hand seem to be one of the sheep of your party, if your leaders (Algore) say something is true it must be right so why try to educate yourself. You believe that anything you would find that contradicts what they say must be from evil corporations or some other special intrest and therefore tainted. It's funny that no matter what information is presented here by myself or other rational "non-believers" the facts are never challenged in debate. The only challenge is an attack on the source.
A Quote:
"In my view, our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized—red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren’t political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth."
So again I ask where is the data
I would like you to attempt to take the following and dispute it with logic and fact show me where it's wrong or is dis-information
In 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.
Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.
Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.
The hockeystick controversy drags on. But I would direct the Committee's attention to three aspects of this story. First, six years passed between Mann's publication and the first detailed accounts of errors in his work. This is simply too long for policymakers to wait for validated results.
Second, the flaws in Mann's work were not caught by climate scientists, but rather by outsiders-in this case, an economist and a mathematician. They had to go to great lengths to obtain data from Mann's team, which obstructed them at every turn. When the Canadians sought help from the NSF, they were told that Mann was under no obligation to provide his data to other researchers for independent verification. Third, this kind of stonewalling is not unique. The Canadians are now attempting to replicate other climate studies and are getting the same runaround from other researchers. One prominent scientist told them: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
So again I say when this is the approach to climate science that is occuring do you really believe I'm naive or following some party line when I say I think the jury is still out on this one.
-
Has the yelling started yet?
All the Best,
hap
-
Lots of darts being thrown, but no one is hitting the targets. Drunk lot, I tell ya whut.
-
2bighorn...
I believe that those of us who don't want the whole global warming thing politicized have been honest an open about it.
We don't believe that there is any proof that man is doing enough to "contribute" to get all upset about and certainly not to pass a bunch of restrictive and expensive laws based on man made "contributions".
as for you respecting me for being an "inventor" or "fabricator"... well.. great but... no big deal.. I enjoy it and it is for my own use... I love to make hot rods and work on firearms... I come up with things no one else ever has... just like every other garage tinkerer and hot rodder and kitchen table gunsmith.
Are we scientists and engineers? probly...at some very rudimentary level but... enough to respect good methods and to recognize shoddy, wishful thinking work. Enough to cry foul. We wanna see it. I wanna weld it up and see if it works.
lazs
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
As I've said I'm selfish. Just because I believe scientists are right about global warming it doesn't mean I wanna sacrifice my comfort for some higher cause. I love my gas guzzler and I like to use it, thank you.
I'll leave the task of saving our country to patriots like you...
So you think they are right but you just don't care? Is that an accurate summation?
Kinda puts you in the same camp as the non-believers, doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Lots of darts being thrown, but no one is hitting the targets. Drunk lot, I tell ya whut.
Was guilty as charged. :D
-
No toad... I would say it puts him in the camp of the fervent believer who goes and sins anyway.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Donzo
How does one know that the bay did not look like it does now many years ago?
People point to pics like these and say it's due to global warming. Actually it is...things warmed up and the glacier melted. What's to say that it has not done this freeze/melt thing many times in the past?
Donzo, it's quite simple my friend. When these cycles occurred in the past there was no photographic evidence. Therefore we can safely assume that in fact, cameras and photographers are the cause of global warming. Get rid of the cameras and photographers, problem solved. Time for a drink!
-
Internet porn is the cause of global warming. There is now more, uh, activity, than ever before. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you think they are right but you just don't care? Is that an accurate summation?
Kinda puts you in the same camp as the non-believers, doesn't it?
Originally posted by lazs2
I would say it puts him in the camp of the fervent believer who goes and sins anyway.
So I'm guilty no matter what?
Lazs, more often than not scientific findings are politicized and with that misused.
That's still not proof positive that those findings are wrong.
Listening to you one would have to conclude that any politicized scientific theory is wrong and that the politicized idea is actually the cause of creation of scientific theory to backup politicized idea.
In my opinion that's wrong reasoning.
Lets go to more extreme examples.
Would Newton laws become invalid if suddenly politicized by liberals?
If PETA guys says meat is healthy to eat would you become vegetarian?
-
bighorn... I guess that you are guilty but not because of me but because of your own admission... you admit that you believe in massive man made global warming even tho there is no real proof.... yet... you contribute to it.
Politicized science is not as you describe.. not in my lifetime anyway... it is more like the ice age we all experianced in 1999 that covered 2/3 of north America.
It is more like the nuklear winter predicted by carl frigging sagan when the sadman lit the oil fields of kuwait on fire or.... the science of second hand smoke being worse than first hand... it is the new religion of shutting up anyone who doesn't get on the bandwagon..
It is the new religion of trundling out "models" that have never worked before to prove some new thing... It is the use of science to further socialism.
The religion of man made global warming has strayed too far from scientific method to be called anything but a religion... "politicized" is too mild a word.
Good science still exists... it just doesn't exist in this field because of the greed and political and religious beliefs of it's "advocates".. they are activists and not scientists... they are fire and brimstone preachers who advocate shutting up anyone who would dispute them...
They have always been wrong these dooms sayers. Always...
Tell me.... why is this time different?
And that is the point... don't tell me how you feel or how some bogus modle works... when your batting average is no hits ever.... you need to do more than tell me you can hit the ball... you need to give me some proof.
The religion of doom is a history of bogus predictions by politicized scientists...
Tell me.... why is this time any different?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Good science still exists... it just doesn't exist in this field because of the greed and political and religious beliefs of it's "advocates".. they are activists and not scientists... they are fire and brimstone preachers who advocate shutting up anyone who would dispute them...
lazs [/B]
lazs
I agree with everything you said but would like to point out that there is in fact good science in this field they are just being drowned out. There are many climate scientist who see what is going on and are trying to get the word out. Many petitions such as the Oregon petition signed by over 17000 scientist including I believe 5 Nobel prize winners for instance.
I will include the link to the article I'm about to quote from at the end of this text. It concerns the scientists who wrote the UN's IPCC report and were then concerned that their approved final draft was changed prior to publication to reflect desired policy changes rather than the science.
Some quotes:
In brief, I believe that:
Chapter 8 was altered substantially in order to make it conform to the Summary;
Three key clauses-- expressing the consensus of authors, contributors, and reviewers-- should have been placed into the Summary instead of being deleted from the approved draft chapter;
The ambiguous phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" has been (mis)interpreted by policymakers to mean that a major global warming catastrophe will soon be upon us;
The IPCC report and its authors are being (mis)used by politicians and others to push an ideologically based agenda.
Were the Changes Substantial?
When I was first apprised of the existence of alterations to Chapter 8 in a mailing from the Global Climate Coalition in May 1996 (2), my reaction was that of surprise. I had attended both the Madrid and Rome meetings and recalled no discussion or announcement of such changes. But after personally comparing the "final draft" (of October 9, 1995) and the printed version (May 1996), I had to conclude that the changes were indeed substantial.
I realize that judgments can differ (3). It would, therefore, be best to have this matter settled by independent reviewers. It may, however, be helpful to quote three key phrases that were deleted from the final draft of Chapter 8:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man- made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
Legality of Changes
It is a matter of dispute--but of great importance--whether the text revisions, Houghton's instructions to Santer, or the State Department letter, were in accord with IPCC procedures. I have no fixed opinion and will leave the resolution of this dispute to others, including legal experts.
A separate question is whether IPCC procedures on matters such as peer-review are in accord with accepted scientific standards. For example, a conscientious journal editor would not choose an author's colleague as a referee. The Nature article points out that "the integrity of the reviewing and approval process is ... an essential element in assuring the credibility of the resulting conclusions." The IPCC assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer, who then based much of the conclusion of Chapter 8 on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals (4). (The comment deadline on Chapter 8 was July 1995; one paper appeared in Climate Dynamics in December 1995, his other paper in Nature in July 1996). Eight of his co-authors are also listed as Chapter 8 contributors. I don't think that one can fairly expect them to be critical of their own work. And indeed, I have seen several scientific notes being submitted for publication, critiquing the two Santer articles, now that these have been published in widely available journals.
Conclusions
As far as most politicians are concerned, the science is now settled. There is really no need for further research, and certainly not for any results that might cast doubt on the "scientific consensus." According to the Ministerial Declaration issued in Geneva on 18 July 1996, paragraph 4, the continuing work by the IPCC can now focus on "socio-economic and environmental impacts on developing countries." With the ambiguous IPCC conclusion at hand they can now say to climate scientists: "Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much. You've done your job. We don't need you anymore. You can now leave the room. We have more important work to do to figure out how to apportion emissions, a political job that we're perfectly qualified to do without your help."
I believe we have here a clear example of the misuse of science-- and of scientists. If you agree, or have some constructive comments, I would like to hear from you. You may even be interested in joining others in signing the attached Leipzig Declaration.
Anyway there is lots more if you care to go to the link. Again these are the scientist who actually did the research that went into the IPCC report and were then duped. Their work and conclusions were changed to fit a political rather than Scientific agenda.
Link
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipccflap.htm
-
"I believe we have here a clear example of the misuse of science-- and of scientists."
yep.. and that was all I was saying... glad at least one of the "scientists" who was duped if speaking out... if only on an obscure website.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I gotta go with MT. This thread is getting goofier by the minute.
Ahh hmmmm.
The Alarmist: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
The Pessimist: "We are all going to die."
The Scholar: "I told you so."
The Religious Nut: "We have angered the gods!"
The Actor: "It's all Bush's fault!"
The Researcher: "I can find 100 reasons why it is happening!"
The Researcher: "I can find 100 reasons why it is not happening!"
The Politician: "Ohhh, there is some money to made here!"
The Comedian" "Hehe, ."
The Expert: "I have read about this and you are wrong, no matter what stance you take."
The Mook: "I r teh brain. U fart too much!"
The Rebel: "Eh? Clueless lot."
Alfred E. Newman: "What? Me Worry?"
The Pragmatist: "Yep, now let me drink my beer."
That last one might be too subtle.
:D
Now, could I skip a thread on this. Let's add:
The Realist: The thing is happening. Ok. What is to be done?
-
Hehe. I left that one out on purpose. After all, I figure anything man could do to make it better would have bad side effects somewhere else.
We have a history of not understanding how interacting with nature will impact the eco-systems. Why should it be any different now?
If I were to have added, "The Realist", I would have made it;
The Realist: How much more can we mess things up?
:D
-
That's also good.
Cos we can...do a lot more crap :(
-
Laz,
The last minute changes to the wording of the document Gunston referenced is business as usual with the U.N.. Global Warming for the U.N. is a vehicle to impose itself on the world body under the guise of a global disaster needing a global solution.
Part of this was the Kyoto Accords which the U.S. did not sign onto. Another part is the U.N.'s attemps at convicing the Nations of the world to allow it to levee taxes under the guise of supporting the global fights to end all the ills of the human race.
Laz you see the pattern. Anything that can be leveraged as a global disaster requires more financing. Instead of the membership dues being able to cover it of which the U.S. pays more than any other country. The idea of global taxation in addition to the dues and other donations has been getting bandied about at the U.N. since the 90's. Disasters are the U.N.'s prayers answered.
Once the world body becomes accustomed to jumping and throwing money at the U.N. whenever it announces the sky is falling, the next step is not thinking when the U.N. decides it needs a tax and each country allows a U.N. tax collection division to take up residence, levee and collect taxes and has its building and saleries payed for by the hosting country. It's very easy to point fingers at the U.S. for not playing nice with the rest of the world. Some nations will allow the U.N. taxation scheam just to spite the U.S. and show it they are a more enlightened and developed culture.... Frog in a slowly boiling pot syndrome.
Once you have the power to levee and collect taxes you are in effect a government. And how do you enforce taxation? That is one of the reasons governments have men with guns. There is no country I know of who does not send armed men to arrest you when you refuse to pay taxes.
So Laz what is the next logical step any organzed body will take after they can collect taxes from a majority of the worlds nations? The idea of NATO becoming a U.N. global force has been tossed out.....and the creation of a U.N. armed police force recently has been dicussed. But then no one takes the U.N. seriously. Again the greatest lie the devil foisted on the human race was that he didn't exist.
-
Been gone for a week or so and wanted to put my .02 in...
This Mars Global Surveyor picture shows the southern Martian ice cap melting (left side older photos) and there is evidence Jupiter is warming as well. Is anthropogenic greenhouse gasses at fault there as well, or maybe there is another significant player in the game? (http://www.space.com/images/mars_ice_malin1_011207_02.jpg)
-
also teh leefs falled off my tree, so that means it r cold
-
Well, our earth is warming as well, and fast, having a cold winter in Texas or not. (BTW, the winter is not over, so it's too early to judge).
Anyway, there seems to be a pattern with those who try to haggle down the threat. It was mostly the same with the ozone layer problem.
The pattern being, USA. Mostly USA folks. But why, I don't know.
(no troll meant, just ponder on it)
-
it's because the USA gets blamed for global warming.
USA, destroyer of worlds.
-
This may be it, they get blamed because of their emissions pr person being the highest in the world. On top of that, the UN always wants money from uncle Sam.
However, a part of the problem is deforestation, the whooping record breaker being Brazil. I wonder how it adds up.
Anyway, my feeling for the pattern is that the USAis taking this as not to be accepted, which is bad.
-
the USA is taking this as not to be accepted
What do you mean?
-
Politicians and a lot of the public alike, refusing to identify global warming.
Denialism.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Politicians and a lot of the public alike, refusing to identify global warming.
Denialism.
Link (http://www.magazine.carleton.ca/2005_Spring/1535.htm) Professor Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist in Carleton’s Department of Earth Sciences, says the science used to establish the Kyoto Protocol is flawed. Patterson, who studies evidence in ocean and lake sediments to decipher how climate has varied over the past two million years, claims that the warming effect scientists are observing is mostly natural.
Here is a series of 5 denialism videos... yes they are slanted, but they are at least as valid as "An Inconvenient Truth" (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3)
I do not deny that the climate is changing.... I would be astounded if it weren't. I just wish the politics (and I think the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body) would be cleaned out of the debate.
-
Never saw the film, "inconvenient truth".
Just been looking at this for some 20 years or so. 20 years ago it was predicted pretty much as is showing now.
But why do those "slanted" videos happen to be entirely U.S.?
Why not Swedish, or British, or German?
It was the same with the Ozone layer, and it is the same with even Tobacco!
-
Originally posted by lukster
Perhaps you are not aware that the ice in Antartica is growing overall and not shriking tedrbr? I think the coastlines are safe.
YOu might want to educate yourself as to what your statement actually means..
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html
-
I'll use the old medical adage :
Prevention is better than medication.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'll use the old medical adage :
Prevention is better than medication.
Not if it means cutting off your feet to prevent bunions.
-
Boy, ain't that the truth straffo.
Here is a question for all of you. How do you know all these experts actually have a handle on all the nuances which make up our environment?
If you assume they actually do have a handle on all the influential items which compromise our environment, then why it is there are so many conflicting reports?
I will fall back to the position, we are too ignorant to be able to accurately assess our environment. And really ignorant as to what our environment needs. And if by some miracle someone actually manages to get a handle on all the data which comprises oue environment, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Or, if we did try to do something about it, we could make it all worse. Here is an analogy which seems appropriate to my point. You are piloting a single engine aircraft. Suddenly you realize something is vibrating, What do you do?
Now, to put this in proper context. That is all the information you have to go on. What are the odds of you making the right choice if you have no more information than that? And could you have made a better assessment if you had caught this problem earlier. Like on the ground during checks?
-
Originally posted by Angus
But why do those "slanted" videos happen to be entirely U.S.?
Why not Swedish, or British, or German?
They are Canadian...
-
angus... being lied to about man made global warming does not bother you? Did you read the link gunston posted or even his post? How do you feel about that?
bustr.. I agree.. I have been watching the U.N. for years and their power grab.. obviously they need to establish a taxation program to fund their world government grab. Real shame the socialists got rid of John Bolton... best repe to the U.N. we ever had... they will probly send a liberal black woman socialist in his place...
straffo... the models show that all women will develop breast cancer within 20 years.... You don't cut off their breasts at puberty to solve the problem.. the models show that tea may have a significant effect... you don't ban tea for women... My model shows that the stress of voting has a "significant" effect on breast cancer... we have to stop them from voting RIGHT NOW.. there is no time to confirm my studies... millions will die while you sit on your hands. We can stop them from voting now and I will set up a research program in the meantime... A couple billion a year ought to do it for a start.
Unless you hate women?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
Not if it means cutting off your feet to prevent bunions.
No need to be so extreme :)
It's just applied common sense ,for example , if instead of using my car to buy my baguette* I use my bike there is some benefit :
it's better for my health
I don't waste gazoline and so generate less polution in the long run (even if it's negligible repeat it hundred time it became a lot less negligible )
*obvious example ;) no ?
-
Then do it to save gas money and to get the exercise but don't tell us you are saving the planet cause you are not.
I certainly do not want to give the U.N. money based on them saving the world. that is what is really going on here. They have proven to not be effective in anything else they do so they are casting about blindly for some mission to give them money and power.. global disarmament of humans and man made global warming are their latest and... both are rife with lies.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
straffo... the models show that all women will develop breast cancer within 20 years.... You don't cut off their breasts at puberty to solve the problem.. the models show that tea may have a significant effect... you don't ban tea for women... My model shows that the stress of voting has a "significant" effect on breast cancer... we have to stop them from voting RIGHT NOW.. there is no time to confirm my studies... millions will die while you sit on your hands. We can stop them from voting now and I will set up a research program in the meantime... A couple billion a year ought to do it for a start.
Unless you hate women?
lazs
Well I don't say there is "one size fit all" solution just that not wasting ressources should be a general attitude.
Example : I can use AC in my car daily nothing prevent me to to so ,I've just to turn a knob but why should I use it to be at 25° instead of 26° ?
Like I posted just before negligible is a lot less negligible when repeated thousand of times.
-
Originally posted by Angus
It was mostly the same with the ozone layer problem.
Check Earth Probe TOMS. Here. (http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone/ozone.html)
I think your understanding of it may be flawed. Ozone is not a limited resource. It's constantly created and destroyed by solar radiation. It's impossible to run out of it. The more ozone destroyed (O3), the more free oxygen radicals (O1) can bind with free oxygen (O2).
What's the problem again?
-
Ozone was on a retreat enough to have gaps in it the size of the USA. Had the gap been OVER the USA, things might have sounded different.
But yes, the destroying factor was held back, and the layer is recovering.
Our planet is also somewhat dynamic about climate changes, but it cannot take endless bull$#1T...
-
so don't run your air conditioner because you are cheap but don't tell us you are doing it to save the planet... if you believe that then why do you even have an air conditioner.
You do know that most cars are made to run with the compressor on even when the heater is on? that if you don't run the air conditioner once in a while it will wear out in record time and then valuable resources will be spent replacing it and... you will have to recharge it with chemicals...
people won't ride in the car with you because you and your car will stink like sweat and so they will take their own car and double the pollution.
Your not using it is destroying the planet. In this case...your "common sense" solution is a net loss.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ozone was on a retreat enough to have gaps in it the size of the USA. Had the gap been OVER the USA, things might have sounded different.
But yes, the destroying factor was held back, and the layer is recovering.
Our planet is also somewhat dynamic about climate changes, but it cannot take endless bull$#1T...
source please.
If the gap appeared OVER the USA... we would've done just fine. The tropics receive 1000x more solar radiation than the Antarctic. They have very low levels of atmospheric ozone. Life flourishes.
You say it was a problem... well, not really... unless you sunbathe in the Antarctic in September. Nobody knows what "normal" is even supposed to be for the region. Nobody knows how long it has been going on (perhaps before humans even discovered fire).
All we know is that it's a cycle, and variations have not been out of bounds since we've been measuring it. I know... it's bad American info by the oil companies...
-
Ahem.
Firstly:
"The tropics receive 1000x more solar radiation than the Antarctic."
No. Same applies to the Northern territories.
Secondly:
"You say it was a problem... well, not really... unless you sunbathe in the Antarctic in September"
That's why I said that had the gap been over...say Texas (especially with already 1000 times as much solar radiation,,,even just 100) it WOULD have been a problem. Ant the high season for sun in the Antartica would be..December BTW. On the North, June, where the sun shines twice as long as on the equador....
-
I can not help but think back to the scientist who sid Mt St. Helens eruption put out more CO2 than all of humakind ever did. That happened over a couple days, right? Well, look at what Vesuvius did in 1944, or the eruption in the Phillipines, or the multitude of other volcanos that are constantly erupting.
Having that evidence glaring at me, I am left to conclude that the human population can effect the environment to a point short of themro nuclear war, but the Earth itself can do far more damage than we could ever hope to.
In conclusion, I think Skuzzy put it best when he said that no one here on Earth understands all the factors that are a part of climatology. They will never fully be understood, until it is too late. By then, we will probably realise that all the rediculous paper work and bad will generated by ploitics were the biggest problem for the planet.
-
not to mention that the oceans pump out tons of greenhouse gasses, more than all of humanity ever will. handwringers=the funny.
-
Hey Look!
There are tons and tons of environmental AND meteorolgical scientists posting in this forum!
Who would have known?
-
I can not help but think back to the scientist who sid Mt St. Helens eruption put out more CO2 than all of humakind ever did. That happened over a couple days, right? Well, look at what Vesuvius did in 1944, or the eruption in the Phillipines, or the multitude of other volcanos that are constantly erupting.
Having that evidence glaring at me, I am left to conclude that the human population can effect the environment to a point short of themro nuclear war, but the Earth itself can do far more damage than we could ever hope to.
Do you have a source for this claim? The US geological survey estimates volcanoes put out about 1% of the CO2 man produces:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so don't run your air conditioner because you are cheap but don't tell us you are doing it to save the planet... if you believe that then why do you even have an air conditioner.
You do know that most cars are made to run with the compressor on even when the heater is on? that if you don't run the air conditioner once in a while it will wear out in record time and then valuable resources will be spent replacing it and... you will have to recharge it with chemicals...
people won't ride in the car with you because you and your car will stink like sweat and so they will take their own car and double the pollution.
Your not using it is destroying the planet. In this case...your "common sense" solution is a net loss.
lazs
I started a long post but deleted all
You're not worth the effort.
btw I consider your 1st sentence as an insult ,as usual you're unable to discuss without using this king of "cheap" trick.
-
Global warming is overmodeled.
-
Big volcanic eruptions normally add to global dimming, which cool the planet.
I live near to a Volcano. I've seen eruptions that threw a mushroom shaped cloud to 40K in a matter of hours. Yet, in the radius, there is no comparison of the smog compared with a big city. You can see the smog globe around a metropolis from a 100 miles....if the rest of the air on your continent is clear enough to allow the visibility.
Many of you folks don't even know what clear air is. So you haggle on, like a colour blind trying to convince one that there is no red or green.
That thing posted about St. Helens is absolute rubbish, - and apart from that, there is NOTHING we can do about volcanoes.
And Lazs, your slash at Straffo is cheap and confusing. To make things simple, how would you pick and use yer ride if the Gas was 8$ a gallon? Air conditioner incuded...
-
it should be perked
-
Originally posted by Angus
Big volcanic eruptions normally add to global dimming, which cool the planet.
I live near to a Volcano. I've seen eruptions that threw a mushroom shaped cloud to 40K in a matter of hours. Yet, in the radius, there is no comparison of the smog compared with a big city. You can see the smog globe around a metropolis from a 100 miles....if the rest of the air on your continent is clear enough to allow the visibility.
Many of you folks don't even know what clear air is. So you haggle on, like a colour blind trying to convince one that there is no red or green.
That thing posted about St. Helens is absolute rubbish, - and apart from that, there is NOTHING we can do about volcanoes.
And Lazs, your slash at Straffo is cheap and confusing. To make things simple, how would you pick and use yer ride if the Gas was 8$ a gallon? Air conditioner incuded...
but but but in the mid-late 1970's that very same smog was the basis for the theory of another iceage. the same type of draft card burning skirt wearing limpwristed freddie mercury mustachioed disco loving commie hugging liberal was getting grant money to chicken little the talk show circuit with the very same dire predictions and suggesting we all buy fur. ya can't have it both ways yaknowwhatimean?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You are piloting a single engine aircraft. Suddenly you realize something is vibrating, What do you do?
Shutdown that damn conveyor belt! ;)
-
but but but in the mid-late 1970's that very same smog was the basis for the theory of another iceage. the same type of draft card burning skirt wearing limpwristed freddie mercury mustachioed disco loving commie hugging liberal was getting grant money to chicken little the talk show circuit with the very same dire predictions and suggesting we all buy fur. ya can't have it both ways yaknowwhatimean?
Do you have any evidence that in the 70s there was something approaching a scientific consensus that the earth was close to an ice age? Because apart from isolated, speculative stories, I've never seen anything of the sort.
There's a huge difference between some nutty environmentalists and fringe scientists speculating on what might happen, and a near consensus of scientists agreeing on what is happening.
Anyone wanting to prove global warming has been a widespread theory can point to the historical record back to the late 1980s, this for example from a Margaret Thatcher speech in 1990:
Many of us have been worried for some time now about the accumulating evidence of damage to the global environment and the consequences for life on Earth and for future generations. I spoke about this to the Royal Society in 1988 and to the United Nations General Assembly in November last year. Today, with the publication of the Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, we have an authoritative early warning system, an agreed assessment from some three hundred of the world's leading scientists on what is happening to the world's climate—all this under your distinguished chairmanship, Dr. Houghton. I congratulate you on getting three hundred distinguished scientists to agree on a single report—you must be quite a chairman! It is a triumph for you today, both the Report and the opening of the new Centre for which you have obviously been very eager.
Your Report confirms that greenhouse gases are increasing substantially as a result of Man's activities; that this will warm the Earth's surface, with serious consequences for us all, and that these consequences are capable of prediction. We want to predict them more accurately and that is why we are opening this Centre today.
Can you point to any such thing regarding an impending ice age from the 70s? Anything that shows the scientific community, and governments, were taking such an issue seriously? (note the odd article, from the hundreds of thousands published every year, doesn't really count. You have to show some serious support for the idea.)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Shutdown that damn conveyor belt! ;)
ROFLMBO!!
-
I r teh shades
-
Originally posted by Angus
Politicians and a lot of the public alike, refusing to identify global warming.
Denialism.
I have checked the posts made by myself and others that share my position. I do not believe that any of us have denied the existence of global warming. Where we differ is the question "is it being caused by man or is it a natural cycle". I believe we have quoted many credible sources that would indicate our position is right that it is not caused by man (Mars is warming also, the middle ages were as warm or warmer than now, etc.) Others have quoted sources to substantiate their point of view. Therefore the question remains unanswered not just by us on this board but the scientific community as well.
So the only real question is what should be the response of the world community? Should we destroy the economies of the western world? That is the result should Kyoto be ratified by the US. I would like to link to a speech made by Lord Nigel Lawson November 1, 2006.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061112_reason.pdf
I believe that anyone who actually reads this will find it honest, factual and hard to argue against. And no it is not one sided he like myself agrees that the climate is warming and that the wealthier nations have an obligation to assist the poorer nations in coping with changes that may occur such as rising sea levels.
I am not religious if fact I have never been to any church service. But what I know of religion from reading and my interaction with others puts me in a good position to agree with one section of this article in particular and it is the only portion I will quote.
“It is not difficult to understand, however, the appeal of the conventional climate change wisdom. Throughout the ages something deep in man's psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings: "the end of the world is nigh". Almost of all us are imbued with a sense of guilt and a sense of sin, and it is so much less uncomfortable to divert our attention away from our individual sins and causes of guilt, arising from how we have treated our neighbours, and to sublimate it in collective guilt and collective sin.
Throughout the ages, too, the weather has been an important part of the narrative. In primitive societies it was customary for extreme weather events to be explained as punishment from the gods for the sins of the people; and there is no shortage of examples of this theme in the Bible, either - particularly but not exclusively in the Old Testament.
The main change is that the new priests are scientists (well rewarded with research grants for their pains) rather than clerics of the established religions, and the new religion is eco-fundamentalism. But it is a distinction without much of a difference. And the old religions have not been slow to make common cause. Does all this matter? Up to a
point, no. Unbelievers should not be dismissive of the comfort that religion can bring. If people feel better when they buy a hybrid car and see a few windmills dotted about (although perhaps not in their own backyard), then so be it. And in a democracy, if greenery is what the people want, politicians will understandably provide it, dressed in the most high-flown rhetoric they can muster. Indeed, if people are happy to pay a carbon tax, provided it is not at too high a level, and the proceeds are used to cut income tax, that
would not be a disaster, either. It would have to be a consumer-based tax, however, since in the globalised world economy industry is highly mobile, whereas individuals are much less so.”
-
Originally posted by Gunston
I believe that anyone who actually reads this will find it honest, factual and hard to argue against.
It's easy to argue against: all you have to do is the ol' ad hominem... he's either a stupid ignorant American, or American influenced, or the worst possiblity, influenced by an American big oil... maybe even Halliburton.
Therefore nothing he has to say is to be believed.
-
Originally posted by storch
but but but in the mid-late 1970's that very same smog was the basis for the theory of another iceage. the same type of draft card burning skirt wearing limpwristed freddie mercury mustachioed disco loving commie hugging liberal was getting grant money to chicken little the talk show circuit with the very same dire predictions and suggesting we all buy fur. ya can't have it both ways yaknowwhatimean?
LOL, well particles will add to dimming, must be true if Freddy said so.
Anyway, to learn from History, the biggest eruption in the last 2000 years or so, cooled the N-Hemisphere quite a bit and caused hunger through less crops in countries like England, France and Egypt alike.
Without the dimming, we'd have even more heating, but heating seems to be on top like it or not.
-
Originally posted by Angus
LOL, well particles will add to dimming, must be true if Freddy said so.
Anyway, to learn from History, the biggest eruption in the last 2000 years or so, cooled the N-Hemisphere quite a bit and caused hunger through less crops in countries like England, France and Egypt alike.
Without the dimming, we'd have even more heating, but heating seems to be on top like it or not.
Which eruption are you refering too?
The eruption of the supervolcano Taupo caldera in the central north island NZ 1,800 years ago is as far as I know from what I have read, the largest eruption in the last 5,000 years. Apparently it affected the atmosphere way up there in the northern hemisphere as the romans noted, but I have never heard any claims before that it affected the european climate and diminished food production.
btw welcome back :-)
-
The Sun is going to get hotter as it gets older. Anyway if Gore stoped talking that would help alot with the Global Warming.
-
Global Warming and Bush (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html)
Just in the news Yesterday....
More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.
-
So he told the liars to quit lieing? Or... he has an agenda?
Seems that there is little or no honesty on the whole subject.
The women socialist democrats are working hard at this moment to suck more tax money out of us and to build the government larger with the whole man made global warming scare.. they will introduce mounds of legislation in the next few years that will lower our standard of living and create more government and if will be based on nothing but junk science.
The point still remains... if what is said of the letter from the scientists about the UN document is true then the report says that there is no proof of any significant man made global warming.
If there is no proof then why do these "scientists" continue to say there is? Who are these so called scientists that Bush is shutting up?
If you read the article you will see that it is as short on details as an mt post... It is saying nothing... for all we know the references removed needed to be... like saying that it was the end of the world in 10 years. I listen to NPR and they constantly say "man made global warming" like the only reason for any warming is man. This is false and anyone with any brains knows it but.. they are allowed to say it all day every day.
That's fine for a talk show but not for scientists... unless they have proof.. they shouldn't be able to say it... If we are paying them then we deserve the facts but not their political agenda.
They work for the government.. if the government says they can't say something without fact to back it up.... well... don't say it or get a real job and say whatever you want... Hell... wear the "end is near" sighnboards on your back and walk up and down the street shouting at people.
The doomsday scientists have never been right... they have never even been close.
lazs
-
i don't think you need to be a scientist to realize some pro active measures need to be engaged, just look at the ground ozone over any major city these days, it's getting rather pathetic.
homogenizing and streamline the antiquated patch work of public transit would be a good start. make it a more efficient and viable alternative to the car, even to the point of a tax credit.
-
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”...Winston Churchill
[hijack]
This isn't something Churchill ever said. Indeed, Churchill first stood for parliament as a Conservative at the age of 25. He switched to the Liberal party at age 30, and remained a Liberal until he reached 50.
[/hijack]
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
[hijack]
This isn't something Churchill ever said. Indeed, Churchill first stood for parliament as a Conservative at the age of 25. He switched to the Liberal party at age 30, and remained a Liberal until he reached 50.
[/hijack]
Your may be right about his party affiliation but if he never said it then there are sure a lot of mistaken people out there because it's one of his most often quoted quotes. The following are links followed by quotes from that page that I found with a quick search of the quote.
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/winston_churchill/8.html
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
Winston Churchill quotes (British Orator, Author and Prime Minister during World War II. 1874-1965)
Similar Quotes.
Add to Chapter...
http://bensommer.com/journal/2004/11/old-man-look-at-my-life.shtml
A thought for you: Winston Churchill stated, "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
http://www.bluemoon.net/~sysop/opinion/anti-liberal.txt
Winston Churchill said "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/index.html
Wake up America
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains....... Winston Churchill, Sir (1874-1965)
http://dailypundit.com/?p=9721
Comments on this post:
• Mike Roark
September 9th, 2006 | 12:23:21 pm | #1
The other day I was wondering if there were any stats on the number of people moving left to right v. right to left. Anyone have any idea? There is an old quote you see occasionally - I think attributed to Churchill. Something like “if you’re not liberal when you’re young. you have no heart and if your’re not conservative when you grow older, you have no brains”
• Swen
September 11th, 2006 | 6:23:12 pm | #2
“If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”
– Winston Churchill
Ah! One of my favorite quotes.
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/conservatism.html
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Winston Churchill
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1358
Quote DB :: Authors :: Winston Churchill :: View Quote
View Quote
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." -
-- Winston Churchill
Listed in: Politics
Add Quote To Your Quote List
-
The Churchill Centre lists the quote as one falsely attributed to Churchill.
-
"unquote" (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html) (get it? it's in quotes)
says it has been attributed to Churchill, Wendell Wilkie, Woodrow Wilson, George Bernard Shaw, Otto Bismark, George Clemenceu...
I think no one ever said it....
-
Standby then...
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
There. I have said it, you can attribute it to me and you may quote me.
You are welcome.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Churchill Centre lists the quote as one falsely attributed to Churchill.
I went to that site and looks like your right. Churchill is one of my favorite people of history and I wouldn't want to dishonor him by leaving it on my signature after I found out he didn't say it. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So he told the liars to quit lieing? Or... he has an agenda?
Seems that there is little or no honesty on the whole subject.
The women socialist democrats are working hard at this moment to suck more tax money out of us and to build the government larger with the whole man made global warming scare.. they will introduce mounds of legislation in the next few years that will lower our standard of living and create more government and if will be based on nothing but junk science.
The point still remains... if what is said of the letter from the scientists about the UN document is true then the report says that there is no proof of any significant man made global warming.
If there is no proof then why do these "scientists" continue to say there is? Who are these so called scientists that Bush is shutting up?
If you read the article you will see that it is as short on details as an mt post... It is saying nothing... for all we know the references removed needed to be... like saying that it was the end of the world in 10 years. I listen to NPR and they constantly say "man made global warming" like the only reason for any warming is man. This is false and anyone with any brains knows it but.. they are allowed to say it all day every day...
lazs
The Bush Administration publicly admitted in 2002 that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming.
-
That does not mean anything oboe. They could denouce it an hour after they claim it. It does not mean anything.
-
It IS tough to figure, Skuzzy. I was surprised to find multiple links to the story with a google search -- I always thought the admin denied it as a problem. But at nearly the same time, NASA scientists claim the administration is muzzling them and editing their reports to cast doubt on their findings and conclusions.
Seems crazy, or at least inconsistent, on surface appearances.
-
The administration is going to go with whatever will make them look the best to the most people with the money oboe.
I would not use such a questionable source to support any argument I make. Not that there are any truly credible sources in this issue. Seems all of them have some sort of agenda outside of the main point.
-
More of that evil "consensus"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3hoMzHoKhus&refer=home
You guys ***** over if it is true or not. For me, I know its futile to rebuild New Orleans.
-
"contributing" what the hell does that mean? Of course we are contributing to global warming just like me peeing in the ocean is "contributing" to a rise in the EC of it...
How much money are we willing to spend or government agencies form or how much power are we willing to give to the corrupt and power hungry UN in order to get me to stop peeing in the ocean?
I mean... I am "contributing" to the rise in EC (measure of sodium).
If the sun is say 99.999% responsible for the current global warming.... how much socialism are you willing to endure to reduce the 0.001% "contribution" by... by what? 25%? how much will you endure to do this? to reduce the overall effect on global warming by 0.00001%
Is $8 a gallon gas a good trade off? a lowering of the standard of living by 10% or so? What are you global warming chicken littles willing to have us do?
I am willing to appease you if it has no real effect on my life.
So tell me... with all the learned scientists out there..... How much will we avert the doom of frying by all commiting suicide say?
If there suddenly were no people on the planet would global warming stop even if the sun continued to warm? How many minutes would the death of every person delay the "balance point"?
How many politicians and agencies will it take to save us? How much freedom will we have to give up to move forward the "balance point" doomsday even one hour?
I would rather live free and have my great grandkids fry an hour earlier or.... maybe not... maybe the sun will just change again and we will "all" be worried about the new ice age.
Maybe.... maybe we don't know jack about climate change.
lazs
-
You're too egoist to ever understand.
Continue to look closely at your navel and don't bother.
-
All they got is a suitcase full of cash.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
All they got is a suitcase full of cash.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
how much did the IPCC pay for their study?
-
I agree that man may play a smaller role then thought perhaps just aggravating the situation. If that is the case we need to adapt.
If the suns energy is helping feed the climate changes, as data seems to support then we will escalate over the next 5 years as the sun goes from dormant to its 11 year solar peak. What is interesting is we had huge solar flares in the dormant period which indicate a lot more activity and energy release than normal since we have had since we have been keeping tack. It may also indicate the peak of a longer term cycle.
There is more to this than meets the eye. We do have historical observations of the sun related to the Great Floods. People said that the sun before the events was split with darkness. This indicates that they saw large sunspots in a configuration associated with the suns polarity reversal which will occur in 2012.
We need to make an executive decision now and need a Global Manhattan Scale project to become adaptable.
The blessing is that this Global Threat could help to unify the planet.
-
Ya know....they just announced that human activities are the single greatest cause of global warming.
Whether or not one buys into such a sweeping, all-encompassing statement, you gotta admire the sheer brass of some of the scientists who have contributed their two cents worth to the debate over global warming.
They've managed to cover all the bases....all possible eventualities. According to them, global warming is going to lead to droughts and famines... unless it increases the growing seasons. It will raise the temperatures of the oceans and cause the spawning of more hurricanes and catastrophic temperature rises in the northern hemisphere....unless the melting glaciers increase the levels of fresh water in the oceans, shutting down the Gulf Stream and causing the onset of an ice age.
"We're right, unless we're wrong, in which event we are also right. You Fools!"
-
Originally posted by Hawco
The blessing is that this Global Threat could help to unify the planet.
Sure, that'll happen. Everyone is going to be too busy laying the blame on the other guy.
How do you think they keep thier funding going Shuckins? The only way to be sure you are always right is to make sure you allow for all possibilities. That way the press will hail you as being a visionary and you will recieve mounds and mounds of money to continue to tell them everything they want to hear.
Pretty cool deal if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Ya know....they just announced that human activities are the single greatest cause of global warming.
Whether or not one buys into such a sweeping, all-encompassing statement, you gotta admire the sheer brass of some of the scientists who have contributed their two cents worth to the debate over global warming.
They've managed to cover all the bases....all possible eventualities. According to them, global warming is going to lead to droughts and famines... unless it increases the growing seasons. It will raise the temperatures of the oceans and cause the spawning of more hurricanes and catastrophic temperature rises in the northern hemisphere....unless the melting glaciers increase the levels of fresh water in the oceans, shutting down the Gulf Stream and causing the onset of an ice age.
"We're right, unless we're wrong, in which event we are also right. You Fools!"
What do they care? They will be long dead before any of the predictions prove true or false.
They have their grand/scare money now.
-
I see a Global Panic about global Warming, for few days i see all news sources poluted with same G.Warming alert/ info. on BBC, CNN, Yahoo , CBS , Google ,TV5 , ProTV news, (that's what i have booked as favorite news source), ............................. ....panic !,
Move all here in Canada, i pray for global warming, my diesel/brakes froze 2 days back in Thunder Bay, NW of Ontario, we still keep engines pluged with electric block heaters overnight, What G.Warming?
-
If the sun is say 99.999% responsible for the current global warming....
Simple, We place a set of shades on the Sun!
:cool:
:aok
Mac
-
Here is the announcement, - link to video:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/togt/frett.html?nid=1251337
The figures are now stunning enough for most to agree upon.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Ya know....they just announced that human activities are the single greatest cause of global warming.
Whether or not one buys into such a sweeping, all-encompassing statement, you gotta admire the sheer brass of some of the scientists who have contributed their two cents worth to the debate over global warming.
They've managed to cover all the bases....all possible eventualities. According to them, global warming is going to lead to droughts and famines... unless it increases the growing seasons. It will raise the temperatures of the oceans and cause the spawning of more hurricanes and catastrophic temperature rises in the northern hemisphere....unless the melting glaciers increase the levels of fresh water in the oceans, shutting down the Gulf Stream and causing the onset of an ice age.
"We're right, unless we're wrong, in which event we are also right. You Fools!"
I think you need to read the report, or at least summaries of the report, more closely. For example, they said global warming will change precipitation patterns - more drought and famine at lower latitudes and higher precipitation and longer growing seasons at higher latitudes (and that does not imply an equal trade-off).
But I also think you maybe onto something - I noticed the same practice employed by some pundit in favor of the Iraq troop escalation. He said the additional troops should be able to quell violence in Baghdad, but also any increase in violence would be a sign that the troop deployment is working.
-
They don't say jack except that global warming will be bad..
They don't say what "man" needs to do to stop the sun from it's current state. they don't say how much man is "contributing" or how many minutes closer to the maybe doomsday we would save if we all just slit our throats today.
They don't say what will happen if the sun activity gets less intense. Both sides pay the potato scientists to make outlandish chicken little claims and we are the suckers who believe em.
When has a scientist ever been right with a doomsday prediction? I have been hearing one or another from "respected" scientists all my life. Every one of em so far off as to be laughable
you guys are suckers and you are gonna drag me down in your panic...
That's why I get nervous in big crowds... you guys are all sheep.. easily stampeded by another panicky sheep or a master.
lazs
-
Mother Nature will always be Master of this planet, if she gets tired of us she will get rid of us. I hate people who are alway crying about protecting Nature. Mother Nature need not fear us, we need to fear Her.
-
I gotta say this... I understand that there are a lot of stupid people out there.. I am surprised that there are so many on this board tho.. suckers are nothing rare but.... here? Seems people here usually want proof... not when it comes to man made global warming it seems tho.
See.. it goes like this.. the potato scientists work for whoever pays em... somehow... it is noble if the UN pays em (the same UN with it's crooked food for oil program and countless others) but... if some oil company pays em...
At least the oil companies didn't change what the scientists said like the UN did.
So.. scientists are noble? well... except the oil company ones? at the very least, a smart man would see that they are all up for the highest bidder and will give you any answer you want.
Tell me about tons of C02 they don't understand and "tipping points" that they can't know cause we have never had one... tell me something more than "significant" and "contribute".
How much human activity ceasing will make the sun stop overheating? If we are "contributing" so what? breathing "contributes" cow farts "contribute"
If the sun suddenly reverses it's trend... what then? How much can we then "contribute" to stave off the ice age?
The answer to both is quite simple... no one has any idea but..... no matter what we do.. good or bad.. the sun runs the show and we can only pee in the ocean for all the good or bad we do.
Litter is ugly.. clean it up. smog in areas that have little or no cleaning action is bad. Don't dump oil on the ground where it will get into the water supply and don't use MTBE in the gas.... oops... the "scientists" insisted on that one to avert a crisis tho didn't they?
You don't pollute if it is possible... in some areas you have stricter regulations than others due to the makeup of the area.. but you sure as hell don't let some huge government agency set rules for everyone.
The same scientist that gave me MTBE is now telling me that I am to blame and have to change my lifestyle and pay him to do the so called studies?
I have survived the ice age of 1999... I have survived the shearing off of kalifornia into the ocean of 1975... I have survived the eternal winter of the 1990's when the sadman lit the kuwait oil feilds on fire and plunged us all into a decade long darkness with world wide famine (sound familiar?)
I am not sure if I have survived the solution to the ozone problem in the form of MTBE tho... It looks like that one about killed us off... luckily we stopped the "solution" before completely destroyed all our water.
So no... when it comes to the doomsday prediction portion of "scientific research" no, I don't believe a thing they say. I believe, that like every other time... they are intentionaly misleading people for their own benifiet be it money or fame. The doomsday scientists are potatos and scumbags.
lazs
-
The money needs to be spent on space exploration so when the time comes we can find another home. The only responsibility we have as humans is the make sure our children are smarter and stronger then we are, even if we have to modify their DNA to survive on another planet.
-
Check out this interesting read (http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf) .
I reads just like a lot of the stuff you see today, only backwards.
-
yep donzo... I was alive and reading that crap when it was happening... I had to listen to all the sheep bleating out "of please save us noble scientists"
Look at the key phrases... the snow pack changing... the world wide famine.... The tipping point... the 1% change in sun spot and sun activity. The "conference of scientists to discuss the crisis"...
If you don't learn from your past and continue to listen to the doomsayers... you will repeat your mistakes... the ice age fell flat... let's try heating em up this time and see if we can squeeze some more expensive lab time outta the deal.
Man... I guess if god had not wanted you guys sheared... he wouldn't have made you sheep.
What a blast from the past reading that article...
Anyone dig up the ones about kalifornia falling into the sea or the world wide global winter carl frigging sagan tried to foist off a decade or so ago? How bout the mount saint hellens doom and gloom stuff or... the end of yosemite for our lifetimes?
what a bunch of myopic suckers we all are.
lazs
-
I attended a seminar at my physics faculty last week. The lecturer pretty much destroyed the claim that CO2 emission, caused by human activity, is the source of global warming.
Yes, CO2 levels correlate perfectly with global temperatures, BUT they are the symptom - not the cause. It is the temperature that raise CO2 levels, not the other way around.
It's quite simple: most of the earth's CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. A small fraction is in the atmosphere. The system is at near equilibrium. If you produce more CO2, most of it will be dissolved in the oceans and you barely change the global atmospheric CO2 levels. However, as with all chemical reactions, the ratios depend on the temperature and tends towards the gaseous phase as temperatures increase.
There are a lot of reasons to reduce CO2 emissions, but fighting global warming is not one of them. The fault lies else where.
-
Looks like its time for this again
The Planet is Fine -Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=no40BlyA3YQ)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ahem.
Firstly:
"The tropics receive 1000x more solar radiation than the Antarctic."
No. Same applies to the Northern territories.
Secondly:
"You say it was a problem... well, not really... unless you sunbathe in the Antarctic in September"
That's why I said that had the gap been over...say Texas (especially with already 1000 times as much solar radiation,,,even just 100) it WOULD have been a problem. Ant the high season for sun in the Antartica would be..December BTW. On the North, June, where the sun shines twice as long as on the equador....
First off, it takes sunlight to make ozone - thats why you have more of it over the equator than you do over the poles in the first place (they sort of conveniently forget to tell you that). So when you put up a satellite and start measuing ppm of ozone in the upper atmosphere, and then plot it in a nice color graph over a picture of the earth, you find there is more ozone over the equator than over the poles (SHOCK! HORROR! OMFG we're all gonna DIE of radiation exposure!).
The monkeys on this planet just don't have a clue... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The same scientist that gave me MTBE is now telling me that I am to blame and have to change my lifestyle and pay him to do the so called studies?
lazs
You didn't mention two other good examples: Alar and DDT. The scare about the former was a total hoax and the banning of the latter has caused humankind far more harm than good.
-
yep... high co2 levels follow global warming they don't cause it or even preceed it.
scientists have been destroying the planet since the beginning... no big deal.. it always recovers from their mistakes but...
I certainly don't want to listen to what they say should be done to fix things.
Here is your "inconvienent truth"......
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
lazs
-
Originally posted by E25280
You didn't mention two other good examples: Alar and DDT. The scare about the former was a total hoax and the banning of the latter has caused humankind far more harm than good.
indeed
-
This is just getting hilarious. Sort of a Monty Python skit. :lol
-
Check out this interesting read .
I reads just like a lot of the stuff you see today, only backwards.
The problem is, that's an article in Time magazine. Time magazine has never been regarded as a science journal, it's a news magazine. As sources for the story, they quote a couple of university profs no one has ever heard of.
Now, you can read reports about global warming from the vast majority of climate scientists, published in peer reviewed science journals.
First off, it takes sunlight to make ozone - thats why you have more of it over the equator than you do over the poles in the first place (they sort of conveniently forget to tell you that). So when you put up a satellite and start measuing ppm of ozone in the upper atmosphere, and then plot it in a nice color graph over a picture of the earth, you find there is more ozone over the equator than over the poles (SHOCK! HORROR! OMFG we're all gonna DIE of radiation exposure!).
The monkeys on this planet just don't have a clue...
Or it could be that the scientists studying the ozone layers over the poles actually know that, and weren't expecting to find as much ozone as at the equator. What's alarmed them is that ozone in the upper atmosphere has been declining quite sharply since the 60s. Here, for example, is the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's graph of ozone levels over the Antarctic:
(http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/gifs/ams/ams_all.gif)
If you go to the website, they've got graphs of historical data for a lot of measuring sites around the world, almost all show a similar trend (although the Antarctic is more pronounced than most.)
yep... high co2 levels follow global warming they don't cause it or even preceed it.
That's one of the things that worries the scientists. Higher temperatures have increased Co2 levels in the past, which is a positive feedback loop.
The effect of atmospheric CO2 in trapping heat is well known, of course. The past examples of warming did not have man taking the vast amounts of carbon that had been sequestered out of the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago, burning it, and adding it back to the atmosphere over a tiny period of time.
As a side note, what has happened to America? When I was a child, America was synonymous with science. Americans went to the moon, sent probes to Saturn, pushed the boundaries in physics and chemistry and biology. When you thought of progress and scientific advances you thought of America.
Now America seems to be turning it's back on science, arguing that evolution is "just a theory", restricting stem cell research, ignoring any science that has unwelcome conclusions.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
As a side note, what has happened to America?
God has happened to America. Or to be exact, a bunch of people speaking in his name.
-
Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate Change - IPCC Working Group I (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm#four)
Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. [/b]These include the magnitude and patterns of long_term natural variability and the time _evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.
It only suggests? I thought it was a dead bang certainty... I mean with the consensus of the scientific community......
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I dunno skuzzy... in some ways it may be even simpler than that..
In all of this.. the alarmists.. the ones who want big brother to do something NOW before some of us boil and some of us freeze....
Well.. they all say that we are "contributing" to global warming... this is a little less precise than is needed to get up a real good scare worthy of lifestyle changes and money in their coffers sooooo..
They have escalated to using the even more scientific term of "significant" to describe mans contribution.
Like the old song goes.. "they tell me it will kill me but they won't say when"..
On the other side.. (and I am one of those) we have seen science politicized many times in order to raise its own funding or importance... they are as hungry for the spotlight as the worst movie star these "scientists" we have also seen them fall flat on their face in the most dire of their predictions..
The "consensus" of "scientists in the 70's warned of global ice age that was a mere 30 years off... I am sure a lot of money was dumped down that rat hole...
The horrific hurricane season that never happened this year... Hell... the consensus was out to kill galeleo.
continents move... pluto isn't a planet and we have no ice age or horrific hurrican season and the "scientists" still can't cure the common cold or tell you what the weather will be next year.
then... in the end... they still won't tell us what to do if we go into a global ice age next time around.
I think I will wait till I see something better than "consensus" or "significant effect we think"
If you are really frieghtened... I would suggest sending a check to whatever whacko researcher that scares you the most.
lazs
Im surprised you think your car will start:)
I'm really having a hard time understanding the right's or libertarians contempt for science and rationality. The righties seem
to me to be 100% biased ideology all the time. I was just sitting here
watching Waxman's Senate hearings on the Bush administration's multitude of nefarious attempts to censure and rewrite government scientists' papers on global climate change. There is a long list of scientists who are waiting in line to testify about how the Bushies rewrote their publications in order to try to negate the science that said that global warming was a fact and that it was caused by humans. Yet, rather than put the taxpayer dollar into validating the scientific methodology, they put billions of our tax dollars into attempting to censor and rewrite the science.
Id rather have some missteps as to ice ages than listen to some who fear science and think the rapture is coming to save them.
Changing gears for those who have slammed dems,liberals in this thread :
So explain to me how the dems could possible spend as much as your beloved right has spent in the last 6 years. During Clinton we had just gotten out of the mess Reagan made. And by the way your spending is far from over.
The dems arent in charge yet. They control the house but since they dont march in goose step like the right the senate isnt theirs.
The American electorate should be ashamed for having been so moronic as to have voted these felonious republican nitwits and cheats into office.
But I know your answer is, "Its the dems fault":)
-
i have been doing my own unfunded study on global climatic trends.
my findings are in 1950 the record high temp in January in Pittsburgh,Pa. was 73 deg F, the record low temp in January in Pittsbugh,Pa. in 1985 was -22 deg F.
my noncomputer model shows a record high in 1950 and a record low in 1985, i can only conclude that we are heading into to a new ice age.
these numbers are verifiable and can not be challenged.
-
With your methodology, its no wonder your study is unfunded. Just what did you expect to prove by comparing a record high temperature to a record low?
Nevertheless, the biggest problem with your study's credibility is that its not based on a computer model. Climate scientists go ape over computer models. I think you should plug the data into a spreadsheet and pitch it to ExxonMobil.
You might get $10,000 to publish it.
-
now this is getting funny.. nashwan admits that a rise in co2 follows global warming.. if that is correct we are heading out of global warming. Did you read the article? Hundreds of the worlds most expert scientists all agreed on the coming ice age and were having a conference... what happened? why didn't they get as far as the global warming guys? no internet and.... we went into a hot spell and drought for a few years in a row... people who were hot and thirsty and conserving water... well.. you get the idea... Like the Texans who are fighting ice storms now... they are hard to convince with smoke and mirrors.
silat... I will assume that you were serious in asking how the democrats could make things worse with a global warming scare.
If gas went to $6 a gallon and if every product costs 10 cents on the dollar more to become environmentaly friendly (to stop "global warming") and if the government in the form of the epa or some other alphabet soup new and expensive agency... if we paid another 5% taxes to support this...
Talk about your "tipping points" the economy has a tipping point but... unlike the nebulous and maybe false man made global warming one.. it is real and easy to figure.
Then of course there is always these facts.... When it comes to end of the world scenerios...
The best scientists the world has ever produced have all been wrong every single time on doomsday.
and..... the big inconvienient truth..
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
lazs
-
It's amazing to me the attacks that get heaped on anyone that doesn't just swallow the global-warming kool-aid that says man is the cause of global climate change. I'm sorry folks, but scientific "consensus" is not proof - in the 1400s, scientific consensus was the world was flat. In the 1970's, we were being warned of an impending ice age. I've seen plenty of peer-reviewed science that has been debunked a few years later by another study.
The problem with climatology is that it isn't a hard science that uses the scientific method to produce demonstrable, verifiable results. It uses computer statistical models and data points drawn from a number of sources to try to put together a model of the global climate and predict future events. Pardon my skepticism, but these are the same computers and models that can't tell me if I'm going to have rain or snow two weeks from now.
I'm not ready to swallow the alarmism because of the simple fact that this planet has undergone cooling and warming trends many times before. The sun is demonstrably and provably in a more active (read hot) phase right now, and has been that way for at least the last 30 years. Yes, there has been a measureable (like .04%) rise in CO2 levels too, but is that caused by man, or a natural result of the oceans being fractionally warmer on average?
My opinion here does not mean that I am some right-wing freak out to pollute the planet for financial gain. I personally think this country would be a lot better off if we had more nuclear and less coal-fired power plants, and I'm definitely up with replacing oil with renewable fuels as the technology gets better. If the government mandates all new cars & trucks be multifuel (E85 or biodiesel) capable by 2012 or so, I'd be all over it since that means fewer american dollars going to oil dictators around the world. I like clean water, prefer to breathe clean air, and even get P.O.ed when some idiot litters because he is too F'in lazy to dispose of his trash properly.
Some might call me a bit "libertarian" because I have the audacity to expect my local, state, and federal governments to abide by the constitution. That doesn't mean I'm not aware or concerned about the environment, or haven't looked at the "science" behind the global warming debate. I studied astrophysics in college, as well as computers and statistics, and I know enough to be skeptical about climatologists claims based on statistical data. Statistics can be manipulated to prove just about anything, and statistics alone just show what is happening, they don't show why it is happening.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Oh?
Our world league of atmosphere scientists just came to these conclusions:
1. Our CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have just risen to very impressive amounts.
2. Our globe is now warming (the globe is a lot bigger than Texas, and the cycle is more than a winter) at an alarming speed.
3. There is hard evidence for the abovementioned.
4. The reason seems to be human influenced.
5. The ball is heavy, so even radical countermeasures will take a long time to work. (normal, - it took a long time getting where we went).
6, 7, 8, 9 etc, all sing the same tune.
Does one compare those to the clinging logics of those who do not recognize the basics (such as recognizing world's main forests as a factor adding to global warming), and then, when confronted with the factum, support total surrender (such as saying that, okay it's warming and it's our fault, but we won't do anything about it anyway)?
Well, some writers on threads like these fall into that category. I'd rather look better into what the world league just said, and then I might consider looking at Gore's episode, hehe. (didn't see it yet)
-
I blame all the bean farmers. We will flatulate our way into an ice age if something is not done!
If you think I do not care about this, then you are quite right. I don't care about it. Why should I? I like beans!
-
Hehe this one:
"The best scientists the world has ever produced have all been wrong every single time on doomsday."
I belive you refer to absolute world-ends-tomorrow theories?
On "doomsday-if we-do-this" there are some, yet to be proved, but sadly somewhat likely.
The typical, reveiled in 70's or was it 80's, Nuclear winter, which would still hold water. Nuclear holocaust and the humans being sent down to a medieval-declining stage, since they're jumping out of urban life to the scrapping chaotic survival of getting food, shelter and water, - it would hold water ( see what already happens in a US city once the power goes out for a couple of days).
So, this is not about the guy standing at the highway with the sign on his back saying "the world will end tomorrow", - it's a warning about that we are driving down a blind alley, and if we do not do something, we're hitting some deep crap. The sign reads "possible melted lava ahead please turn back on the next roundabout", - the old sign read "possible danger ahead, read next sign", so how long do you want to continue? Some pretend not to be able to read, but then the asphalt is getting soft....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh?
Our world league of atmosphere scientists just came to these conclusions:
You left out this disclaimer, from the IPCC report published a few days ago.
Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long_term natural variability and the time _evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.
So basically the world scientific consensus says that:
1. It is still difficult to tell
2. The parameters we use are somewhat fuzzy
3. But we think it's happening and is our fault
-
I belive they still put this at 90%.
Read more, the message is very clear.
Then think about those who are still debating about whether it is warming globally at all...right here and now.
-
This really is getting funnier by the minute. They finally state, something is up, humans might be involved, but to what extent, we have no clue. LOL!
The scientific community and used car sales people have a lot in common. ROFL!
-
Ill give you a nice "doomsday" thing.
An asteroid will have a close shave 2029 and 2039.
It will be closer than some of our sattelites - passing inner than our orbit with the moon for instance.
I have no Idea of a gravitational effect, but an impact is unprobable as far as we know. If it should occur, which is not likely, it is not quite big enough to wipe out all of us on earth, but will go well ahead though. (tungulsk is like a pinsalamander).
This is a verision of a non-human effected doomsday, and oddly enough, one we might be able to stop if we got Bruce Willis on the job.
And as for Skuzzy, - the human related part:
"This really is getting funnier by the minute. They finally state, something is up, humans might be involved, but to what extent, we have no clue. LOL"
1. The Final state swings between very bad and very very very bad.
2. Yes we are involved.
3. Extent from very much to absolute.
Sence of realism depending.
(p.s. final statement being a final state)
-
Here's a rather insightful article about the debate on man-made global warming from a climatologist:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Particularly relevant were these two passages:
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Consensus is a lousy way to persue truth. While the article doesn't explicitly discuss the "CO2 as effect, rather than cause" idea, it certainly seems like a test-able hypothesis. The idea that a theory is only as good as the assumptions it's based on is one that the public, the politicians, and indeed many scientists seem completely unaware of.
-
Well, my theory is still, that if you drive into the nearest river you'll go anywhere from wet to dead.
Can't prove either, but you get the picture.
(there are also flat-earth scientists, and people that try to prove that the globe is no more than 6000 years old, even posting here)
Following as of sequence, that's what we know.
- increased materials in the atmosphere, i.e. co2 lead to warming.
- We increased them yeah, multiplied them.
- we predicted that it would be warming, probably
- it is,-mostly.
- fill in the blanks.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh?
Our world league of atmosphere scientists just came to these conclusions:
1. Our CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have just risen to very impressive amounts.
2. Our globe is now warming (the globe is a lot bigger than Texas, and the cycle is more than a winter) at an alarming speed.
3. There is hard evidence for the abovementioned.
4. The reason seems to be human influenced.
5. The ball is heavy, so even radical countermeasures will take a long time to work. (normal, - it took a long time getting where we went).
Regarding 1 & 2: Correlation is not causation.
Regarding 3: Yes, depending on what time scale you consider.
Regarding 4: "The reason seems to be..." Operative word here is "seems", as this conclusion is based on the assumption that 1 is causing 2, rather than a symptom of 2. A conclusion is an inference from the facts, and is greatly influenced by how dear one holds the assumptions (and attendant paradygm) that colors the interpretation of those facts.
Regarding 5: If your conclusion is false, than any counter-measures would be ineffective at best, counter-productive and distructive at worse.
-
What?
Dead simple. Quadruple co2 while even anything else would stay static (Including methane, water and forests) and you WILL get a warming effect.
While the princip is known,it got debated, then the effect then the connection, then what next?
What else does it perhaps "seem" to be?
-
angus is afraid his igloo is going to melt.
-
For Laz and you other naysayers. It's Mark Steyn.
I don't think you believers should bother with this though.
What's so hot about fickle science? (http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/241518,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article)
And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?" So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.
:)
-
Originally posted by Angus
What?
Dead simple. Quadruple co2 while even anything else would stay static (Including methane, water and forests) and you WILL get a warming effect.
While the princip is known,it got debated, then the effect then the connection, then what next?
What else does it perhaps "seem" to be?
Since the planet's climate ISN'T static (and never has been), what does that prove? Also - quadruple CO2 in the presence of plants that take in sunlight and CO2 to make oxygen and you will get a correcting factor in the environment to take the CO2 levels back down. Anyone that has ever fed CO2 to plants in a greenhouse can tell you about the increase in growth factors.
Just as an FYI - CO2 isn't the biggest greenhouse gas - water vapor is, and 70% of this little planet is covered with water. Pardon me if I don't panic when the global CO2 goes from .036% to .040% over a 30 year period.
Realize also that this planet used to be a lot hotter than it is now. Siberia wasn't always permafrost folks, and a quick check of the fossil record shows a lot of things used to live there that only live in much warmer climates than exist there now.
I'm a lot more worried about chemicals being dumped into the water than I am about a (maybe) 1-2 degree rise in temperature over a century. Worry less about junk like the Kyoto treaty and more about how we keep third world countries from dumping raw sewage into the rivers.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by Angus
What else does it perhaps "seem" to be?
Herr Barlett has been in the hands of the Gestapo for some weeks and you only have "reason to believe?" -- Col Von Luger
-
Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate Change - IPCC Working Group I
This paper is saying alot and nothing at the same time. If you look at the last bullit point or concluding paragraph in all 6 sections, it's an out right kester covering for each topic incase the planet or the sun don't go along with the agenda. It's a beautifuly constructed bit of PR aiming at the faithful who won't read very closely but wave it under the noses of the unbeleiving heritics as a new 10 commandments from "G@D"(U.N.). Section 5 gives the best way out if the planet or the sun dosent cooperate by projecting a time table of 100-200 years before the bad something happens or goes away. Everyone batteling this today will be dead before then....
This kind of paper is for the convienence of Lobbyists, grassroots groups, corporations, petty local governments and big time politicians to use in their efforts to gain donations, legitimise money grabs(taxation), power grabs, and forced changes of human life styles.
The U.N. was very smart by not suggesting a global warming tax as an interim stop gap measure. This paper is testing the water before version II which may have a foot note with a quiet suggestion for some form of creative funding. If this rediculous thread is a mild indication of the extream positions of the protaganistic camps in the professional world, paper II may be very tame.
-
LOL.... angus trots out yet another precise scientific term global warming is "influenced" by man... this fits in well with previous terms that were just as precise and didn't panic anyone either.
ITS THE SUN STUPID..
The sun is warming up the planet... as humans.. we may have some small effect in speeding the warming that, as of yet, can't be measured. In any case... it is minute compared to the suns effects and.... no matter what we do...
WE CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
because... well, for any part of the global warming that really matters...
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
For angus.. that would be the big brite ball you see most days and that your mom said not to stare at... see... it isn't controlled by man and, while it is pretty reliable as an energy source... it doesn't always send out the same amount of energy. Right now... it seems to be sending a little more than we need..
We like to call the effect of this.... "global warming" the sun getting hotter makes us and our planet hotter. It is hoped that before we fry to a crisp that the sun will go back to a cooler cycle but... no one knows.
lazs
-
Laz,
If you read that U.N. paper it mentions slight global cooling around 1991 due to Mt. Pinitubu erupting. All the ash and particualte matter caused less of the sun's energy to warm the planet. With that admition to a known and predictable natural earth based pehnominon, I have an idea how to cool the planet.
Set off nukes in dormant volcanos every year for the next say 12 years to cause eruptions to get more particulate matter to screen the sun. Sounds just as hit or miss as make everyone stop driving cars and get a bicycle tomorrow. Or the sky is falling do whatever we say to save the planet today but we can't tell you when it will happen but we know it will happen the U.N. says it will because of this position paper.........And we would only have computer models to tell us if the nukes would work and what might happen. But until the first nuke went off we wouldn't know watermelon from a monkey's booty.......
I remember one report that attributed cooler tempuraters due to a high level of volcanic activity in the last 5000 years or so.........Iceland has volcanos don't cha know .........:huh
-
EAGLEDNY: I'll plonk a little text for you since you provoke questions to be answered.
Quadruple the co2 from one source (as an old static, every day we burn CO2 that it takes the globe some 2500 years to tie down, but I belive the authency of that can be doubted), - Anyway, quadruple the co2 in th atmosphere in some mere 200' years, and it's MASSIVE an impact on any scale. At the same time, mankind is doing it's best of nilling down the countering effect you happen to mention:
"Also - quadruple CO2 in the presence of plants that take in sunlight and CO2 to make oxygen and you will get a correcting factor in the environment to take the CO2 levels back down."
It would be if we weren't chopping down the correcting factor. Of course guys like Jacka1 would correct you there by telling you in a most informed manner thet plants create greenhouse gasses.
In this particular timeframe, nothing else explains it as well. So, enter sapiens with a punch, except may of the species don't live up to the burden of carrying the "sapiens". In one line:
"WE, H.S. Species, definately changed the atmosphere"
As for water vapour, the permafrost, the poles (icecaps), you seem to be a little bit on the tracks and yet not.
What now is the permafrost used to be a bog. And god knows what before that. At the same time you had cold areas elsewhere. The poles have shifted, the planet does that. Where I live near the Arctic, there was a clster of Islands with tropical temperature, millions of years ago. Only 100.000 years ago it was swamped under thick glacier. I look at hills which unveil sea polished cliffs some hundreds of feet high. I dig down only 12 feet to find an old seashore bed. So, you aren't telling a big headline statement when it goes to our terra firma going through changes.
The scaryest "doomsday" part of swift global warming, is that with our load on the scale, we will enable such a swift warming that we will experience a unique timeframe of minimal caps, permafrost and forest with the maximum amount of greenhouse gasses, - first comes CO2, then the permafrost releases the Methane, which makes our business day around the world look like a pinsalamander in comparison, - everything warmes, untill the formentioned 70% blue mass of the planets surface starts hitting stunning figures (that means gulf of Mexico temps in the Arctic, and near Florida, oops), - we get anything between bad and worse, - bad being hundreds or thousands of years of mad climates, worse is the accelerating boiling point, the vicious circle where our water will enclose our globe with a greenhouse effect strong enough to make a Venus atmosphere.
The globe has seen some highline stuff, but with us at the accelerator there may be a new record in sight. So factors are CO2, Methane, forests, and pollution as human affected, rest is not up to us. It's about navigating the roller coaster not propelling it.
Then on to merry old Lazs. Always full of wisdom. Okay:
"ITS THE SUN STUPID..
The sun is warming up the planet... as humans.. we may have some small effect in speeding the warming that, as of yet, can't be measured. In any case... it is minute compared to the suns effects and.... no matter what we do..."
FYI, (May I call you more stupid), without greenhouse effect, the globe would be a snowball. It works that way. With enough effect, Mars would be cosy, and with less, Venus might too. The error margin from snowball to BBQ is actually quite ... minute. Same goes with the sun, and the earth's orbital distance etc. But we can only do what we can do and in your surrender park that sounds like:
"WE CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING."
And that's where you're absolutely wrong. We have already massively changed the terrain of the planet, and it's atmosphere. The changes that are human related in the last 200 years or so, are more than something like the rest we did from the beginning of mankind. but unlike that, what was happening 7000 years ago (okay, only 6000 years) could carry on with relatively little impact, while what we do now (the things that are easy and cheap) will never work as a whole on something as short as a 1000 years, even much much less.
So, we will be forced, one way or another to change our style.
And finally, John:
"angus is afraid his igloo is going to melt."
Maybe your tipi is going to go crusty and fall down? In my country we never lived in Igloos FYI. And we used the skins for writing books on, a thousand years ago.
(There are descriptions of landscapes and climates BTW)
-
Dont know if anyone mentioned this already or not.
But today on the radio I heard a guy talking about proof of global warming and he mentioned that
"10,000 years ago there was a glacier in my backyard.
Now its gone!!"
AHHH HA!!
:noid ;)
-
Angus, I see your concerns, but run some numbers through the science and the predictions and you'll see a lot of it doesn't make sense.
First - you see from your own experience that there were tropical islands near where you are up in the arctic, and that Siberia was once warm enough that what is now permafrost was once a bog. Run the numbers - how much of an increase in average global temperature is necessary to make Siberia a bog? How much warmer must this planet have been in the past for Siberia to be a bog? How much warmer for there to be tropical islands up near your latitude?
I wasn't trying to make a big headline statement, I was trying to get you to realize how much this planets climate has changed over the centuries when there was no possibility of human involvement in the process.
Second - you are right to doubt that the CO2 in the atmosphere we release today takes "2500 years" to tie down. Science on that is spotty at best, and again it is an example of statistics-based evidence. The CO2 I'm breathing out right now may be converted to O2 by my office plant in 20 minutes, or it may last 2,000,000 years. I'd also love to see the scientific process that determines the average age of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Somehow I doubt that there is a peer-reviewed replicable scientific experiment to determine the age of CO2.
While you are correct to be concerned about deforestation (especially in the rainforest) as possible loss of an important CO2 sink, you should know that the most important CO2 sink is the oceans themselves. CO2 dissolves in H20, and the plankton in the oceans takes care of more CO2 than the rainforest ever will (another reason to take care what we dump in the oceans folks). Also - I'm sure that the millions of acres of human planted crops going in around the world take care of quite a bit as well. If you've ever driven by a 12 mile cornfield in Nebraska, you'll see that we make a few good CO2 sinks ourselves.
Third - that 70% of the world covered by H20 is also a HEAT SINK. It acts as a moderator, along with the atmosphere itself to spread the energy we receive from the sun along in a survivable manner. You are only half right when you say that the world would be a snowball without the greenhouse effect - half of it would be a snowball, the other half would be a burned to a crisp.
Finally, I must disagree that "in this particular timeframe, nothing else explains is as well" - Lazs is right to point out the solar variation over the last 30 years. There has been a measured, verifiable increase in solar radiation over the last 30 years - on average a .05% increase per decade. Thats just what we know - what we don't know is how long (or even if) the increase was happening prior to the 1970s (when we put up the first satellites that could accurately measure it). To my mind, a 0.15% increase in solar radiation over 30 years explains quite a bit, especially when you run the numbers. FYI 0.20% of solar output is greater than all the combined energy man produces on this planet.
Yes, we need to take care of the planet in a responsible manner. I just don't consider that the "consensus science" behind global warming hysteria to be very convincing evidence that man is the ultimate, or even the primary cause of global climate change, or that the change itself is significant enough to be hysterical about in the first place.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Hey Eagle:
"Run the numbers - how much of an increase in average global temperature is necessary to make Siberia a bog?"
Actually you don't, if it occurs as has happened with the cap shifting.
As for the oceans being a heat sink, - YES! Since the mass is also much more than the one of our atmosphere, the changes measured there are massive, and big enough for the sea near the Northern cap to be able to consube the ice without cooling.
The sea is actually the big thing, and this is an absolute reality to those who work with it and live by it. A couple of weeks ago I was actually fishing at the arctic circle. There was no Ice, but now it's covered with small driftice due to western winds, - but there has been no proper ice for a long time now. Marine biologists were worried that this melting would knock out the Gulstream, but the newest word is that it will only reduce it a little, and atmospherical warming will more than make up that effect. So, the professionals who life of this have that shop talk, as with the farmers. Hardly any debate, for the things are already an accepted fact and being worked with on an every-day basis.
Planktum is also a big factor, and your worries about the chemical wastes in the sea are IMHO very very valid. Some things have been damaged beyond quick repair. I can mention mercury in the Baltic, - you don't eat fish liver from there, and fat-solluble components in the N-Atlantic, originating in American paper and bleaching industry, etc etc. (processing methods of cod liver oil had to be changed, there were too much poisoned materials than needed to be filtered out, which luckily could be done).
Anyway, planctum is a part of the chain, and that as a big chunk, and it does not always react well to heating. You'd be surprized how much there is in the cooler seas. Then there is good and "bad" planktum as well.
So, this made me stumble:
"I was trying to get you to realize how much this planets climate has changed over the centuries when there was no possibility of human involvement in the process"
IMHO, the headache is those who do NOT realize how much the planets climate has now changed because of human involvement, especially how FAST. In millions of years, and with hundreds of thousands of years of certain periods, the climate has been shifting around the planet, tropical and ice alike. But we're the ones causing the components in the atmosphere to change FASTER than known before, and rapidly approching records like CO2 peaks etc at absolute record speeds. And the best part is, (contrary to what Lazs claims) that it CAN be countered.
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Second - you are right to doubt that the CO2 in the atmosphere we release today takes "2500 years" to tie down. Science on that is spotty at best, and again it is an example of statistics-based evidence. The CO2 I'm breathing out right now may be converted to O2 by my office plant in 20 minutes, or it may last 2,000,000 years. I'd also love to see the scientific process that determines the average age of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Somehow I doubt that there is a peer-reviewed replicable scientific experiment to determine the age of CO2.
actually there is data for the rate of CO2 recycling and absorption by the oceans. In Nuclear experiments large quantities of carbon 14 is produced. Since its half-life time is about 5700 years, it is easy to track the increase of C14 over a few years and where it goes.
In the 60's and 70's quite a lot of nuclear testing was going on and there are measurements of C14. From what I've been tol by an expert on the subject, the standard numerical calculations over estimate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a factor of 2. In other words the rate of absoprtion/convertion of atmospheric CO2 is faster than predicted by the models. The typical time scale for a global scale fluctuation of CO2 levels to reach equilibrium is estimated 20 years.
As you said corretly, most of the CO2 is in the oceans. Even if humans burn all the oil in the world, after a few years the atmospheric CO2 level will only increase by 5-15% at equilibrium.
-
Originally posted by bozon
actually there is data for the rate of CO2 recycling and absorption by the oceans. In Nuclear experiments large quantities of carbon 14 is produced. Since its half-life time is about 5700 years, it is easy to track the increase of C14 over a few years and where it goes.
In the 60's and 70's quite a lot of nuclear testing was going on and there are measurements of C14. From what I've been tol by an expert on the subject, the standard numerical calculations over estimate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a factor of 2. In other words the rate of absoprtion/convertion of atmospheric CO2 is faster than predicted by the models. The typical time scale for a global scale fluctuation of CO2 levels to reach equilibrium is estimated 20 years.
As you said corretly, most of the CO2 is in the oceans. Even if humans burn all the oil in the world, after a few years the atmospheric CO2 level will only increase by 5-15% at equilibrium.
I didn't see anything about Carbon-14 in this paper, but here's a link to an interesting article on ocean CO2 absorbtion from Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck of Abo Akademi University in Finland.
Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming (http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm)
The basic conclusion is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot all be attributed to ocean temperature increase, but a good portion of it can. Its an older paper, but the chemical reactions and formulas he cites are some good info for those that want to "run the numbers".
EagleDNY
-
Uh oh... angus has trumped "significant" with the even more precise scientific term of "massive".
ITS THE SUN STUPID
if the sun keeps increasing in temperature we will all fry and the oceans will release more co2. If its activity slows or lessons we will go back to neutral or... it will get colder.
How do you propose we adjust the sun?
So far... no one has given me any reasons to send 10% of my pay to the EPA or the U.N. to save me.
Now, if these scientists figure out a way to regulate the sun... I might be in for a piece of that.
Angus, really... by now, if you have the brains gawd gave gophers... you got to be feeling just a little bit like a SUCKER and just a tad betrayed.
When I make up my bumper stickers I will send you one...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
if the sun keeps increasing in temperature we will all fry and the oceans will release more co2. If its activity slows or lessons we will go back to neutral or... it will get colder.
The sun's temperature is not increasing. What affects our climate is solar coronal activity that eject plasma (ionized gas) in various forms of solar wind. What this does is scatter high energy cosmic particles that does affect earth by ionizing the atmosphere and creating verious reactions. The net effect is less cosmic radiation reduce global temepratures.
The correlation is an opposite one - more solar coronal activity leads to cooler earth. Btw, we are now around solar minimum. One theory explains global temperatures by the change in high energy particle flux due to changes in galactic solar neiborhood density. This happens every time one of the galactic spiral arms pass the solar system. The galactic arms are density waves traveling around the galaxy.
-
so no matter what... it does boil down to....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
The ultimate "inconvienient truth".
Changes in sun activity are the cause of global cooling or warming.
lazs
-
Since you like so much using the word stupid, try to get this one...
If the sun is increasing it's activity (of which some is a blessing, caught by photosyntesis), greenhouse gases add to the equation, making things even more serious. So it should read, "Oh, s#1T, it's the bloody sun on top of it"
Anyway, that one categorizes as something we can't do anything around.
It's not just the sun "fill in a word equalling stupid"
-
by.... "ITS THE SUN STUPID"
I mean just that. The only real measurable effects on global warming is by the sun... it is heating us up at a measurable rate... a real number... Not "contributing" no "significant" or "massive" but a real number.
Now... you get back to me when you can give me some numbers on what we are producing, in what quantities that is contributing to global warming by... and this is most important... how much.
If we all left the planet today... how much would it change the global warming?
global cooling? I say... not even enough to think about compared to the sun.
It is like peeing in the ocean and you telling me I am "contributing" "significant" or "massive" to the ocean getting saltier.
Don't you feel like a sucker? seriously? If they know so much about it they will know when global warming will be a problem and... how much we could delay it by stopping all human activity.
They don't know diddly.... they didn't know anything about it in 76 and they don't know anything about it now... we didn't have the worst hurricane season in history... they made that up to fool the suckers...
They can't predict next years weather or next years sun activity... meanwhile... we are having record cold spells in the east.
lazs
-
Angus...waste management guys are experts on global warming and have every right to call you stupid.
Yes it is not a respectful way to respond to a fellow board member...but he's waste mangement.
Also, it has nothing to do with the fact that he simply sees the issue as a threat to his cars....he's waste management...he knows.
-
lazs2 what about providing the beginning of a proof of your assertion ?
-
Lazs assertion about the sun?
(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/images/solcon/eddy_strip.gif)
Inferred variations in solar intensity (red and green lines) over the last 900 years appear to be related to the severity of winters in London and Paris. The red line is deduced from the abundance of a heavy form of carbon (carbon-14) in tree rings. This "isotope" of carbon is formed in the upper atmosphere when incoming cosmic rays smash into carbon dioxide molecules. When the Sun's activity is low, its weakened magnetic field lets more cosmic rays into the solar system, so carbon-14 abundances go up. (Notice on the graph that the scale for carbon-14 is upside down.) This image by scientist John Eddy is based on an earlier one that appeared in Science, 192, 1189 (1976).
-
Scientists offered 10 000 $ to dispute climate study (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html)
-
From the above linked article:
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.
-
the north east is setting record low temps, global warming is hell.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above linked article:
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While true, I would have just called it another "pot meets kettle" moment.
How does Greenpeace make its money? How do they spend their money? All the scientists supporting man-made global warming theories get their money from where?
So, lets see if an analogy will help. A plaintiff hires a lawyer to sue someone. The defendant in return hires a defense attorney.
During the trial the defense attorney makes a logical argument in support of his client's innocence. In return, the plaintiff's lawyer says, "Yeah, well, you can't believe anything he says. After all, the defendant is paying him."
:huh So, we should believe the plaintiff's lawyer why? :huh
-
I don't belive in the report about "major human factor" in Global Warming
But after i read the link above, looks like modern "Catholic Inquisition" tactics;
You know the rumors about new sources of energy , discovered years ago, but scientist were "silenced" or paied by goverments and oil companies to shut up: Maybe is true,:(
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Lazs assertion about the sun?
(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/images/solcon/eddy_strip.gif)
Sorry but you're not Lazs , I did ask lazs not you.
Plus I'm curious to see how a document ending in 1900 can discard the human intervention in warming .
Especially when knowing the major increase of the C0² production is post 1900.
That's dishonest Holden.
-
A little addition on the graph.
The winter severity in London and Paris as well as cooler summers and bad crops) at the end of the18th century has been linked with a massive 3-year volcanic eruption in Iceland 1783-1786, - the biggest eruption on the globe for thousands of years. Recent surveys actually indicate that the effect was causing serious trouble all the way down to Egypt.
Yes, the volcanoes cause dimming, which causes cooling.
Apart from that, I'm also curious to see how a document ending in 1900 can discard the human intervention in warming......
-
This is hilarious... Now you are telling us that the saintly "scientific community" is nothing but a bunch of potatos who will give anyone with the money any conclusion that is wanted?
That is exactly what I was saying. Did you read the letters cited? Scientists are being denied money for not jumping on the "man made global warming" band wagon... they risk their careers by not going along with the chicken littles..
But... so what? I don't care who paid em... let's look at what they got. The global warming socialists scientists had their say... they blew it with their nebulous hand wringing and lack of hard data.. Why are so many afraid of data? If it is wrong attack the data not the scientist or the people who paid em. Hell.. 10k is a drop in the bucket compared to what the UN has invested in the study they bought and the scientists they paid for.
Now... other scientists... funded by people with a stake in not letting the hand wringers control the whole show... well... they come up with their own data and conclusions that shows in a much more sensible way that the hand wringers are making way too much of nothing. that.....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
Now... I am sorry that some of you feel that I am calling you out as being stupid... that was not my intent... the comment.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
is a bumper sticker one.. a soundbite... like an al gore movie... but with substance... if you are offended... then you are simply starting to feel the burn of being a
SUCKER.
I see no proof that we are changing global warming in any way that matters... not the lack of scientific terms here.... "significant" "massive" "contributing" so.... "matters" fits right in. It has just as much meaning and is just as true.. Man doesn't contribute enough to "matter"
But... no one answered... when is doomsday if we don't do anything and.... how many minutes can we delay doomsday if we all just slit our throats today?
Seem like simple questions to me. Where are the answers?
-
Quick! Let's fire off a volcano and save the world!
-
Ya know... that makes more sense than some of the other hand wringing panic driven suggestions.
If you spill a cup of gasoline while filling the lawn mower... you put more pollution in the air than $2000 additional smog controls on already clean cars will save in a year... in fact... the nozzles at the gas stations that the handwringers mandated us to use in a big panic rash of legislation... they put more pollution into the air than the old ones.
The MTBE they paniced into our gas is killing the water supply... It is costing vast fortunes to get rid of now.
Maybe as "waste management" I might know a little about "remediation" of MTBE sites... you can all look it up if you don't believe me... it costs up to a million dollars a site. People have lost their life savings and after they are bled dry... the taxpayer takes up the slack...
The history of the panic mongers doing the wrong thing and making things worse is all around us.... the history of them never ever never ever being right about global climate doom and gloom is right there in front of you
SUCKERS
After a few decades of this in my short but interesting life... I gotta tell ya.... Saying "I told you so" is little compensation for all the harm these doom and gloom scientists do.
I want to hear both sides if there are two (or more) sides to it. I don't care who is paying who so long as the data is solid.
Why are the hand wringers so afraid of data? They admit that it hurts their cause... it only "hurts" their cause if their case is weak..
I contend that it is not only weak but.... too weak to even worry about at this point.
What would be the gain of only allowing one side of the arguement? How "scientific" is that?
lazs
-
Can anyone decipher for me lazs2 incoherent babble ?
-
That is a load of horse pucky Lazs and I think you know it. The environmental movement that started in the 70's probably saved millions of lives and definitely improved the environment in California. There is no question the benefits have outweighed the "mistakes" you are so happy to point out.
-
Its widely accepted everywhere in the world except USA and China that
Global Warming is largely due to excessive burning of hydrocarbons which produces carbon dioxide (Greenhouse gas). Also I'm told that the farting of live-stock is a big factor as well.
Ask yourself who is the biggest producer of greenhouse gas?
Also who will be the biggest producer in a few years time?
If you said USA and China you were right.
Mr Bush is an oil man and a rancher. Hmmmmm!
C'mon America wake up guys!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That is a load of horse pucky Lazs and I think you know it. The environmental movement that started in the 70's probably saved millions of lives and definitely improved the environment in California. There is no question the benefits have outweighed the "mistakes" you are so happy to point out.
Not quite. DDT was banned because of environmentalist pressure groups, even in the face of research that showed the concerns were unfounded.
It's extremely effective at fighting Malaria, and it's estimated that 2.7 million per year die from Malaria... mostly kids under the age of 5.
Pretty big mistake if you ask me... but I guess that's okay since Cali has improved...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That is a load of horse pucky Lazs and I think you know it. The environmental movement that started in the 70's probably saved millions of lives and definitely improved the environment in California. There is no question the benefits have outweighed the "mistakes" you are so happy to point out.
In the beginning it was. Now it's no more than anti-capitalist political movement.
On top of a way for the so called "experts" to wring out more tax payer $ for funding .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Toad
Quick! Let's fire off a volcano and save the world!
damm toad, you beat me to it, but we need a UN study to see just how many volcanoes they need to blow up to save the world.
if they get the computer model wrong it could start a new ice age.
save the polar bear
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sorry but you're not Lazs , I did ask lazs not you.
Plus I'm curious to see how a document ending in 1900 can discard the human intervention in warming .
Especially when knowing the major increase of the C0² production is post 1900.
That's dishonest Holden.
Geeze.... sorry that my etiquette was not to your standards.
Nothing dishonest about it, it was the first thing that I found in a Google search that related.
I thought you would like some information that related climate to the sun, but I guess I was mistaken. The fact that the graph shows climate variation due to the sun's activity without human intervention is, I think, significant. As a matter of fact, it is the crux of the issue.
That you cannot see that there is some significance to the post is not dishonest, it's ignorant straffo.
-
Originally posted by Spiritin
Its widely accepted everywhere in the world ...
Well...there you have it, proof positive. Of course there was a time it was widely accepted everywhere in the world that the world was flat, that seamonsters ruled the sea, and that the Earth rode on the back of a giant tortoise.
-
Holden you were backing this (among other things)
Originally posted by lazs2
I mean just that. The only real measurable effects on global warming is by the sun... it is heating us up at a measurable rate... a real number... Not "contributing" no "significant" or "massive" but a real number.
and if it was not what you wanted to do,next time be more careful.
-
Global Warming happens every morning when the sun rises, and Global Cooling starts every night when the sun sets.
-
Globally speaking, the sun is always shining on the Earth.
-
mt... are you referring to the NOX devices and the original smog devices that were on 70's vehicles? They were laughable and hurt not only the economy but they increased smog for the most part... most of em made cars run so much worse the the level of pollutants was increased.
The auto industry was almost destroyed by mandates the there was no technolodgy for.
no real advances could be made until computer controlled fuel injection was made available... for almost 10 years the environmentalists made not only life, but the environment worse. the only possible good item that happened were catalytic converters and they might be banned under new co2 weirdness.
If you want to thank anyone for the cleaner air you breath then thank the engineers that finally shrank down a computer in size and cost to put in your car and run the fuel injection and other systems. Sheesh... the environentalists were mandating it when we nasa didn't even have it.
you got a short memory if you don't recall the 12mpg tiny V8's that were weazing out 100 hp or so and would run for 5 minutes after you shut em off.
Mtbe is just a more recent manifestation of bad, panic driven legislation... Are you saying that poisoning the water supply is no big deal? The economic ruin caused by using it is no big deal?
Good ideas evolve naturally.. bad ideas need to be rushed into law by doomsday scenarios...
lazs
-
I guess that another question that needs answering would be...
If we don't do anything and we have even on year... say next year... where the average global temperature either stayed the same or decreased....
Would that mean that the global warming alarmists and doomsday chicken littles are wrong? I mean... why would it happen if we are "contributing" "significant" and "massive" amounts....???
If we are the biggest factor in what the temperature of the globe is and the models are correct... it would be impossible for the trend to reverse or even slow on it's own.
It would seem that if this happened that we should then assume that we are on the verge of an ice age and that we had better start work on ice age prevention measures correct?
get it into your heads people...
These guys you are being suckered by can't even tell you what the temperature next year will be or even if we will have more or less hurricanes.... these are the guys you want to tell you about how much effect man is having on the global climate?
How do you guys make such a leap of faith?
lazs
-
Originally posted by straffo
Holden you were backing this (among other things)
and if it was not what you wanted to do,next time be more careful.
Straffo,
Several sources I have seen say the sun is the most intense it has been in 1500 years, and is a contributor to our recent temperature trend. Solar output was a significant factor in the little ice age. Human induced co2 is not the whole answer: the IPCC's polcymaker summary says that many uncertainties exist due to the [paraphrase] signal just barely coming out of the statistical background noise, [/paraphrase]
I posted information that might add to the discussion.
Perhaps before you call someone a liar, you should be more careful.
-
I didn't wrote you were a liar ,I wrote your post was dishonest.
-
So posting dishonestly does not equal liar. oookaaay
I'd like to see your dictionary someday.
-
I've done it before posting and guess what ,the meaning in English is exactly the meaning in French.
I don't see how something lacking fairness can be considered as a lie,except if it was your prime intent.
-
dis·hon·est
–adjective 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: a dishonest person.
2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent: a dishonest advertisement.
Perhaps you should invest in a new dictionary...
-
Zheeezzz. Lazs:
"Scientists are being denied money for not jumping on the "man made global warming" band wagon"
Really? Well, maybe it's cos they are being offered money by fossil-fuel related companies for debating, - something I recall you seeing nothing wrong with.
As for the dictionary, you do not have to tell a direct lie to be dishonest, but as for Holden's graph, I want to belive he didn't see the year 1900 at it's end. (It actually slipped my eyes when I glanced the first time over the reply)
And for volcanoes, they categorize as something that is not in our power to affect. But greenhouse gas emissions are, - and most of those emitted are in very little efficiency. And for some odd reasons, that varies a lot between countries, without directly affecting people's lives....
Finally, DDT, - quick answer.
Use enough of it, and not only is the end effect unforseable, - just safely bad. And,,,,there is no UNDO button on that one. From the short lived useage, every human on the planet has some DDT in the body. Some fatties that go on a proper diet may have some problems with it being released (from the fat) into the circulation, but it only came that far, thank the hippies and libs.
We also didn't use enough to screw up the world of insects, which is a nasty pain in the butt when it goes of the norm.
(BTW, I know DDT a bit, from using it on sheep louse years ago....)
-
Angus,
I didn't notice that the end date was 1900, but as I see it the value of the graph is that it shows the natural variablity of the climate due to the sun, independant of whatever man is doing to the environment.
-
You do not have any sensible measurement's in the sun's emission in that period. Just the swings on the receiving end, which include very swift factors such as massive exhaust of soot like those emitted 1783-1786.
So, take the claims regarding the graph with a grain of salt, that's all.
-
BTW, you have higher swings than that in historic times, such as around 1000.
-
So... you discredit the solar argument using the very same arguments CO2 deniers use to discredit the CO2 argument.
Okay, if that makes sense to you...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
dis·hon·est
–adjective 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: a dishonest person.
2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent: a dishonest advertisement.
Perhaps you should invest in a new dictionary...
My dictionary is fine , so is your.
You can beat that dead horse but without me.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So... you discredit the solar argument using the very same arguments CO2 deniers use to discredit the CO2 argument.
Okay, if that makes sense to you...
On that graph, YES.
Because it's old times with no measurements, while we DO know about the dimming effect. For what it's worth, the cooling effect in the late 18th century could have happened with a more active sun.
But of course I do not deny that a more active sun will cause heating, and even more so with a more solid greenhouse effect. On a sunny day your greenhouse is warmer, if there are no windows open it is also warmer, if you put some shade over it it cools etc. Add sunny day, and all shutters closed, and you might kill your flowers. While if you have plenty of sun, little temperature and no window it would be to cold.
So, in short, if we are to expect a rise in solar heating, the greenhouseffect is a bigger worry than before!
-
So, in short, if we are to expect a rise in solar heating, the greenhouse effect is a bigger worry than before!
This is where linear logic can go wrong. Unlike your greenhouse, the earth has more effects that cause negative or positive feedback. For example, if you raise temperatures, you evaporate water which contribute to greenhouse effect - positive feedback. On the other hand, you form more clouds that increase the earth albido hence reduce heating - negative feedback. But this may interact with other processes that encourage or discourage the formation of clouds. For example, the amount of light particles that act as condensation nuclei in the clouds.
The bottom line is that we don't really know how to calculate all that. So we feed this into numerical codes and press ENTER. Some result comes out, but since we are not sure about the fundamental precesses and whether we included everything important, we have no confidence in the result. The truth is we do not even know for sure the sign of human contribution to global heating - negative or positive. The most likely result tends to be slightly positive, but the error bars are big enough to accommodate even some low negative values.
Btw, a lot of the scientist that claim against human causes for warming, agree that we should reduce the burning of fossil fuels - for plenty of other reasons. I don't think those guys are funded by the oil companies. I know a couple of them and where they get their research grants from. It's not the oils industry.
-
I think it is obvious by the data and the letters from scientists about the UN use of their data and by the use of totally nebulous terms like "significant" and "contributing" and now... "massive" with... NO DATA other than flawed models that can be made to show a result that is opposite of the one they do just as eaisily....
With all that, it is obvious that it is the "man made global warming" community that is being "dishonest"
And I mean that in the American way.... not the french one.
So where are my answers of chicken littles of the globe?
When will we reach the tipping point? will this year be hotter than last? Will we have more or less hurricanes?
When does the doomsday clock run down to zero and.... if we all slit our throats today... how many minutes could we add to it?
People... people with something at stake ... will want to know the answers to these questions... despite the brit scientists call to shut up any debate...
There will be debate and you chicken littles better have a lot better stuff to show us than the crap so far.
Face it... the guys you are listening to with their flawed models can't predict the globes climate 100 years from now... they can't predict it for 10 years from now... not even really for next week... They can't predict the hurricanes or anything..
I can predict one thing... No matter what the weather does... colder hotter whatever... it will be a "crisis" of "global" proportions and it will be "man made" so far as these liars are concerned. And... I predict that they will want the countries who haven't been decimated by socialism to pay for it.
lazs
-
MAN..........you mean I`ve been missing all of this????????
I got to stop woooo....weeerrrrkkk.......wu uuuuuuu...........working (tough word for me to get out :) ) so hard.
ROFL
This just in......................
I personaly experienced global warming last night while having a few cool ones and sitting on a lit cig in the ash tray.
BAN GOBAL WARMING!!!!!
:)
-
welcome back jackal... It is comedy gold here if it weren't for the fact that these guys want to "do something" and do it right now... doesn't matter what or how much it costs or even if it will help or matter... only that someone do something to sooth their jangled nerves...
It is like watching a herd of cattle just as a storm comes in... waiting for the stampede.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
welcome back jackal... It is comedy gold here if it weren't for the fact that these guys want to "do something" and do it right now... doesn't matter what or how much it costs or even if it will help or matter... only that someone do something to sooth their jangled nerves...
It is like watching a herd of cattle just as a storm comes in... waiting for the stampede.
lazs
AmooZing to say the least. :)
-
Yeah when the global climate change scare mongers can accurately predict weather just one week away, I might start worrying about their predictions for the next decade. :lol
-
Welcome to the fray with great and logical inputs like
"woooo....weeerrrrkkk.......wu uuuuuuu"
:D
-
I can't wait until I can blame Pelosi for global warming.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I can't wait until I can blame Pelosi for global warming.
Go ahead. No need to wait.
-
for the first time in a decade the coast guard has closed the rivers in Pittsburgh because of ice, one river has 4 to 8 inches of ice.
and now back global warming.
-
local <> global
-
so straffo... if the GLOBAL temp stayed the same or got a little less this year or next... and we continued to do whatever it is you think we are doing to warm up the planet as humans....
Then you would admit that we are not having any effect worth worrying about?
lazs
-
Sure if the trend is not present any more I will say go ahead.
But else ?
What should we do ?
Wait another year and another and another until it's too late ?
There is an old adage in France saying : "little stream make big rivers"
Making a little effort is not very costly and can be started today if we discover it was not necessary it won't matter as doing this little effort we are rewarded by some saving.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sure if the trend is not present any more I will say go ahead.
But else ?
What should we do ?
Wait another year and another and another until it's too late ?
There is an old adage in France saying : "little stream make big rivers"
Making a little effort is not very costly and can be started today if we discover it was not necessary it won't matter as doing this little effort we are rewarded by some saving.
Kyoto is not what I'd call a little cost. It's economic impact is world-wide and long-term.
-
what little effort thats not very costly that can be started today?
old indian saying "white man use many words but say little".
-
I'm afraid that this pittsburg river will amount very little compaing to the vast ice melted in the arctic, - and while at it, not cooling the ocean.
-
mmmm Kyoto. Nothing like spending $300 billion to potentially save 0.003 degrees by 2050.
-
angus, straffo says the arctic ice melt is only local.
-
Arctic + Arctic = very big local.
All the rivers in all of N- America are but a wee pee compare to the mass of the arctic areas.
And, I do not see this local claim from Straffo.
-
Has earth first put a church for your religion up on your island yet Angus? You would make a great preacher!
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Kyoto is not what I'd call a little cost. It's economic impact is world-wide and long-term.
I'm not speaking of Kyoto I'm speaking of what you as an individual can do.
john9001 what about using your feet instead of your car ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'm not speaking of Kyoto I'm speaking of what you as an individual can do.
john9001 what about using your feet instead of your car ?
i only put 2000 miles a year on my car. and i get 30mpg. the rest of the time i ride one of my bicycles.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Has earth first put a church for your religion up on your island yet Angus? You would make a great preacher!
I call it sense of realism, not religion.
Some guys here would be great as colourblind, trying to deny the existence of colours....
-
Originally posted by Angus
I call it sense of realism, not religion.
Some guys here would be great as colourblind, trying to deny the existence of colours....
Globalwarmingists are exactly like a religion but without the hope.
Earth = God
Belief in global warming without proof = Faith
Global warming "models" = Theology
Global warming "deniers" = Blasphemers and heretics
Belief that meterologiest that "deny" should have their creditials taken away and be fired from their jobs, and banned from speaking = Excommunication
Belief that "deniers" should be shot = Burning at the stake
Oil companies = Satan
Belief that "deniers" are simply mouthpieces of the evil oil industry = Satan's pawns
A large number of hurricanes in one year = A miracle which validates your faith
Almost no hurricanes the next year = God doesn't have to prove his existance, it's a matter of faith
Belief that man's technology is the root of all evil = Taking a bite from the forbidden fruit of knowledge
Belief that the only path to salvation is through poverty = Vows of poverty
The only significant difference is that Global Warmingist's believe that once you're dead you're dead. People of reliegion believe in the hope of afterlife.
There's one other difference when you think about it. Notice none of these Globalwarmingists have taken a vow of silence?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i only put 2000 miles a year on my car. and i get 30mpg. the rest of the time i ride one of my bicycles.
That's good and you do a lot more than a lot of people !
-
OK.....since I`m back in the mix for a while, I will enlighten you with my vast knowledge of the universe.
There are billuuuuns and billuuuns of stars..........no wait....that`s Sagan`s line.
OK, there are two main factors that are the root problem and the main causes of global warming.
#1 The use of the name "Angus" and not raising certified Angus beef has angered the bovine Gods. They are seeking revenge for this blasphemous act.
#2 Angus is trying to raise cattle in a land of ice instead of the fricken huuuuuuuge state of Texas as intnended. This has angered the keeper of the key to Lonestar, a very,very powerful entity that even bovine Gods quake in the presence of. (This ain`t good hoss. :)) The keeper has waved his magical wand, a Nocona boot filled with entity type, magical, flake stuff and deemed that Angus`s L`il Dawgies will spew forth mass quantities of methane laden cow farts until he sees the error of his ways........or until Mickey Dees start cooking lamb burgers.
There you have it. The straight skinny. Now go forth and correct these two things and all will be well.
-
straffo... thank you for being honest. If you see the trend stay or reverse you will admit that the scientists lied about man made global warming or at least...how much it does affect the earth.
They are right now predicting that... even with mans "contribution" that temperature will rise one degree in a century... they can't predict next years weather but... there you have it...
I say that it may be one degree hotter in a century... it will probly be 2 degrees cooler one year before that or ten tho and in two centuries it will be just as it is today.
if there is something easy you can do to ease man made pollution then, as a moral person, you should do it. driving is very subjective tho... a person in a country unlike the US for instance has a different life... You couldn't take a frenchy here and tell him his house is here and his job is 30-100 miles away and expect him to walk or bike to work every day for instance.
I walk a lot to the store and such but I do it for the pleasure and the exercise. I feel not the faintest bit of guilt when I do a 100' burnout in my 12 mpg hot rods all pumped up on octane booster tho... I am willing to pay for that.. it is a drop in the bucket compared to the democrat and environmentalist whackjobs burning tons of jet fuel to fly around and meet.
I don't do air travel much.. it sucks for me. Does that mean I can brand every person who travels for pleasure or BS political purposes as an anti environmentalist?
lazs
-
Finally you and me are in complete agreement :
if there is something easy you can do to ease man made pollution then, as a moral person, you should do it
I've 70 miles to do twice a day to go to work but living in a country where the public transportation is not too bad (there is still a lot of room for improvement) I use less energy than someone using a car...
But I'll be more than happy to to less (let say 5/10 miles) with a bike.
But still distance is not always the key factor around Paris I know people who daily have 2 hour commute time for less than 15km !
That's pure non sense !
In fact don't (and won't) judge you as I've no idea of how you behave (I've been proven wrong so many time I prefer not to make a mistake again :D)
I would buy a old American muscle car (I've the money to buy one or two) not as a daily ride obviously if it wasn't so unreasonable where I live.
-
Lol, funny:
"#2 Angus is trying to raise cattle in a land of ice instead of the fricken huuuuuuuge state of Texas as intnended."
Angus comes from Scotland and is excellent at adapting to cool climate and rough pasture, typically grasslands. But the Texan's way of doing beef big and cheap is by first growing corn, then feeding in feed lot.
If I was a cow, I'd pick some other place. :D
(BTW, feeding cattle intensively on starch makes their farts worse for the globe) :D:D
-
todays news,.....upper new york state has six FEET of snow on the ground and expect 2 more feet, at one point the snow was falling at the rate of 5 inches per hour. NY officials blame global warming, bush and big oil.
now back to your regular scheduled program.
-
angus,
I thought icelanders utilized bovine flatulence as a fuel for heating water and generating electricity.
-
straffo... it would depend on the health of the individual and the weather and a lot of other factors as to how he will commute.
My point is that everyone is willing to limit the actions of others so long as their personal ox is not being gored..
Everyone is willing to have the US pay for whatever nutjob science comes out "just in case"... after all... it costs them nothing and it feeeeeeeeels so right.
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
todays news,.....upper new york state has six FEET of snow on the ground and expect 2 more feet, at one point the snow was falling at the rate of 5 inches per hour. NY officials blame global warming, bush and big oil.
now back to your regular scheduled program.
It's but a pinsalamander from the ancient Ice disappearing from the Polar area, that counting the wintertime.
Oh, I predict that your snow will be gone in the spring.
I also should have predicted that if it had been severe frosts instead, you would have posted anyway.
And, as for Storch, he's teasing. He knows we use mostly hydro powered electrics and thermal water sources for heating.
Sadly, those are not available to but few of the world in the generous way we get them.
And Wisely, - if oil was cheaper, we wouldn't use those sources......
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lol, funny:
"#2 Angus is trying to raise cattle in a land of ice instead of the fricken huuuuuuuge state of Texas as intnended."
Angus comes from Scotland and is excellent at adapting to cool climate and rough pasture, typically grasslands. But the Texan's way of doing beef big and cheap is by first growing corn, then feeding in feed lot.
If I was a cow, I'd pick some other place. :D
(BTW, feeding cattle intensively on starch makes their farts worse for the globe) :D:D
My grandfather raised Angus cattle and in later years experimented with Brangus (Angus and Brahman hybrid) all grass fed, the whole 200+ head of them
-
Brangus is an awesome cross for hotter climate.
-
Originally posted by john9001
todays news,.....upper new york state has six FEET of snow on the ground and expect 2 more feet, at one point the snow was falling at the rate of 5 inches per hour. NY officials blame global warming, bush and big oil.
now back to your regular scheduled program.
The waters of the lakes are staying warmer through winter. The warmer the water the more fuel for lake effect snow. Usually by mid January the waters have cooled and the lake effect is, well, less effective. The bigger the difference between the temp of the water and the temp of the air, the greater the rate of evaporation and the greater the rate of snowfall.
What is happening actually makes a statement for warming, not against it.
-
It's not just happening near water.. we are having a relatively cold winter... we had a very mild summer...
They can't predict next years weather.. I wouldn't get too excieted about what they tell us will happen in 100 years.
lazs
-
The Jet Stream has dipped far to the south, almost to the Gulf of Mexico. Cold fronts are riding it like a conveyor belt. For a solid month we've had one winter blast right after another; getting a fresh one about every four or five days.
Last summer was supposed to be a record year for hurricanes....it didn't happen.
This winter was supposed to be very mild....that isn't happening either. Record cold and record snowfalls in places as diverse as southern California, Colorado, and New York.
Weather and climate prediction is NOT an exact science, regardless of what climatologists and scientists say to the contrary.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
This winter was supposed to be very mild....that isn't happening
That would be here in the east. Didn't get cold til almost February and less than 2 inches of snow. This year the action is in the west. It seems to work that way, if it's active in the west, it's quiet in the east and vice versa.
I love snow, and the lack of has made it one depressing winter. But there is still time for a massive nor'easter:D
-
"How high is the sno-ow son...
eight feet high and a-risin'..."
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lol, funny:
"#2 Angus is trying to raise cattle in a land of ice instead of the fricken huuuuuuuge state of Texas as intnended."
Angus comes from Scotland and is excellent at adapting to cool climate and rough pasture, typically grasslands. But the Texan's way of doing beef big and cheap is by first growing corn, then feeding in feed lot.
If I was a cow, I'd pick some other place. :D
(BTW, feeding cattle intensively on starch makes their farts worse for the globe) :D:D
Hehe.
Feedlots in Texas are not what they used to be. There are still some, mostly in west Texas, but nowhere near the numbers they used to be. None in my area. The last feedlot around here closed some years ago. Most beef cattle operations here of any size , that "feed out" steers, do so on winter wheat grazing, then ship out in late spring.
A lot of the cattle to be fed out from here comercialy are shipped to Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, etc. , etc., where the big commercial beef companies have their feedlot operations and buyers.
In other words, we distribute our global warming cow farts across the nation so that the stars shine bright deep in the heart of Texas. :)
-
So are you basically saying that you have decreased the consumption of crops (corn mostly) for cattle?
A fart is not just a fart, - some stink more, and some are wetter :D
-
and all cause "significant" global warming.
Herd a scientist on the radio yesterday explaining that no real scientist believed that second hand smoke was worse than first hand but that sometimes... when it is really important... when the cause is really important... you have to lie to people... if they are not scared they won't do anything.
I thought of angus.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and all cause "significant" global warming.
Herd a scientist on the radio yesterday explaining that no real scientist believed that second hand smoke was worse than first hand but that sometimes... when it is really important... when the cause is really important... you have to lie to people... if they are not scared they won't do anything.
I thought of angus.
lazs
That's the patronizing arrogance of true believers you're talking about Laz and it's all too typical of a host of liberal causes. Treating others as children is precisely the thing that makes them so distastful. The typical excuse that "they're doing it for the children" is really a metaphore for them "doing it for the less intelligent cattle that are the citizenry". Happens sometimes on the right also, there are plenty of doom and gloomers making a living off of fear on that side too, it just seems to be more part of religion on the right....oh, wait, globalwarmingism IS a religion.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So are you basically saying that you have decreased the consumption of crops (corn mostly) for cattle?
A fart is not just a fart, - some stink more, and some are wetter :D
and some heat water up far better
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The Jet Stream has dipped far to the south, almost to the Gulf of Mexico. Cold fronts are riding it like a conveyor belt. For a solid month we've had one winter blast right after another; getting a fresh one about every four or five days.
Last summer was supposed to be a record year for hurricanes....it didn't happen.
This winter was supposed to be very mild....that isn't happening either. Record cold and record snowfalls in places as diverse as southern California, Colorado, and New York.
Weather and climate prediction is NOT an exact science, regardless of what climatologists and scientists say to the contrary.
If you don't mind, please link a quote where scientists claim weather and climate prediction is an EXACT science. I'll be very interested to read it.
I think many people have simply disengaged their brains on this issue.
-
What? You got to have a LINK for everything and every statement?
Can't you just infer that their statements indicate that they believe they have most if not all of the answers?
The climatologists that support the theory that global warming is due mainly to human influences routinely snub their noses at any scientists that say otherwise.
No arguments or proofs to the contrary can sway them. Indeed, contradictory evidence is often dismissed out of hand without being given serious study.
Can they not, at the very least, study the evidence that the giant nuclear candle affixed so prominently in our sky and currently burning hotter than it has in centuries actually MIGHT be influencing global warming.
No....they can't...because there's no MONEY in it....or influence to be garnered....and nothing that can be done about it.
It is entirely possible that the laws and restrictions being pushed by climatologists and their supporters are being pushed on the public because global warming is a convenient tool for achieving environmental goals that are otherwise unattainable and unpopular.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It is entirely possible that the laws and restrictions being pushed by climatologists and their supporters are being pushed on the public because global warming is a convenient tool for achieving environmental goals that are otherwise unattainable and unpopular.
I'd add "unnecessary" to unattainable and unpopular.
-
Originally posted by oboe
If you don't mind, please link a quote where scientists claim weather and climate prediction is an EXACT science. I'll be very interested to read it.
I think many people have simply disengaged their brains on this issue.
There are plenty that show that while they claim it's not "exact" that they consistently neglect to refer to their theories as theories. They consistently conflate local weather with global climate. They consistently ignore that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age. They consistently ignore that the current warming is totally consistent in both time and intensity as previous global warming. They claim a large number of hurricanes is positive proof of global warming one year and then totally ignore the near abscence of hurricanes the next year. They claim that melting ice in a small percentage of Antarctica is proof positive of global warming yet ignore the fact that the rest of the continent has experienced far above average snowfall and increasing ice pack. Are you saying you've never seen or heard these outlandish claims? Based on this we're supposed to completely rewicker the way the world's economy runs? Talk about "disengaged brains" indeed.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So are you basically saying that you have decreased the consumption of crops (corn mostly) for cattle?
A fart is not just a fart, - some stink more, and some are wetter :D
No.....I am saying that we decreased the number of feedlots. :)
Also opinions are like.......... uhhhhhh nevermind.:rofl
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
There are plenty that show that while they claim it's not "exact" that they consistently neglect to refer to their theories as theories. They consistently conflate local weather with global climate. They consistently ignore that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age. They consistently ignore that the current warming is totally consistent in both time and intensity as previous global warming. They claim a large number of hurricanes is positive proof of global warming one year and then totally ignore the near abscence of hurricanes the next year. They claim that melting ice in a small percentage of Antarctica is proof positive of global warming yet ignore the fact that the rest of the continent has experienced far above average snowfall and increasing ice pack. Are you saying you've never seen or heard these outlandish claims? Based on this we're supposed to completely rewicker the way the world's economy runs? Talk about "disengaged brains" indeed.
Find me a link where a credible scientist states that says a large number of hurricanes is proof positive of global warming. You can't do it. Because no credible scientist has made such a claim.
I'm not talking here about the pros and cons of the global warming debate as much as I am of the cheap way you guys put easily discreditable words into your opposition's mouths so you can make your claims seem reasonable and theirs ridiculous. It's a practice beneath dignified discussion and argument but it happens here quite often. The conclusion I draw is that you guys do not believe your case can stand on its own merits, so you resort to trickery and deception to make your point.
-
yeah guys, lets have a dignified discussion :lol
-
:O :rofl
-
Originally posted by oboe
Find me a link where a credible scientist states that says a large number of hurricanes is proof positive of global warming. You can't do it. Because no credible scientist has made such a claim.
I'm not talking here about the pros and cons of the global warming debate as much as I am of the cheap way you guys put easily discreditable words into your opposition's mouths so you can make your claims seem reasonable and theirs ridiculous. It's a practice beneath dignified discussion and argument but it happens here quite often. The conclusion I draw is that you guys do not believe your case can stand on its own merits, so you resort to trickery and deception to make your point.
Cheap? All you have to do is turn on the TV or read the news and you receive a constant stream of globalwarming claptrap with absolutely no shortage of "experts" proclaiming the coming end of civilization as we know it. I did not mention specific "scientists" that make specific claims, I'm talking about the constant drumbeat of propaganda.
You evidently do not know it but the argument about global warming and man's role in it is a political, not scientific one, and it is at it's very heart dishonest because it's dressed up as scientific fact. It's not whether or not an "expert" is credible it's whether or not those with essentially political agendas present him that way. The words that you hear on a daily basis are the ones being used to sway public opinion and are dressed as scientific fact, you cannot dispute this.
Maybe you should consider that if their claims seem ridiculous it may very well be because they are. Pointing out the countervailing evidence and lack of credibility in the globalwarmist position is hardly trickery, it is merely pointing out the deceipt in portraying what is AT BEST a THEORY as fact and that, my friend, is my point.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Maybe you should consider that if their claims seem ridiculous...
There you go again. You've already twisted my words. I never said anyone's actual claims were ridiculous. I suggested YOU manufacture ridiculous claims (for example, that a severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming) and attribute them to your opposition in order to make your claims reasonable and believeable by comparison. In truth, no such claim was ever made by a credible scientst. And that is why you cannot find a link to one.
You know, maybe it is not deceit on your part. It could be that your mind works in such a way that when a scientist says something along the lines of, "We think a severe hurricane season is consistent with our climate model of global warming...", you hear a scientist saying, "A severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming."
I don't know why that would be, but I'll reiterate my contention that you will not be able to find a single link to any credible study that makes the claims you say scientists are making. And if that's the case, who is the one actually spreading the propaganda?
Maybe we could start by agreeing that global warming is indeed a fact, and that any theory in question deals with whether or not man's activities are a significant driver of the effect?
Just to be clear, I am not beside myself with fear about global warming. Whatever happens will happen, and it probably won't affect me in my lifetime. I am not 100% convinced man is responsible for this episode of warming. I'm taking my time in following the debate and reaching my conclusions.
-
Originally posted by oboe
There you go again. You've already twisted my words. I never said anyone's actual claims were ridiculous. I suggested YOU manufacture ridiculous claims (for example, that a severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming) and attribute them to your opposition in order to make your claims reasonable and believeable by comparison. In truth, no such claim was ever made by a credible scientst. And that is why you cannot find a link to one.
You know, maybe it is not deceit on your part. It could be that your mind works in such a way that when a scientist says something along the lines of, "We think a severe hurricane season is consistent with our climate model of global warming...", you hear a scientist saying, "A severe hurricane season is proof positive of global warming."
I don't know why that would be, but I'll reiterate my contention that you will not be able to find a single link to any credible study that makes the claims you say scientists are making. And if that's the case, who is the one actually spreading the propaganda?
Maybe we could start by agreeing that global warming is indeed a fact, and that any theory in question deals with whether or not man's activities are a significant driver of the effect?
Just to be clear, I am not beside myself with fear about global warming. Whatever happens will happen, and it probably won't affect me in my lifetime. I am not 100% convinced man is responsible for this episode of warming. I'm taking my time in following the debate and reaching my conclusions.
Look oboe, you're the one that's twisting words. I never claimed to be talking about the words of "a credible scientist" nor was my contention remotely related to a specific scientist so it is pointless to provide the link for a point I wasn't making. I was clear at the beginning and have always been talking about the global warming movement and the propaganda that it's using. If you do not know what I'm talking about you don't read the press, watch TV or go to the movies.
It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that a propaganda campaign is in full swing. If not, then explain why there have been numerous scientists who believed it necessary to REFUTE the claims including Dr William Gray of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, probably the most noted hurricane specialist in the US. If you lived in Florida, you'd recognize him as the most accurate predictor of hurricane activity in the US. If there has not been an overwhelming amount of propaganda purporting to "prove" that global warming causes hurricanes then why did Gray and many, many others have to come out to REFUTE it? Here's (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html) another example. Please note the Headline "Hurricanes Growing Fiercer With Global Warming" while Emanuel, the scientist mentioned, uses words such as "may lead" and "suggest". The headline certainly does not imply any ambiguity now does it? Also, Emanuel's work has been similarly summarized in numerous other reports. The headline is a clear indicator of what the writer believed the story was about, or, maybe just what he wanted his readers to believe. And this is MIT for christ's sake.
I'll repeat one more time, I'm not and have never talked about what a specific scientist said. I'm talking about the political objectives of the propaganda machine such as this tripe (http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/) that makes these ridiculous claims.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
I'm talking about the political objectives of the propaganda machine such as this tripe (http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/) that makes these ridiculous claims.
Ross Gelbspan is author of ''The Heat Is On" and ''Boiling Point."
Hehe. A real mystery there huh?
Click to buy..........................:D
A retired journalist cashing in on his experience with sensationalism.
-
so oboe... you are saying that all the climate scientists who are telling us how we are destroying the globe and what will happen in 100 years...
You are saying that they can't even tell us what next years hurricane season will be like? Not even close?
You seem to be wanting to have it both ways... they say that increased hurricane activity is consistent with their model... Is decreased activity? They never give any facts sooooo... How can they be wrong? they use words like "contribute" and "major" and "massive" (if the others didn't cause enough panic)
And they call themselves scientists? They are politicians and they are frigging guessing.. They don't have a clue but they want to take credit for no matter which way the wind blows.
If it is cooler next year or the year after than last... will you admit that we can't be causing anything?
lazs
-
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070210/capt.nydd60602101806.cold_weather_nydd606.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=nDcYJh6esZwpJRvU3HE99A--)
-
Mace,
We were talking about scientists when you said this:
They consistently conflate local weather with global climate. They consistently ignore that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age. They consistently ignore that the current warming is totally consistent in both time and intensity as previous global warming. They claim a large number of hurricanes is positive proof of global warming one year and then totally ignore the near abscence of hurricanes the next year. They claim that melting ice in a small percentage of Antarctica is proof positive of global warming yet ignore the fact that the rest of the continent has experienced far above average snowfall and increasing ice pack. Are you saying you've never seen or heard these outlandish claims?
If you want to clarify that who you mean by "they" is actually the media, then yes, I agree- its in the media's nature to magnify and distort to sell papers.
You say things that are disturbing and misleading however - fior example, in your last post, you state:If there has not been an overwhelming amount of propaganda purporting to "prove" that global warming causes hurricanes then why did Gray and many, many others have to come out to REFUTE it?
Hurricanes occur apart from global warming. They are part of the planet's natural heat distribution system. I have heard the claim the global warming raises the ocean's temperature, and warmer water can lead to stronger hurricanes. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And that does not imply that every year must have more numerous and stronger hurricanes. That might be reasonably expected all other things being equal, but I bet there are many more factors that figure in to the severity of a hurricane season than just water temperature. So scientists claim global warming can produce stronger hurricanes, but YOU say they claim global warming CAUSES hurricanes. Do you see the difference?
Maybe you are confusing science with the media's sensationalizing of it. The first line of the linked hurricane story says:Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming...
It doesn't even fully implicate global warming - you just have to read beyond the headline. btw, if you have a link to Gray's study I'd like to look it over.
Yes, laz, I am saying that I don't think scientists can accurately forecast the severity of a hurricane season. They can make predictions (and I hope they do) and then study the results and hopefully improve their predicitve models, but no, I don't demand 100% accuracy in weather and/or climate prediction.
Probably, their model says we can expect both more variability and severity in weather events, and yes, that seems like "having it both ways". That is something that bothers me about their claims. It makes it very difficult to know if they are correct or not.
I'm not admitting anything on the basis of the next few years of weather experience. That would be a pretty foolish thing to do. Further, I'm not making any absolute assertions about global warming. I'm just following the debate and observing weather patterns and events. I'm not ready to close my mind about it yet.
-
Eagler,
Nice picture of the snow in upstate New York. Yes, they are getting dumped on. Here's a quote from a news story about the snowfall:
Residents of this hardy upstate New York village seem unfazed. Redfield, whose economy thrives on snowmobilers and cross-country skiers, receives an annual average of 270 inches _ more than 22 feet.
"It's snow. We get a lot of it. So what?" said Allan Babcock, a lifelong resident who owns Shar's Country Diner, a popular eatery in this village of 650 people.
What point are you trying to make?
-
Originally posted by oboe
What point are you trying to make?
that "global warming" is a load of crap
-
confucious say "either global warming is load of crap or load of crap is globally warming"
-
satellite scans show the Atlantic ocean was cooler in 06 than in 05
must be from all melting ice caps.
-
kewl, evary1 in new england can keep their beer in teh ocean
-
The way I look at it, Eagler has a 50-50 chance of being right -- and his research cost 0$, and took only minutes. Did you mean man-induced global warming, or just global warming in general?
Does it bother you that W admits that global warming is real and that man is contributing to the problem?
John, do you have a link to those satellite scans?
-
no, i think they were nasa pics but not sure.
-
post them plz so i knoe wear 2 put teh beers:cool::cool:
:aok:aok:aok
:aokbeer:aok
:aok:aok:aok
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that "global warming" is a load of crap
For the last time, the lake effect snows are a result of the lakes being warmer than usual, not the winter being colder
-
I thought this thread had died a few weeks ago? I wonder how long it's gonna stay on the first page of the O club?
I'm going for at least another week...
-
Europe is ahead again??!
Spain Makes Solar Panels Mandatory in New Buildings (http://www.progress.org/2004/energy37.htm)
Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1704955,00.html)
:(
-
Originally posted by john9001
satellite scans show the Atlantic ocean was cooler in 06 than in 05
must be from all melting ice caps.
It should cool slightly from the melting icecaps, but it has had little tendency to do so.
-
Article about research and experimental verification that sun is major factor in global climate fluctuations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Article about research and experimental verification that sun is major factor in global climate fluctuations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Good read. Thanks for posting it.
-
if u like teh sun, then
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
is probly ur favrit siet
-
Originally posted by Debonair
if u like teh sun, then
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
is probly ur favrit siet
pretty
-
i wanna get sum of that .gov resreach $ to try correlating solar output & nude beach attendance :O:O:O:cool::cool::cool::noid:noid
-
oboe.. believe it or not I am not making up my mind either.. I do have some experiance with scientists doomsday predictions tho and this whole thing is very forced to me...
It bothers me that the man made global warming true believers are worshipping a very young science and are willing to shut down debate on the subject. It bothers me that these global climatoligists cant predict next year but claim to be able to lay our our doom..
it bothers me that they are unwilling to factor in the suns activity and that they use terms like "contribute" instead of numbers.
I simply don't trust em... I didn't trust the "secondhand smoke" true believers either or the house mold guys or the ice age guys of the 70's
By all means do the research.. that is what they should be doing but admit that it is unclear at this point.
lazs
-
interesting stuff. as I was running I was watching a segment on the panama canal. in one breath the narrator states that "due to global warming low levels of water in gatun lake make operations in the canal inefficient". in the next breath the narrator states that "when the lake water levels are higher than normal, this also impedes canal operation". the chicken littles always want to have it both ways and blame boooooosh.
-
laz,
what about flourocarbons and the hole in the ozone layer? That is the last scientific doomsday scenario that I recall. How do you think that whole thing went? Were you ever convinced the ozone layer was in danger from the chemicals we used as refrigerants? Has the ozone layer recovered since the banning of the offending chemicals?
I should probably open that question up to anyone who knows, not just you.
So, you don't believe secondhand smoke is a carcinogen? Do you believe firsthand smoke poses health risks?
I believe I heard they just passed a law in Maine that makes it illegal for adults to smoke with children present in a vehicle.
-
oboe.. I don't think anyone knows if we have had an effect on the ozone layer with the banning of a few chemicals in some countries or if they were ever as big a problem as was presented... How can you trust these guys?
Second hand smoke.. I am sure that breathing smoke of any kind is not good for you. I was objecting to the lie that all and I mean all.. the scientific community got onto about how it was worse than the first hand smoke for people... that is the kind of stuff that destroys their credibility to me.
how lawyers can get them to turn mold into "toxic mold" and panic people and cause untold expense... the junk science of the EPA... it never ends with these guys.. they seem to have no scruples at all in exagerating and blowing things all out of proportion.
Did you calmly accept karl frigging sagans statement about the decades long winter we would have if the sadman lit half the kuwait oil feilds on fire and they burned for as little as a few weeks? He lit em all on fire and most didn't get put out for 6 months and there was no noticeable effects.
I am just sick of the con job. I have lost respect for science when so many are willing to jump on a bandwagon or able to be bullied into it.
lazs
-
With apologies to Bob Dylan, I think its the case that we all gotta trust somebody. A person who trusts no one is completely paranoid. You've given up on science, but you've still got the NRA.
I don't really remember Sagan predicting nuclear winter related to the Kuwaiti oil fields. I do remember the nuclear winter theory regarding a nuclear weapon exchange. Glad that theory has not been tested.
I agree science needs to have dissenters. Opposing sides who challenge each other. Competition seems to bring out the best - in politics, in business, in science.
I blame the media for sensationalizing everything. Between the Weather Channel's disaster constant coverage and TV news' constant drumbeat of catastrophism my poor parents are afraid of virtually everything nowadays. Lately its been the flu, since two 8 yr olds and a 44 yr old died last week in Minnesota.
btw, did a little research on ozone depletion- the rate of depletion has been reduced quite a bit since the banning of CFCs. The problem has not been licked, but it does sound like it's a victory for scientific alarmism and government action.
-
Originally posted by oboe
btw, did a little research on ozone depletion- the rate of depletion has been reduced quite a bit since the banning of CFCs. The problem has not been licked, but it does sound like it's a victory for scientific alarmism and government action.
Oboe, you're falling for the "false cause" arguement. You're saying that CFC's have been reduced AND the ozone depletion rate is lower THEREFORE reducing CFC lowered the ozone depletion rate. You are inferring a causal relationship because the events occured together. They may have but there are far too many variables to state this as fact. This is like me throwing an ice cube out in the yard and the next day the temperature is lower so I decide my ice cube did it. If it did, I think I've got the solution to "global warming".
-
I don't belive the warming comes from human made, CO2 emission,that's too insignificant
Look below, we live on a thin "orange crust", the 'orange juice" inside is hot molten lava,
i think any anomaly /change in the core would have way more influence on the temperature at surface, than CO2 in atmosfere
I undertood the high temperature/presure inside the earth are result of gravity, and are sensitive to Earth position toward other planets, stars
(http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects1997/JohnH/earth.gif)(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/images/hell_inside_earth.jpg)
-
oboe... I haven't given up on scientists... just the alarmists. they have admitted to lieing about such things as second hand smoke... where were the "real" scientists who should have spoke up? that is why I don't trust em.
And yes.. sagan did predict the nuke winter.... I watched him do it. It was typical.. he knows nothing about climate but felt that he could predict it.
I have listened to the predictions of doom and gloom all my life. Even my beloved NRA as you put it, predicts doom and gloom... the difference is that they use my money to keep the alarmists from destroying my individual rights while the newfound man made global warming alarmists are using my money to attack my individual rights... do you see the difference?
As for the ozone layer... the results are mixed that I can find.. it appears that there is something much greater than some cfc's causing the change to me. I can't find any hard data.. it is like the aforementioned ice cube in the back yard making the city cooler thing so far as I can see.
I know I lived through the ice age of 1999 that froze most of the US and covered two thirds of the country in one vast sheet of ice... I survived the decades long nuke winter of the sadmans doing and... so far.. I have survived both first and second hand smoke just fine.... the mold that appears now and then in my house hasn't killed me either.
the treated waste water we dump on land is not destroying the ground water as the EPA told me and.... the MTBE that they DID TELL ME would save the planet has almost destroyed our ground water and resevoirs.
The NRA has worked to get people elected and laws passed to protect my rights...
the worst of the scientists have harmed me... the NRA has not. So how am I being paranoid?
When have the doom and gloomers ever been right? It is paranoid to not trust this small band of panic monger scientists? or... to simply take most of the more outlandish things they say as being overblown?
lazs
-
Unfortunately, its gloom and doom that sells papers and gets TV ratings. If enough people get sick of it, and tune it out, I suppose maybe the media will get wise and find something else to get our attention.
Regarding ozone depletion, let me first say I am no expert in the matter. But the course of events as I understand it, goes like this:
- some scientist or group of scientists theorize the chemical reactions involved in the maintenance of the ozone layer, describes why the ozone layer is important to life on Earth, and also notes a mechanism involving CFCs which could deplete ozone.
- early adopter nations (I think it was Sweden) phase out use of CFCs
- later, in 1985, a huge hole in the ozone layer in noted over Antarctica, and scientists are able to give an feasible explanation of this occurence using their CFC-ozone depletion model. Restrictive legislation in the US follows pretty quickly and CFCs are phased out over a period of years.
- We are now measuring a reduced rate of ozone depletion.
I think there is no direct proof, as Mace says.
Its too bad that science has become so sensationalized (and politicized).
Are you sure the global warming alarmists are already spending your money? AFAIK, pollution restrictions have been eased under GW, and while there is talk of carbon caps and trading, nothing is actually been done yet in the U.S.
If you've got links to scientific studies that show some other mechanism or ozone depletion and recovery I'd be interested to look at them.
-
Originally posted by ghi
I don't belive the warming comes from human made, CO2 emission,that's too insignificant
Look below, we live on a thin "orange crust", the 'orange juice" inside is hot molten lava,
i think any anomaly /change in the core would have way more influence on the temperature at surface, than CO2 in atmosfere
I undertood the high temperature/presure inside the earth are result of gravity, and are sensitive to Earth position toward other planets, stars
(http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects1997/JohnH/earth.gif)(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/images/hell_inside_earth.jpg)
ghi, I thought a planet cools as it ages? Does your theory of global warming via core temps account for the higher measured warming at the poles?
-
Maybe some of you guys have seen this before.
Here (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/coolingworld.pdf)
"I laughed, I cried, best story ever told....until the sequel." --Siskal and Ebert.
Your homework assignment is to compare and contrast this with current dire predictions. Here are a few samples:
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage inthirteen U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climactic change, or even to allay its effects.....the longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
These guys are just like freaking Nostradamous.
-
Mace,
Very good. What publication was that? I'm still not sure of the wisdom of making fun of and discrediting the current group of scientists because a previous group of scientists was wrong about an issue, tempting though that is.
I don't know whether this is worse or better, but somewhere I know I've read that there is a theory that global warming is a temporary pre-condition to global cooling and the next ice age.
-
oboe... that is great.. but would fit in if I said that... I noticed that the tempreture in my town was increasing every day from a low of 87 in june to a high of 105 in august.. I decided to put an ice tray of ice cubes out in my backyard every day and the tempreture dropped to 87 again in october.
that is the problem... same for the ozone.. I searched for data on it and there is none... no hard numbers.... nothing to disprove the theory that it wasn't a natural fluctuation that we had little or nothing to do with.
As for the earths core cooling.. that is relative.... a shift in it has a lot more effect than a 1 degree drop every eon.
suns activity... earths core shift.. those are things that make sense.. huge things.... forces of nature that are more powerful than we can grasp...course... there is no money to made in those things.
As for what it costs me... are you saying that there are no countries that want me to pay for their theories with reductions and fees? That I am being paranoid by not agreeing to them and just... seeing how it goes?
lazs
-
Originally posted by hardtack
Mace,
Very good. What publication was that? I'm still not sure of the wisdom of making fun of and discrediting the current group of scientists because a previous group of scientists was wrong about an issue, tempting though that is.
I don't know whether this is worse or better, but somewhere I know I've read that there is a theory that global warming is a temporary pre-condition to global cooling and the next ice age.
That was from Newsweek, Apr 28, 1975. I don't know about how unwise it might be to point out apparent failures in scientist's pre-cognitive skills. I think that if most people were half-way intelligent they would take all of what we're told with a grain of salt and isn't that what this is really all about right now?
There are those in the world that would have us risk the entire economic future of the world over what is essentially a trumped up theory, exactly as was done in 1975. Dire predictions, blaiming any unpleasant weather on the current trendy thing, hand-wringing that the politicians won't do something in time. It's all the same crap but this time they've improved their story line and added a ton of special effects including movies and concerts.
I don't know for sure how much of this is intentional (although there is obviously a ton of profiteering going on) and how much is just sheer stupidity. It seems to me that many scientists are like some kid bumbling around in a dark basement with a dim flashlight. They're looking, and looking, and all of a sudden they turn around and see a 2-inch mouse and run away screaming about the giant 2-foot rat that tried to eat them. The next day they go into the basement again and this time it's the giant 4-foot spider. They need to either turn the light on or stay out of the basement.
-
It was also in Time magazine. You could not find one bit of the media that was against the whole "doom by ice age in our time" scenario...
Everyone was on board. No scientist would speak out on how ridiculous it was and many "scientists" who had absolutely no experiance with weather were all on the band wagon.
Anyone who disagreed was a flat earther.
lazs
-
............................. ............................. ..........................
............................. ..
..You mean the earth is not flat?
................Sheesh....... ..I just bought a new lazer level too.
:)
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
There are those in the world that would have us risk the entire economic future of the world over what is essentially a trumped up theory, exactly as was done in 1975.
One thing I am quite confident of is that the entire economic future of the world will not be risked over the theory of global warming. I think your statement smacks of the same kind of sensationalism as some of the current global warming hype, and the article from Time in '75. I guess each side feels it necessary to use hyperbole.
Speaking of staying out of the basement, didn't Bush eliminate or curtail NASA funds for Earth studies, wanting them instead to concentrate on space exploration?
Laz, if you think hard about it there is alot wrong with the scientific methodology of your ice cube theory experiment.
I am saying that I think your money is not currently being spent to combat global warming. Not yet anyway, not here.
-
Originally posted by oboe
One thing I am quite confident of is that the entire economic future of the world will not be risked over the theory of global warming. I think your statement smacks of the same kind of sensationalism as some of the current global warming hype, and the article from Time in '75. I guess each side feels it necessary to use hyperbole.
Speaking of staying out of the basement, didn't Bush eliminate or curtail NASA funds for Earth studies, wanting them instead to concentrate on space exploration?
Laz, if you think hard about it there is alot wrong with the scientific methodology of your ice cube theory experiment.
I am saying that I think your money is not currently being spent to combat global warming. Not yet anyway, not here.
So to simply point out the sensationalism and hyperbole of others is sensationalism and hyperbole? Typical response.
The environmental industry is the one instigating this, they want trillions of dollars of other people's money poured into solving a theoretical problem and a strongly refuted one at that...oh, it's also a theory diametrically opposed to what some of the same groups were claiming only 30 years ago.
I'm not trumping up stories or facts or paranoia or making dire predictions. I'm not asking for anyone to make sacrifices or give up their money for my pet project. I said that there are those that would have us risk the future world economy over what is essentially a trumped up theory and you cannot realistically deny that to pour trillions of dollars into this would have a huge effect on the world's economy. That's not a dire prediction, that's just an inconvienient fact.
There have been doom and gloomers since the beginning of history. Casandra turned out to be right, Chicken Little wrong. This is nothing more than the priests that saw a drought, sacrified a virgin and then rejoiced when it rained since they were proven to be right.
Think about this one also, supposed the globalcoolingists of the 70's had been successful in panicing the world into "solving" the cooling problem and poured millions of tons of soot on the polar icecap to melt it. Where would we be right now?
-
I just don't think the entire world's economy is at risk. As you correctly point out, we've been dealing with gloom and doomers for a long time.
The globalcoolingologists didn't accomplish anything in the 70s, I guess because the world refused to panic. So I refuse to panic WRT global warming.
What exactly are the spending projects that will take all of this money? Which projects are going to have the trillion dollars poured into them?
IIRC, we've spent (borrowed, actually) nearly 1/2 a trillion dollars for the Iraq War.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I just don't think the entire world's economy is at risk. As you correctly point out, we've been dealing with gloom and doomers for a long time.
The globalcoolingologists didn't accomplish anything in the 70s, I guess because the world refused to panic. So I refuse to panic WRT global warming.
What exactly are the spending projects that will take all of this money? Which projects are going to have the trillion dollars poured into them?
IIRC, we've spent (borrowed, actually) nearly 1/2 a trillion dollars for the Iraq War.
Here (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba213.html) Impact on the U.S. Economy. The implications of the proposed climate change commitments for the U.S. economy are grave:
Some analysts have estimated that meeting the admin-istration's proposal have to cut emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $200 billion annually.
A DRI/McGraw Hill study projected that over the next 14 years more than 500,000 Americans annually would lose their jobs if the 1992 Rio commitments were implemented.
The study also estimated that the government would have to increase gas prices by more than 60 cents a gallon and double the price of heating oil just to hold carbon emissions at 1990 levels, and more than double those increases to reduce emissions another 10 percent.
A study of the proposed commitments by Constad Research, Inc. estimated that the changes would kill off 1.6 million jobs over the next nine years and put another 3.5 million or so "at risk," primarily in Texas, California, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Louisiana.
In addition, the price of food and transportation would rise dramatically. In Geneva, Wirth dismissed these costs by saying ". . . in a world of change, not everyone can remain advantaged." Yet those most disadvantaged by the policies would be low-income families who spend a higher proportion of their incomes on food and energy.
Without any offsets or credits, U.S. GDP would be 3.6 percent to 5.1 percent lower in 2010, representing a loss of $330 billion to $467 billion or about $1,100 to $1,600 per capita.
Using offsets and credits, compliance would cost the U.S. from 3 percent to 4.3 percent of GDP, representing a loss of between $921 and $1,320 for every man, woman and child in the country.
Remember, this is only talking about the US, it doesn't even begin the costs of implementing draconian environmental "fixes" in other countries and where that money would come from. For instance, there are hundreds of thousands of coal-fired plants in developing countries...where's the money going to come from to fix them? Also though, I really like the comment that "not everyone can remain advantaged." That pretty much goes to the point of a lot of globalwarmingists, this seems to be aimed more at the US than anyone else. The idea that the US is somehow "advantaged" pretty much dismisses reasons why we may be so. It's because we have a system that works. Typical leftist approach to "fairness", don't raise everyone up to the same level, let's bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Here's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15563663/site/newsweek/) another report. Stern's horrific specter distills many of the most terrifying guesses, including some imagined for the 22nd century, and implies they're imminent. The idea is to scare people while reassuring them that policies to avert calamity, if started now, would be fairly easy and inexpensive.
Here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmJiZDEyYzkxYWE0OWYxMWY4Y2ZjYzI2YmNmOGExMDE=) and here (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7545) are a couple more takes on the costs.
-
Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage inthirteen U.S. states.
That doesn't seem to accurate to me. Iirc there was a day where over 1000 tornado's were recorded over *Tornado Alley* in the US. I remember seeing a map with all the tornado's tracks marked in black. Those tracks were all over the place. That happened some time ago.
Seems like more propaganda to me.
-
Mace,
That first report is dated 1996. It is quite out of date - not only is the evidence for global warming FAR more compelling now than it was then, but we've already endured some of the increased costs they claim would break the economy. A 60 cent per gallon increase in the cost of gas? Let's see, what was gas back in '96? $1.50 or so per gallon? I'll take that - its still better than the $3.14 I paid to fill up my boat last summer.
I was sure the economy would tank last summer but I was wrong.
Sounds to me like scaremongering, except it's economists doing it instead of scientists.
One of the articles did say this:The history of capitalism and technology tells us that what starts out expensive and arduous becomes cheap and easy over time.
It went on to say wind power is competitive with COAL - the most inexpensive (and dirty) form of power generation there is. Whatever has been spent to get wind power generating technology to that level, I'd say it was money well spent.
Not sure why, but neither side of this debate is gone get me whipped into a frenzy. Maybe my anger and frustration at Osama Bin Laden getting away while we messed around in Iraq wore me out. Half a trillion dollars spent and what did we get? And that money was borrowed so we'll be paying interest on it for near an eternity. To China.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Mace,
That first report is dated 1996. It is quite out of date - not only is the evidence for global warming FAR more compelling now than it was then, but we've already endured some of the increased costs they claim would break the economy. A 60 cent per gallon increase in the cost of gas? Let's see, what was gas back in '96? $1.50 or so per gallon? I'll take that - its still better than the $3.14 I paid to fill up my boat last summer.
I was sure the economy would tank last summer but I was wrong.
Sounds to me like scaremongering, except it's economists doing it instead of scientists.
One of the articles did say this:
It went on to say wind power is competitive with COAL - the most inexpensive (and dirty) form of power generation there is. Whatever has been spent to get wind power generating technology to that level, I'd say it was money well spent.
Not sure why, but neither side of this debate is gone get me whipped into a frenzy. Maybe my anger and frustration at Osama Bin Laden getting away while we messed around in Iraq wore me out. Half a trillion dollars spent and what did we get? And that money was borrowed so we'll be paying interest on it for near an eternity. To China.
The fact that the first report was 96 just shows the consistency in expectations of excessive costs.
The $0.60 increase in gas was in '96 dollars and would have been on top of the costs we have now not instead of because the reasons for the recent rise in the price in gas has nothing to do with global warming. If they started these "global warming" fixes back in '96 then gas would probably have spiked at over $4.50 a gallon this past year instead of $3.50.
I forgot to include the link but the second set of quotes is from 1999. There's plenty more, I just don't want to spend two hours googling it.
Again, you claim scaremongering because someone points out the cost of what the globalwarmingests want to do. There is a huge difference in someone proposing something expensive and a skeptic pointing out the potential costs of these proposals. It's called a cost/benefit ratio. If you have some idea of the cost but no idea what the benefit will be (or even if there will be a benefit) then what action are you going to take???
Evidence is FAR more compelling now? Nonsense, if anything there's more evidence contrary to their predictions. Even the latest UN study had to back off of it's predictions this year. The tip of the antarctic peninsula is slightly warmer while the rest of the continent is cooler. Polar bears are dying off? Actually they're increasing in numbers. Excessive hurricanes one year, none the next. Record heat wave last summer? Ah...not as hot as the one in the 30's. Global sea temperatures were slightly higher, now they're slightly lower. All that's become FAR more compelling now is the argument that the models are not reliable.
Last, the fact that you bring up UBL in a discussion on global warming kinda proves that this is more of a political than scientific issue.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That doesn't seem to accurate to me. Iirc there was a day where over 1000 tornado's were recorded over *Tornado Alley* in the US. I remember seeing a map with all the tornado's tracks marked in black. Those tracks were all over the place. That happened some time ago.
Seems like more propaganda to me.
The largest outbreak ever recorded up until then was 148 and was called the "super outbreak" in 3-4 April 1974 and killed 315. That's the outbreak mentioned in the Newsweek article and attributed to "global cooling" by "experts". There was also an outbreak of over 400 in May of 2003 but this, of course, was some time after the article was written. I'm sure that someone's running around saying the 400 were caused by global warming.
-
The five warmest Januarys on record all occurred within the last 6 years. The 10 hottest years on record all occurred in the past 12 years. Your 1996 report wouldn't have been able to include that data, and I would call that compelling.
I'm just trying to give examples of incredible cost increases that this economy has weathered without breaking. The gas spike was painful but it didn't break the economy, and the increase of 60 cents per gallon is on par with the price spike we went through last year. I'm not talking about causes, I'm just saying the economy survived.
One side says global warming will cost us billions or trillions in storm damage, flooding, etc. The other side says trying to address global warming will break the economy. Its both scaremongering to me. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't raise heartrates as much or sell more papers.
I just can't get too worked up about it either way.
-
Originally posted by oboe
The five warmest Januarys on record all occurred within the last 6 years. The 10 hottest years on record all occurred in the past 12 years. Your 1996 report wouldn't have been able to include that data, and I would call that compelling.
Not only that, 150 of the last 150 years have been the hottest on record!
-
We`ve been getting below normal temps for a week or so here according to the weather reports.
I fear Global Weathermanism.
-
OK oboe.. so we have had ten hot years... If we are the cause.... "massive" and "significant" why is it that there has been no overall gain in global temp since good records were kept by satalite data (1999)? not feral cat dung studies on ancient cats.. no core samples of some ice pack in santa clauses front yard but real measurements.
by the doom and gloomers scientific reconning.. we should have gotten steadily hotter.. Are we staving off the ice age with our "massive" contribution to global warming? were the "scientists" of 1975 right after all????
If we drop a hundredth of a degree for the next year or two then I guess the ice agers were right huh? Whatever we are doing is a good thing...
I think that the real "inconvienient truth" here is that...
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
going to get some bumper stickers made up.
I can't help but think that most of the panic is driven by world socialism and jealousy... envy and hate. I also think it is a power grab by organizations that are otherwise ignored because they are worthless like the UN and some climatoligists.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Not only that, 150 of the last 150 years have been the hottest on record!
This sentence has no sense.
-
Laz,
You misunderstand - I am not claiming "we" are the cause. I am just saying the evidence for global warming (whatever the cause may be) is compelling. And I do not base my conclusions on one or two years of data, or in your ice cube example, a couple of months of backyard temperature observations. There's gotta be a trend of more than a few years IMO. And with a complicated system like global climate, a few anomalies in the data could be expected.
If you got links to about satellite temperature data contradicting ice core samples then by all means share them.
Human nature being what it is, no doubt there are greedy people licking their chops on both sides of this issue.
-
oboe,
I would be overwhelmingly behind stopping global warming if the scientists would present something a bit better than what you did. (Not intended to be an insult, but you are not a scientist) If they could show conclusive evidence that it was happening, and we were the cause and we could stop it, then anyone against it would not be sane in the head.
BUT,
I am against rampant polution for the sake of my and my family's, friend's, and loved one's health. That is soemthing I believe we haev overwhelming evidence to prove and should do our best to curb. By this effort alone, I feel we could make a difference in the over all enviroment to begin with.
-
No offense taken, Bodhi. You're right, I am not a scientist. The stuff I presented was a small slice of the large body of evidence that the globe is warming. (Remember I am not talking about causes - just the observation that the earth is undergoing a warming trend).
Few things in science are 100% certain however. Sometimes you have to let logic lead you to the conclusion. For example, I don't think there is conclusive proof that ciagrette smoking CAUSES cancer, but the evidence is so overwhelming most people now accept it as fact.
As far as man-induced global warming - we are not going to get 100% certainty. The latest, most authoritative report on the subject stops at "very likely" that we are the cause. Its not even certain we can do anything effective to stop the warming that is underway.
I believe in reducing pollution too, and being as efficient as possible. A lot of the actions we take to reduce pollution can also help with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My last car purchase was a fuel-efficient Toyota Corolla, and I have started replacing incandescent bult in my house with flourescent bulbs. I keep the thermostat turned down in the winter adn wear extra clothes around the house. Most of my actions are in response to the insane prices of natural gas and gasoline though, not necessarily because I'm an environmentalist.
-
This planet goes through natural cooling and warming cycles all the time, and the reasons for this are nowhere near fully understood. Besides the natural variations in solar output, we also have variations in the orbital eccentricity of the earth around the sun, precession of the axis, and variations of the axial tilt of the earth.
IMHO a 1 degree average variation over a hundred year period is meaningless. Does this mean that we shouldn't be watching our emissions into the air and water of our environment? No - but when some panel of international scientists comes out and says that they are 90% sure that man is the cause of global warming, I have to laugh. They aren't sure what causes the natural variations in the first place, and they know that the planet was much warmer in the past, but they are 90% sure that man is causing the changes we are seeing now - yeah, right.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
The largest outbreak ever recorded up until then was 148 and was called the "super outbreak" in 3-4 April 1974 and killed 315. That's the outbreak mentioned in the Newsweek article and attributed to "global cooling" by "experts". There was also an outbreak of over 400 in May of 2003 but this, of course, was some time after the article was written. I'm sure that someone's running around saying the 400 were caused by global warming.
I stand corrected. I did some research and you are correct. Also found some really neat photos of tornados. :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
This sentence has no sense.
It does if you understand that the directly measured weather record goes back only an eye blink on the climactic time scale.
I was pointing out that looking at the last ten years and saying that due to them being high temperature years, even record high temperature years, and saying that this decade has statistical significance is a fallacy, much like tossing a coin ten times straight and coming up heads and then based upon that assuming that the odds are no longer 50-50 on the next toss.
-
Well, our ice caps go a good deal further back on the climatic scale, and they're telling us that it's warming....fast.
-
The historic time scale, the sagas tell of your countryman, Lief Ericsson leaving Iceland, settling Greenland, exploring New Foundland, which he called Vinland because he found wine grapes there; where they are not found today because the climate is colder than it was 1000 years ago.
However that is not a directly measured temperature, so those years are not the records we site today.
-
I know. 1000 years ago was as warm as now.
The Greenland Glacier is a rather unknown factor, while our glaciers were smaller.
The N-Pole however is belived to have been bigger.....
If Vinland was Newfoundland, there was no winegrapes there, however if he landed around New York as some belive, there might have been some. The whole wine deal remains a little...unexplained, but it might refer to something other than winegrapes.
Back in those days they used to grow rye and barley in Iceland, - today we are growing barley and beginning with wheat, which proved impossible 20-30 years ago.
I know there are swings. The one we have today however is being fast, and predicted. We are already in the climate level of 1000, but wer're still warming fast.
-
Just imagine.........there are actual changes in the earth, the atmosphere and weather patterns. For real. Who would have ever imagined such a thing? :)
I ran a scientific test over the weekend. The results are astonishing and I am sure will they will be published in some upcoming scientific study reports. At least they make as much sense, or more, than some of the off the wall crap that is trying to be passed off as fact now.
Here is the short version.........----------> Ice cubes still melt in a glass of JD over an extended period in Texas. Amaaaaaaaaaaaazing! :)
-
oboe.. you misunderstand me.. I am not saying that the planet is or is not in a warming trend. I am saying that I don't think we can affect it (one way or the other) in any noticeable way.
I am saying that if the sun activity was high and has leveled off... If the temp has more or less leveled off... Then how could we be having a "massive" effect? Everything else being equal.. we should be driving it up at an escalating rate all on our own...
And.. if it settles down or gets colder... and.. the UN and the "scientists" are right.. then we are averting a powerful ice age and should continue with what we are doing.
I am not worried about 1 degree hotter in a century any more than I am 1 degree cooler in the next.
now... what do we do about that darn asteroid and where do we send our money?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Back in those days they used to grow rye and barley in Iceland, - today we are growing barley and beginning with wheat, which proved impossible 20-30 years ago.
How much of that is actually climate related, or more attributable to the advances made in GE crops? With good research and a solid breeding program, you can create strains that will thrive virtually anywhere.
-
Satellites have been accurately measuring the temperature of the troposphere all over the face of the earth since 1979. You can view a map of the globe with all temperatures above and below average mapped out in red (above) and blue (below) month by month for over 25 years. Anyone can plainly see that global warming is regional. Near the equator, both above and below it, is almost always uncolored or blue. South America, Central America, and the lower U.S. are experiencing cooling. Most of Africa is cooling. Austrailia is cooling. Southern Europe and Southern Asia are cooling. The air over almost all the Pacific and Mid, and South Atlantic is cooling. Greenland is heating up. Northern Asia and Northern Europe are heating up. Northern Canada and Alaska are heating up. Antarctica has been about the same and the interior has actually cooled off some in the last 10 years. Global warming IS REGIONAL! Everyone needs to know this but no one is being told. If you’re unbiased about this and willing to be swayed by the facts then go to the link below and click through the time series of the global map showing where it is warming, where it is cooling, and how much.
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
Pay attention to the lower graph too. It represents the average across the globe. Note it spends about as much time above as below zero point indicating that, at least since 1979, the earth hasn’t been heating or cooling on average, some places are heating and some are cooling.
Summary:
1) Satellite measurements of the temperature of the troposphere are the only source of temperature measurements across every point of the earth. These were calibrated by radiosonde temperatures aloft and are very precise.
2) Regional temperature plots across the earth’s surface over 25 years of satellite coverage show a cooling trend south of Canada and north of Antarctica. Antarctica itself while varying from year to year has not exhibited either more heating or more cooling. In the higher northern latitudes there has been significantly more warming than cooling.
3) The net of all warming and cooling over the entire globe is neutral. Warming is regional, almost exclusively confined to the far north, and is offset by slight cooling on most of the rest of the globe.
4) CFC (0.3), ozone (0.4), and black soot on snow (0.8) perfectly account for the observed regional patterns of warming for, according to Hansen 2005 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/2237157100v1.pdf), a total forcing of 1.5 from these factors.
5) Suspended aerosols exert a cooling effect of -2.1 and land use albedo change -0.15 (Hansen) for a total of -2.25.
6) Minor greenhouse gases excluding CO2 and solar flux increase account for another 1.0 of heating.
7) Without considering C02 at all we get a total of 2.5 in warming and 2.25 in cooling. Almost a perfect balance.
8) Without consideration of C02 at all the rest of the heating and cooling factors perfectly match the global and regional temperature patterns measured by the best instruments we have. Aerosol cooling dominates greenhouse gas warming over the lower and middle latitudes which accounts for slight regional cooling trend there. In the high northern latitudes where snow cover is permanent and sources of black soot are near enough to reach it, warming from black soot on snow plus greenhouse gas dominates aerosol cooling for net warming trend in that region. In Antarctica black soot sources are too far away to darken the snow and there’s no net warming.
9) The $64,000 question is why C02 is brought into the picture when all the other factors explain the observations? C02 is not just unnecessary but when added in per Hansen at warming = 1.5 it should easily force a warming trend ALL OVER THE GLOBE and that is CLEARLY NOT in the satellite data.
So in addition to "It's the sun, stupid!" we should also say "It's the soot, stupid!" Of course, this shifts the blame off the US, which has been working successfully to reduce particulate emissions for 30+ years, and onto the less developed nations. Can't have that; not politically correct, after all.
-
Hehe, Jackal:
"Ice cubes still melt in a glass of JD over an extended period in Texas. Amaaaaaaaaaaaazing! "
They would have stayed solid for what, the last 20 million years on the N-Pole. Only recently would the JD (undrinkable anyway :D) be in danger of water pollution...
Lazs:
"I am not worried about 1 degree hotter in a century any more than I am 1 degree cooler in the next."
1 degree in a century is actually quite a lot!
And Indy:
"How much of that is actually climate related, or more attributable to the advances made in GE crops"
No GE crops. Look up, mostly used in the USA, and getting banned in some EU countries. Anyway this case is not GE, just sheer temps.
(BTW, crops of the warmer sorts are going up, - i.e. Barley and above. And regarding GE, FYI, our most popular potato species comes from the first batch here in the 18th century. Ok, - the crops from that one are rising too....)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, Jackal:
"Ice cubes still melt in a glass of JD over an extended period in Texas. Amaaaaaaaaaaaazing! "
They would have stayed solid for what, the last 20 million years on the N-Pole.
Not unless they were plastic ice cubes they wouldn`t have. North Pole Texas is between Brownsville and Houston. Very hot and humid around Corpus and such places in the summer. :)
(undrinkable anyway :D)
You Suh, have offended the south. We will invade........well maybe not. Too far to carry the barrels. :O
-
Duh, watch for red-striped sails on the horizon, - they bring "Brennivín"
-
angus.. you are just as worried about one degree cooler one century than the last or just one degree warmer? what if it one degree warmer one century and then two degrees cooler the next?
What should we do?
I think the reason that the scientists are into man made global warming this time is because last time when they did the global cooling thing....
There was no money in it... they pretty much had to say.... "oh well... it will happen and there is nothing we can do about it."
lazs
-
There is money in it, money out of it, and one degree in a century (CELCIUS) is actually rather much.
On a constant rise it's enough to boil an egg so the money will all be out.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Duh, watch for red-striped sails on the horizon, - they bring "Brennivín"
Might as well bring the Hákarl .
I`ll trade you some oysters.....Texas style. :)
The Brennivin sounds nasty, horrible and foul. I`d like to try some. :rofl
Talk about your warming. That would do it.
-
but... if the overall global temperature is neutral.. if it rises and falls but remains the same then we can't be having any real effect on it... or... we are having a positive effect?
I mean, the alternative would be that we would be getting colder and colder until we had the ice age your "scientists" used to predict.
lazs
-
I cannot recall any solid iceage prediction, except the nuclear one. But I do recall a prediction of warming and melting to occur at th end of the last millenium, and to continue.
Anyway Jackal: Brennivín isn't that bad, some liqourice schnapps might be worse, and in cola it's okay.
Hákarl is pretty rough, although I find sour-whale worse ;)
-
you don't have to recall anything.. the link to the 70's article in Time magazine is in this thread.
lazs
-
This article by John Linden quite well sums up just how un-reliable and dangerous "scientific consensus" can be (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm). My favorite line is this one: ""The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it." (originally by H. L. Mencken, and quoted in the article). I'm going to add it to my sig, I think.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I cannot recall any solid iceage prediction, except the nuclear one. But I do recall a prediction of warming and melting to occur at th end of the last millenium, and to continue.
Anyway Jackal: Brennivín isn't that bad, some liqourice schnapps might be worse, and in cola it's okay.
Hákarl is pretty rough, although I find sour-whale worse ;)
Don't read it.... your god will be angry if you doubt him.
-
Sabre
Awsome link
This is one of the best parts!
In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world's production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored.
Does eco religion allow pesticides? They sure didn’t like DDT.
-
If global warming isn't happening and/or it's no threat to mankind, it's funny how these threads attract so many posts!
-
Sorry is if someone already pointed this out. we have been recording global temps for what? 100 years. the earth has been here for how many millions of years? how do we know that the earth even has a steady temp. for all we know we are in a massive cooling period.
-
It isn't steady.
And this:
"In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world's production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored. "
There were termites and ruminants around for a long time. But massive use of fossil fuels as well as large scale deforestation only counts for a few hundred. By the way, a horse is not a ruminant, which tells a bit about the quality of this rather common statement.
Here is a simpler statement.
It is known that an increase in greenhouse gas % will lead to heating. It is also known roughly how much we release, and golly it is actually measurable. And now, starting to be viewable. So, why be surprized?
-
It's this (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21269012-661,00.html) sort of stuff that makes globalwarmingists look foolish:
"And now global warming is becoming more apparent, it is highly likely an increasing number of young children will be turning up at hospital departments with these kinds of common illnesses," said researcher Lawrence Lam, a paediatrics specialist.
"It really demonstrates the urgent need for a more thorough investigation into how exactly climate change will affect health in childhood."
Nice how he segues right from the poor ill children into a call for "investigation" (read FUNDING).
Then there's
this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/21/whornets21.xml) . It sounds to me that the French department of agriculture should be doing a better job of inspecting for the import of non-indiginous species. This sort of stuff has happened since the beginning of large-scale transportation and trade. The Western and Southern US have killer bees which migrated from South America. Hawaii is being overrun by an imported vine, Florida has the imported Water Hyacynth, Guam has a large number of shrews which were brought in to combat a large number of snakes which were brought in to kill frogs. Of course the French blame global warming. lol.
-
Source (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=global_warm&id=5036556) Dr. Tessa Hill, Oceanographer: "What I know scientifically of what has happened in the past makes me concerned about what we might be heading into in the future."
When it comes to the subject of global warming, Dr. Hill is not a skeptic. From looking at fossils collected around the world, she concludes that the planet's climate system is anything but stable. It can, and has, moved from warm to cold, and back, very quickly.
How quickly?
Dr. Tessa Hill, Oceanographer: "Over human lifetimes."
Perhaps as fast as two generations, she says, with an alarming range in temperature. The difference between the last ice age and now.
So apparently at least according to this scientist even fast change is not out of normality of natural occurance.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So apparently at least according to this scientist even fast change is not out of normality of natural occurance.
so should i buy a winter coat or shorts? a snowmobile or a boat? a convertible or a 4 wheel drive?
-
Has anyone in this thread given up their car for save the Earth? Huh, have you?
-
the earth dosn't need "saving", it's the people that need saving.
-
Originally posted by Angus
It isn't steady.
And this:
"In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world's production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored. "
There were termites and ruminants around for a long time. But massive use of fossil fuels as well as large scale deforestation only counts for a few hundred. By the way, a horse is not a ruminant, which tells a bit about the quality of this rather common statement.
Here is a simpler statement.
It is known that an increase in greenhouse gas % will lead to heating. It is also known roughly how much we release, and golly it is actually measurable. And now, starting to be viewable. So, why be surprized?
Preach it brother Angus!!!
-
preach and pray yerself, but no matter how much you sweat, a horse will still not be a ruminant next year. It might be warmer though :D
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Has anyone in this thread given up their car for save the Earth? Huh, have you?
Oh, actually...sort of. :D
(bought a bicycle)
-
so your answer is..... no.
How much have you sent the scientists and the UN to help solve man made global warming?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you don't have to recall anything.. the link to the 70's article in Time magazine is in this thread.
lazs
Do you have anything better. Sure skipped that one.
Anyway, I may well have sent them UN guys and definately the sci-guys something through my taxes, and as an add on for the sci-guys, maybe I send them a link to this thread? :D
And as for giving up the car, well I'd have one running if I could afford it at the moment (I don't need it bad enough).
So, I do biking and carpooling. Which sort of proves the contrary to your claim that you just don't get people to go biking and carpooling. Belive me, if it's the $$$, you do ;)
Oh, and guess what, next thing is going to be a complete installation of saving-lightbulbs. Although more cumbersome and expensive, 3x the lifetime and 80% of saving are well worth the effort. You agree with that one, I know.
-
so angus.. do you believe that you are doing enough and that everyone should sacrafice to at least your level in order to mitigate this world ending man made global warming?
What are some of your solutions for the rest of us? How much should we send to the UN in money and rights? All our money and all of our human rights or, would you settle for something less?
lazs
-
Summary of this thread = excellent factual presentation by guys like tedrbr, 2bighorn, oboe, angus, plus one or two others. A pitty that the denialists can only come up with responses like "wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk", or "comedy gold", or the temperature in their back yard on Wednesday of last week.
There's also the denialists' concern that cutting back on carbon emissions would "damage the economy". That's like watching your house burning and refusing to use the hose to put out the fire because you're worried about your water bill. :rolleyes:
-
I appreciate Sabre's contribution from the NASA site regarding satellite measurement of temps. From his site:
The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991.
However, in playing around with the graphs I find no data for either 2005 or 2006, which I believe have been much wamer than average. So the critical omission of the two most recent, warmest years may affect your conclusion.
Still interested to see where this goes. Anybody have a link to the actual IPCC report? I keep finding brief news summaries, not the actual document. MIght be time to dig into it and see if they address this satellite data - I can't imagine they could reasonably ignore addressing it.
btw, TWO of my GE longlasting, $8 flourescent bulbs have burned out already. Gonna have to start dating them when I install them - I don't think I'm getting the promised performance.
Cheers
-
Fastfwd,
Obviously, you didn't read Sabre's excellent posts.....or else, you are dismissing them out of hand.
Can't have any counterpoints, no matter how relevant, disrupting those politically correct, environmentalist brain-waves...can we?
-
Ok fastfwd.. perhaps since you agree that we are destroying the planet with man made global warming and are up on the latest scientific papers...
perhaps you can tell me...
If we all slit our throats today... how many minutes will we save in the global warming doom that is predicted... how many more minutes or hours will the planet survive? 1? any?
since that seems a little drastic....
What would you suggest we do? what would make you feel better? Anything the "scientists" tell you to do? Anything the UN tells you to do? What? What needs to be done?
I am saying that you are sufficiently terrified.. they have done their job... now comes the part where they give us the bill. Now is where the funds and freedom get transfered.
Even NPR had trouble the other day with a couple of economists on who said that any solution based on what the scientists say is "man made global warming" would devestate the worlds economy.
How much global warming will all our campfires cause while we huddle around em to cook and stay warm?
They seemed to think that any comprimise would be only a feel good do nothing solution.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...Even NPR had trouble the other day with a couple of economists on who said that any solution based on what the scientists say is "man made global warming" would devestate the worlds economy.
lazs
I think I listened to that interview, and the economists had differing views. laz. Only one thought the world's economy would be destroyed by trying to address global warming. The other pointed out that states economies who have begun addressing some of these issues actually grew faster than states who didn't. DIFFERING OPINIONS, LAZS.
You have to admit, given what your opinion of NPR is, it would be ridiculous to expect them to interview two economists, BOTH of whom make the argument that agrees with your opinion?
Why do you post outright falsehoods, Lazs? Do you think your case is so weak that you have to misrepresent the other side's arguments to win?
-
oboe... my opinion of NPR is that they are a total socialist lefty leaning program.. it is very rare that they ever have anyone on who will argue against that viewpoint. I think they are a joke of a station.
As you said.. there was one on who predicted total disaster.. the others said that it wouldn't be that bad but had no facts to back it up... did you get anything out of them that made sense? What countries for instance were growing at a rate faster than the US and how did that have anything to do with "adressing" global warming... what I got was that some were having spurts of growth despite finaly getting some pollution controls that are almost as good as the U.S.
What countries have shown a sustained 4-6% growth rate in their economies and how did they do it? what part was due to global warming tech? Sure.. I agree that we would grow faster if we had more nuke energy... We would cease to grow or go backwards if we had $6 a gallon gas.
The guy that was predicting disaster was pragmatic and factual.. the others not so much... I was waiting for them to say what needed to be done and how much it would cost.. I never got that... did you? Even the ones who claimed it wasn't that bad or that .... some economies were growing.. didn't they say that we had to be very careful in what we did?
I love the softballs that old man on npr throws at the lefties he always has on too.
If NPR has anyone on who has any position that isn't left wing socialist... then... it was either a blunder on their fault or.. they just couldn't find anyone credible on the lefts side to replace him. Hell.. even their subjects are loaded most of the time.
NPR is much farther left than fox is right from my observation. I do notice tho that if a person leans left himself then... to him... NPR is very centrous and a great source of news that he can only get on NPR...
I will admit that we heard different things in that interview. I think that I just skimmed over the "economy" of the green states growing tho because it seemed so silly.. States that get fat government contracts to produce green tech are gonna do better than ones who don't get the money to make their infrastructure more efficent.. "man made global warming" they say it like it is a fact on NPR... there is no debate.. they have made up their minds and have moved on to convincing us that we can afford the socialism and that we will like our yoke.
I have nothing against making our machines and power production more efficient... I believe that the free market will demand it. No socialist country is growing like we are. Why can't they tax and regulate themselves into prosperity?
lazs
-
NPR should be de funded. let's see if the imbeciles can survive without being latched to DC tit.
-
Originally posted by storch
NPR should be de funded. let's see if the imbeciles can survive without being latched to DC tit.
They would declare bankruptcy faster than Air America Radio.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
There's also the denialists' concern that cutting back on carbon emissions would "damage the economy". That's like watching your house burning and refusing to use the hose to put out the fire because you're worried about your water bill. :rolleyes:
Ahhhh...we're global warming "denialists"...just like those Holocaust "denialists"...nice try. Interesting idea regarding the fire vs water bill but you don't quite have the argument right. The point isn't that you need to put out a fire and are too worried about the water bill, the question is "is there a fire at all?" I'll rephrase your little story so maybe you can grasp reality. "That's like hearing someone tell you your house is burning down but the only smoke is coming out of the chimney." So, your choice is to use the hose and ruin both the house and its contents based in their word or to look for some substantive proof of a fire before going off the deep end. Also, before you decide to flood your own house remember these are the same alarmists who 30 years ago tried to convince you your roses were going to freeze.
Oh, I forgot to mention but some of the globalwarmingists are already backing off of their dire predictions. Al Gore claims in his movie that the sea level is going to go up 20 feet. The last IPCC report claimed the seas would rise by 36 inches, but the latest IPCC report now says only 17 inches. At that rate of correcting itself the next IPCC report should say sea levels will rise only 2 inches.
-
Lazs,
I thought they both made some good points. Remember the estimate that more than a million people would die due to global warming by such and such a year? The guy made the point that 1 million dead years into the future really isn't all that many people, and in any case there are very real, immediate threats that claim more people right now - so why not spend money to eradicate those problems?
Bottom line is, IMO, no one is going to spend our economy into destruction trying to solve global warming. Look at Social Security - the problems with that program are much more clear, the solutions are much easier to implement at this time, and we aren't doing jack about it. It's just better politically to ignore the problem.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Fastfwd,
Obviously, you didn't read Sabre's excellent posts.....or else, you are dismissing them out of hand.
Can't have any counterpoints, no matter how relevant, disrupting those politically correct, environmentalist brain-waves...can we?
My thanks, Shuckins, though really, I'm just trying to point out that there is relevant scientific data supporting a view different than the "consensus."
This whole argument reminds me very much of the "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" debate that continues to rage (however hard the Darwinists try to insist that there is in fact not debate). One side advances scientific arguments and inferences from the evidence; the other side offers handwaving "just so" stories, philosophical arguments, circular logic, and arguments from authority. Spend any time investigating that debate and you'll figure out which side is which...but that's a topic for a different thread:D .
-
From what Ive seen we are here as a result of the right circumstances. Lets say we are condensate on a can of beer. We are clinging there because the can is cold enough, and the air is warm enough. If the beer gets too warm, or the air cools off, the condensate disappears. As we would.
Better drink up and enjoy it.
-
oboe... I agree with you that no one is going to run economies into the ground to fix this boogey man.
I think that a lot of money will be spent to fix things that aren't broke or that would be better spent letting the free market correct them.
I both have more faith in humans than that... I mean, I have more faith in humans than to think they can be frieghtened into running their economies into the ground and that they are smart enough to figure out that.
As was said... I don't think that people, realizing that the smoke coming out of the chimney might be normal, that they will say "hey... if I really think that the house is on fire and needs to be soaked... I might ruin everything in it."
I also have less faith in that... if the temp stays warm for a few weeks this summer... the slack jawed and superstitious amoung us will be doing human sacrafices to the science gods but if it is a mild summer... we will just all forget all about it... or.. if some really really cool actor get's in trouble or a divorce.. we will forget all about it.
lazs
-
Really? You guys don't think that some politicians will run the economy into the ground trying to "solve" global warming? How about this? (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-02-26T192826Z_01_N26368221_RTRUKOC_0_US-EMISSIONS-WEST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22) Besides the obvious inaccuracies such as "Bush" withdrew us from Kyoto how about this little line."
Like California's recent laws, the Western pact also seeks to regulate imports of electricity from dirty coal-burning power plants from surrounding states outside of the agreement.
Cha-ching! Any idea where California's power crisis came from a few years ago? Right, not enough power generation in California so they had to buy it from out of state, the very "dirty coal-burning" plants the law prohibits them from using. Has California embarked on a massive stealth power generation program? Not that I've heard of. You also realize that the state almost went bankrupt buying electricity...of course politicians would do nothing to trash the economy. So, make it impossible to build power plants in your own state and then outlaw the purchase of power from outside the state...lol. Here's another little gem: Greenhouse pacts on both coasts could send a message to smokestack and transportation businesses and encourage them to lobby for a national greenhouse plan, rather than face patchwork local regulations, Baumann said.
Cha-ching! So, basically the entire US will be held hostage to what a few states want. Why has the price of gasoline gone up? Of course there are numerous reasons but one of the big spikes in prices is due to the changeover to specially formulated fuels for specific regions based on the time of year. It adds enormous costs to gas production and now we can expect that these few states will successfully dictate that the entire US fund "solutions" to their disaster de jour. Now, if every signatory of Kyoto actually lived up to the requirements (none are even close) we'd theoritically reduce global warming by .7 deg C in 50 years. How much is this West coast pact going to help and at what cost to the taxpayer?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Ahhhh...we're global warming "denialists"...just like those Holocaust "denialists"...nice try. Interesting idea regarding the fire vs water bill but you don't quite have the argument right. The point isn't that you need to put out a fire and are too worried about the water bill, the question is "is there a fire at all?" I'll rephrase your little story so maybe you can grasp reality. "That's like hearing someone tell you your house is burning down but the only smoke is coming out of the chimney."
Denialism is futile, when the effects of global warming can already be seen - meltdown of polar icecaps, climate shift, water shortages in regions that never experienced them before...
Of course, a major house fire can be made to LOOK like a chimney fire - if the onlooker chooses to wear blinkers - which I suspect is the case here.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Denialism is futile, when the effects of global warming can already be seen - meltdown of polar icecaps, climate shift, water shortages in regions that never experienced them before...
Of course, a major house fire can be made to LOOK like a chimney fire - if the onlooker chooses to wear blinkers - which I suspect is the case here.
LOL, the argument isn't about whether the earth is getting hotter or cooler, it's about whether or not man is causing it. The earth has been warming up since the end of the little ice age from 1300 to 1850. Before that the Earth warmed during the middle ages between 900 to 1300 and before that it warmed during the Roman warming period from 200BC to 600AD. Of course between all these warming periods the earth cooled. When Eric the Red landed in Greenland in the 900's, it really was green...of course that was followed by the little ice age and Greenland became pretty much uninhabitable. Now we're supposed to worry that the Greenland ice sheets are melting? Even worse we're supposed to blame outselves??? You don't have blinkers on, you're wearing blinders.
There is actually plenty of evidence that argues we're already on the backside of the warming period. You claim a "meltdown of the polar icecaps"? Hummm...less than 2 percent of the Antarctic has experienced a reduction in ice, the rest has gained. Climate shift? Where? How much? What's your proof? Water shortages? Again where and when has the earth never experienced water shortage? Yes, facts seldom can sway those of faith. May Gaia give you her blessings.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Denialism is futile, when the effects of global warming can already be seen - meltdown of polar icecaps, climate shift, water shortages in regions that never experienced them before...
source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=267)
A third relevant study is a recent paper in the Journal of Glaciology by Zwally et al. (2005) on the ice mass changes on Greenland and Antarctica. They use the same satellite obsevations (ERS 1 and 2) as Johanessen et al. and again find that the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (-42 ± 2 Gt/year = -46 ± 2 km3/year below the equilibrium-line altitude - ELA), but growing in the inland (+53 ± 2 Gt/year = 58 ± 2 km3/year). The mass estimates have been converted to volume estimates here, assuming the density of ice is 0.917 g/cm3 at 0°C, so that the mass of one Gt of ice is roughly equivalent to 1.1km3 ice*. This means that the Greenland ice has an overall mass gain by +11 ± 3 Gt/year (=10 ± 2.7 km3/year) which they estimated implied a -0.03 mm/year SLE over the period 1992-2002.
what does this tell you?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
LOL, the argument isn't about whether the earth is getting hotter or cooler, it's about whether or not man is causing it.
I personally think "who's causing it" is irrelevant. In my "house on fire" analogy, that would be like going into the kitchen to get a beer from the refrig, finding that a pan containing oil had caught fire on the stove, and saying "well hey, it wasn't me who left the stove turned on" - then returning to the living room with your beer to watch the game.
You claim a "meltdown of the polar icecaps"? Hummm...less than 2 percent of the Antarctic has experienced a reduction in ice, the rest has gained. Climate shift? Where? How much? What's your proof? Water shortages?
Reread the thread. Pay attention to posts by tedrbr, 2bighorn, Angus and oboe. I'm not going to type in all the answers again when it's clear you still had your blinkers on when you read those posts the first time.
But I will say that it's time to bring Angus back in. He lives in Iceland, in an area where he can actually SEE the effects of global warming, and has already produced satellite photos clearly showing the Arctic ice meltdown since 1979.
For me, the argument isn't about whether or not man is causing global warming. The questions we should be asking ourselves are (1) What will happen to the earth in 25/50/100 years if man continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate? (2)If we accept that the answer to (1) is an ecological calamity, then what steps can mankind take to reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?
In the "house on fire" analogy, I'd say it's a case of turning off the stove and making it safe - even if it was someone else who left it turned on while they went to answer the phone.
:)
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
I personally think "who's causing it" is irrelevant.
Who is causing it is the whole argument. Is it natural or is it our fault? If it's a natural fluctuation, there is not much we can do. If its 50% our fault, maybe we can temper the effects and slow it down, but we still cannot stop it. If is all ours, then maybe we can do a great deal.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
I personally think "who's causing it" is irrelevant. In my "house on fire" analogy, that would be like going into the kitchen to get a beer from the refrig, finding that a pan containing oil had caught fire on the stove, and saying "well hey, it wasn't me who left the stove turned on" - then returning to the living room with your beer to watch the game.
Reread the thread. Pay attention to posts by tedrbr, 2bighorn, Angus and oboe. I'm not going to type in all the answers again when it's clear you still had your blinkers on when you read those posts the first time.
But I will say that it's time to bring Angus back in. He lives in Iceland, in an area where he can actually SEE the effects of global warming, and has already produced satellite photos clearly showing the Arctic ice meltdown since 1979.
For me, the argument isn't about whether or not man is causing global warming. The questions we should be asking ourselves are (1) What will happen to the earth in 25/50/100 years if man continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate? (2)If we accept that the answer to (1) is an ecological calamity, then what steps can mankind take to reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?
In the "house on fire" analogy, I'd say it's a case of turning off the stove and making it safe - even if it was someone else who left it turned on while they went to answer the phone.
:)
Excellent use of circular logic. You say it doesn't matter if global warming is caused by man or not BUT we need to take steps to "reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?" Are you insane? You're actually arguing with a straight face that even if man is not the cause of global warming we still need to do something to counteract it??? Man has survived on the planet because we learn to adapt. We're also one of the broadest reaching species on the planet with humans living from the poles to the equator. If the Earth continues to warm, on it's own btw, then we'll adapt. If the Earth is actually nearing a cooling period again, then we'll adapt again.
Angus isn't seeing the results of global warming, he's seeing his local weather. I live in Florida, I saw lots of hurricanes over the past few years, people said we were "seeing the results of global warming" then they stopped....hummmmm. There is a huge difference between local weather and global climate and yes, I've read the posts and find them interesting arguments but unconvincing as proof.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Better drink up and enjoy it.
The gentleman from New Hampshire has been recognized and noted.
:D
-
fstfwd... you said..
"For me, the argument isn't about whether or not man is causing global warming. The questions we should be asking ourselves are (1) What will happen to the earth in 25/50/100 years if man continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate? (2)If we accept that the answer to (1) is an ecological calamity, then what steps can mankind take to reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?"
Those are excellent questions... Ones that your doom and gloom scientists will not answer because the answers do not exist or... they are really really "inconvienient".
If we are at the end of a natural warming trend then nothing we do will stop the earth from cooling. If we are near the end then nothing will stop the earth from warming a little longer. If man is only a slight producer of Co2 and if Co2 is the sign that a warming trend is ending... as it has always been in the past... then why should we care about it? What disaster does the tiny bit of Co2 production of man portend?
If the overall temp of the globe is staying the same or cooling will you then relax a little or...
Will you ask that we burn all kinds of energy to help stop global cooling? or... will there be some reason that man is causing global cooling.. some thing that someone can get rich and powerful on by scaring you out of your panties?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Who is causing it is the whole argument. Is it natural or is it our fault?
Granted, that's what a lot of the shouting is about, but is not the important issue. If it's a natural fluctuation, there is not much we can do. If its 50% our fault, maybe we can temper the effects and slow it down, but we still cannot stop it. If is all ours, then maybe we can do a great deal.
I agree almost entirely! Except that if it's a natural fluctuation, you're saying that there's not much we can do. I agree that there's not much we can do about what NATURE is doing, but there's a great deal we can do about what WE are doing, and thereby offset what nature is doing in order to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations to within safe levels. The denialists' stance seems to be one of "if Nature is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming, then the tens of billions of tons of carbon that mankind releases into the atmosphere doesn't make any difference". And that's baloney. At a recent science conference involving 2000 scientists from nearly 200 countries, the collective opinion was that man is 90% to blame for the warming and climate change we see today.
Mace2004
You say it doesn't matter if global warming is caused by man or not BUT we need to take steps to "reduce carbon emissions to safe levels to avert this disaster?" Are you insane? You're actually arguing with a straight face that even if man is not the cause of global warming we still need to do something to counteract it???
That's EXACTLY what I am saying! - except that I don't believe I'm insane.
Think back to the burning house analogy. If you saw that a piece of coal had fallen out of an open fire onto the hearth rug and threatened to cause a fire, are you saying that you'd do nothing to prevent that fire because you were not the one who put that burning coal on the hearth rug and therefore didn't feel you bore any responsibility for the fire that might start as a result? Are you insane???! And - are you under 25 by any chance? - just curious
Angus isn't seeing the results of global warming, he's seeing his local weather.
No, he has also posted pics of Arctic meltdown taken from space, and which cover an area of hundreds of thousands of square miles, if not more.
There is a huge difference between local weather and global climate
I don't think that scientific conference was held to discuss the local weather - do you?
Lazs2
Those are excellent questions... Ones that your doom and gloom scientists will not answer because the answers do not exist or... they are really really "inconvienient".
No Lazs2, the answers are already forthcoming. Of course, we must wait to see if the world population as a whole is prepared to listen. If the people in this thread are anything to go by, I'd say there's a 50-50 chance.
-
""Think back to the burning house analogy""
all analogies are stupid. lose the analogy.
edit.. if i had a choice between global warming and a ice age, i pick warming. but i don't think we have a choice.
if you look into recorded history, times of warming were times of prosperity and growth, cold periods were times of famine, sickness, war.
-
Originally posted by john9001
""Think back to the burning house analogy""
all analogies are stupid. lose the analogy.
edit.. if i had a choice between global warming and a ice age, i pick warming. but i don't think we have a choice.
if you look into recorded history, times of warming were times of prosperity and growth, cold periods were times of famine, sickness, war.
Well his analogy is stupid for sure, comparing global warming to a burning house on the info we have is rather alarmist and silly. In fact it is just more scare mongering.
The analogy should be this.
AN electrician/heater repairman tells you if you don’t do something soon the heater in your house is going to malfunction and cause a fire. Sometime in the next 50 to 100 years.
He can't tell you exactly why. He can't give you evidence that his competitor cant refute, and he wants to sell you a 5 million$ heater to fix it. His track record for heater scare mongering is bad, and has proved false in the past.
Sadly fastfwd seems to come from the extremist Islam like branch of the church of global warming. I would be careful; he may blow himself all over you if you aren’t properly deferential towards his gods. .
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Granted, that's what a lot of the shouting is about, but is not the important issue.
Actually, that's entirely what it's about. Unfortunently too many globalwarmingists have equated natural warming of the planet (itself a debatable subject) with "man-made" global warming (an absolutely unproven theory) making them one in the same for political purposes. Worse though, in your case, it doesn't matter if the warming is being caused by man or nature, you think we should do something anyway. Sort of like not liking darkness and then demanding the human race pool it's resources to end night.I agree almost entirely! Except that if it's a natural fluctuation, you're saying that there's not much we can do. I agree that there's not much we can do about what NATURE is doing, but there's a great deal we can do about what WE are doing, and thereby offset what nature is doing in order to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations to within safe levels.
Within safe levels??? You're kidding right? There is no proof that CO2 is a problem at all and man's contribution to it is a tiny fraction of the total CO2. CO2 has risen and fallen in synchronization with the Earth's temperature for as far as we can record but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever as to which is the cause and which is the effect. Right now they have traced one of the largest contributors of CO2 to melting permafrost in Siberia. As the earth warms (as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age) permafrost softens and releases stored CO2. This release of CO2 is not CAUSING the warming, it is the RESULT of warming.
The denialists' stance seems to be one of "if Nature is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming, then the tens of billions of tons of carbon that mankind releases into the atmosphere doesn't make any difference".
There's the rub, nature isn't responsible for "even a tiny amount of global warming" it is by far the greatest cause and always has been. Your argument is actually: "if Man is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming then we should place the world economy at risk to correct that tiny amount."
At a recent science conference involving 2000 scientists from nearly 200 countries, the collective opinion was that man is 90% to blame for the warming and climate change we see today.
The collective opinion of scientists is that if everyone signed onto Kyoto we'd reduce global warming by .7 degress C in 50 years. The collective opinion of scientists also used to be that the world is flat. The collective opinion of scientists used to be that the world is cooling. The collective opinion of scientists used to be that dirt was good because it sealed the pores and kept germs out. The collective opinion of scientists is that someone needs to give them funding so they can further develop theories that justify yet more funding.And - are you under 25 by any chance? - just curious
Ad hominum attacks are the last refuge of those lacking a substantive argument.No, he has also posted pics of Arctic meltdown taken from space, and which cover an area of hundreds of thousands of square miles, if not more.
You mean the pictures of the melting that has gone on since the end of the Little Ice Age? Let me ask you another question, what's worse global warming or cooling? All of the major advances of global civilization have occured during warming periods. The Roman warming, the Middle Ages and Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The cooling periods are when things were bad such as the Dark Ages so, even assuming the Earth is still warming, why again is that a bad thing??? Oh yeah, the sea's going to drown us all. From Al Gore's "20 Feet" to the previous IPCC report claiming 36 INCHES to it's current report now claiming only 17 INCHES.I don't think that scientific conference was held to discuss the local weather - do you?
Actually, it's probably more related to politics, panic and funding than accuracy.
No Lazs2, the answers are already forthcoming. Of course, we must wait to see if the world population as a whole is prepared to listen. If the people in this thread are anything to go by, I'd say there's a 50-50 chance.
The chances that the "world" will attempt to "solve" the theory of man-made global warming is very small. Thank God for that.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Well his analogy is stupid for sure, comparing global warming to a burning house on the info we have is rather alarmist and silly. In fact it is just more scare mongering.
Comparing? I was not comparing anything. Learn the difference between an analogy and a comparison. And... this denialist taunt that the belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that exacerbates global warming constitutes some form of religion is perfectly ridiculous.
Mace
Actually, that's entirely what it's about.
I disagree. The research into what can be done to counter the effects of global warming is a scientific study, not a blame apportionment exercise. Worse though, in your case, it doesn't matter if the warming is being caused by man or nature, you think we should do something anyway.
I agree. When your house is on fire, the most pressing matter is to get the fire put out - not stand around asking who caused it.
Within safe levels??? You're kidding right? There is no proof that CO2 is a problem at all and man's contribution to it is a tiny fraction of the total CO2. CO2 has risen and fallen in synchronization with the Earth's temperature for as far as we can record but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever as to which is the cause and which is the effect. Right now they have traced one of the largest contributors of CO2 to melting permafrost in Siberia. As the earth warms (as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age) permafrost softens and releases stored CO2. This release of CO2 is not CAUSING the warming, it is the RESULT of warming.
There is plenty of proof that CO2 (along with methane, water vapor, plus a few others) is a greenhouse gas that traps the earth's heat instead of allowing it to be radiated back into space.
How do you know how tiny man's contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is? Do you have any figures? I've read that CO2 is at its highest level for over 600,000 years. It's funny that this period coincides with the burning of fossil fuels at a rate never seen at any time before the industrial revolution.
There's the rub, nature isn't responsible for "even a tiny amount of global warming" it is by far the greatest cause and always has been. Your argument is actually: "if Man is responsible for even a tiny amount of global warming then we should place the world economy at risk to correct that tiny amount."
I don't believe that, and neither did that assembly of 2000 scientists from ~200 countries at a conference in Paris a few weeks ago. The conclusion they arrived at was that there was a 90% chance that man was causing global warming. Now, who do I choose to believe: 1) a panel of scientists who work full time studying climatology and global warming, or 2) a couple of guys in the AH O club? Hmmm, I think I'll go with (1) - no offence to you or your buddies. :lol
I asked you how old you are, and if you were under 25, which I suspect you are. Your response was Ad hominum attacks are the last refuge of those lacking a substantive argument.
It wasn't an attack - it was merely a question.
You mean the pictures of the melting that has gone on since the end of the Little Ice Age?
No, the pictures of the melting that has gone on since 1979.
Actually, it's probably more related to politics, panic and funding than accuracy.
I doubt that it's a political issue, given that the scientists came from 200 different countries. If it was about politics, which party are they all affiliated to?
The chances that the "world" will attempt to "solve" the theory of man-made global warming is very small. Thank God for that.
Efforts are being made around the world to cut back on carbon emissions. Some countries are boosting the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power. There's work being done to develop "carbon neutral" fuels. I dare say this work will go ahead, whether you believe it's necessary or not. And when the efforts of these projects are rewarded by a reduction of Co2 so that an ecological crisis is averted, you'll be able to crow that you were right, and that there never was any threat of global catastrophe. :rolleyes:
-
wait a minute... you are now saying that there is a 90% chance that man is causing global warming? give me the link... that statement leaves a lot to the imagination...
Does it mean we are causing all the global warming or that they think there is a 90% chance that we have some effect? how much effect? is there 100% chance that nature is causing "significant" or "massive" global warming?
How much of the warming is caused by man and... if we are indeed at the end of a global warming trend.. if we are entering a global cooling trend.. What do you want to do about that? How do we solve global cooling..
where do we send our money?
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
I asked you how old you are, and if you were under 25, which I suspect you are. Your response was It wasn't an attack - it was merely a question.
No, the pictures of the melting that has gone on since 1979.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.You chose to imply I'm too young to know what I'm talking about in spite of the fact that you have no evidence to support that allegation. Of course, since you're a true believer in global warming, evidence isn't really necessary is it?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wait a minute... you are now saying that there is a 90% chance that man is causing global warming? give me the link... that statement leaves a lot to the imagination...
Does it mean we are causing all the global warming or that they think there is a 90% chance that we have some effect? how much effect? is there 100% chance that nature is causing "significant" or "massive" global warming?
Lazs2 - I didn't say it - a panel of scientists said it. You wanted a link - start here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/02/news/climate.php There is no question that this is driven by human activity," said Susan Solomon, one of the panel's leaders. She noted that in calling the link "very likely" scientists had increased certainty on a connection from their previous estimate of 66 percent to 90 percent.
Mace2004
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.You chose to imply I'm too young to know what I'm talking about in spite of the fact that you have no evidence to support that allegation. Of course, since you're a true believer in global warming, evidence isn't really necessary is it?
Well that's interesting that you now know so much about "ad hominem", considering the first time you couldn't even spell it. Now you're calling it an "argument". Last time, it was an "attack".
No, it is not an attack, and it's not an attempt to discredit you because you are young. But as I journey through life, I notice that twenty-somethings (and younger) often take the "it's not my responsibility - it's someone else's problem" stance, which is what you're doing in this thread.
Again, you're trying to make my "belief in global warming" sound like a religion which, of course, is nonsense. You even said yourself The earth has been warming up since the end of the little ice age from 1300 to 1850.
CO2 and water vapor trap the earth's heat. That's why clear winter nights are colder than nights when there is cloud cover. Please tell me what this concept has to do with religion.
Take your time though. I'm gone thru the weekend.
Hmmm... a little birdie sitting on my shoulder is whispering "Mace2004 = Morpheus".
-
it's all fun and games...until fundamentalist polar bears try to acquire norwegian yellow cake. then treasures of blood and gold will be thrown at the problem.
in the mean time, i'll embrace the warmer cilmate with no regret or guilt.
-
so the report doesn't say anything...
Oh it says that they are almost certain that man can have some effect on climate... I am 100% sure that if I pee in the ocean it will have "drive" the ocean getting saltier.
Where are the numbers? tell me what will happen next year if we don't change a thing. Then lets see if they know what they are talking about... tell me exactly what will happen in two years and then lets wait and see if they are right.
The farmers almanac is more right about the weather for next year than every "climatologist" on record.
How much effect are we having? I keep asking but no one answers.
If we do nothing what will happen in the next 50 years? If we all slit our throats this afternoon what would happen to the climate in the next 50 years?
Hell.. I want to see an accurate prediction for next year. they all claimed more hurricanes for this year.. we had less. They claimed less ice pack.. we have the same or more.
How often do they have to be wrong or.. worm out of any real answers before you acolades... you man made global warming religious nutjobs start to ask these questions?
None of you care what the answers are. None of you care to doubt... no matter what they say... no matter how outlandish.. you simply accept it... you don't ask for more proof... you don't ask for anything ironclad "we believe" is plenty good for you if the guy saying it has a degree in something....often, nothing to do with climate.
oboe is excepted since he does at least take some of it with a grain of salt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Well that's interesting that you now know so much about "ad hominem", considering the first time you couldn't even spell it. Now you're calling it an "argument". Last time, it was an "attack".
No, it is not an attack, and it's not an attempt to discredit you because you are young. But as I journey through life, I notice that twenty-somethings (and younger) often take the "it's not my responsibility - it's someone else's problem" stance, which is what you're doing in this thread.
Again, you're trying to make my "belief in global warming" sound like a religion which, of course, is nonsense. You even said yourself
CO2 and water vapor trap the earth's heat. That's why clear winter nights are colder than nights when there is cloud cover. Please tell me what this concept has to do with religion.
Take your time though. I'm gone thru the weekend.
Hmmm... a little birdie sitting on my shoulder is whispering "Mace2004 = Morpheus".
You're really not very bright now are you FF? Your belief that I'm less than 25 years old is as asinine and baseless as your belief that we need to "solve" global warming even if it isn't man made. As I said before, it takes little evidence or proof to convince ye of faith.
If you are the "mature" individual you claim to be than your maturity and experience should also have brought a degree of healthy skepticism. I guess you haven't reached that level yet or your "faith" prevents you from seeing the world as it is. Perhaps you were just a gleam in your papa's eye the last round when it was global cooling as the disaster de jour. Maybe you are unaware that alarmists also said we'd be out of fuel by 1990? Maybe you're unaware of "nuclear winter"? How about all the people that would be thrown on the street and children that would starve due to welfare reform? Healthy skepticism of the latest "trendy" calamity is more of a mark of intelligence and maturity than immaturity as you contend. But then again, there's that "faith" of yours so you must attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't kowtow to your beliefs.
-
For all those that claim "solving" global warming won't cost us anything:
Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. "We don't think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach," he said.
The link is here. (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm) I also love this salamander's arrogance in the line "we don't think ultimately society will get it right..." and follow his lead unless they're punished by taxes. Typical left-wing view of the world. Taxes are not new to Holden, he's been one of those that believes that fuel taxes should be raised (as does Al Gore) specifically to make fuel unaffordable to force society to conform to his theories and beliefs. Holdren also wrote a polemic in the '70's calling to "de-develop the US" and claiming that up to one billion people could die by 2020 due to climate change. He also wrote a review of Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" in which he called Lomborg "unrepentant". Sounds like a little "faith based" bashing to me.
Again, for those that believe "solving" global warming wouldn't cost much, think about what would happen when guys like these get their way.
-
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Global warming *snicker*
So many global warming band wagon jumpers. I am going to enjoy their next subject of fanaticism once they get over the global warming trend.
Fools and those that follow them.... "*snicker*
:noid :rofl :aok
-
In case you are not aware this is the United States Official Policy on Climate Control:
The United States Federal government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change. This policy has three basic objectives:
Slowing the growth of emissions
Strengthening science, technology and institutions
Enhancing international cooperation
The Federal government is implementing this policy through voluntary and incentive-based programs and has established major government-wide programs to advance climate technologies and improve climate science.
Source (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html)
I suggest you all write the EPA and tell them how wrong they are.
-
curval... the EPA has a history of being wrong.... We have a lot of MTBE poisoned water here as a result of their "hurry up and do something even if it is wrong"
This guy is now telling you that he duped you... he is the founder of the "man made global warming" religion..
"Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."
The guy who founded your religion is saying "ooops... guess I overreacted"
lazs
-
Prominent French Scientist turns skeptic:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Countering Al Gore’s propaganda piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965
and
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
-
It's not my religion at all.
Funny how, in this or another Global Warming thread, we were discussing alternative sources of power and Mav (another gung-ho member of the Church of Denialism..or Church of Anti-Gore) insisted that the alternatives I presented needed to be studied and environmental impact studies done by the EPA.
In some instances they are needed and yet apparently they get it wrong.
-
we need more MBTE in our gasoline, yeah baby.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Prominent French Scientist turns skeptic:
You should not believe this ,Allegre never was prominent and "il sucre les fraises" (check http://www.bonjourdefrance.com/n11/expidio5.htm)
-
Pro: Blablabla blabla! bal bla blA!!! blablabalabal bla!??! blaaa
Contra: Blablablablabla bal bla blabal bla!??! blaaa BLA!!1!
...meanwhile the earth collapsing...
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You're really not very bright now are you FF? Your belief that I'm less than 25 years old is as asinine and baseless as your belief that we need to "solve" global warming even if it isn't man made.
I never said anything about 25 - I said "twenty-something". By my calculations you are now 25 or maybe 26. You ARE morpheus, aren't you? If you are the "mature" individual you claim to be than your maturity and experience should also have brought a degree of healthy skepticism.
Well what you have is not a degree of healthy skepticism, but a massive overdose of kneejerk denialism.
-
Which advances the purpose of this thread, greatly.
-
How many pages are we up to now ?:O
-
the earth is not collapsing, the earth is doing fine, it's the humans that may be in trouble
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
I never said anything about 25 - I said "twenty-something". By my calculations you are now 25 or maybe 26. You ARE morpheus, aren't you? Well what you have is not a degree of healthy skepticism, but a massive overdose of kneejerk denialism.
That's good, you again fail to address any issue but instead attempt to belittle the person you're debating.
I'll remind you again what our disagreement is. You believe that we should "solve" global warming even if it's not a man-made problem. I'm simply saying the world changes, as it always has, even before us bad people started generating a tiny percentage of CO2. If there's any "denialism" going on, it's simply a result of your inability to accept that the world is not static. It seems this is causing some degree of panic for you...therefore "we" must do something. It's sort of like when your mommy left you at day care the first day. Something was different and that scared you so you cried.
-
Come on, fess up. You ARE morpheus, aren't you? See, I'm not as stupid as you said.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Come on, fess up. You ARE morpheus, aren't you? See, I'm not as stupid as you said.
Actually, that comes very close to confirming it.
-
I'll remind you again what our disagreement is. You believe that we should "solve" global warming even if it's not a man-made problem. I'm simply saying the world changes, as it always has, even before us bad people started generating a tiny percentage of CO2.
So you're saying that the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 that man has been releasing into the atmosphere annually in the age of electricity and powered vehicles has no bearing at all on the ecological equilibrium of the planet? Well, think of the money that could have been saved in Paris! Instead of assembling a panel of scientists to analyse this, all expert in their respective fields, from hundreds of countries, they could have just written to Mace2004 and got the answers right here in the AH O club! :lol
-
Originally posted by Curval
In case you are not aware this is the United States Official Policy on Climate Control:
Sure as a result of pressure from liberal kooks.
These are the same clowns that said we were entering a new ice age in the 70's. Curval, you simply believe everything you read... i don't.
:noid :aok
-
Any chance we could get this thread to 20 pages? Hope so:D
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Any chance we could get this thread to 20 pages? Hope so:D
Working on it dude....half-way there:aok
-
so ghostft...
What would you suggest? since it is such an important thing.. we should simply DO SOMETHING FOR GAWDS SAKE BEFORE WE ALL MELT!!!!!
We need to oxenegate the gasoline! do it now... Add MTBE to every gallon and save the planet from global warming! we can study it later and get the real numbers.
And that's the point... "almost certainly" and "massive" and "significant" aren't numbers.... Just like "soon" is not time and... when lawyers use the term "soon" it has no meaning a normal human would understand to be "soon"
"massive" by scientists means little to the layman. "significant" to a scientist often means a number with a decimal point and a lot of zeros in front of it.
There are many reasons to conserve and to find alternatives for things like oil and coal and wood but "man made global warming" isn't one of em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
So you're saying that the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 that man has been releasing into the atmosphere annually in the age of electricity and powered vehicles has no bearing at all on the ecological equilibrium of the planet? Well, think of the money that could have been saved in Paris! Instead of assembling a panel of scientists to analyse this, all expert in their respective fields, from hundreds of countries, they could have just written to Mace2004 and got the answers right here in the AH O club! :lol
It seems you're impressed by the word "BILLIONS". The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5,000 TRILLION TONS. Of this, CO2 makes up something like .03 percent. Also, of that .03 percent the vast majority comes from nature and man's contribution (even if it is "BILLIONS" of tons) is only a fraction of what nature produces so no, I'm not particularly impressed with "BILLIONS" even if you like to capitalize it. Cow flatulance introduces far more CO2 into the atmosphere than man does yet I don't see you running around plugging cow bung holes. BTW, I never said that pollution caused by man has no bearing at all, I'm just saying I don't buy into the dire and catastrophic predictions from people with both political and financial stakes in them.
Also, yes, they probably could have saved quite a bit by eliminating their little meeting in Paris. There are been plenty of posts in this thread pointing to opinions, most of them pretty authoritative, that disagree with the alarmists. This (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm) is a repeat in this thread but well worth reading again if you love the idea of groups of really, really, smart people getting together to "solve" world problems.
Again, my argument with you though is with what you said:...if it's a natural fluctuation, you're saying that there's not much we can do. I agree that there's not much we can do about what NATURE is doing, but there's a great deal we can do about what WE are doing, and thereby offset what nature is doing in order to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations to within safe levels.
You want us to invent is a program to "solve" global warming even if it's not caused by man. In other words, you want the world to stay static, exactly as it was when you were a little child. You'd go beyond "solving" a crisis to dictacting what the weather should be and that, my friend, is foolish.
-
Mace,
In 650,000 yrs, CO2 has never risen above 300 ppm. We're now at 380 ppm and climbing exponentially, apparently. The concentration growth rate in the last 10 years (1.9 ppm/yr) far exceeds the average growth rate since the beginning of atmospheric measurements in 1960 (1.4 ppm/yr).
Also, whatever portion of the blame you want to put on cow flatulence actually belongs on man, since we are the ones raising the cattle for meat (but that is actually methane and not CO2 as far as cows go) Still a greenhouse gas, anyway.
Its hard to blame anything but man for the recent marked rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, isn't it?
I'm not ready to conclude anything further from that yet, though. I did find this IPCC executive summary interesting:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
-
""In 650,000 yrs, CO2 has never risen above 300 ppm""
that statement means that the method of figuring out the CO2 of the last 650,000 yrs is not flawed. What if the test methods are wrong? What if the data is wrong?
-
Yep, it does. If the method of figuring out CO2 concentrations from ice cores is flawed, then alot of data and assumptions based on the data are going to be wrong.
I don't know how long they've been doing the procedure or how they benchmarked the data to make sure the methodology is sound.
I haven't heard anyone else challenge that particular aspect of global warming studies though.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
It seems you're impressed by the word "BILLIONS". The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5,000 TRILLION TONS. Of this, CO2 makes up something like .03 percent. Also, of that .03 percent the vast majority comes from nature and man's contribution (even if it is "BILLIONS" of tons) is only a fraction of what nature produces so no, I'm not particularly impressed with "BILLIONS" even if you like to capitalize it. Cow flatulance introduces far more CO2 into the atmosphere than man does yet I don't see you running around plugging cow bung holes. BTW, I never said that pollution caused by man has no bearing at all, I'm just saying I don't buy into the dire and catastrophic predictions from people with both political and financial stakes in them.
OK, SmartBoy - let's do some analysis, using your own figures. You have conceded that global warming is happening, and have accepted that greenhouse gases like CO2 are a cause of it. You now say that the earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,000 trillion tons (that's 5 quadrillion), of which CO2 represents 0.03%.
Let's see how much that is in tons. 1% of 5000 trillion is 50 trillion, or 50,000,000,000,000. CO2 is 0.03% of this, and 0.03% of 50,000,000,000,000 is 1.5 trillion = 1,500,000,000,000.
Now, at the current rate of consumption, Man's CO2 output (from the burning of fossil fuels etc) is 25 billion tons per year - that's 25,000,000,000.
Dividing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by Man's annual CO2 output (1,500,000,000,000 divided by 25,000,000,000) gives us an answer of 60. In other words, in 60 years, man's CO2 output will be the equivalent of the TOTAL volume of CO2 currently in the atmosphere right now. And remember - CO2 output is set to increase markedly with the industrialization of China. So that 60 years is valid at 2007 levels of CO2 output, but the fact is that Mankind will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in around 40 years. Once again, SmartBoy, these calculations are based on your own figures. Oh, the annual 25bn tons of CO2 is a figure that can be found in a number of places - including the US Department of Energy website.
So Mankind is set to double the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the next ~40 years, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat and causes warming. So... do you still maintain that Man is not causing global warming?
You want us to invent is a program to "solve" global warming even if it's not caused by man. In other words, you want the world to stay static, exactly as it was when you were a little child. You'd go beyond "solving" a crisis to dictacting what the weather should be and that, my friend, is foolish.
Well, according to your own figures, man is set to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 60 years - probably around 40. And we know that CO2 causes global warming. Indeed, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 25% in the past 300 years, caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels.
So you don't want to see the world remain static? You want to see all ports in the world submerged under 10ft of water, just as tedrbr said might happen in one of his earlier posts? What effect do you think that would have on US trade and the US economy as a whole?
I think it's time to start looking at what mankind is doing to this planet, and begin acting upon it - instead of taking the stance that there may be a natural warming trend of unspecified magnitude, therefore we need do nothing...
-
<>>
i see a big upsurge in the US construction industry to build new ports.
-
That'll make me happy. I love making money.
500 posts in and I haven't read more then 1 of em.
-
Originally posted by john9001
""In 650,000 yrs, CO2 has never risen above 300 ppm""
that statement means that the method of figuring out the CO2 of the last 650,000 yrs is not flawed. What if the test methods are wrong? What if the data is wrong?
+
What "IF" the data is right?
A termometer has been a perfectly reliable tool for a long time. But as for 650.000 years, we have to rely on ice cores etc, - Greenland alone takes you 300.000 years back, Antarctica 650.000.
So, the ppm's are manifested, and anyway, we are heading fast at 800 ppm, and then going on to the double. Maybe, you want to wait for the data untill you have your backside on the toaster while the feet are in water ???
-
Why not error on the side of conservation?
If we can save some species/crops/coastline/glaciers....along the way, GREAT!
I cannot understand why people are adverse to cleaning up our act.
-
True and indeed more true. We might be confronting the act of saving ourselves.
-
You need global warming to do that?
-
You need a threat to be able to avoid threat, right?
-
oboe.. since you like to be fair...
Co2 has never before come before a period of global warming... it comes after the warming. The oceans release co2 as the planet warms.
The sun is warming the planet.. that is causing an increase of co2. When the sun stops warming the planet at an increased rate the co2 will be reabsorbed by the ocean... our contribution is miniscule and will easily be absorbed. I look for studies to see how much more the ocean is releasing but all I get is...
We are warming up the planet so the ocean is not absorbing as much. Well.. thats convienient.. our tiny little contribution.. literaly less than a cow fart... is doing more than the sun can do to affect the Co2 in the atmosphere?
What should we do? kill all the cows and become vegetarians? That would seem to be the best solution if we actually believed that the tiny bit of man and animal co2 production was causing this whole global warming effect.
And what if we all slit our throats today? I say the sun would still shine and the ocean would still release co2 in accordance with the suns activity. The planet would continue to warm and co2 increase until the sun shifted to a lower activity level.
The predictions of Co2 rise are based on what is happening at the peak of suns activity right now... if the warming trend/sun activity slows... all predictions are off.
Still... no scientist has ever been able to show that increased Co2 levels cause global warming.. only that they follow it.
The debate will get better once the scientists think they have enough frieghtened acolytes and pass out their real agenda... what they think we ought to do about the whole thing. When people hear the grief and hardship these high priests propose.... it will get interesting.
lazs
-
Global warming is most likely happening. Do any of you honestly believe that man can pump out that many environmental toxins and greenhouse gasses, mind you, that weren't here before man got here and say that it couldn't be having an effect. The automobile has been here for about a hundred years now, my guess it's been doing something and the automobile ain't the only thing. I been living in Texas now all my life and can remember back up to 1995, there was at least several freezes a year. There would be ice cicles hanging on something by the end of winter. I haven't seen an icecicle since then and it gets warmer and warmer. What do you think thats about? My guess is that man is screwing things up somewhere and we better find another energy source before i'm surfing in Alaska in December. Sure the earths environment goes in cycles but it's my bet that man is doing something to it. How many of you can sit here and naysay people who do studies that at least submit to the fact that it may be happening and act like there stupid for saying it. I rather listen to it and prepare for the possibility so if they are wrong at least we have changed a bad situation anyway. You very people are the same ones who could be sunbathing in Siberia in January while the rest of us melt are buns off somewhere else. It's always scientist and creative thinkers who find stuff out while people sit back and criticize them for it. I rather say hey they could be right. If there wrong great, somethings changing the environment anyway, if their right don't be left looking stupid saying uhh those guys might have had a point there. Ignorance is bliss untill something you ignored comes back to bite you in the ass.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I cannot understand why people are adverse to cleaning up our act.
Convenience Dadano convenience.........
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Global warming is most likely happening. Do any of you honestly believe that man can pump out that many environmental toxins and greenhouse gasses, mind you, that weren't here before man got here and say that it couldn't be having an effect. The automobile has been here for about a hundred years now, my guess it's been doing something and the automobile ain't the only thing. I been living in Texas now all my life and can remember back up to 1995, there was at least several freezes a year. There would be ice cicles hanging on something by the end of winter. I haven't seen an icecicle since then and it gets warmer and warmer. What do you think thats about? My guess is that man is screwing things up somewhere and we better find another energy source before i'm surfing in Alaska in December. Sure the earths environment goes in cycles but it's my bet that man is doing something to it. How many of you can sit here and naysay people who do studies that at least submit to the fact that it may be happening and act like there stupid for saying it. I rather listen to it and prepare for the possibility so if they are wrong at least we have changed a bad situation anyway. You very people are the same ones who could be sunbathing in Siberia in January while the rest of us melt are buns off somewhere else. It's always scientist and creative thinkers who find stuff out while people sit back and criticize them for it. I rather say hey they could be right. If there wrong great, somethings changing the environment anyway, if their right don't be left looking stupid saying uhh those guys might have had a point there. Ignorance is bliss untill something you ignored comes back to bite you in the ass.
Erm volcanoes have been spewing more crap into the air over a longer period of time.
Better get some big arsed cat converters and air scrubbers for them.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
OK, SmartBoy - let's do some analysis, using your own figures. You have conceded that global warming is happening, and have accepted that greenhouse gases like CO2 are a cause of it. You now say that the earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,000 trillion tons (that's 5 quadrillion), of which CO2 represents 0.03%.
Let's see how much that is in tons. 1% of 5000 trillion is 50 trillion, or 50,000,000,000,000. CO2 is 0.03% of this, and 0.03% of 50,000,000,000,000 is 1.5 trillion = 1,500,000,000,000.
Now, at the current rate of consumption, Man's CO2 output (from the burning of fossil fuels etc) is 25 billion tons per year - that's 25,000,000,000.
Dividing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by Man's annual CO2 output (1,500,000,000,000 divided by 25,000,000,000) gives us an answer of 60. In other words, in 60 years, man's CO2 output will be the equivalent of the TOTAL volume of CO2 currently in the atmosphere right now. And remember - CO2 output is set to increase markedly with the industrialization of China. So that 60 years is valid at 2007 levels of CO2 output, but the fact is that Mankind will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in around 40 years. Once again, SmartBoy, these calculations are based on your own figures. Oh, the annual 25bn tons of CO2 is a figure that can be found in a number of places - including the US Department of Energy website.
So Mankind is set to double the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the next ~40 years, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat and causes warming. So... do you still maintain that Man is not causing global warming?
Well, according to your own figures, man is set to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 60 years - probably around 40. And we know that CO2 causes global warming. Indeed, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 25% in the past 300 years, caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels.
So you don't want to see the world remain static? You want to see all ports in the world submerged under 10ft of water, just as tedrbr said might happen in one of his earlier posts? What effect do you think that would have on US trade and the US economy as a whole?
I think it's time to start looking at what mankind is doing to this planet, and begin acting upon it - instead of taking the stance that there may be a natural warming trend of unspecified magnitude, therefore we need do nothing...
Your calculations fail to take into account the consumption of CO2 over the next 60 years by plants, the ocean, etc. Your assertion that global CO2 levels are going to double in 60 years due to man's CO2 output is not valid.
1. Biologic CO2 consumption is not STATIC. Higher CO2 levels trigger increased plant growth and increased consumption of CO2. Ask any botanist what happens when you feed CO2 into a plant filled greenhouse.
2. Chemical CO2 consumption is not static either - higher CO2 levels mean that the chance for a chemical reaction involving a CO2 molecule is similarly increased - whether it is direct absorption by the ocean, or the mating of a CO2 molecule with some other element in a more complex reaction.
EagleDNY
-
Yea volcanoes have been doing that for along time Bronk ......but it's something happening NOW ....NOW? Volcanoes and other earthly means have been happening since before we got here. Whats the NEW variable thats been causing the change???? Well man's pretty new certainly newer to the earth than volcanoes what could he have been up to lately that could be causing this to happen? As far as we know this wasn't happening before in the 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, centuries especially that we know of. Well what's man done been doing lately? Perhaps the industrial revolution, man's use of creating earthly elements and producing fuels and synthetic compounds that were't here before. Perhaps the earth wasn't ready for that, perhaps the earth could not forsee the effects that man could be having and what he might create. Maybe the earths orbit has changed or perhaps the earth is tilting on it's axis due to other orbital permutation forces, i don't know. The sun is getting older, as the sun burns the rest of its hydrogen gasses through nuclear fussion it creates a lighter compound called i forgot, He3, that is lighter in density than the hydrogen compound that exists on the sun naturally this causes the sun to lose some of it's mass all the time thus losing it's density over time causing the sun to have less gravity and alowing the suns gasseous atmosphere to get father and farther from it's center. In approximately 4 billion years the sun's size will increase and is expected to be at least twice it's size covering up the orbit of the planet Venus, this how Red Giant stars and Super Giant stars are produced and is part of the normal star life cycle. It could be any of these things or other effects we don't even know about. Is it wrong to venture down the road and ask such questions and maybe find the truth. Why do people want to become ignorant of such things and of people who ask such questions? To close your eyes of something denies you the possibility of ever seeing the light. To open them opens them to the possibility of not knowing or knowing. I rather open them and know.
-
woohoo! up to 11 pages now, getting closer to my target of 20 pages, should break that by next week hopefully :D
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Yea volcanoes have been doing that for along time Bronk ......but it's something happening NOW ....NOW? Volcanoes and other earthly means have been happening since before we got here. Whats the NEW variable thats been causing the change???? Well man's pretty new certainly newer to the earth than volcanoes what could he have been up to lately that could be causing this to happen? As far as we know this wasn't happening before in the 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, centuries especially that we know of. Well what's man done been doing lately? Perhaps the industrial revolution, man's use of creating earthly elements and producing fuels and synthetic compounds that were't here before. Perhaps the earth wasn't ready for that, perhaps the earth could not forsee the effects that man could be having and what he might create. Maybe the earths orbit has changed or perhaps the earth is tilting on it's axis due to other orbital permutation forces, i don't know. The sun is getting older, as the sun burns the rest of its hydrogen gasses through nuclear fussion it creates a lighter compound called i forgot, He3, that is lighter in density than the hydrogen compound that exists on the sun naturally this causes the sun to lose some of it's mass all the time thus losing it's density over time causing the sun to have less gravity and alowing the suns gasseous atmosphere to get father and farther from it's center. In approximately 4 billion years the sun's size will increase and is expected to be at least twice it's size covering up the orbit of the planet Venus, this how Red Giant stars and Super Giant stars are produced and is part of the normal star life cycle. It could be any of these things or other effects we don't even know about. Is it wrong to venture down the road and ask such questions and maybe find the truth. Why do people want to become ignorant of such things and of people who ask such questions? To close your eyes of something denies you the possibility of ever seeing the light. To open them opens them to the possibility of not knowing or knowing. I rather open them and know.
Yup and the earth has heated up and cooled in the past also.
Whats your point?
Bronk
-
Lazs,
Thanks, I do try to be fair. Yes, I have read that CO2 concentrations increase LAG the temperature rather than LEAD it. I think this is a significant point and I haven't found an answer to it. I was quite disappointed that Al Gore's documentary did not address this point. I'll hold off further criticism of him until I understand more about it.
Another thing the IPCC 18 pg Summary for Policymakers did not address very well was Solar Radiation. Again a disappointment.
I don't suggest killing all the cows, and I'll give up steak when they pry the sirloin from my cold dead hand.
I think population control would be a good place to start though. Fact is, I think overpopulation is the source of practically all our problems.
Not ready to slit throats though.
EagleDNY - your theory of balancing reactions that should counteract any CO2 increases is appealing, but why then are currently we so far above significant historical maximum CO2 concentrations?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Yup and the earth has heated up and cooled in the past also.
Whats your point?
Bronk
Yea so let's just forget the whole thing. If the is earth warming up and this whole thing isn't a joke and man is responsible for it let's just keep doing what were doing. If not, our children will only suffer and we'll be dead anyway so we can laugh at them and point from heaven and their dead rotting bodies will bake in the stifling heat of the environmental armeggeddon we could have stopped......maybe...... If those scientist are wrong, oh well false alarm then. I love it, i guess Einstein was wrong about all that crap he came up with, what a twit Einstein was.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Yea so let's just forget the whole thing. If the is earth warming up and this whole thing isn't a joke and man is responsible for it let's just keep doing what were doing. If not, our children will only suffer and we'll be dead anyway so we can laugh at them and point from heaven and their dead rotting bodies will bake in the stifling heat of the environmental armeggeddon we could have stopped......maybe...... If those scientist are wrong, oh well false alarm then. I love it, i guess Einstein was wrong about all that crap he came up with, what a twit Einstein was.
Wow Einstein was global warming theorist?
:confused:
Bronk
-
Are you refusing to see my point or are you being serious. :p :lol
Guess there's two types of people, those that want to know and go anywhere to find out, and those that sit back while they do it and blame them whether they're right or blame them whether there wrong.
Leonardo Da Vinca had to write his notes backwards to avoid people like you.
-
Lemme guess..
Leonardo Da Vinci was a global warming theorist also?
My problem is you inject way to much emotion into your arguments.
One and two sentence replies set you off frothing at the mouth.
Try a different tact.
Do I believe the earth is warming up?
Probably.
Do I think its our fault?
I think we have a minute contributing factor.
I think solar activity and volcanic activity far outstrip us.
No amount of scare and jumping up and down is going to change my mind.
Bronk
-
Here's a possible explanation (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13) .
Interesting how they don't try to force a "one or the other" explanation, but how both solar radiation and CO2 concentrations work together during warming.
-
leadpig.. I recall back a little farther than your 1995 observations and I recall that in the late 60's we had summers that were weeks on end of 105 degree weather and that we have had relatively mild summers of late.. neither of our recolections of local weather is much use to this discussion tho.
you seem to feel that if a scientist comes up with a disaster theory we should "do something about it" just in case.... what should we do about it? How much are you personaly willing to spend... give me a dollar amount you can live with "just in case" tell me what we need to do.
Oboe.. the co2 lag/lead explanations all seem sorta thin.. as does co2 causing global warming. We simply aren't contributing enough to explain the rise in co2 levels.. the sun is making it happen. It is nature.
As for population control... little sticky there... most european countries are already losing population.. the U.S. is barely holding it's own except for non whites...
So how are you gonna tell china and the hispanic countries to ignore their traditions and religions? How would you control population?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Lemme guess..
Leonardo Da Vinci was a global warming theorist also?
My problem is you inject way to much emotion into your arguments.
One and two sentence replies set you off frothing at the mouth.
Try a different tact.
Do I believe the earth is warming up?
Probably.
Do I think its our fault?
I think we have a minute contributing factor.
I think solar activity and volcanic activity far outstrip us.
No amount of scare and jumping up and down is going to change my mind.
Bronk
Bronk your probably right on most of that. I do think man has a bit more than a minute contributing factor, probably between 25 and 50% maybe a little more, add that on to the other stuff your talking about. I hope your right man (crosses fingers), we'll see in the next 10 to 50,000 years right lol. As far as scare tactics i don't think the scientist are trying to scare you, they just think they're right and are a bit emotional and worried for man and about the implications. I don't think they're trying to scare anybody. What would that do for them, scientists are more interested in facts and usually don't care about glory seeking. That's why they can lock themselves in a lab and study stuff without worrying about the outside world. Now the media types they might be hyping it, prolly are, those people love their names in lights. No biggie man :D
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Your calculations fail to take into account the consumption of CO2 over the next 60 years by plants, the ocean, etc. Your assertion that global CO2 levels are going to double in 60 years due to man's CO2 output is not valid.
No, I haven't failed to take that into account. Plants were absorbing CO2 and thriving quite nicely 400 years ago - long before Man started burning fossil fuels at a rate anywhere close to the rate that exists today. And guess what? Plants were not dying because of a "CO2 shortage". Therefore, I submit to you that the man made CO2 that will be released into the atmosphere over the next ~60 years is in excess of what plants will need to survive.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Erm volcanoes have been spewing more crap into the air over a longer period of time.
Better get some big arsed cat converters and air scrubbers for them.
Bronk
Learn todays lesson.
Volcanoes actually add to what is called "GLOBAL DIMMING". That means COOLING. And anyway, unlike human-related release of CO2, Volcanoes cannot be controlled.
Happy schooldays.
-
is there global tint control to go along with thats:D :D :D :D :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: awsome old TV joek by me:aok :aok
-
so we hafta blow up some volcanos to cool down the earth? How many?
-
lazs,
The link I provided did say that solar radiation caused by variations in the Earth's orbit caused warming, which caused CO2 release. The extra CO2 caused additional warming.
Good question about population control. I don't have any suggestions. I do note that the wealthier a country seems to be, the slower its population growth.
Traditions and religions aside, I think its more related to economics than we give credit for.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Learn todays lesson.
Volcanoes actually add to what is called "GLOBAL DIMMING". That means COOLING. And anyway, unlike human-related release of CO2, Volcanoes cannot be controlled.
Happy schooldays.
The particulates may partially block solar radiation. But the noxious gases spewed don't. Those are what contribute to the warming.
Along with Angus flatulence.
Bronk
-
It's been said before but bears repeating. If you're convinced that human produced co2 is bringing about our doom and preaching that tune then you should stop contributing immediately or you are a hypocrite. Everytime you drive a car you are part of your problem.
-
oboe.. the earth has had hotter summers and cooler ones from the beggining.. it changes from year to year and every once in a while... it has prolonged periods of warming or cooling.. the "scientists" don't really know why this is... but best guess is....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
As for population... great you feel that we need less and that the poor and religious countries are the problem... so what? we all agree... Now tell me how you ban their beliefs or make em better off by destroying the economies of the wealthy countries who contribute the most... well... scientists... the most advancement in tech?
It is fine to state a problem and get all weepy about it but quite another to come up with a solution that is not worse than the problem. It is also easy to pick apart the solutions of those who come up with them.
As it stands now.. the evidence is so thin that I am not willing to spend one extra penny on any solution that does not simply allow the free market to work it out on it's own.
I have a feeling that as this shakes out.. as these lab rats and nutjobs start to lay out their plans... that more and more people will feel the same as I do.
lazs
-
Then again.. it could just be the sun.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
As it stands now.. the evidence is so thin that I am not willing to spend one extra penny on any solution that does not simply allow the free market to work it out on it's own.
lazs [/B]
:lol
-
Again lazs, that's pretty much what the link I provided states - the theory that periods of global warming are initiated by increased solar radiation. Yes the earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling and will continue to do so - we're not covering any new ground here.
The issue to me seems to be how much worse will the warming be made by the increased greenhouse gas concentrations. If you look at the growth in concentrations in these gases since industrialization, or even the rapid growth in just CO2 in the last 40 years, I think its difficult not to conclude man is a significant contributor. Can you suggest a natural mechanism that could be responsible for the historically recent, rapid rise in the concentrations of these gases?
I think its going to be very difficult to assign a $$ amount to the possible problems caused by the man's involvement in global warming, so its problematic to figure out how much we should spend fighting it, or whether we are getting a good deal on our investment. My best thought on the matter is to take slow, deliberate steps and monitor the situation activelty to see if we can make a difference, and also make sure whatever we do will have a positive impact on other problems not just global warming. For example, encouraging alternative, renewable energy creates new jobs and industries, keeps money here rather than funding terrorists, and reduces air pollution. Maybe one day, it'll be safe to eat fish regularly in Minnesota again.
I'm not weepy about the problem of overpopulation. I just state matter of factly that I think overpopulation is ultimately responsible for many of our problems. I can't tell you how to fix it, any more than you can tell me how to fix the sun from varying its solar output.
-
We must do something about Manbearpig before it's too late!.
I'm cereal.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
We must do something about Manbearpig before it's too late!.
I'm cereal.
But are you super cereal?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
No, I haven't failed to take that into account. Plants were absorbing CO2 and thriving quite nicely 400 years ago - long before Man started burning fossil fuels at a rate anywhere close to the rate that exists today. And guess what? Plants were not dying because of a "CO2 shortage". Therefore, I submit to you that the man made CO2 that will be released into the atmosphere over the next ~60 years is in excess of what plants will need to survive.
"in excess of what plants will need to survive" isn't a static, just as how much food you need to survive isn't fixed either. For example, although you can survive for a day on a couple of slices of pizza, that doesn't mean that you couldn't eat the entire pizza after a hard days work.
Photosynthesis is not a static. A plant with plenty of sunlight and more CO2 will grow more, consuming more CO2 and releasing more oxygen. Try the experiment - put two identical plants under a lamp, and introduce additional CO2 to one of them. After a month, I guarantee you that one plant will be much larger than the other.
Multiply this phenomenon by every photosynthetic lifeform on the plant, and I think we have a pretty large correction factor towards removing any "excess" CO2 from the atmosphere.
-
I think your reasoning is sound EagleDNY, but how do you explain the recent, dramatic rise in CO2 levels, which are now significantly above historical (the past 650,000 yrs) maximums?
It seems like the correction factor, if there is one, is not functioning properly.
-
That "dramatic" rise they are all talking about in CO2 levels is from 0.036% to 0.040% of the atmosphere, an increase to be sure, but is it out of the realm of normal variation?
First off, there is evidence to support the theory that an increase in CO2 is the RESULT and not the CAUSE of a warming trend. If this is the case, then our rise in CO2 might be the natural variation caused by increased solar heating of the planet.
Earths primordial atmosphere probably contained much more CO2 than the 400 ppm (thats parts per MILLION) we have now - Venus has 97% CO2 in its atmosphere, and Mars has 95% CO2 in its atmosphere - the difference being that most of the earth is covered by water, which is an absolutely wonderful absorber of CO2 (just ask any soda maker), and the development of photosynthetic life forms.
Earths atmosphere now contains nearly 21% free oxygen - a vast difference from the 0% (yes, thats ZERO percent) oxygen that came out of the earth in the volcanic gasses that formed the early atmosphere. Geologists have determined (and tracked) the increase in oxygen levels over the last 4 billion-odd years by studying various iron compounds in the earths crust, and have a pretty decent idea of what percentage of oxygen was available in each era because many compounds only form under very specific conditions.
It is quite probable that what is now 21% oxygen, was once mostly CO2 - this VAST amount of CO2 was consumed by plants, bacteria, chemical processes, etc. to give us the atmospheric composition we have today. Consider this - that even at vastly higher CO2 levels, life formed and thrived on this planet, and has evolved to deal with all the nasty oxygen floating around in the atmosphere.
I have a feeling that the biosphere of this planet will be able to deal just fine with a little more CO2. I'm a lot more worried about the monkey-boys on this planet dumping all sorts of nasty chemicals into the rivers and oceans than I am about a 40ppm increase in global CO2 over 30 years. Bacterial and chemical contaminants pose a much greater environmental threat over the long term (IMHO).
EagleDNY
-
Eh screw it, it's our kids that'll suffer anyway, who cares.
-
Allright i admit it, it's me..... I gotta stop eating all those chilli bean burritoes....:p :D
-
oboe.. I have no problem with "taking it slow" and not doing something out of panic. I think that is the problem. The science is not very good at this point. I think that we are probly going through a period of high sun activity and that it will level off.. what we can do about that is.... nothing.
As for our "contribution" to the warming? let's get some real answers.. do the research but don't ask me to do anything until you have some solid data..
Every scientist that is honest will tell us that the models they have can't possibly work because the earth is too complex and the variables too unknown.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030221144.htm
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp
Nothing is constant.. the ocean is actually cooler now than at its peak in the 1920's it went up in 1940 and then down in 1970 and is back up but still not the level of 1920...
It seems to me that the scientists are cherrypicking data.. like, since they can claim co2 is up.. like they are ignoring everything but co2... global temp not rising? ignore it... ice caps not receeding? ignore it.. cold spells? ignore it.
seems they are hanging their whole arguement on Co2 doesn't it? something that they admit that they don't understand and that is more affected by nature than by humans...
They are pretty much left with the old "straw that broke the camels back" defense... they call it "tipping point"
'coarse... they won't tell us what exactly is the "tipping point" or even how much of a load the camel can bear.
Seems to me that the more we look at this thing the more shaky and nebulous and voodoo the science gets.
lazs
-
"Nothing is constant.. the ocean is actually cooler now than at its peak in the 1920's it went up in 1940 and then down in 1970 and is back up but still not the level of 1920... "
Didn't see that anywhere, so I'd love to have the source.
Actualy the ocean should be about the same temperature as that many years ago, since so much icemass has been melting and thereby being mixed into the sea. Funny enough, but still works, - an icecube that melts into your whisky will actually cool the blend ;)
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
"in excess of what plants will need to survive" isn't a static, just as how much food you need to survive isn't fixed either. For example, although you can survive for a day on a couple of slices of pizza, that doesn't mean that you couldn't eat the entire pizza after a hard days work.
Photosynthesis is not a static. A plant with plenty of sunlight and more CO2 will grow more, consuming more CO2 and releasing more oxygen. Try the experiment - put two identical plants under a lamp, and introduce additional CO2 to one of them. After a month, I guarantee you that one plant will be much larger than the other.
Multiply this phenomenon by every photosynthetic lifeform on the plant, and I think we have a pretty large correction factor towards removing any "excess" CO2 from the atmosphere.
Interesting post, but is there any evidence to show that any species of plant life is growing larger today than it did 400 years ago? Also, large swathes of plants/vegetation have been destroyed to make way for urbanization, and the Brazilian rain forest is shrinking at a vast rate.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Every scientist that is honest will tell us that the models they have can't possibly work because the earth is too complex and the variables too unknown.
lazs
Statements like this lead me to distrust what you say. It hurts your credibility in my eyes. I don't believe there is any way this statement could possibly be true.
-
what i like about computer models is if you don't get the results you expected you "adjust" the model until you do.
-
oboe.. I really don't care. This is what I am distilling from what I am reading.. Everything says that the earth and all the variables are too complex for us to have a useful computer model. I believe this is the only thing that makes sense given the fact that they can't even predict next years weather with any kind of accuracy. How did they suddenly get the ability to see decades into the future?
I also would point out that they have moved the "tipping point" year around several times and the date for a doubling of Co2 has moved almost a century from 2040 to 2122.
I would have to say that if you believe that the scientists have accurate global climate models at this time...
Well... I would have to say that if you are being honest then... I have lost a lot of respect for your opinion and ability to reason without emotion.
lazs
-
Great documentary on Britain's Channel four called the 'The great global warming swindle'.
Here's the site:
swindle (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/)
Is there hope at last that us sceptics are finally going to proved right? Hell no, this express train is not for stopping for the next half century or so until it derails itself when everyone realises it was all hoax.
-
Nice.
Look at the results of the poll, just for fun.
Then ponder on simple statements like the clouds having a cooling effect (Which depends) and the accepted fact that greenhouse gases are needed for keeping the planet warm enough.
-
laz,
I think your skepticism about global warming is fine. I do believe it is a characteristic of real science to allow for degrees uncertainty, therefore its certainly untrue that EVERY scientist to would hold the attitude that all climate models CAN'T POSSIBLY work and if they don't, they are dishonest.
-
oboe... where did I say that all climate models can't work? I simply said that theirs.. the long range global climate models can't work... not at this time. maybe never.. they might at some time be able to say... If the sun does this and this and nothing else changes... this will happen or.. if this many volcanoes and this much sun activity and this much... you get the picture.
They can't predict next year or hurricanes or earthquakes or anything really and they are telling me to send em money now or the earth will end in a few decades due to....
the weather?
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Interesting post, but is there any evidence to show that any species of plant life is growing larger today than it did 400 years ago? Also, large swathes of plants/vegetation have been destroyed to make way for urbanization, and the Brazilian rain forest is shrinking at a vast rate.
I've got some anecdotal evidence I can share, but as far as I know there has been no scientific study - indeed I wonder if it is even possible to do a scientific study on this because of all the variables which change over time (weather), and all the plants which no one would bother measuring. You could probably correlate data from the dept of agriculture, but even that would be flawed - allow me to explain.
I can be conclusively proven that agricultural harvests are way up, but whether this is the effect of additional CO2 or just smarter farmers (or both) is probably impossible to prove. Anecdotal evidence: when I was a kid, we lived on a farm in South Carolina where they grew corn. What Mr. Russ (the farmer) would do is plant a big cornfield, harvest it, and then turn out pigs in the field to eat what was left (and provide some free fertilizer) and then slaughter the pigs. It was considered a good crop year if they got anything over 100 bushels per acre of corn at the harvest. They got one great year I remember where they got 130. This was in the the 1960's.
Today it is routine for farmers to get well over 200 bushels per acre, and I've read about farmers up in PA getting over 300 bushels per acre - more than twice was Mr. Russ used to get. You can read the commodities reports on soybeans, corn, wheat, etc. and add the numbers up to see that we are producing more than ever before. I don't see any way to prove how much of that is due to better farming methods, new varieties of corn, better pesticides, good weather, CO2 levels, more acreage planted, etc. because I don't see how you could get quantifiable data on it all.
In a lab, with a controlled environment, 2 plants given all the sunlight and water they can use with the only variable being CO2 will definitely grow at different rates. That is easy to prove. The rate at which plants in the wild will consume additional CO2 would vary by species, location, etc. How could you quantify it?
As far as the rainforest goes, yes, they are plowing it down at a great rate and planting on it (much more of that acreage is going to farming than to urbanization). I think it is pretty shortsighted myself, and I think the key to stopping it is the economic development of Brazil. People should realize that concern for the environment isn't the biggest thing on the minds of poor and hungry people. If it comes down to burning down rainforest acreage and planting on it or letting my family go hungry, then I'm out there with a zippo and a can of lighter fluid (and I'm betting spotted owl tastes just like chicken).
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Why not error on the side of conservation?
If we can save some species/crops/coastline/glaciers....along the way, GREAT!
I cannot understand why people are adverse to cleaning up our act.
Money
-
EagleDNY - interesting post ^ -thanks for that. :)
-
Yay/Nay
reguardless.
Be it from solar activity, Natural earth cycles. Our impact
or a combination of all (which is the most probable)
Fact of the matter is
Global warming is happening.
and history shows that even a change in a few degrees can have an almost unbeleivable adverce impact on the climate and all earth dwelling creatures inluding us
"From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably and civilization prospered. This warm era displays, although less distinctly, many of the same characteristics as the earlier period of clement weather. Virtually all of northern Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present. The Mediterranean, the Near East, and North Africa, including the Sahara, received more rainfall than they do today. During this period of the High Middle Ages, most of North America also enjoyed better weather. In the early centuries of the epoch, China experienced higher temperatures and a more clement climate. From Western Europe to China, East Asia, India, and the Americas, mankind flourished as never before.
This prosperous period collapsed at the end of the thirteenth century with the advent of the "Mini Ice Age" which, at its most frigid, produced temperatures in central England for January about 4.5deg.F colder than today. Although the climate fluctuated, periods of cold damp weather lasted until the early part of the nineteenth century. During the chilliest decades, 5 to 15 percent less rain fell in Europe than does normally today; but, due to less evaporation because of the low temperatures, swampy conditions were more prevalent. As a result, in the fourteenth century the population explosion came to an abrupt halt; economic activity slowed; lives shortened as disease spread and diets deteriorated"
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html
Fact of the matter is we are having an impact on this event no matter how great or small
Also fact of the matter is our impact no matter how small is a negative one
Even if not to the planet itself to our wellbeing as a whole.
Already if you live in or near a major city your risk of developing several types of cancers and considerably greater just from beathing the polluted air. Which is something we cant exactly avoid doing without donning climate controled spacesuits
Which is undelyably created by our own activities and not some natural event or cycle.
the question is
Even if we arent a major contributor to this event.
Why would we want to help it along?
Hmm I think I answered this question already though.
Money
-
That Channel 4 program was very interesting. I was fairly open minded about the issue of global warming and could probably be put in the 'err on the side of caution' side of the argument.
But now? After seeing the documentary and looking at the science behind it through a few online scientific journals I'm convinced CO2 and the production of it by man is simply a geo-political tool.
Now, every time I hear 'carbon footprint' or 'carbon neutral' I feel a barely controllable desire to yell 'bollocks' at a very high volume. It's utter rubbish. We're being duped by perhaps the most ridiculous hoax mankind has ever devised. And it's really getting on my tits.
Unfortunately, the average inhabitant in Europe, the US etc has the scientific aptitude of a dead gold-fish and will happily accept all the doom-mongering and political posturing we see in the papers or on our screens.
What will it take for people to actually come to terms with that 'inconvenient truth' - that the Earth (and sun) on a geological timescale will do whatever the hell it likes and cannot be affected by CO2 emissions from a bunch of factories?
-
Dowding why dont you start a speech in front of all those blind idiots
who are working 24h the day to find the truth, this people called "Scientists".
But this forum here have more armchair.youtube.google.pedia-Scientists
then any other forum on this earth,
sorry but ...LOL!
-
Carbon is just a part of it. You have to add methane and other gases (sadly, human related) to the equation, before you get chilled by the vast changes of forests etc.
However, since the effect of carbon can be replicated in a lab, and it's a measurable factor, it's been sticking as the core of the game.
BTW, increased carbon in the atmosphere encourages the vegetation in the neighborhood to grow more, thereby picking more up.
BTW, Just read quite an accurate article about warming and the contribution of various factors. It does basically NOT agree with the channel 4 programme.
-
Originally posted by Angus
BTW, Just read quite an accurate article about warming and the contribution of various factors. It does basically NOT agree with the channel 4 programme.
Do you have a link?
-
Thanks Gh0stFT, but given I have Masters degree in Applied Physics I'm pretty sure I know what scientists are.
You have to add methane and other gases (sadly, human related) to the equation...
You mean like water vapour? The biggest contributor to global warming?
Perhaps we should start talking about our 'sweat footprint' and introduce new taxes to curb our wanton and unashamed production of perspiration?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
But now? After seeing the documentary and looking at the science behind it through a few online scientific journals I'm convinced CO2 and the production of it by man is simply a geo-political tool.
Now, every time I hear 'carbon footprint' or 'carbon neutral' I feel a barely controllable desire to yell 'bollocks' at a very high volume. It's utter rubbish. We're being duped by perhaps the most ridiculous hoax mankind has ever devised.
OK
Lets assume this statement is correct.
Im not so sure it is but for arguements sake lets assume so anyway.
That would have to bring forth the next logical question.
Why?
For what reason would such a "hoax" be put out there?
seems to me the only ones who have anything to loose by the manmade global warming arguement is pollutant contributing industry, the oil companies and those who have a vested monetary interest in either, or both
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Thanks Gh0stFT, but given I have Masters degree in Applied Physics I'm pretty sure I know what scientists are.
You mean like water vapour? The biggest contributor to global warming?
Perhaps we should start talking about our 'sweat footprint' and introduce new taxes to curb our wanton and unashamed production of perspiration?
Curious.
what do you do for a living?
-
For what reason would such a "hoax" be put out there?
Like there's no precedent for that sort of thing?
GhostFT - it's true if you guess one side of the debate is right, but wrong if anyone else guesses otherwise?
What're your ecological credentials?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Why?
For what reason would such a "hoax" be put out there?
saw a show about your scientists who spent three years and multi millions drilling into the two mile thick greenland ice cap, i'm sure they were well paid for this work.
but now, they have to study the ice cores, that could take 10-15-20 years, at salary of course , scientists don't work for free.
of course they will write papers, publish books , lecture at universities, a good scientist could create a life time career out of "climate change".
what a unique position, they can create their own jobs and live off of grant money.
-
Originally posted by john9001
saw a show about your scientists who spent three years and multi millions drilling into the two mile thick greenland ice cap, i'm sure they were well paid for this work.
but now, they have to study the ice cores, that could take 10-15-20 years, at salary of course , scientists don't work for free.
of course they will write papers, publish books , lecture at universities, a good scientist could create a life time career out of "climate change".
what a unique position, they can create their own jobs and live off of grant money.
Same thing can be said abvout scientists that dispute it.
So its a wash.
Me personally I dont buy into your explination.
There would have to be a better reason.
-
You just can't make any conclusions not already made without studying the matter in any less depth than all the specialists and professionals already on the case.
A politician's dream come true.
-
Originally posted by moot
You just can't make any conclusions not already made without studying the matter in any less depth than all the specialists and professionals already on the case.
must be hell to be at the table when you are ordering dinner in a restaurant moot.
:D
-
hehe.. It might seem that way, but culinary hell to me, is a recipe I meant to get spot-on gone fubar. And dirty kitchens.
I'm fortunate enough to only care that the plates delivered are those I asked, and that the middle men delivering it respected their integrity... others can binge on raw oysters-stuffed pigs' feet and steaming hot boiled maggot juice for all I care, so long as it doesn't spill or splatter to my plate.
But you're not really wrong.. I actually have great plans for the kitchen in the house I'm building.
Nothing will stand in my way to get it done as I plan.
-
Ice cores. Yes what a waste of time trying to look into what the air was like hundreds of thousands of years ago.
And as for the link from channel four, note that clouds are referred to as having a cooling effect, while that one works both ways, as well as what Dowding referred to, water moisture in the air is a greenhouse gas, which is the core of the theory from the camp that is scared about that acceleration of heat.
Volcanoes are referred to as heating, while their immediate impact is cooling.
It's all sort of complicated, and I'll try to find that link I mentioned. (it's on a weather man's blogsite, - his main hobby being the weather).
But meanwhile, my hat goes off for what EagleDNY promoted. Brazil and others that keep up to the same business are a huge part of the whole equation. (Mind you, there is only 1 continent on the globe where forests are in the whole, growing). It will still bring us cheaper coffee and burgers, so Drediock has a good point.
$$$
-
No worries. IKEA has saved the planet. "No more free plastic bags".........Thank you IKEA. I feel so much more secure now. :rofl
"Money, its a crime.
Share it fairly but dont take a slice of my pie." :)
-
huh?
you have too realize that nothing is free.....:D
-
even tho I applaud dowding on this one I can't help but wonder...
Does no one here have any opinion until they see it in a movie or a TV program?
Have we become so dependent on the visual media? I have seen outlines of the TV program and of the "inconvienient truth" even watched about 15 minutes of the "truth" on showtime till I couldn't gag another minute of it down.
Fact is.. there is nothing in either presentation that I haven't read already. It's all out there.l
But.. I guess you got to fight fire with fire... if you have a group of chicken littles all stiring people up about co2 with one movie.. then you got to make another movie to debunk it... just putting out the facts won't do... got to have screenwriters and cameracrews and lighting specialists and drama and makeup or it just won't sell.
I wonder how many awards the channel 4 show will get tho.
lazs
-
Fact
Even if it isnt hurting the global environment.
It is hurting our local environment. the air we breath, the water we now in some places cant drink.
Polluted rivers and streams.
All the crap we pump into the air and ground cant be good for us
Its worth doing something about even if it isnt effecting the global environment.
The only reason not to. Is industry (money)
I did catch part of a program on the Discovery channel I was only half watching.
they did bring up a good point
Reguardless of your views. We are conducting an experiment on a global scale on this issue. and reguardless of who is right or wrong we are going ot have to live with the results of that experiment.
Unless one has a monetary interest in just keeping things the way they are.
There is no reason to just bury ones head in the sand and say nothing is going on or we arent contributing to it.
-
You want to do as little harm as possible.. you want to be careful tho.. you want to be on the cutting edge.. the environmentalists want us all on the bleeding edge. they want panic.. panic leads to MTBE poisoned water supplies.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You want to do as little harm as possible.. you want to be careful tho.. you want to be on the cutting edge.. the environmentalists want us all on the bleeding edge. they want panic.. panic leads to MTBE poisoned water supplies.
lazs
On that point I am in complete agreement.
There are plenty of ways to help without going overboard.
buying less SUVs and big engine trucks unless they have a legitimate need (Sorry weekend deer hunting trips and bringing the kids to soccar practice isnt a legitimate need for an 8 cylinder engine)
Planting more trees.
Finding alternatives to deforestation
alternate fuels or cleaner ways to burn the fuels we have etc
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
There are plenty of ways to help without going overboard. buying less SUVs and big engine trucks unless they have a legitimate need (Sorry weekend deer hunting trips and bringing the kids to soccar practice isnt a legitimate need for an 8 cylinder engine)
LOL! If that was to Lazs2, I think you just lit the blue touch paper! :lol
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
LOL! If that was to Lazs2, I think you just lit the blue touch paper! :lol
It wasnt intended to be directed to anyone in particular.
but the vast majority of people who own 8 cylinder vehicles
Dont need them.
They have them just cause they can
Hell from what I've seen the vast majority of Humvee owners never take them off road
-
As usual, Bozon, our physical sciences guru, correctly pointed out what actually drives our solar systems weather. Of course, the periodicity of this weather system, is measured in the hundreds of thousands, to millions of years, and thus is of no interest to the 'chicken littles' amongst us.
So, I'll ask the same question to you 'chicken littles,' that I asked on last years global warming thread.
As a middle class US citizen, my per capita income is $42,000 per year. How much do you want to reduce it, to curb global warming?
-
Chicken littles
:noid :noid :aok
A few years from now all the global warming nuts will be on to something else but they will all swear they never said that global warming was a danger. Just like none of them wore rediculous bell bottoms as they danced to the Beegees in the 70's.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
A few years from now all the global warming nuts will be on to something else but they will all swear they never said that global warming was a danger.
There are many backup dooms day scenarios to fall back on when global warming moaning falls from grace. Last night there were two back to back programs concerning a couple of them. Both were researched and backed by scientists. (Read that "Paid lab coats" :))
The first had to do with giant waves and the coming doom for most of the worlds coastline areas.
The second was dealing with mega volcanoes and the most certain mass destruction that was headed for the entire east coast of the U.S. and cities in Canada.
There are many, many more. The "Ice Age" scenario is still flopping around out there also. There is still the possibility of the mass invasion and takeover from Mars. (Might be interesting. Never been with a green chick. :))
I think I will become a "scientists". Seems like it would be very profitable to have on hand a generic paper.........maybe entitled " Sumpin Bad Gonna Happen Yall". Put this up for auction to the highest bidders and guarantee you can fill in the desired flavor of the day doomsday scenario of choice and you have a winner.
-
It is beginning to occur to me that Global Warming and the Global War on Terror (re Iraq) might be the same animal, just different stripes.
-
Here is Bush on Global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1wogkDmLlQ
:D
-
ya think oboe? and the war on drugs? The war on poverty? they are all a war on individualism and a war on freedom. Ya can't tar one of em without taring them all with the same brush.
angus.. so now bush is some scientific genius? He is wrong on everything until he gets on board the man made global warming bus?
dred... we can buy less SUV's? How do we accomplish that? You act like there are no other vehicles in the U.S. to buy.. Like we go to the dealer and all they have is SUV upon SUV and that you will force the dealer to give us a choice..
The opposite it true... we have more choice here than anywhere in the world.. what you want to do is increase the power of an government agency who can then force us to drive what they(and you) want us to drive. Vehicles today getter better milage than they did ten or twenty years ago and are far heavier with standard features on the cheapest that would make luxury cars blush 10 years ago..
This makes em heavy.. a tiny jap car weighs more than a 55 chevy. We have choice now.. You want to get rid of choice.
I say let the free market give us more choice not the government give us less.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Perhaps we should start talking about our 'sweat footprint' and introduce new taxes to curb our wanton and unashamed production of perspiration?
Do you think we could buy "sweat credits" if we were to buy Egyptian cotton towels to soak up all the sweat.
Seriously, I laughed out loud at the above quote. Thank you!
-
people are starting to get wise to the whole thing... It is like when so many were all atwitter at the movies of michel moore and and after defending him for a few months actually did some research and found out he.... like algore...
was a big fat liar. and that hollywierd was handing out awards to him (like algore) based on having the correct PC socialist stance on the subject and that being a liar was ok.
lazs
-
If you agree with me lazs, then why do you seem so very much more upset about spending to address global warming than spending on the war in Iraq?
What if 4 years ago, we had launched a massive program to eradicate global warming and by now we had sunk 750 billion dollars into it (the approximate cost I read today of both Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns), and still had not achieved any measurable, permanent results? What if the Earth was hotter than ever, and so Bush proposed a "surge" in anti-global warming spending?
Would you be more less upset than you are (if you are at all) about the wasted $$ in our military adventure in the Middle East?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
people are starting to get wise to the whole thing... It is like when so many were all atwitter at the movies of michel moore and and after defending him for a few months actually did some research and found out he.... like algore...
was a big fat liar. and that hollywierd was handing out awards to him (like algore) based on having the correct PC socialist stance on the subject and that being a liar was ok.
lazs
Well, of course, Moore lied about kids being killed in Columbine....
I rather think that some trie not to ponder on, or simply face things that could turn out to be an inconvenient...truth.
-
google "carbon offsets", you can now pay a non-profit group to "offset" your carbon footprint. Just like a big corp, you can buy carbon credits.
looks like global warming has become a business, non-profit of course.:lol
-
Everything is business.
Just a question where the really big bucks hang around, that's all....
-
oboe.. that is a pretty apples and oranges comparison but I will try to answer it if you narrow it down a bit.
Do I see any hope of the government helping mankind by growing in power and scope to address a minute contribution that man may be making to global warming? No... I see it as a minus.. a lose lose.. I am against panic driven growing of government and the stifling of free trade. I believe that MTBE as an example is what happens when government is given power over the free market. Higher taxes and fees do not help anyone.
What this has to do with the war in iraq... I can only guess. The war and it's cost can be seen as hope of stabilizing an oil rich region and fighting islamfacists on their ground. There are tangible benifiets.
I don't really care tho... If the islamonazis vaporize a few blue cities it really is no skin off my butt... in fact... it will just help me (if I want to look at it pragmaticaly).
less blue voters... less blue politicians... less time for them to worry about what I am doing or get involved in micromanaging my life.
I don't care about the war one way or another but I think it is a pretty good thing to do and would have to happen some time no matter what.
even if the money spent their could be proven to be a total waste with no value... it would still be preferable to spending the money on increasing government and socialism here. I would rather burn the money than give it to a socialist.
lazs
-
Toad - you're on to something there. I think I'll develop a new range of absorbant Egyptian cotton rings that can be worn around the wrist. I'll market them as 'sweat neutral' and make millions upon millions of pounds and never have to worry about another environmental tax again!
I think I'm getting more and more cynical in my old age... and I'm only 28. Perhaps a sign of the times?
BTW, Toad, I might have a few questions about the civil aviation industry. I'm about to take my last professional accountancy exam and the case study is on an airline - if I remember correctly you're a pilot and I seem to remember you had some experience or at least an informed opinion about the industrial relations side of things? If anything crops up while I'm researching the subject, could I ask a few questions?
Cheers.
-
You're young and with a master's degree.
28. You're just beginning ;)
-
I lied Angus. I'm actually 28 and 7 months. ;)
And getting married next year... it'll be bloody kids next! Mea culpa, what have I done! Life just seems to be flying by... :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ya think oboe? and the war on drugs? The war on poverty? they are all a war on individualism and a war on freedom. Ya can't tar one of em without taring them all with the same brush.
angus.. so now bush is some scientific genius? He is wrong on everything until he gets on board the man made global warming bus?
dred... we can buy less SUV's? How do we accomplish that? You act like there are no other vehicles in the U.S. to buy.. Like we go to the dealer and all they have is SUV upon SUV and that you will force the dealer to give us a choice..
The opposite it true... we have more choice here than anywhere in the world.. what you want to do is increase the power of an government agency who can then force us to drive what they(and you) want us to drive. Vehicles today getter better milage than they did ten or twenty years ago and are far heavier with standard features on the cheapest that would make luxury cars blush 10 years ago..
This makes em heavy.. a tiny jap car weighs more than a 55 chevy. We have choice now.. You want to get rid of choice.
I say let the free market give us more choice not the government give us less.
lazs
Yea..ok
quick search shows
2004 EPA ratings are as follows
2WD Trucks with 8-cylinder Engines
Chevy C15 Silverado Hybrid, A-4, 5.3L: 18 / 20
GMC C15 Sierra Hybrid, A-4, 5.3L: 18 / 20
Chevy C1500 Silverado, A-4, 4.8L: 17 / 20
GMC C1500 Sierra, A-4, 4.8L: 17 / 20
Chevy C1500 Silverado, M-5, 4.8L: 15 / 20
Dodge Dakota Pickup, A-5, 4.7L: 15 / 20
Dodge Dakota Pickup, M-5, 4.7L: 15 / 20
GMC C1500 Sierra, M-5, 4.8L: 15 / 20
Chevy C1500 Silverado, 5.3L: 16 / 19
GMC C1500 Sierra, A-4, 5.3L: 16 / 19
Chevy C1500 Silverado FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 15 / 19 (Gas)
Ford F150, A-4, 4.6L: 15 / 19
Ford F150, A-4, 5.4L: 15 / 19
GMC C1500 Sierra FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 15 / 19 (Gas)
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup, A-5, 4.7L: 14 / 19
Nissan Titan, A-5, 5.6L: 14 / 19
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, M-5, 4.7L: 14 / 19
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 14 / 19 (Gas)
Chevy C1500 Silverado, A-4, 6.0L: 14 / 18
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, A-5, 5.7L: 14 / 18
GMC C1500 Sierra, A-4, 6.0L: 14 / 18
Toyota Tundra, A-4, 4.7L: 14 / 18
Ford F150, A-4, 5.4L: 13 / 16 (P S)
Ford F150 Natural Gas, A-4, 5.4L: 12 / 16 (CNG)
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 12 / 16 (Gas)
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, A-5, 4.7L: 12 / 15 (Gas)
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 11 / 15 (LPG)
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 11 / 15 (CNG)
Chevy C1500 Silverado FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 11 / 14 (E85)
GMC C1500 Sierra FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 11 / 14 (E85)
Chevy 2500 HD Silverado, A-4, 6.0L: 10 / 12 (CNG)
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, A-5, 4.7L: 9 / 11 (E85
If all you are doing with your 8 cylinder whatever is going hunting and bringing the kiddies to soccer practice. Then you dont NEED an 8 cylinder whatever.
You own it just so you can say you own it
and all your dowing is pumping crap into the air that even if it has nothing to do with global warming still has alot to do with the air we breathe
I have an 8 cylinder Dodge and a 4 cylinder Hyundi
The 8 cylinder I use for work. I have a legitimate need as I am frequently hauling around alot of stuff
Most people do not.
they only get them to wallow in their wealth like so many little piggies as discribed by the Beatles in the song of the same name.
you dont NEED an 8 cylinder engine to haul around a deer carcass or a couple of cords of firewood a couple times a year.
Its just wasteful and gluttonous.
Nobody is messing with your choice
Keep your truck, just get a smaller engine and we can all breathe alot better
I promise. I wont tell anyone the size of your engine ;)
but yea they can force you to drive what "they" want.
Driving is a privilege not a right, remember.
If it were a right. I'd side with you on this one. but its not.
-
Hehe, I don't even have a car.
And Dowding: Congrats, and good luck on the kid manufacture ;)
I have 2, in my case it's much more fun than I though, while I want to kick everybody that told me (before) that it's not such a big job ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
If anything crops up while I'm researching the subject, could I ask a few questions?
Cheers.
Sure, anytime. Just remember I'm an old Toad and I've been out of the game for a while.
I had some experience on the union side of it which led to my saying of "the only thing worse than a union is no union".
Industrial relations is quite simple; treat people the way you'd like to be treated if the situation was reversed.
What a concept!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, I don't even have a car.
And Dowding: Congrats, and good luck on the kid manufacture ;)
I have 2, in my case it's much more fun than I though, while I want to kick everybody that told me (before) that it's not such a big job ;)
I would never have told you that.
what I might have said is in the words of my brother in law
"One is fun. and two is none" ;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
2004 EPA ratings are as follows
2WD Trucks with 8-cylinder Engines
Chevy C15 Silverado Hybrid, A-4, 5.3L: 18 / 20
GMC C15 Sierra Hybrid, A-4, 5.3L: 18 / 20
Chevy C1500 Silverado, A-4, 4.8L: 17 / 20
GMC C1500 Sierra, A-4, 4.8L: 17 / 20
Chevy C1500 Silverado, M-5, 4.8L: 15 / 20
Dodge Dakota Pickup, A-5, 4.7L: 15 / 20
Dodge Dakota Pickup, M-5, 4.7L: 15 / 20
GMC C1500 Sierra, M-5, 4.8L: 15 / 20
Chevy C1500 Silverado, 5.3L: 16 / 19
GMC C1500 Sierra, A-4, 5.3L: 16 / 19
Chevy C1500 Silverado FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 15 / 19 (Gas)
Ford F150, A-4, 4.6L: 15 / 19
Ford F150, A-4, 5.4L: 15 / 19
GMC C1500 Sierra FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 15 / 19 (Gas)
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup, A-5, 4.7L: 14 / 19
Nissan Titan, A-5, 5.6L: 14 / 19
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, M-5, 4.7L: 14 / 19
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 14 / 19 (Gas)
Chevy C1500 Silverado, A-4, 6.0L: 14 / 18
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, A-5, 5.7L: 14 / 18
GMC C1500 Sierra, A-4, 6.0L: 14 / 18
Toyota Tundra, A-4, 4.7L: 14 / 18
Ford F150, A-4, 5.4L: 13 / 16 (P S)
Ford F150 Natural Gas, A-4, 5.4L: 12 / 16 (CNG)
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 12 / 16 (Gas)
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, A-5, 4.7L: 12 / 15 (Gas)
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 11 / 15 (LPG)
F150 Pickup (bi-fuel), A-4, 5.4L: 11 / 15 (CNG)
Chevy C1500 Silverado FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 11 / 14 (E85)
GMC C1500 Sierra FFV, A-4, 5.3L: 11 / 14 (E85)
Chevy 2500 HD Silverado, A-4, 6.0L: 10 / 12 (CNG)
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup FFV, A-5, 4.7L: 9 / 11 (E85
Big Trucks & Big Motors have their place - we've got a big Dodge Ram with the dual back tires setup we use for hauling hay, straw, horse feed, etc. and towing the horse trailer. There are plenty of valid uses for a big truck, and the last thing we need is the Gov't deciding who needs one and who doesn't. The market will do that just fine - if you don't have a legitimate purpose for having a big truck, you get tired of paying $60 for a fill-up pretty quickly.
Frankly, the market is doing just fine switching us to alternate fuels too - you notice that the bottom of that list has 3 E85 (flex fuel) trucks listed (and this is the '04 list).
Transportation is a straight cost per mile calculation - whether it is your commute to work, or the cost to a business to have your goods delivered. Don't worry - when oil gets up and we see $3+ gas as a norm, the cost of alternative fuels like ethanol/E85, and biodiesel become competitive on a cost per mile basis and the raw economics drives the change. Frankly, for our country, a switch to ethanol is a good thing - I'd rather see those dollars going to farmers co-ops & ADM than to OPEC.
EagleDNY
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oboe.. that is a pretty apples and oranges comparison but I will try to answer it if you narrow it down a bit.
Do I see any hope of the government helping mankind by growing in power and scope to address a minute contribution that man may be making to global warming? No... I see it as a minus.. a lose lose.. I am against panic driven growing of government and the stifling of free trade. I believe that MTBE as an example is what happens when government is given power over the free market. Higher taxes and fees do not help anyone.
What this has to do with the war in iraq... I can only guess. The war and it's cost can be seen as hope of stabilizing an oil rich region and fighting islamfacists on their ground. There are tangible benifiets.
I don't really care tho... If the islamonazis vaporize a few blue cities it really is no skin off my butt... in fact... it will just help me (if I want to look at it pragmaticaly).
less blue voters... less blue politicians... less time for them to worry about what I am doing or get involved in micromanaging my life.
I don't care about the war one way or another but I think it is a pretty good thing to do and would have to happen some time no matter what.
even if the money spent their could be proven to be a total waste with no value... it would still be preferable to spending the money on increasing government and socialism here. I would rather burn the money than give it to a socialist.
lazs
I think there are interesting parallels between Global Warming and the War on Terror.
- Both have a strident group of alarmists behind them (neocons vs gw scientists), predicting the end of the world or at least catastrophic consequences if nothing is done.
- Both have a crystallizing event that the public can take as an example of what's to come - with War on Terror, its 9/11, with Global Warming, Katrina.
- There is fudged, cherrypicked intelligence being used to make stronger cases in both situations.
Perhaps if Al Gore had one in 2000, we'd be 4 years and $500 billion into a war on global warming, instead of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You say you are against "panic driven growing of government and the stifling of free trade". Well that is exactly what we got with the War on Terror. Do you realize how big the Dept of Homeland Security is?
btw, I'm over the opinion that the MTBE fiasco is what happens when corporations have too much power over government. The EPA knew MTBE was water soluble when it approved it for use as an oxygenate. But it was the cheaper of the two alternatives, so the Bush I admin gave distillers a choice of which one two use. We're just lucky in Minnesota that ethanol was chosen here-- though I think that had more to do with the ethanol lobby than luck.
I think you better be careful what you say. Making public statements in favor of terrorists nuking an American city could make you a person of interest to the NSA, NSS, or FBI. You could wind up being declared an illegal enemy combatant. If they search your house, are they gonna find a suspicious number of weapons?
-
oboe.. you can compare anything to anything... there are always similarities when spending and government are concerned... all government spending is waste.
If you are saying that then I agree with you.
The difference is not a minor one tho... If the government is spending it's money and resources fighting islamfacists in another country instead of focusing on gaining more power over me and restricting more of what I do... that is a plus for me.
I think the patriot act is a very bad thing but... it affects me not one whit. Not yet anyway.. If they banned all cars over 10 years old and all firearms... it would affect me in a huge way. If they made a bunch of mandates that cost money and gave me inferior choices.. that is important. If the EPA grows in strength we will all suffer on a daily basis... if your water bill or sewer or garbage bill goes to $150 a month for each you will notice it... if gas goes to $6 a gallon and 3 of that is tax... you will notice... if the price of cars goes up 39% you will notice.
As for my "compound" I am legal. I have a lot of weapons and ammo (by some standards but not an unusual amount).. all legal... I have no doubt that the lefty press would make a big deal of what was found... the other day they caught a pedophile and mentioned that he had "800 rounds of ammunition" wow... if you buy ammo from the CMP ( a government program) you have to buy it in thousand round lots... if you buy 22 ammo you usually buy it in bricks of 500 or 2500..
I will never make the left happy with what guns or ammo I own. I won't try. I don't have to convince them it is all legal nor do I care what they write about me.. the jury is all that matters and whatever real crime they think I commited.. the guns and ammo thing are just a sideshow... I am not worried..
But... would I feel safer with gore? Hell no.. he would direct the hounds of government to go after legal gun owners and to make new gun laws...
I feel safer with a conservative government and a patriot act in a war than a liberal socialist one in a war against individualism... by a long shot.
No way can you convince me that them fighting terrorists in iraq is as dangerous to my freedom as them declaring war on "man made global warming" It is laughable.
lazs
-
as for MTBE and corporations... Corporations always go for the fat and wasteful government jobs... even better if they are ill thought out..
It is like smog devices in the 70's and the retrofits for earlier cars.. all the hurried regulation almost killed our economy.. the cars ran like crap and the net result was cars that ran worse and polluted more... and.. the corporations got fat.
When tech caught up... fuelinjection controled by computers... the cars simply ran cleaner.. it was easy to make em clean.. it was rare that one didn't exceed standards that were pulled out of some EPA morons butt.
Same for MTBE.. if you don't have the skill set to determine EXACTLY what the consequences will be... don't do the mandate.
If you think corporations are evil then simply quit giving them mandates that they can profit off of with little or no effort and no research. It was the mandate that was evil... the corporations were only living by the law. The scientists at the the refineries were even telling anyone who would listen about how toxic the MTBE was... manufacturers were saying how it would cause car fires from rotted hoses... the EPA said.."tough" cars burned and water was poisoned... how are the corporations to blame?
lazs
-
EagleDNY: you're the man:
"Big Trucks & Big Motors have their place - we've got a big Dodge Ram with the dual back tires setup we use for hauling hay, straw, horse feed, etc. and towing the horse trailer. There are plenty of valid uses for a big truck, and the last thing we need is the Gov't deciding who needs one and who doesn't. The market will do that just fine - if you don't have a legitimate purpose for having a big truck, you get tired of paying $60 for a fill-up pretty quickly.
Frankly, the market is doing just fine switching us to alternate fuels too - you notice that the bottom of that list has 3 E85 (flex fuel) trucks listed (and this is the '04 list).
Transportation is a straight cost per mile calculation - whether it is your commute to work, or the cost to a business to have your goods delivered. Don't worry - when oil gets up and we see $3+ gas as a norm, the cost of alternative fuels like ethanol/E85, and biodiesel become competitive on a cost per mile basis and the raw economics drives the change. Frankly, for our country, a switch to ethanol is a good thing - I'd rather see those dollars going to farmers co-ops & ADM than to OPEC."
Exactly exactly exactly!!!!!
Big machinery and big trucks belong where they are needed, - where they are econamical they will pay up.
Biodiesel is better than fossil diesel.
And there is a good opportunity in manufacturing fuel from the land.
Ooops, conspiracy reveiled, - it's a Farmer's conspiracy :noid
-
as fuel gets more expensive... alternatives will be found. relax..
Quit trying to force what you think is good for people on em. You may be wrong... in fact.. it is looking more and more like you are completely wrong.. you have been duped.
So why should we pay for your being duped? What good does giving more money to the government.. any government or agency do? The free market will work it all out.
lazs
-
Gunston
Thanks for posting the link, Micheal Crichton spells it out very nicely.
Possibly one of the best papers I've ever read.
Thanks.
-
Does anyone remember the Global Cooling advocates from the 70's. The movement never got as big as the current Global Warming Movement, but the arguement was as simplistic.
Increase the particulates in the air, will increase the cloud cover, will decraese the temperature, will cause crop failures, starvation, another ice age etc etc.
What I would like to know is how come the environmentalists say we are screwed either way, warming or cooling.
Oh and watch in 10 years when global warming fails to materialize, and the natural solar cycle drops temperatures, watch the environmental movement switch gears back to global cooling doomsaying.
-
I am not convinced that the current climate change (and it is changing, it always is and will) is significantly accelerated or impacted by human industrial developments.
Nor do I believe we should follow a course of wanton and unrestricted pollution (of all sorts, not just emissions).
There is here as there is elsewhere a sensible course of measured action that can be taken to ensure we are good stewards of this planet for the future generations; without going into the hysterical shrieking and panic on one side or the complete and utter indifference of the other.
-
Yes, quintv - i think that's a good post.
A lot of people seem so polarized in their beliefs. They believe that warming is natural OR is caused by man. Why not both? We can't do anything about a natural warming trend, but we can moderate our own behavior to avoid the problem being a lot worse. Just because we can't do everything does not mean we should not do anything.
As for new fuels, Lazs2 probably has a point - as the world's oil supply becomes depleted, its price will rise. Then, fuels which were once considered too expensive to develop will become economically viable. I would include nuclear power for electricity generation in that category.
It's a pity we still have a few ostriches in this thread who go so far as to denounce scientists and science itself. Science has given us technology to develop cars/planes etc., and science has delivered medical miracles which have given us much longer life expectancy, and drugs to treat medical conditions from which people would have died as little as 30 years ago. Science has given us electricity and therefore TV, the internet etc. And science made it possible to predict, with complete accuracy, events such as the timing of the recent lunar eclipse. Such predictions are made years in advance of the event.
All these developments tell me two things: 1) science isn't rubbish; 2) scientists know what they're talking about.
-
"You also act like we are using up the earths resources... using them up. We have more trees and vegetation than we had a hundred years ago... more coal has been discovered than we thought existed 100 years ago... for all we know... if the democrats were to let us explore... we might find even bigger deposits of oil than are known to exist... what are we "using up"?"
- lasz
lasz doesnt necessarily think this will happen though. at least he didnt a few days ago, as quoted above.
-
"Oh and watch in 10 years when global warming fails to materialize, and the natural solar cycle drops temperatures, watch the environmental movement switch gears back to global cooling doomsaying."
It was said 10 years ago, while warming has been materializing for some 25 years now. Of course it must be the sun that causes the warming like Lazs sais, but a short while ago he claimed there wasn't any warming so maybe I'll read my issue of the German "Geo" which is all about the climate and draw some conclusion there?
-
It was said 10 years ago, while warming has been materializing for some 25 years now. Of course it must be the sun that causes the warming like Lazs sais, but a short while ago he claimed there wasn't any warming so maybe I'll read my issue of the German "Geo" which is all about the climate and draw some conclusion there?
Yes Angus. I too am noticing that the global warming denialists' stance is shifting. As you yourself have observed, there was a time not long ago when they denied the very existence of global warming, and would point to other doomsday scenarios which never happened, such as a predicted ice age.
But clearly they are wrong on that because as you yourself have shown, global warming is ALREADY happening. It's no longer a case of "if and when", it's a case of "how soon and how bad" the problem will become. So now the denialists have backed down from their erstwhile stance that warming is not happening/will not happen, and are now claiming that the warming trend is natural, ie. not man made.
But their logic assumes that if any part of the warming is natural, then mankind can do nothing about it and is absolved from any and all responsibilty to make ANY changes to the way we live. So - an inconvenient truth gives way to a convenient falsehood.
-
it's a fact that volcanos have a cooling effect on the earth, so how many volcanos do we have to blow up to stop this runaway global warming?
what do the computer models say?
-
no one has ever denied that the climate changes... we have denied that it WILL change because of man. No one has ever denied here that it is warmer now than in some other periods of time or that it will get cooler some day in the future.
It is the man made global warming acolytes of the religion who are changing their stance... the weak Co2 arguement is almost going away. They can't shift to methane because.. well... nature procuces it not us. They can't shift to the sun because.. well... no money in it and no scientist has an answer for it.
nope.. it is not so much that we are causing the warming now that the fanatics are on but that we might be helping it happen and.. that.. even if we can't prove it... why not just go along for the ride and do as they say? It is you that is changing not us. And rightly so... you were wrong and you were duped.
88.. I say that there is probly more oil than all the oil we have used already.. it is undiscovered.. some of it is too hard to get to... the earth is making more of it.
It is not that we will run out.. It is that we will run out of the easy to get stuff. That will drive up the price. All pretty normal stuff.
lazs
-
Would it be fair to say laz, that you think human pollution has had zero affect on our climate?
-
Quint, you wouldn't be another Beet1e shade would you?
-
Originally posted by VERTEX
What I would like to know is how come the environmentalists say we are screwed either way, warming or cooling.
Mainly because we are screwed either way. That is as long as the "Sky Is Falling " for lunch bunch can be duped into believing and fall for the setups by those whose only interest is monetary gain.
There will be warming alright........in the pocket book area. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Exactly exactly exactly!!!!!
Big machinery and big trucks belong where they are needed, - where they are econamical they will pay up.
Biodiesel is better than fossil diesel.
And there is a good opportunity in manufacturing fuel from the land.
Ooops, conspiracy reveiled, - it's a Farmer's conspiracy :noid
So long as it is the market forces that exert the influence, and not big government regulating it, I would agree. However, if I'm a single stock broker with a six-figure income, no kids, and live in a high-rise condo in Manhattan, AND I'm willing to spend the money to own and drive a Dodge Megacab pickup truck, that should be my choice. As soon as you have government stepping in and requiring me to justify my choice of privately owned vehicle, you've jumped blind folded down a cooking oil doused, teflon-coated slope. Next, they'll tell tell people how big a house you can own, how hot/cold you can keep it, how many miles you can travel every year, and on and on and on.
As for the "what can it hurt to cut CO2 emissions, just in case" argument, that's a rediculously sophmoric bit of reasoning. In real life, resources are finite. Wasted effort, even if it does no harm to the situation you mean to address, can have unintended negative consequences that could be worse than what you were hoping (emphasis on "hoping") to avoid. Plus, while you're expending those resources, other problems that you could have more concrete and measureable impacts on are left un-addressed. Bottom line, the problem must be thoroughly analyzed, and a cost-benefit analysis undertaken, to determine if a problem should be addressed, as well as how to address it.
Assuming we are in a warming period (there is some evidence for this), we must first determine if mankind's activities are driving it (evidence for this appears to be rather weaker than previously acknowledged). This is the fundemental question. If mankind is having a negligible effect, than shouldn't efforts be focused on planning for dealing with the impacts of GW, rather than wasting time on arguably ineffective measures to try and reverse it?
-
"Would it be fair to say laz, that you think human pollution has had zero affect on our climate?"
nooo... that would not be a fair thing to say at all. It is obvious that if I pee in the mississippi river that I will drive up the salt content.
That does not mean that I can have any noticeable affect or that what small affect I have will not be corrected by nature.
If the mississippi suddenly got a lot saltier... I would not think that looking at one man peeing in it would be very productive. there would be some other source that was causing it.
lazs
-
The great global warming swindle:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/
-
Hawco - did you see that program? Was it any good?
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Hawco - did you see that program? Was it any good?
A friend of mine told me about it, hopefully be on youtube soon so I can watch it, must say, I'm not all that convinced about man creating global warming.
-
I've seen it. Excellent program, though a little cheesy at times with their music a graphics. On the otherhand, it nicely brings together all the counter evidence against man-made global warming. I believe the cheesy parts were to make people realize how silly and weak some of the so-called evidence supporting man-made global warming really is. Even if you're skeptical of the skeptics, this is a must-see as a counter-balance to Gore's propaganda piece. If our schools really want to teach our kids to think critically (which I doubt, given the liberal control over public education), they should show Gore's movie and this one back to back, then encourage open discussion and debate. Of course, we can't even get that from our elected representatives or Academia, so why should we expect it of public education?:(
-
The documentary explains why it is not in the best interest of the left to allow any debate...
Perhaps we all recall the "scientists" in the UK who wanted to make it illegal to say anything against man made global warming.. does it not bother the religious acolytes here to see who they are in bed with.... do you hold your nose when you look at who is at the demonstrations?
lazs
-
Okay, this is just getting out of hand...
source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070316/od_nm/germany_speedlimit1_dc;_ylt=AosXFFNfnJKmmLbMgApGRCWs0NUE)
Most Germans want speed limit on autobahn
BERLIN (Reuters) - Nearly two in three Germans believe a speed limit should be introduced on the car-loving nation's notoriously fast autobahns, according to a new poll.
The EU's environment commissioner Stavros Dimas and environmental activists in Germany have said speeding on the autobahn wastes energy and called for a speed limit.
The poll for ZDF television published on Friday showed 54 percent of Germans favor a speed limit of 130 kph (80 mph) while another 10 percent would like a limit below that level.
-
HMcG - the link is dead.
The two lane autobahnen in Germany are already subject (in most cases) to a limit of 120km/h. The three lane autobahnen are the ones where there's no limit.
I think there are plenty of other measures that could be taken, and which would have greater effect than imposing an autobahn speed limit. That would be another empty gesture, like reusing a supermarket carrier bag, and believing that this noble gesture will save the planet. What was the analogy - rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?
-
Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4 (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece) This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 11 March 2007
It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.
But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.
A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."
Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.
The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."
When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".
He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."
Mr Durkin last night said that Professor Wunsch was "most certainly not duped into appearing into the programme" and that it "had not in any way misrepresented what he said".
Before the programme was shown, the IoS asked Channel 4 why it had commissioned another film from Mr Durkin and, further, whether it was making any special checks on its accuracy.
A spokesman said the programme made by Mr Durkin for which it had had to apologise was a decade old, adding: "We treat Martin as any other film-maker."
* David Cameron will tomorrow unveil three schemes to tax air travel in order to combat global warming. He is to consult on whether to impose VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights, institute a flight tax targeted at the most polluting engines, or to set up a "green miles scheme" to tax frequent flyers at a higher rate. The revenue raised would be used for tax cuts to help families.
The cold, hard facts about global warming
What do most scientists believe caused global warming?
The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of carbon dioxide. It was established scientifically 180 years ago - and has never been seriously disputed - that natural levels of the gas given off by decaying vegetation and the oceans help to keep the Earth warm; without it, and other natural greenhouse gases, the planet would be some 20C colder and we would freeze. Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human activities makes us warmer.
Has the world warmed before?
Yes, and big warmings over prehistoric times were not started by increasing CO2 levels; changes in solar activity are more likely. Levels of the gas started rising some 800 years into the warming, but then probably reinforced it, making it bigger and longer. Temperature and CO2 are interdependent; when one goes up the other follows. This time it is different because vast amounts of the gas are being artificially put into the atmosphere by humans.
What about more recent history?
There was a warm period in Europe in the Middle Ages, again probably caused by solar activity, but it does not seem to have been a worldwide phenomenon, although records are scanty.
So is the sun responsible now?
Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in global warming this century.
---------------
Big screen TV - $2,500
Ammunition making equipment and supplies - $500
Refreshments - $15
Watching a British (*gasp*) documentary about swindlers apparently MADE by swindlers and claiming it as fact - Priceless
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay, this is just getting out of hand...
Most Germans want speed limit on autobahn
BS.
i'm not one of them for sure.
Whats wrong with no speed limit? do people think we in
germany drive allways at the limit, as fast as possible?
Its about the freedom, if its raining or snow nobody is
driving fast even it is no speed limit. If we have alot of traffic
on the road, nobody can drive fast anyway.
Actually i drive (cruise) mostly around 120-140km/h on Autobahns,
but sometimes when its less traffic mainly night times, i drive at
230km/h speed nonstop 100km or more.
Imagine you have a Ferrari or a Lamborghini, 300km/h and more Baby!
-
speed limits are not for safety, speed limits are for more government control of the people and to raise funds for the govt.
governments always need more control and more funds. That's their business, control the people and raise and spend more money.
-
Professor Wunsch may disagree with the overall conclusions of the film, however, the words that came out of his mouth are the words that came out of his mouth. I'm going to have to review it to see exactly what he said.
Curval, at least one of the assertions made by the filmmakers, that the climate issues have been politicized, and superhyped should be obvious to you. I think its wild how non-scientists like us get all caught up in it and make our proclimations about what we "know" is true.
The fact is, the scientific community doesn't know all the answers yet on this issue, it is still being studied, so we should try to keep at least a part of our minds open.
-
LOL.. curval finds one scientist on the program that feels he was missrepresented and uses that to say the whole program is bunk.. there were a half a dozen of the most esteemed people in their fields all saying the same thing... even the guy who feels put upon really did say what he said in it.
And who is on the other side? how do they stack up? algore? creator of the internet? inspiration for the book love story?
The facts are there... watch the documentary. Did you curval? I did.. I watched "inconvieniet truth" too.... The missleading was a lot more obvious in "truth".
The "swindle" show brings up stuff that is simple fact... Your guy can say all he wants about "scientists" all agreeing co2 made by man is warming the planet in alarming ways but....
as "swindle" points out.. those people.. the ones you tout.. did the UN study and.. they concluded that there was no evidence that man made co2 was a major factor.. that part was removed from the study... most of the "scientists" in the study had nothing to do with science (many were reviewers) and if they did they were not in the field of global climate.
watch the show... Listen to the real scientists and look at their credentials..
The least you can conclude is that some of the most prestigious scientists on the planet... ones that are the formost authorities in the fields being discussed... they don't agree with the panic mongers..
One has to conclude that the science is not set in stone. That at the very least... not everyone who should know... agrees.
I will bet that the sun will get a lot more focus than co2 in the next few years.
It was a very important film in that it provided some counterpoint to the blatant lies and the "man made global warming" machine...
There is a whole lot there... watch the thing. Don't be like most liberals and only watch the side that you agree with. Hell... us conservatives and individualists are pretty much forced to watch/listen to the left at every turn... we at least see both sides...
grow a pair and watch some of the greatest climate experts on the planet and see what they have to say.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
The fact is, the scientific community doesn't know all the answers yet on this issue, it is still being studied, so we should try to keep at least a part of our minds open.
Quite correct! :aok But it cuts both ways and I feel we should be ready to make changes to the way we live, as and when required.
-
lol
You are just as bad as the global warming alarmists lazs...and just as dangerous.
You will swallow anything that backs up your case. You then do EXACTLY what the alarmists do and label anyone who is against you a radical.
Fact is I am not a radical as I have repeatedly tried to tell you. But, you adopt a "with us or against us" attitude and attack.
Yes I watched the show...I haven't seen Gore's though.
-
Originally posted by Curval
...and just as dangerous.
The truth is always considered dangerous by those who wish to deny it.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The truth is always considered dangerous by those who wish to deny it.
Absolutely. If your job and lucrative government funding depends on it, you'll deny anything.
Even more than that, you'll create your own "truth", and denigrade all who question it as "deniers".
-
Originally posted by Curval
[e major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film.
From here: space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)
"In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today."
It seems that the Sun's output IS increasing....
"The Global Warming movement is the new Communism."
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by mietla
Absolutely. If your job and lucrative government funding depends on it, you'll deny anything.
Even more than that, you'll create your own "truth", and denigrade all who question it as "deniers".
Definitely. And If your hobby involves burning fossil fuels at a vast rate (hot rodding, driving 4X4 vehicles over rough terrain etc) you'll deny global warming, and look for a convenient falsehood.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Definitely. And If your hobby involves burning fossil fuels at a vast rate (hot rodding, driving 4X4 vehicles over rough terrain etc) you'll deny global warming, and look for a convenient falsehood.
general polosi flying one round trip from Cal to DC per week in a govt jet will put 50 tons of carbon in the atmosphere per year.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
And If your hobby involves burning fossil fuels at a vast rate (hot rodding, driving 4X4 vehicles over rough terrain etc)
A hobby???
here we go again. Now you'll usurp a right to decide what's good for me and what I "really need", huh? Bug off. Leave your life as you choose and leave me to live mine.
Everything I use has a specific value and a specific price and I pay for it. I am the only person qualified to decide what I want and what I have.
There is no "need", there is only "I want".
Do you really need to eat three times a day?
Do you really need to wash every day?
Do you really need a TV?
Do you really need a house of your own?
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Definitely. And If your hobby involves burning fossil fuels at a vast rate (hot rodding, driving 4X4 vehicles over rough terrain etc) you'll deny global warming, and look for a convenient falsehood.
What now, the hobby police?
Your hot air should be regulated.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
ooh! testy, testy! I didn't say anything about giving up hobbies. All I did was make an observation - that people whose hobbies involve consumption of large quantities of fossil fuels are among the quickest to deny global warming.
-
And your observation is based on what? Gut feeling?
"Are those among"... who are the others in the group in which they are among? Vegan bicyclists?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And your observation is based on what? Gut feeling?
No. Click on the number of posts link to this thread. It brings up a summary of the people who have posted. I've counted at least four (and there are probably more) guys who are into "big block V8 cars" and who have made more than a few posts in this thread denying that man has anything to do with global warming.
-
Pretty scientific...
All the V8 Big Block folks need to do is buy $75 worth of carbon offsets, and they are good to go.
Skepticism is a fundamental of the scientific method in everything but climate change.
-
ok. the human race is going to be reduced to a few breeding pairs up in the arctic circle because of muscle cars. i'm just wondering if Al Gore can sustain that panicky feeling long enough to last him throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign...
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
ooh! testy, testy! I didn't say anything about giving up hobbies. All I did was make an observation - that people whose hobbies involve consumption of large quantities of fossil fuels are among the quickest to deny global warming.
.............Hobbies? You mean hobbies such as frequent air travel , transporting goods and supplies to the public , the production of just about everything , construction of roads , highways , housing development..............or just the use of such things.
Those kind of "hobbies"? :D
-
damn... didn't even get to nail fastfwd before you guys ripped him to shreds..
Yep... if I need to I can spend maybe a couple of bucks for algore newbucks carbon credits... as the math works... the whole US could offset it's carbon footprint with algore math and it would be 15 billion dollars... no problem... write a frigging check and we solved the "problem"
I have also noticed that the people who are the most "concerned" are really the biggest polluters... both in the news and on here... I know of at least 4 that have posted over and over with hand wringing "the end is near" religious man made global warming posts that....
Travel as a hobby... jets and boats and cars... any way they like.. they waste food and energy with big houses. Old houses too... I couldn't come close to the waste they cause every year.
If the "swindle" show was wrong...
Well.. it had the best in each field talking... they pretty much called the high priests of "man made global warming" or "death by c02" they called em liars in so many words.
This was not some obscure show... it was seen by millions... The liars should be out there debunking this show.
This environmentalism is the new communism with all the same old players... the only difference is that this time it sells to more foolish women and gullible, guilt ridden, rich old men.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have also noticed that the people who are the most "concerned" are really the biggest polluters... both in the news and on here... I know of at least 4 that have posted over and over with hand wringing "the end is near" religious man made global warming posts that....
Travel as a hobby... jets and boats and cars... any way they like.. they waste food and energy with big houses. Old houses too... I couldn't come close to the waste they cause every year.
If you are referring to me in the above please post links where I have said the "end is near" or anything remotely like that.
-
don't get touchy... wasn't referring to you but... except for the part about the hand wringing.. you fit the rest of the bill fairly well. You are a much bigger polluter than me overall. You do seem to be more on the leftie side than the debunkers tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
.............Hobbies? You mean hobbies such as frequent air travel , transporting goods and supplies to the public , the production of just about everything , construction of roads , highways , housing development..............or just the use of such things.
Those kind of "hobbies"? :D
fstfwd(beat1e) has two hobbies, beating girls up and air travel. Sleeze and hypocrit come to mind when I think of him.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
.............Hobbies? You mean hobbies such as frequent air travel , transporting goods and supplies to the public , the production of just about everything , construction of roads , highways , housing development..............or just the use of such things.
Those kind of "hobbies"? :D
LOL No! Those are clearly not hobbies. I was referring to personal "toys" which consume large quantities of gasoline.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
LOL No! Those are clearly not hobbies. I was referring to personal "toys" which consume large quantities of gasoline.
So.......in other words.....just limit hobbies that doesn`t interest you. I get it.
-
Coldest winter we've had here in Texas in the last few years.
you must have just moved here then.
I work ALOT outside and this winter has been pretty mild. Had a few bad days but overall I've only had to put my insulated coveralls on for maybe a week to a week and a half total.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So.......in other words.....just limit hobbies that doesn`t interest you. I get it.
I never suggested "limiting hobbies". Read again!
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
you must have just moved here then.
I work ALOT outside and this winter has been pretty mild. Had a few bad days but overall I've only had to put my insulated coveralls on for maybe a week to a week and a half total.
I grew up here and after being away for 20 years have lived here for the last 12 years. It's been pretty mild the last few years but this winter has been colder. At least it seems that way to me. Shouldn't be too hard to confirm for anyone inclined to review the stats.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
All I did was make an observation - that people whose hobbies involve consumption of large quantities of fossil fuels are among the quickest to deny global warming.
I do not deny anything. My limited access to real data and a complete lack of expertise to interpret them myself precludes me from having a firm position either way (just like the rest of you guys). Global warming may or may not be happening, but this is not a main question.
The real questions are
Is the current GB a cyclic event or a permanent run away process?
What causes it?
Can we do anything about it?
I would be real careful though with spending trillions before we know the answer. It's a "war on poverty" all over again. First we piss away trillions and then after 40 years you ask the spenders what did we buy? why the poverty levels did not go down?, and the only thing they can say is
"Had we not spend all these money, the poverty would be even worse"
Does not get any smarter than that. How can you argue with this kind of logic?
QUOTE]Originally posted by FastFwd
ooh! testy, testy! [/QUOTE]
well, yeah. It bugs the hell out of me if some religious zealot is making plans with my money. I don't care what their religion/cult is.
-
Originally posted by mietla
I do not deny anything. My limited access to real data and a complete lack of expertise to interpret them myself precludes me from having a firm position either way (just like the rest of you guys).
.
I agree.
Im not an expert. and I'd be pretty willign to bet that 99.9% of the people here. Both yay and naysers are either.
If I were to pose the question of how many here have years of experience stuydying this phenomonon from either side. We wouldnt get alot of affirmative answers.
My feeling is.
Is GW happening? Yes
Is it in large part a natural phenomenon? Yes
Are we a contributor? Yes
Are we a main contributor? Unknown or uncertain.
Are our activities upsetting the natural balance of this
phenomenon? Possibly
Should we do something about our activity? Without question YES even if its not a major contributing factor. None of this stuff we are doing is any good for us.
A cleaner world with less man made pollutants is better for all of us. The only ones who stand to gain by our coninued habits are the owners and stockholders of the corporations producing and producing the products that create the pollutants.
And last but not least there is the question.
If the nay sayers are right all well and good But....
What if the nay sayers are wrong?
cleaning up our act just makes more sense then saying everythign is fine and natural and no need to change. If for no other reason then our own health
Even if that does mean limiting your driving "privileges" to using large vehicles for legitimate purposes and not letting everyone drive them to do thar hunt'n of daere and putting down occasional wild injun upris'n
-
Mietla, drediock - I pretty much agree with the last post each of you made.
gtora2 said
fstfwd(beat1e) has two hobbies, beating girls up and air travel.
Maybe we'd have more in common if I took up eating donuts as a hobby.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I agree.
Im not an expert. and I'd be pretty willign to bet that 99.9% of the people here. Both yay and naysers are either.
If I were to pose the question of how many here have years of experience stuydying this phenomonon from either side. We wouldnt get alot of affirmative answers.
My feeling is.
Is GW happening? Yes
Is it in large part a natural phenomenon? Yes
Are we a contributor? Yes
Are we a main contributor? Unknown or uncertain.
Are our activities upsetting the natural balance of this
phenomenon? Possibly
Should we do something about our activity? Without question YES even if its not a major contributing factor. None of this stuff we are doing is any good for us.
A cleaner world with less man made pollutants is better for all of us. The only ones who stand to gain by our coninued habits are the owners and stockholders of the corporations producing and producing the products that create the pollutants.
And last but not least there is the question.
If the nay sayers are right all well and good But....
What if the nay sayers are wrong?
cleaning up our act just makes more sense then saying everythign is fine and natural and no need to change. If for no other reason then our own health
Even if that does mean limiting your driving "privileges" to using large vehicles for legitimate purposes and not letting everyone drive them to do thar hunt'n of daere and putting down occasional wild injun upris'n
Good post. :aok
-
Originally posted by lukster
I grew up here and after being away for 20 years have lived here for the last 12 years. It's been pretty mild the last few years but this winter has been colder. At least it seems that way to me. Shouldn't be too hard to confirm for anyone inclined to review the stats.
as you wish:
Mar 16, 7:19 PM EDT
Winter Warmest on Record Worldwide
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
AP Science Writer
Science Video
Buy AP Photo Reprints
PHOTO GALLERY
AP Photo
Winter Blast
Multimedia
Witness Mount Washington's Weather
Northeast Blizzard
Latest Weather News
Cleanup Continues After Northeast Storm
Winter Warmest on Record Worldwide
Hurricane Chief Warns of Old Satellite
Ga. Hospital Undaunted by Tornado Damage
Ala. Students Back After Deadly Tornado
Latest Airline News
Passenger Urinated in Air-Sickness Bag
FBI Raids N.American HQ of Japan Airline
WASHINGTON (AP) -- This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate. The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.
The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.
Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse gases which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other processes. These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse.
Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January - the warmest January ever - but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.
The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the Southern Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above average and the fourth warmest.
The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is December, January and February.
For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.
For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.
For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from the record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.
---
On the Net:
NCDC Climate Report: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/feb/feb07.html
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Mietla, drediock - I pretty much agree with the last post each of you made.
gtora2 said
Maybe we'd have more in common if I took up eating donuts as a hobby.
You are a big poo poo head, see I can respond like a 8 year old as well. I may be fat, but I am glad I am not needy little sleeze ball who has to keep coming back to a forum after he has been banned what 6 times now for being a loser. ;)
Have a nice day and just remeber even little girls here are more of man then you are.:rofl
-
dred... I have no problem with your post until you get to the end...
When you come up with a solution to this "problem". You would ban certain vehicles for people unless strictly legeslated.... You realize of course that one vacation in a jet will burn a lifetimes worth of fuel for an SUV driver and... SUV's are getting better mileage while jets are not..
Why not just ban all jet travel that is not for legitimate business reasons? Why not just make every developing country get smog devices and checks on all their vehicles that are as strict as the US?
Do no harm? do you think there might be some impact? or... would getting rid of the imperceptible amount of co2 that SUV's make over other vehicles in order to test a theory that is largely debunked.... would that make more sense?
I think you are much like fstwfwd in this regard (and the lefties) in that you are perfectly willing to "do something" so long as it only affects the other guy... one you percieve as having a useless preference. I find your reasoning pretty disgusting when it comes to "doing something" about a problem that may not even be affected by your solution.
wildcrd... the temp dropped from 1940 to 1976 much faster than it is rising now... this was at the peak of industry... how could it happen if we are making global warming? It started to go up when we were in recession... less industry..
the oceans are vast and what is happening today was caused decades or centuries ago. they don't heat and cool every year depending on global temp.
The suns activity matches the global cooling and heating...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
Much more so than co2 matches...
The good news? these minor heating and cooling events (of which we are in a minor heating event) last about 37 years in cycle... we are headed for a global cooling (minor) event... and.. we really won't have to do a thing.
We should try to protect the air quality in areas that have poor circulation tho and not pee in the water.
you can ban SUV's if you are not real bright and get a feel good woody over telling people what to do but it won't really matter in the grand scheme of things much more than telling a few people not to pee in the ocean.
one african in a clapped out toyota will undo all your work and... go ahead... tell him he has to buy a $60,000 prius.
hell... you already killed most of his relatives with the DDT ban anyway.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4 (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece) This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 11 March 2007
It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.
But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.
A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."
Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.
The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."
When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".
He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."
Mr Durkin last night said that Professor Wunsch was "most certainly not duped into appearing into the programme" and that it "had not in any way misrepresented what he said".
Before the programme was shown, the IoS asked Channel 4 why it had commissioned another film from Mr Durkin and, further, whether it was making any special checks on its accuracy.
A spokesman said the programme made by Mr Durkin for which it had had to apologise was a decade old, adding: "We treat Martin as any other film-maker."
* David Cameron will tomorrow unveil three schemes to tax air travel in order to combat global warming. He is to consult on whether to impose VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights, institute a flight tax targeted at the most polluting engines, or to set up a "green miles scheme" to tax frequent flyers at a higher rate. The revenue raised would be used for tax cuts to help families.
The cold, hard facts about global warming
What do most scientists believe caused global warming?
The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of carbon dioxide. It was established scientifically 180 years ago - and has never been seriously disputed - that natural levels of the gas given off by decaying vegetation and the oceans help to keep the Earth warm; without it, and other natural greenhouse gases, the planet would be some 20C colder and we would freeze. Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human activities makes us warmer.
Has the world warmed before?
Yes, and big warmings over prehistoric times were not started by increasing CO2 levels; changes in solar activity are more likely. Levels of the gas started rising some 800 years into the warming, but then probably reinforced it, making it bigger and longer. Temperature and CO2 are interdependent; when one goes up the other follows. This time it is different because vast amounts of the gas are being artificially put into the atmosphere by humans.
What about more recent history?
There was a warm period in Europe in the Middle Ages, again probably caused by solar activity, but it does not seem to have been a worldwide phenomenon, although records are scanty.
So is the sun responsible now?
Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in global warming this century.
---------------
Big screen TV - $2,500
Ammunition making equipment and supplies - $500
Refreshments - $15
Watching a British (*gasp*) documentary about swindlers apparently MADE by swindlers and claiming it as fact - Priceless
That's interesting, I would love to see what they edited, but having watched it to see who this guy was it doesnt change much.
He apears 3 times and has maybe about 5 minutes air time, maybe 10 at most and only really talks about oceans and how the news media picks up on racy stories over the better science at times.
All in all you could remove him from the film and it would have the same impact.
Still I would love to see a longer interview with him and hear his claims. His part was pretty mild.
-
So Gto...you are happy to take this one item of evidence of manipulation, discard it and then keep the show "as is". You are absolutely sure the rest of the show is fine? No credibility issue for you?
Amazing.
I guess we could do the same with say....Clinton?
He lied about having sex with an intern. Take that out of his presidency and the rest should be all good right?
-
Originally posted by Curval
So Gto...you are happy to take this one item of evidence of manipulation, discard it and then keep the show "as is". You are absolutely sure the rest of the show is fine? No credibility issue for you?
Amazing.
I guess we could do the same with say....Clinton?
He lied about having sex with an intern. Take that out of his presidency and the rest should be all good right? [/QUOTE
I think if you go search I am prolly all over the map on Clinton Curvy, and I am fairly sure I have said in the past he wasn't all that bad.
I think Bush has been worse for the country over all, and I have always said, all clinton needed to do in my book is say "keep your nose out my private life" and It would have been fine for me.
Now back to the Film.
I think you missed the point of what I posted, and I did say I would like to see what was removed. That means I havn't made up my mind one way or another on the issue. Hell for all we know he could be having sour grapes because he got so little air time.
I would love to see if the other scientists in the movie feel the same way as the guy you posted about, that would bring more doubt.
I am going to see if you can find the others online and email them and see if they will share their take.
Over all though the other scientist in the film were more compeling so unlesss they start screaming I won't toss the whole thing away as BS.
Hell I will even watch Gore's film if someone links a Utube copy. I won't pay for it though.
P.S if you asked what I thought as opposed to assuming it, you wouldn't come off as so condescending, (maybe that’s what you like though?)amazing how that works.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You realize of course that one vacation in a jet will burn a lifetimes worth of fuel for an SUV driver
That's a wild exaggeration, Lazs. On a 2000 mile trip, a plane like a B757 will use 20 tons of fuel, with 9000lb/hr being the approximate rule of thumb burn rate. But there will be ~150 passengers, so it's only about 60lb/hr per passenger. So about 480lb per passenger for the round trip. That's about 70 gallons per head. I rather think an SUV is going to use more than that in its lifetime or yours.
I "may be" fat
:rofl
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
as you wish:
For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.
For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.
I trust you read this part.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Originally posted by Curval
So Gto...you are happy to take this one item of evidence of manipulation, discard it and then keep the show "as is". You are absolutely sure the rest of the show is fine? No credibility issue for you?
Amazing.
I guess we could do the same with say....Clinton?
He lied about having sex with an intern. Take that out of his presidency and the rest should be all good right? [/QUOTE
I think if you go search I am prolly all over the map on Clinton Curvy, and I am fairly sure I have said in the past he wasn't all that bad.
I think Bush has been worse for the country over all, and I have always said, all clinton needed to do in my book is say "keep your nose out my private life" and It would have been fine for me.
Now back to the Film.
I think you missed the point of what I posted, and I did say I would like to see what was removed. That means I havn't made up my mind one way or another on the issue. Hell for all we know he could be having sour grapes because he got so little air time.
I would love to see if the other scientists in the movie feel the same way as the guy you posted about, that would bring more doubt.
I am going to see if you can find the others online and email them and see if they will share their take.
Over all though the other scientist in the film were more compeling so unlesss they start screaming I won't toss the whole thing away as BS.
Hell I will even watch Gore's film if someone links a Utube copy. I won't pay for it though. [/B]
No, I got your point and it was well taken. I am not saying the whole show was garbage though, just to be clear. I even caveated my little Visa card analogy by saying:
"Watching a British (*gasp*) documentary about swindlers apparently MADE by swindlers and claiming it as fact - Priceless
It was lazs who claimed I was tossing the whole show aside. I haven't. In fact it is the only one I've seen on the subject...haven't seen Gore's show and didn't even watch the BBC's Global Dimming show that was recommended to me. It shows a slightly different spin on the GW debate apparently.
I will be interested to see what the other scientists have to say if they reply...post up any response.
-
Will do, I have to find out if they are around though. I have contacted Paul Moore in the past so I am sure I will get something from him. Though he wasnt the most interesting.
I agree there is amusing irony in the visa thing.
-
beatle says
I "may be" fat
It is sad you think that bothers me. I am fine with who I am, fat and all, I am thankfull everyday I don't have to smack around women or be a troll on the forums to feel good about myself. Or be a drunk.
But you go on calling me fat, it just shows how classy you really are, along with everything else you do to get banned.
Hey AcesHigh Forum. I am FAT!!! HUGE! Like the Moon Fat, just so you know, so beeter doesnt have to keep telling you.
-
Laz. I must confess.
I included that last line in there for you specifically as I knew it would send you over the edge.
I just wanted to see what your reaction would be :D
You can relax though, as at least your guns are safe with me
Curious though just how long you have been an expert in global warming.
How long have you studied it? What degrees do you hold on the relevant subjects?
And what if your wrong?
It just seems prudent to go on the assumption you may wrong be for an entire host of reasons not even related to global warming
And foolish if not outright arrogant to just go on the assumption that everything is just honky dory and we should just go on the way we always have.
the things that can happen are.
If your right, nothing. But will still be taking in more and more noxious pollutants
If your right but we act as if we are effecting the climate. Long term everyone wins with a cleaner planet
If your wrong and we do something. Again. everyone wins. cept maybe some stockholders. But while those stocks may drop. other stocks will undoubtedly rise as new technologies develop. So it becomes a money shift really. And industry will have to change or get lost in the shuffle..
Just seems there are more legitimate reasons to go act on the assumption that we are having an effect then that we arent. Even if we really arent.
I'll go for including a ban on air travel too for non business related purposes.
Might get people to see more of their own country as well as help out the local economies by pumping monies into them instead of sending them elsewhere.
I will agree one person pissing in a river will have no effect. But thousands of people pissing in a river might taint it just a tad. Just ask the folks over in India.
SUV's same thing a few will have little effect. but thousands upon thousands of SUVs are sure to be detrimental.
Particularly if all you are using it for is to run the kiddies around and just to show off your wealth.
Sorry but just as I dont think society as a whole should be forced to pay for those who refuse to work I don't think society as a whole should be forced to pay just so some people can have their status symbol or make up for whatever penile shortcomings they may have either.
C'mon man you and I both know the only reason alot of people are buying these big SUVs and trucks is so they can boast and say they have the biggest.
And yanno who is impressed the most by them. the people that buy them.
they only impress themselves. Its all about chest thumping. ::whoopee::
Driving is a privilege. NOT a right. You may very well have the right to own whatever you like. that doesnt mean you have the right to drive it.
Hell you can own a formula 1 too. that doesnt mean you have the right to drive it on city streets
But we don't have to ban them outright.
Just do what the government does best.
Impose a tax on them like a luxury tax. Cause thats what they really are for folks that dont have a legitimate NEED for them.
And offer a tax break equal to the tax increase for those who can show a legitimate need for them.
We dont have to ban them out of existence. We can just tax them out of existence. We can call it a cylinder tax to be paid upon buying the vehicle and annually as you renew registration.Tthe monies of which can be earmarked for alternative fuel research.
Then you can have your pig and help the environment at the same time
-
on another note I stumbled across this.
I didnt want to include it in the last post
Looks rather amusing though
Flying Off To A Warmer Climate (http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mapcalc.html)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hey AcesHigh Forum. I am FAT!!! HUGE! Like the Moon Fat, just so you know, so beeter doesnt have to keep telling you.
Maybe he likes you. I mean REALLY likes you.
Everyone has their own fetish ;)
-
Dred...too late man. You have declared your feelings and have now been labelled a pinko commie left wing enviro nutbag.
You are either with lazs...or against him. There just isn't any other way. ;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Maybe he likes you. I mean REALLY likes you.
Everyone has their own fetish ;)
It is possible, he does like humping my leg.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
...Again. everyone wins. cept maybe some stockholders...
you keep saying that over and over, but guess what... the stockholders are us.
You present the whole thing like it is free. A simple zero sum reallocation. All we have to do is to reallocate existing funds and investments into different technologies.
That is what the free market will eventually do.
But this is not what the GB church wants. They want to stiffle our growth and ability to produce then take the wealth we already have and distribute it to the "oppressed" in the third world. Be it directly or indirectly via those idiotic carbon credits.
Lazs is right. It is communism all over again. The only thing that's different is the audience to which it is preached.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Dred...too late man. You have declared your feelings and have now been labelled a pinko commie left wing enviro nutbag.
You are either with lazs...or against him. There just isn't any other way. ;)
Who I am for or against or weather I am left or right would depend on the subject at hand and whom I am arguing with.
LOL I do not beleive I have made any overtures of blowing large loads of sunshine up his butt.
He can label me as an enemy of the state if he likes.
I just call em the way I see em.
;)
-
My 2 pennies?
Global Warming will rate up there with Bird Flu...
both are possible but results are inconclusive.
It seems to me that human beings have an unfounded belief that they are the most powerful things in the Universe.
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
-
So, does Al Gore have the courage to accept this offer?
Al Gore Challenge (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1)
I doubt it...
My regards,
Widewing
-
WW, Gore has no choice but to accept the challenge.
Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
A foofaraw has been declared; Gore HAS to accept. :)
-
The Director of the Great global warming Scam responds to critics.
Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml)
The artical.
The Great Global Warming Swindle', broadcast by Channel 4, put the case for scepticism about man-made climate change. The programme sparked a heated debate and charges of scientific inaccuracy. Here, its director, Martin Durkin, responds to the critics.
On March 8, Channel 4 broadcast my programme. Since then, supporters of the theory of man-made global warming have published frothing criticism. I am attacked for using an "old" graph depicting temperature over the past 1,000 years. They say I should have used a "new" graph - one used by Al Gore, known as the "hockey stick", because it looks like one.
But the hockey stick has been utterly discredited. The computer programme used to generate it was found to produce hockey-stick shapes even when fed random data (I refer readers to the work of McIntyre & McKitrick and to the Wegman Report, all available on the internet). Other than the discredited hockey stick, the graph used by us (and published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the standard, accepted record of temperature in this period.
A critic claims that one of the graphs cited by us, illustrating the extraordinarily close correlation between solar variation and temperature change, has since been "corrected". It most certainly has not. The graph was produced by Prof Eigil Friis-Christensen, the head of the Danish National Space Centre, who says it still stands. But if the global-warmers don't like that graph, there are plenty of others that say the same thing.
No one any longer seriously disputes the link between solar activity and temperature in earth's climate history. I urge readers to look up on the net: Veizer, Geoscience Canada, 2005; and Soon, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005.
In the film, we used three graphs depicting temperature change in the 20th century. On one there was an error in the dates on the bottom. This was corrected for the second transmission of the programme, on More4, last Monday. It made no difference. Global-warmers can pick whichever graph they like. The problem for them remains the same. The temperature rise at the beginning of the century (prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively insignificant) was as great, most graphs show greater, than the temperature rise at the end of the century.
So what else do they hit me with? Prof Carl Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who appeared in the film, later claimed he was duped into taking part. He was not.
The remarkable thing is not that I was attacked. But that the attacks have been so feeble. The ice-core data was the jewel in the global-warming crown, cited again and again as evidence that carbon dioxide 'drives' the earth's climate. In fact, as its advocates have been forced to admit, the ice-core data says the opposite. Temperature change always precedes changes in CO2 by several hundred years. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot.
During the post-war economic boom, while industrial emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down (hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s). Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. But they say it mumbling under their breath, because they know it makes no sense. Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?
Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Interesting, but I wish he would have gone into the Wunsch part a bit more.
-
Originally posted by Toad
WW, Gore has no choice but to accept the challenge.
A foofaraw has been declared; Gore HAS to accept. :)
LOLOL sounds like a challenge no manly man could avoid.... Foofaraws can't be avoided, like skidmarks in a 6th grader's shorts.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Interesting quote from M. Thatcher.
I read Carl Sagan's book "Billions & Billions" about 10 years ago. He had been discussing global warming issues with a US politician who, like some others I have seen post on this topic, claimed that warmer temperatures would be "good for humans", and that increased levels of warmth/sun could easily be dealt with if we were to wear sunglasses. As Sagan pointed out in the book, this was not an option for life forms lower down in the food chain.
I gained the impression that he felt he was banging his head against a wall when trying to discuss these matters with politicians. But he did make one notable exception - someone who, in Sagan's belief, had a complete grasp of the issues, and that was Margaret Thatcher.
-
curval... you haven't even seen both sides? I have stated here plenty of times that I look at both sides. I listen to NPR as well as right wing talk shows.. I follow links here to some to the most bizzare left wing sites on the planet.
What is odd about me noticing a show that was aired on BBC? Does that mean that I think the BBC is fair and balanced? Hardly..it is pretty far left so far as I can see. They aired it tho.
dred... Oh.. I get it.. you aren't really for banning things you just say that to get me worked up? But then... you go on to say that some things are not our right and that the government should decide what we drive? You ask when I became an expert on global climate change? Probly about the same time that half the "scientists" in the 2500 UN group did... reviewers... mathmaticians... people with no climate, much less global climate, experiance.
hell... I only listen. I don't claim any expertise yet... My certification and work in the field of man made pollution is probly a lot more impressive than some of the bogus "scientists" on the UN list which is... not much in either case.
In the documentary... the scientists in it were the some of the most powerful in the field of climate and research. If they say it is a myth... why should I panic and listen to you?
Did you watch the program?
No? well... watch it and then you will know the answer to "what harm can it do?"
MTBE in the water and DDT bans.. it can do a lot of harm... developing nations... imagine the harm our (your) restrictions on them will do to their economy... people will die...or.. more accurately... continue to die.. in the millions if you keep them from the necessities of life like electricity and transportation.
Watch the program.
and... fastfwd... one pleasure trip of one jet will use more fuel than an SUV in a lifetime.. if you ban the trips there will be no jets taking off with 1 or 150 or 50 passengers.. the jet will simply not burn the fuel... and... the average SUV gets about what? 20-30 mpg? you might save 10 mpg over some crapbox that won't hold what is needed or tow what you want.
Until pleasure travel is banned then there is no reason to pretend to "do something" by banning vehicles that are useful.
MY dad came over all worked up about man made global warming and what breeding people we were gonna send to santa claus land to save the human race.
I showed him the youtube full version of the program... he has seen the "world is ending according to the inventor of the internet" one.
He felt a lot better... he mentioned that the scientists on the swindle program had the oomph and the algore actors and failed politicians had the emotion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Interesting quote from M. Thatcher.
I gained the impression that he felt he was banging his head against a wall when trying to discuss these matters with politicians. But he did make one notable exception - someone who, in Sagan's belief, had a complete grasp of the issues, and that was Margaret Thatcher.
She wouldn't have been using it for political gain, now would she?
:rolleyes:
Bronk
-
and... fastfwd... one pleasure trip of one jet will use more fuel than an SUV in a lifetime.. if you ban the trips there will be no jets taking off with 1 or 150 or 50 passengers.. the jet will simply not burn the fuel...
So instead, you'd have 50-100 SUVs clogging the roads for every jet that was banned.
Originally posted by Bronk
She wouldn't have been using it for political gain, now would she?
:rolleyes:
Bronk
Hardly. It was 1987. She was already at the top of her career and had just won her third general election victory with an unassailable majority in the house of commons. In September of that year, a meeting was held in Montreal to debate CFC usage and possibly limit their use.
I've just found the book to see exactly what it said, which is Interior Secretary Donald Hodel, a conservative Reagan appointee averse to government controls, reportedly suggested that, instead of limiting CFC production, we all wear sunglasses and hats. This option is unavailable to the microorganisms at the base of the food chain that sustain life on Earth.
.
.
.
Substantial credit must be given to Ambassador Richard Benedick, who led the US delegation to Montreal, and to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, trained in chemistry, understood the issue.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
I never suggested "limiting hobbies". Read again!
Oh......I`m reading you just fine . :)
I read Carl Sagan's book "Billions & Billions" about 10 years ago.
:rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Hardly. It was 1987. She was already at the top of her career and had just won her third general election victory with an unassailable majority in the house of commons. In September of that year, a meeting was held in Montreal to debate CFC usage and possibly limit their use.
Actually, if you watch the GGWS program, it notes there was a very big political aspect to Thatcher's support for man-made global warming. Watch the program.
-
Already have.
-
So.......in other words.....just limit hobbies that doesn`t interest you. I get it.
Remember Hitech's analysis of the ENY balancing whines? He observed, correctly in my view, that the suggestions the whiners came up with all came under the heading of "Not impact me". Here, I see calls for bans on jets by people who don't use them, but the same people would object if THEY had to change THEIR lifestyles.
just sayin'
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Remember Hitech's analysis of the ENY balancing whines? He observed, correctly in my view, that the suggestions the whiners came up with all came under the heading of "Not impact me". Here, I see calls for bans on jets by people who don't use them, but the same people would object if THEY had to change THEIR lifestyles.
just sayin'
take the train or a boat, enjoy the trip.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Originally posted by WilldCrd
as you wish:
For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.
For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.
I trust you read this part. [/B]
ofcourse i read it. Im just saying that since i work predominatly outdoors on outside plant phone and telecom systems this winter was a cakewalk compared to others in the last 15 years. When you sit for eight hours or more in a trailer splicing fiber optic lines and testing equipment and gaffing telelphone poles the memory of the COLD days sticks with ya.
sure we had a FEW cold days but for the most part it was mild. Not once did i have to knock of ice from a pole as i gaffed it. (of which i dont do much anymore thank god)
Now the summers lately have been a biotch.....just saying
-
oh and I been riding my bike since mid feb atleast. mornings are chilly but the afternoons have been great!
-
fstfwd.. I did not say ban the jets.. I said that you can't ban SUV's and not ban the jets.
I don't think any ban is needed. I think the man made global warming scare is a swindle and I do believe that margret thatcher used was one of the perpetrators of the swindle so that she could get nuke power and do away with the pesky coal minors and their unions.
carl sagan was a blowhard and chicken little who was wrong about the kuwait oil fires just as he was about man made global warming... the man was a joke.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Hardly. It was 1987. She was already at the top of her career and had just won her third general election victory with an unassailable majority in the house of commons. In September of that year, a meeting was held in Montreal to debate CFC usage and possibly limit their use.
Yea like she is not going to go back on a previous position.:rolleyes:
She is a politician first and foremost, it will be a cold day in hell before she changes position.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Remember Hitech's analysis of the ENY balancing whines? He observed, correctly in my view, that the suggestions the whiners came up with all came under the heading of "Not impact me". Here, I see calls for bans on jets by people who don't use them, but the same people would object if THEY had to change THEIR lifestyles.
just sayin'
So..........you are saying no bans/no limitations............on anything....right?
You are "just sayin`"?
We call it S or get off the pot. :)
-
yep... I would agree with the hand wringers if they simply said that we didn't have to ban anything and that the free market would take care of the "problem".
I would still believe that "man made global warming" is about 99.5% swindle and that even banning jets would have no effect other than to collapse economies but... we could at least wring our hands together and breath a sigh of relief when the next cooling event came along...
until it started getting cold for a few years in a row of course... then we would have to wring our hands and tear our hair and rend our garments in agony again over "man made global cooling" offer up some sacrafices to the gods of science and politics....
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
until it started getting cold for a few years in a row of course... then we would have to wring our hands and tear our hair and rend our garments in agony again over "man made global cooling" offer up some sacrafices to the gods of science and politics....
lazs
Hehe. Yep...............billyuuuuun s and billyuuuuuuns of them. :)
-
This thread reminds me of the south park beaverton dam episode.
All the hand wringers are standing up and saying "I broke the Dam".:rofl
-
Hello my dear fellows ;)
Tell you what. I watched the Gore movie! Finally.
Man made global warming = Swindle?
IMHO nope, and I realized that what I have stated so far is a bunch of understatements compared to Gore. While sticking to my own conclusions, he still added some interesting facts to the equation that I suspected, but didn't know of. The two that stick out are these:
1: CO2 emission from forests being burned down are 30% of the whole.
2: The Antarctica is actually knocking off incredibly big bits at a very high rate.
While I suspected no1, no2 got me shocked.
And this one:
"yep... I would agree with the hand wringers if they simply said that we didn't have to ban anything and that the free market would take care of the "problem"."
This describes a narrow mind. Which "free" market? Has the "free" market taken care of many problems that were stopped with force? Name some.
IMHO the free market will not take any initiative while the cow is milking. However, when guided by the cirkumstances (i.e. fossil fuel is waaaayyy tooo expensive), the free market improvises and responds formidably fast.
The frew market is the crewmember, not the captain, and right now the ship is sinking while those two fight about who's boss.
-
none of that made any sense..
What did you think of the parade of world renown scientists that algore brought into his documentary to explain just exactly how soon we would all fry in our own co2?
Were you dazzled by his prophesy of the extreme hurricane season we would see in the year after his movie? Were you a tiny bit confused when it was the mildest in recent history?
How do you explain that at the hight of industrial age... 1940-1974 say... we had a radical drop in temp? We went into a recession and the temp went up?
ITS THE SUN STUPID
Did you watch the "swindle" movie? no excuse not to... it is on youtube for free and complete... you should be able to relax if you do... real experts explain the real reasons for all your concerns...
Good news is... we should start to see a global cooling in a couple of years according to typical cycles of these minor heating and cooling cycles of which... we are going through a minor heating cycle.
When it starts to cool will you give it a rest and let us live our lives?
lazs
-
So lazs, Gore is full of it, the scientists that agree with Gore are full of it, the EPA are full of it, everyone who thinks that GW is an issue are full of it.
What we all need to do is sit back and watch one show (which has already been shown to have credibility issues) and everyone can relax. All is fine.
That is STUPID ....STUPID!
-
im all for keeping an open mind about GW... what turns me off is the politicization of the issue... and statements like "the debate about global warming is over."
how does a person give ANY credence to someone who looks you in the eye and tells you the debate is over when its raging all around you, with credentialed scientists on both sides? and a politician no less....
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
im all for keeping an open mind about GW... what turns me off is the politicization of the issue... and statements like "the debate about global warming is over."
Don't disagree with this at all. You would have to admit that the exact same applies to the other end of the spectrum though. It turns me off completely for the whole debate to boil down to "It's the sun stupid" and then to dismiss it out of hand.
how does a person give ANY credence to someone who looks you in the eye and tells you the debate is over when its raging all around you, with credentialed scientists on both sides? and a politician no less....
I agree. It applies equally to the extreme sides of the debate.
-
in the meantime, Curval, another intense hurricane season is predicted, and June is just around the corner. im dreading this. i hope it fizzles out just like last year.
-
Well Lazs, not so long ago you were saying that global warming "wasn't happening". Now you're saying it is happening and is caused by the sun. Well, that's progress I suppose. Of a sort.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
in the meantime, Curval, another intense hurricane season is predicted, and June is just around the corner. im dreading this. i hope it fizzles out just like last year.
I've seen that, but as you say they said the same thing last year and we had one very very weak one.
The insurance companies had record profits last year....hmmmm. ;)
-
Originally posted by Guntr
how does a person give ANY credence to someone who looks you in the eye and tells you the debate is over when its raging all around you, with credentialed scientists on both sides? and a politician no less....
Originally posted by Curval
I agree. It applies equally to the extreme sides of the debate.
[/B]
Originally posted by Curval
I agree. It applies equally to the extreme sides of the debate.
Politicians have no interest in doing nothing (no money in it and no extra power). Doing "something" on the other hand, brings them both.
"Something" is of course irrelevant. Why don't we federalize all gardeners and car mechanics, for example. It worked for the airline security, didn't it. They've created a panic, argued that only federal employees can provide security, and then hired all those incompetent, private agents, gave them a new fancy shirt and a badge, and guess what... all those incompetent boobs became competent and skilled over night.
I'm guessing it was a win-win, since I bet they "federal" now employees got some benies as well.
-
Gore is one thing, maybe you would rather have Bush point at Antarctica?
It does not matter WHO points at it and makes it public, what is happening to the polar caps (which you guys were debating a few months ago, DEBATING) is an established fact, and one to seriously consider.
It was a parallell to this looking at the tobacco debates, and the ozon layer debates, - well sorry, but the scientists turned out to be right, and the free marked responded once new parameters had been set (in a dirty way in the case of tobacco).
Anyway, Tobacco stuff is a laughing matter compared to the size of this. And I give Mr. Gore a thumb up for posting a good picture set of Antarctica.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Politicians have no interest in doing nothing (no money in it and no extra power). Doing "something" on the other hand, brings them both.[/B]
Nonsense.
Politicians with strong ties to the oil industry or any heavy industry would OBVIOUSLY benefit by doing nothing. Guess what...there's lots of those.
-
fstwfwd.. I have never said that the earth doesn't heat and cool differently at different times.. I simply said that I don't believe in any significant man made global warming... I believe that there have been naturaly cooler and warmer periods... it is warmer now than some times and cooler than others.
But...... It would appear that if you really want to do something about the environment...
GET PRENUS DRIVERS OUT OF THE HYBRIDS AND INTO SUV'S!
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188
The hybrids are killing the planet!!!! I think I seen a chunk of the sky fall right behind one the other day!
lazs
-
Global Warming....pffffffft. Who cares???? The asteroid is going to kill us all before global warming does, but on the off chance it misses us and we do need to do something about global warming how about this....start WWIII, take out about 75-100 million people on this rock and we'll be good to go. Lets face it, if man is causing the problem, then get rid of the cause.
Oh wait, that wasn't very PC of me was it? O'well I don't care one way or the other. I'll drive my big gas guzzling truck, smoke my Marlboro's and toss the butts out the window.
Live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse. Global warming hawks piss me off. It's all about power for them so they can tell the rest of the world how to live their way. Screw em.
-
or... we could all write a check to algores company for carbon credits... a check for 15 billion would offset all of the US carbon use just as a few bucks offset his extremely wasteful and earth destroying lifestyle... fastfwrd could make out a check for his gross and unconcienable travel behavior.
curval and others... why do you suppose there is no debate? the guys on the side of it being a hoax are more than willing to debate in a public forum the handwringers hide behind the UN and hollyweird...
That doesn't bother you?
It doesn't bother you that the whole man made global warming house of cards is based on the shaky co2 theory?
stupid and again, as curval says..... STUPID.
lazs
-
i got as far as this, " a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today "
so most cars have a 76 HP motor?..... i call shenanigans.
-
ah.... john.. you need to reread the sentence....
it says that the prenus is powered by a 76 hp engine and that it is GAS powered engine like that found in most cars today... they mean only that most cars including the prius use a gas powered engine not that they all have 76 hp.
If you have ever been in or driven or...had to follow a prenus... you would realize that even 76 hp is opptomistic.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Gore is one thing, maybe you would rather have Bush point at Antarctica?
It does not matter WHO points at it and makes it public, what is happening to the polar caps (which you guys were debating a few months ago, DEBATING) is an established fact, and one to seriously consider.
You mean "cap", not "caps." It is an established scientific fact that Antarctica (that is, the south polar cap) is gaining ice mass, as is the center of Greenland. Gore's pictures of Antactica are one small area of the landmass, a peninsula which sticks out into a stream of warm air or water. The rest of the continent is gaining ice mass. I don't care who points things out, so long as they're honest with the facts and conclusions. Gore's movie is simple fear mongering, a cherry picking of information, butressed by distortion. The ice caps are just one example. The biggest is the CO2/temperature graphs. In reality, they show the exact opposite of what Gore asserts. To wit, that CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around. That is the hard, scientific fact.
-
Lazs...you are talking about this Lord Monckton challenge right? It is just your style to say "the guys on the side of it being a hoax are more than willing to debate in a public forum the handwringers hide behind the UN and hollyweird..." in such sweeping terms and try and make it sound as if your side is right and theirs is wrong as a result.
Just type in "Global Warming Debate" into google and see what comes up...there is debate on the subject all over the place....including RIGHT HERE.
If Gore was to show up and look bad you would claim victory. If he looked good in the debate your mind wouldn't be changed anyway...so I just don't see how a debate like that would solve anything.
-
Global warming is just a chicken little excuse for whatever politician/company/organisation want to piggy back thru it for their agenda.
You don't need global warming to use common sense and not **** where you eat.
-
Originally posted by Curval
If Gore was to show up and look bad you would claim victory. If he looked good in the debate your mind wouldn't be changed anyway...so I just don't see how a debate like that would solve anything.
But waht about foofaraw?
-
Originally posted by mietla
But waht about foofaraw?
I don't think the issue is a fuss about nothing.
"You don't need global warming to use common sense and not **** where you eat."
I agree entirely. Problem is we humans do, all the time. Figuratively and litterally.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
To wit, that CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around. That is the hard, scientific fact.
I saw that being claimed in the GGWS documentary, and while that might have been true in bygone centuries, does the pattern still hold since the industrial revolution and beyond? In those bygone centuries (250+ years ago) was there ever a time when mankind emitted 25bn tonnes of CO2 each year by burning fossil fuels?
-
Sabre:
"You mean "cap", not "caps." It is an established scientific fact that Antarctica (that is, the south polar cap) is gaining ice mass, as is the center of Greenland. Gore's pictures of Antactica are one small area of the landmass, a peninsula which sticks out into a stream of warm air or water. The rest of the continent is gaining ice mass. I don't care who points things out, so long as they're honest with the facts and conclusions."
Please back this up. I have never seen anything to support this. Especially Greenland, where the local thing (That also includes local glacier experts) is that the Glacier is actually loosing mass. Same here in Iceland, (Even visible with the naked eye from where I live and in the 20 years I lived here). It would also be nice to have an explanation to one glacier growing while it's neighbour is schrinking.
-
If you truly are a defender of the global warming arguements, and you want to practice what you preach, then stop taking vacations so you don't look like a hypocrit.
Tourism attributes to Global Warming (http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,9294,2-13-1443_2086930,00.html)
-
curval.. I would love to see any debate on it... it is pretty one sided right now... Hell.. I am one of the few here who even seen both "documentaries" ... I think algore would get slaughtered because he is simply a liar and an bellybutton in everything he does...I see no reason for this to be different.
I would much rather see a debate by the leading scientists of both views.. I have a hard time even pinning down individual scientists that think the world is ending tho... I certainly see no good arguements from the hand wringers on this board.
moot is correct.. you don't destroy when you don't need to.
But... that includes making mandates like mtbe and ddt bans and such... you can make things much worse by being compassionate... look at our welfare system..
Did you read the Hummer vs prenus article? many here see some demonic spirit in the SUV and America in general... they see the prenus as the saviour of the planet or.. at the very least a good first step..
So... mandate that everyone drives a prenus.... what would happen? pollution on a grand scale. Much worse than if you mandated everyone drive an SUV... What? you say... well.. if everyone had to drive an SUV they could at least have a choice of models that ranged from 10 mpg to over 30.. new ones are getting even better.
The hollier than tho attitude of the know nothing hand wringers is pretty disgusting to me...
The overall willingness of the media and the "scientists" to lie about "man made global warming" being so potent and.. the reliance on only one thing.... C02.. a thing that is loooking more and more shaky as this comes to light.
less hysteria and more honesty and open debate would be nice... algore didn't debate anyone in front of congress the other day... he just made speeches and proclaimed a problem and a prophet.
That doesn't bother you guys?
lazs
-
Anyone notice the news from NASA and see the new pictures of the sun's magnetic field? With quotes like "Gee, we never knew that the magnetic field was so turbulent" ROFL.
Anyone that says that the science on global warming is "established" is probably full of bovine excrement. Statistical models are worthless when key factors are not understood. How do you figure the average temperature of a planetary body when the energy input from the star is variable? How do you figure how much heat is trapped in the atmosphere when you can't quantify water vapor (which is the #1 greenhouse gas and biggest heat sink on the planet) in your model?
Minor temperature variations over time are to be expected. I'm a lot more worried about keeping our water clean of chemical and biological contaminants than I am about CO2. All the money they are wasting on global warming would be much better spent cleaning up contaminated sites and teaching the 3rd world how not to pollute themselves to death.
EagleDNY
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Anyone notice the news from NASA and see the new pictures of the sun's magnetic field? With quotes like "Gee, we never knew that the magnetic field was so turbulent" ROFL.
Anyone that says that the science on global warming is "established" is probably full of bovine excrement. Statistical models are worthless when key factors are not understood. How do you figure the average temperature of a planetary body when the energy input from the star is variable? How do you figure how much heat is trapped in the atmosphere when you can't quantify water vapor (which is the #1 greenhouse gas and biggest heat sink on the planet) in your model?
Minor temperature variations over time are to be expected. I'm a lot more worried about keeping our water clean of chemical and biological contaminants than I am about CO2. All the money they are wasting on global warming would be much better spent cleaning up contaminated sites and teaching the 3rd world how not to pollute themselves to death.
EagleDNY
:aok
-
"Anyone that says that the science on global warming is "established" is probably full of bovine excrement"
Anyone saying that the globe is warming however is just on spot with an established fact.
And anyone saying that mankind has no impact whatsoever on the atmosphere should climb back to his tree :D
-
angus... "no impact whatsoever" is a lot different than "massive" or "substantial" or any of the other highly "scientific" terms the algore acolytes of the man made global warming religion use.
I think "minor" would be a good middle ground... I don't see any need for drastic solutions (that may do grave harm in themselves) for such a minor "problem".
In fact.. compared to many things that we can do something about.. I don't see it as worth doing anything about that takes resources to do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
(Even visible with the naked eye from where I live and in the 20 years I lived here).
Geez Angus......... I don`t believe anyone who has lived in any area, of any notable , population over a few years, can truthfully say that that see no change in their surroundings and change in the countryside in general. Earth has been changing since the beginning of recorded history. I see no reason why your area would be expected to be any different.
There is evidence of many great changes in the earth and it`s inhabitants.
Did you think the ice was never going to expand or retract in your area or what?
-
Good thing you're not a polar bear, Jackal. Their habitat is dying out pretty fast and it's been good for as long as polar bears have been around which must be what...hundreds of thousands of years.
The whole debate about global warming actually makes me think why cities like Mohinja Dharo and Harappa died out...they were probably saying the same thing.
What truly amazes me is that the rationality that was fought for so hard during the enlightenment and met its zenith with the founding fathers of the US has now been reduced to a superpower in which most people believe in some sort of divine being who will 'guide them', in which certain ex presidents make decisions based on their wives astrologer's decisions and it lookes like the good fight on the Scopes trial is going to be reversed because most of the people there don't even believe in evolution to the extent that they want 'intelligent design' (for which read creationism) to be part of the school curriculum. Such a shame. The march of unreason goes strong.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Good thing you're not a polar bear, Jackal. Their habitat is dying out pretty fast and it's been good for as long as polar bears have been around which must be what...hundreds of thousands of years.
The whole debate about global warming actually makes me think why cities like Mohinja Dharo and Harappa died out...they were probably saying the same thing.
What truly amazes me is that the rationality that was fought for so hard during the enlightenment and met its zenith with the founding fathers of the US has now been reduced to a superpower in which most people believe in some sort of divine being who will 'guide them', in which certain ex presidents make decisions based on their wives astrologer's decisions and it lookes like the good fight on the Scopes trial is going to be reversed because most of the people there don't even believe in evolution to the extent that they want 'intelligent design' (for which read creationism) to be part of the school curriculum. Such a shame. The march of unreason goes strong.
Ravs
Perhaps you intended no slight towards Ronald Reagan but your comment seems to dismiss out of hand the man most responsible for the demise of an empire which would have enslaved the world had it stood unopposed. Reagan was not without his faults but his steadfast rejection of detente probably freed more people than anything else in the last thousand years.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Good thing you're not a polar bear, Jackal. Their habitat is dying out pretty fast and it's been good for as long as polar bears have been around which must be what...hundreds of thousands of years.
The whole debate about global warming actually makes me think why cities like Mohinja Dharo and Harappa died out...they were probably saying the same thing.
What truly amazes me is that the rationality that was fought for so hard during the enlightenment and met its zenith with the founding fathers of the US has now been reduced to a superpower in which most people believe in some sort of divine being who will 'guide them', in which certain ex presidents make decisions based on their wives astrologer's decisions and it lookes like the good fight on the Scopes trial is going to be reversed because most of the people there don't even believe in evolution to the extent that they want 'intelligent design' (for which read creationism) to be part of the school curriculum. Such a shame. The march of unreason goes strong.
Ravs
Still bitter about being booted out of the colonies i see.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by ravells
Good thing you're not a polar bear, Jackal. Their habitat is dying out pretty fast and it's been good for as long as polar bears have been around which must be what...hundreds of thousands of years.
Ravs
I haven`t seen a T-Rex around lately either . I`m blaming Al Bore for not warning us soon enough. :)
The earth changes. Always has. Always will.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I haven`t seen a T-Rex around lately either . I`m blaming Al Bore for not warning us soon enough. :)
The earth changes. Always has. Always will.
Al Bore was too busy counting HIS oil money.
:noid :noid
Brnk
-
Don't forget the tobacco (which killed his sister).
Originally posted by Al Gore
‘I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I’ve put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve dug it. I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.’
Originally posted by Al Gore
‘Tomorrow morning, another thirteen-year-old girl will start smoking. I love her, too. Three thousand young people in America will start smoking tomorrow. One thousand of them will die a death not unlike my sister’s, and that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.”
He would not be a lying hypocrite living in a 50,000 sqf. mansion, traveling all over the world in private jets, and then asking me to sell my SUV.
I'll do it as soon as Al Gore starts riding a bus.
-
polar bears eat baby seals, shoot the polar bears, save the seals.
-
so polar bears are only a few hundred years old? They must be since they can't stand the heat and it sure as hell has been a lot hotter in the past.
It doesn't matter what we do about our "contribution" to global warming or cooling.. it only matters what the sun and nature do. Our effect is one man peeing in the ocean.
The reason you can't get any hard numbers from algore and the other "scientists" is because they don't have a clue. They desperately attached their whole theory onto Co2... worse.. man made C02 and now.. they are left with pretty much nothing as the theory erodes...
The big push is to do something right now so that when the natural global cooling starts in a few years they can say that all the resources wasted and human missery and even deaths caused by their restrictions.. so that they can say... "see... it was tough and we had to sacrafice but... we are winning the war on man made global warming"
Once the terminally stupid die off or forget... in say 30 years... they will try the same old scam on us about "man made global cooling"
As ravels points out... the stupid marches on strong.... it is in our schools and our media..
I ask you...
What could be more stupid than to choose algore and the UN for your prophet and religion?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Still bitter about being booted out of the colonies i see.
????
1. I don't think Ravells was around in 1776.
2. I don't think he's British.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
????
1. I don't think Ravells was around in 1776.
2. I don't think he's British.
1. Beatle go troll Check 6 forums and whine about being booted here.
2. ravells
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 1971
Sorry I took him at his word.
Are you saying I shouldn't?
Bronk
-
Lukster: yes, I was talking about Ronald Reagan and as far as it goes I think the collapse of the Soviet Union would have happened if any other president (within reason) had been in power. The collapse had more to do with soviet economics than anything else. But still.....don't you find it a bit scary when the most powerful man in the world is using astrology to guide his decisions. I think it's a bit extreme to say that the soviets wanted to 'enslave the world'.
Bronk: fair assumption, but I'm actually a colonist myself (Malaysia) but I live in Britian. But either way I don't see what your response added to the debate.
Jackal yes, the earth does change, but we ought to be technologically advanced enough to manage that change rather than contribue to undesirable weather effects.
Lasz: I said hundreds of thousands not hundreds. In fact it's probably millions of years. I havn't seen Al Gore's film, so I can't comment, but what I do know is that the majority of scientists whose research is validated by the Royal Society (an institute which monitors the accuracy of scientific research) recently sent a letter to Exxon Mobil censuring them for funding bad science (astroturfing basically) which concluded that man had little or no effect on today's weather patterns. As I'm pretty sure you're not a climatologist yourself, I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that scientists don't know whether man is affecting the weather. I'm not a scientist either, but I'd prefer to buy into science which is supported by an independant organisation like the Royal Society as 'accurate' rather than by oil companies. You say that global cooling is inevitable...why?
Ravs
-
Ravells, I do not believe the Soviet Union would have collapsed without Reagan's determination to oppose communism at all cost. I wholeheartedly recommend this documentary if you haven't seen it: http://www.inthefaceofevil.com. I won't say that the Soviets intended to enslave the world but I do believe that is exactly what would have happened had they survived.
I did find it disturbing that Nancy Reagan sought the advice of astrologers though I'm not convinced that Ronald Reagan took it seriously.
-
Bend over Mother Earth...you have a Fever and I have a Thermometer....
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Geez Angus......... I don`t believe anyone who has lived in any area, of any notable , population over a few years, can truthfully say that that see no change in their surroundings and change in the countryside in general. Earth has been changing since the beginning of recorded history. I see no reason why your area would be expected to be any different.
There is evidence of many great changes in the earth and it`s inhabitants.
Did you think the ice was never going to expand or retract in your area or what?
I was not expecting to see changes in my short lifespan, that outmatch anything happening in so short a time since there was civilization.
There have been brutal changes in the atmosphere of out little blue ball throughout times, indeed yes. But none of the really big swings have occured after there was intelligent life, or rather civilization.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I haven`t seen a T-Rex around lately either . I`m blaming Al Bore for not warning us soon enough. :)
The earth changes. Always has. Always will.
Oh, what killed the rex again...? Global temperature swing?
-
Originally posted by Angus
I was not expecting to see changes in my short lifespan, that outmatch anything happening in so short a time since there was civilization.
There have been brutal changes in the atmosphere of out little blue ball throughout times, indeed yes. But none of the really big swings have occured after there was intelligent life, or rather civilization.
So it`s your day in the barrel. :)
Oh, what killed the rex again...? Global temperature swing?
Proud you brought that up. What killed them? Funny you should ask. I watched a program dealing with this last week. The scientists are still debating and arguing a few theories concerning this according to the program. Imagine that. If they haven`t figured that out to a definite by now I sort of doubt their ability on anything else.
The most accepted theory seems to be that it was caused by a large meteorite striking the earth. Cause of death? Still undetermined by the scientists. Most likely starving to death from lack of food due to the dust cloud which in turn resulted in ICEAGE conditions. :)
The program also dealt with some of the latest predictions by the scientists on what were the most likely causes for the end of the earth as we know it. Read that "human extinction". One was the eruption of a super volcano, which was deemed overdue and imminent. Another was giant waves destroying everything. This was deemed "just a matter of time". Another was the very imminent danger of total nuclear war. (If voting I would put my money on this one)
There were many more. All sounding alarm bells, accompanied with the "deer in the headlights" stares and gnashing of the teeth..............or beating of the gums. :)
So Angus............If you are determined to join the Doomsday Flavor Of The Year Club ......... I would start by loading the shotgun and putting up a constant guard on the sky in order to be able to shoot down those pesky meteorites , build a fallout shelter , buy a lava proof suit for the entire neighborhood , and just for good measure, build a large boat that will withstand GLOBAL FLOODING . :confused: I heard a cat named Noah might hook you up with some off the hook plans.
...................Oh yea..........I forgot...........the scientists are still debating whether Noah ever existed and if the global flood ever happened.
I`m personaly sitting on the edge of my seat for the final decision. I`m sure they will agree, based on facts, sometime in the next 5 to 600,000 years or so. I think we should put the UN on the case. Then we would see some fast action. :aok :rofl
-
Hehe, I knew you'd have this one, - roughly.
Actually, that meteor is estimated to have hit the earth roughly where I live now.
Anyway, you still flush on one thing. You mix together the things we cannot do anything about and things we can perfectly well do a lot about.
And as a sidenote, we do have a way to shoot down some pesky meteorites. They are a threat, and they are being mapped. The money being put into that project is but a crowberry in hell compared to what we put into the resources of shooting down each other.....
-
Originally posted by ravells
Jackal yes, the earth does change, but we ought to be technologically advanced enough to manage that change rather than contribue to undesirable weather effects.
So now we can kick mother nature to the curb and take over. We decide who gets what weather and when? Hitler would have loved that concept. :)
but we ought to be technologically advanced enough to manage
We ought to be????? Another "it ain`t gonna happen Marie" plan or one for the wish book.
We ought to be.........intelligent enough by now to figure out how to stop entire countries from famine and disease. We are not, evidently.
We ought to be.................intelligen t enough by now to be to the point there would be no wars and terrorism on a global scale. We are not.
We ought to be............caring enough to take care of and the elderly and deal with their needs...and actualy give a hoot. We are not , evidently.
We ought to be .............able to figure out a cure and prevention for such diseases such as cancer , considering the money , effort and research over a long span of time. We are not.
Here in our country...........We ought to be.............concerned and putting a stop to a , not so slow, attempt to stomp on the very basis and guidelines set forth by our forefathers. A lot are too dazzled by the smoke screens put forth , by the very people who are in power , to avert your attention elsewhere in order to be able to do just that.
We ought to be................a lot of things which we are not and probably will never be.
We should very concerned over scams by people who only wish to further their political careers and pad their pockets with numerous scams such as is being witnessed today. BUT..............most people are too busy trying to keep slack in the rope connected to the ring in their nose that they are being led around by. It seems to be the norm for some.
As said before......I am much more concerned with Global Numbing than I am of any doomsday theory which is based on pure , manipulated horse crap.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Actually, that meteor is estimated to have hit the earth roughly where I live now.
Yea.........................IF the calculations and theories of the scientists that believe and support that theory is correct. There is not much agreement so far. Give it a few thou and they will get it worked out and come to an agreement. I mean..........you just can`t rush such things. :rolleyes:
You mix together the things we cannot do anything about and things we can perfectly well do a lot about.
I do? Hmmmmmmm. What are the things that we can perfectly well do a lot about? What do you suggest we do to avoid the hundreds upon hundreds of scenarios and theories that will wipe out mankind according to the scientists. (Read that...Lab Coats up for the highest bid)
And as a sidenote, we do have a way to shoot down some pesky meteorites.
Yep. This was discussed on the program also. Remember when the "We Are Doomed Due To Meteorites" was the flavor of the year in the Chicken Little Association? Then the word was spread.........."Never fear. We have a way to shoot them down" theory the paid to say scientists came up with.
According to most of the same screwballs...they have now decided that shooting a metorite would cause much more problems than left in it`s original state. Go figure. :)
They are a threat, and they are being mapped.
ROFL That`s sure going to help.
The money being put into that project is but a crowberry in hell compared to what we put into the resources of shooting down each other.....
[/QUOTE]
Yep...........I agree. So as long as we are busy shooting down each other, on a global basis , you can forget everybody joining hands and singing campfire songs in an effort to do anything............about anything.............real or science fiction.
-
ravs.. you haven't seen the algore film? Have you seen the "swindle" documentary? The algore film is already dated.. the predicted horrible hurricane season never came.
The scientists in "swindle" are tops in their fields.. their fields are important to the debate.. algores scientists are tops in film and politics. Would you shut up these scientists in swindle? they claim they take no money from anyone and that they are losing a great deal by telling what they think is the truth.
The ones on the side of man made global warming are going the easy way.
So far as scientists go.. hell... I am just glad that they figured out they needed to wash their hands before they put the leaches on.
I am just glad that every 10 years or so they tell me eggs are good for me again... I like eggs.
I am glad that every doomsday prediction they came up with so far has been wrong and I am glad that oil isn't dino juice like they told me... I am glad that my home isn't covered in the ice that they said it would be by now in 1975. I have every confidence that they are just as wrong and just as political on this one...
If they want to convince me that we are causing global warming and it is not just the sun as it has always been... they need to show some real evidence and numbers... they need to quit using words with no meaning like "significant" what number is "significant"?
Watch the documentary "swindle" watch algores movie.. See which one makes sense.
If this is such an important thing.. why is there so little debate? why is it not even allowed? Why is a known liar and politician the spokesman for the man made global warming religion?
I hear that all the scientists agree so there is no point in hearing the other side yet... when a real scientist doesn't agree he is told to shut up... I know 3 people in related fields with PHD's who all tell me that man made global warming by co2 is bull.
I have seen two films on it... one is a joke and the other is reasoned and has scientists in it with impressive credentials.
lazs
-
yeah yeah...
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/cartoons/20070325/4.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ravs.. you haven't seen the algore film? Have you seen the "swindle" documentary? The algore film is already dated.. the predicted horrible hurricane season never came.
The scientists in "swindle" are tops in their fields.. their fields are important to the debate.. algores scientists are tops in film and politics. Would you shut up these scientists in swindle? they claim they take no money from anyone and that they are losing a great deal by telling what they think is the truth.
The ones on the side of man made global warming are going the easy way.
So far as scientists go.. hell... I am just glad that they figured out they needed to wash their hands before they put the leaches on.
I am just glad that every 10 years or so they tell me eggs are good for me again... I like eggs.
I am glad that every doomsday prediction they came up with so far has been wrong and I am glad that oil isn't dino juice like they told me... I am glad that my home isn't covered in the ice that they said it would be by now in 1975. I have every confidence that they are just as wrong and just as political on this one...
If they want to convince me that we are causing global warming and it is not just the sun as it has always been... they need to show some real evidence and numbers... they need to quit using words with no meaning like "significant" what number is "significant"?
Watch the documentary "swindle" watch algores movie.. See which one makes sense.
If this is such an important thing.. why is there so little debate? why is it not even allowed? Why is a known liar and politician the spokesman for the man made global warming religion?
I hear that all the scientists agree so there is no point in hearing the other side yet... when a real scientist doesn't agree he is told to shut up... I know 3 people in related fields with PHD's who all tell me that man made global warming by co2 is bull.
I have seen two films on it... one is a joke and the other is reasoned and has scientists in it with impressive credentials.
lazs
Ravs,
Lazs has found a few scientists in ONE film that agree with his position. Much like a book he recommended he now considers it to be a "bible". It is real...everything else is false.
I'll bet he couldn't give you a name of any of the scientists in his documentary...or the ones in Gore's. It just doesn't matter. One agrees with him and therefore it is GOSPEL.
...and it doesn't matter that the director of the one he supports is known for making biased documentaries and that Ch 4 had to apologise for even allowing it to be shown due to the bias displayed in previous shows. Nope.
Lazs even states that "The scientists in "swindle" are tops in their fields.. their fields are important to the debate.. algores scientists are tops in film and politics. " He, of course, foregts that one of the "swindle" scientists from Harvard is considering legal action after being misrepresented on the swindle show.
I've brought this up already in this thread, and amazingly lazs ommited to mention it.....I bring it up again in case you missed it.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
yeah yeah...
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/cartoons/20070325/4.jpg)
Hehe :aok
-
Jacka1:
"I do? Hmmmmmmm. What are the things that we can perfectly well do a lot about? What do you suggest we do to avoid the hundreds upon hundreds of scenarios and theories that will wipe out mankind according to the scientists. (Read that...Lab Coats up for the highest bid)"
We can do a lot about lots of things. Especially if people with your opinion don't rule too much. Look at it like Chamberlain vs Churchill, and then go figure :D
There are indeed many scenarios that can wipe us out, most of them are however less probable than we ourselves.
So be it the nuke or the climate, we really CAN do something about it. Of course mankind has (as you have pointed out) done many a silly thing. Well, then there is the choice of trying to DO something, or NOT, and right there we seem to have different camps., and thereby campfires :D
-
Thanks Curv...some things never change, eh?
Lasz we have to work on the best information we have and from what I've read, that information points to man contributing in a large part to global warming. Of course we all have to make our own minds up on it based on the evidence available to us and yours indicates otherwise. For what it's worth, I don't see Al Gore as the spokesman for global warming. There are many others far more qualified to speak on the subject than him.
Nevertheless, if what Curval says is right, you might need to check the evidence you're relying on. An open minded chap like you would be honest enough to admit that he was wrong if that were the case.
Ravs
-
once upon a time the earth was covered by ice caps miles thick, then humans came along and invented fire, the rest is history.
the proof is there , humans destroyed the ice age.
-
Here's a video link to some Icelandic carbon neutral fun (http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=211465)
-
Originally posted by ravells
What truly amazes me is that the rationality that was fought for so hard during the enlightenment and met its zenith with the founding fathers of the US has now been reduced to a superpower in which most people believe in some sort of divine being who will 'guide them', in which certain ex presidents make decisions based on their wives astrologer's decisions and it lookes like the good fight on the Scopes trial is going to be reversed because most of the people there don't even believe in evolution to the extent that they want 'intelligent design' (for which read creationism) to be part of the school curriculum. Such a shame. The march of unreason goes strong.
What truly amazes me is the arrogance of the monkeys on this planet that think a few hundred years of primitive science suddenly gives them the keys to the universe.
We take things like the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe, the theory of evolution, or human caused global warming and through scientific consensus declare them to be scientific facts. This science is then taken as the gospel truth despite our inability to replicate any of it in accordance with the scientific method.
We, the masters of the human genome, have so far been unable to figure out how life appeared on this planet in the first place. We have been unable to take the elements of the primitive earth in a laboratory and create even the simplest single-cell life form from inanimate matter. The best we've been able to accomplish is to create some precursor amino acids and chemical compounds, yet we are supposed to take it as the gospel truth that life just appeared here one day and evolved on its own with no intelligence behind it. We're supposed to just accept that all these elements just got together on their own one day and became a life form - POOF - spontaneous generation. After that, everything else evolved from our spontaneously generated life form all on its own.
While I don't want to get into a discussion of religious dogma, it is quite obvious (to me anyway) that there is a lot going on around us that is outside the range of our human senses. I don't see the harm in pointing this out to children in school instead of feeding them just the current scientific consensus regarded as truth. I'm OK with telling kids that "we don't know" why something is the way it is, and maybe presenting some alternative ideas. I'm not for teaching a particular religion in public schools (no I dont think we need to teach the earth was created in 7 days), but I don't think it is a bad idea to maybe give kids the idea that there might be something else out there, and it might be a lot smarter than we are.
EagleDNY
$.02
"The smartest men learn enough to realize how much they will never know"
-
ravs... you need to read back... curval is grossly missrepresenting his case.. On scientist on the swindle show is angry because he didn't like the way the film turned out... he said what he said tho... Like you.. he belives (for some reason he can't explain) that man is causing some/massive/significant/unmeassurable/at least something worth getting upset about and funding grants/ global warming..
curval has not seen the documentary... Top guys in their fields... what does curval listen to? algore... politicians and actors and the UN and now... a cartoon.. cartoonists believe so it must be true?
The UN? now if we use curvals logic... The UN report actually did cause scientists to sue to get their name off it. Whole phrases in the UN report that said that there was no evidence of man made global warming were taken out... many of the people who signed it were nobodies... not scientists at all. There is a great deal of dishonesty on the handwringers side of the "debate".
Watch the documentary.. If you are as willing to listen as you claim you will watch it.
It is so damning that you would think any scientist who still clings to C02 and man causing doomsday global warming would be outraged and ready to debate with charts and graphs and proof in hand.
Nope.. there is no scientist on the planet worth a damn who believes like algore does. He is a carny shyster selling carbon credits and getting his mug back in the public view...
A sad, pathetic man. To think people voted for this guy for president of the U.S.
lazs
-
I HAVE seen the swindle documentary lazs....it's the Al Gore one I haven't seen. You need to go back and read.
AGAIN you are here trying to put me into the Al Gore camp. YOU are grossly misrepresenting what I have written on these boards.
I'm not surprised though...if you don't agree with lazs 100% you get labelled. It is his style. Stupid...but his style nonetheless.
-
Ok... so still you have seen but one side of the story.. that is not lableing you that is pointing out that you haven't seen both sides... you really do need to compare the two.
Why aren't you ranting about the dishonesty of the UN report... you have read this thread and seen the links to scientists who want off the report... not because they didn't like the way it came out but because it left out what they said.. It left out the most important part.. that they can see no evidence of man made global warming at this time.
You pretend to be unbiased but I don't think you are fooling anyone. You gloss over the gross dishonesty of the man made global warming camp but write long threads on one tiny part of the "swindle" documentary that has one guy saying that he was sorry he was on it but.... nothing about not being able to speak... he said what he said...
Just like you claim that my whole gun debate is based on one book.. I have a shelf of studies on it.. I can find nothing of substance on the other side.
The two debates have a lot in common... when calm people do the research and put up actual numbers... your side simply ignores em and goes on with your sky is falling rhetoric. You are happy if you can find one dissenter... one flaw... that is enough to make you comfortable in your dissmisal of the whole other side... enough for you to go back to your politicans and actors and cnn...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The UN? now if we use curvals logic... The UN report actually did cause scientists to sue to get their name off it. Whole phrases in the UN report that said that there was no evidence of man made global warming were taken out... many of the people who signed it were nobodies... not scientists at all. There is a great deal of dishonesty on the handwringers side of the "debate".
lol
Lazs is cherrypicking again from his bible documentary and claiming it as fact.
Apparently there was a UN body that published a global warming report with a bunch of scientists in the bibliography. The ones who were in lazs' documentary made the claim that they were included even though they disagreed with it. They also made the claim that non-scientists were included.
Interesting how ALL of the scientists interviewed were the ones who were trying to get their names removed from it. I don't recall seeing ANY of the other side to the story...and there is ALWAYS another side.
I'm not denying that it didn't happen, but I also don't presume to know all of the facts surrounding that particular issue...unlike lazs. He just accepts what was said without question, because he agres with it.
It is just as bad as the hand-wringers, as lazs referes to them.
In fact, lazs is a handwringer himself. He's just on the other extreme of the debate.
-
you need to read back in this thread... a few guys have linked articles that say what what said in the documentary about the UN.
It was the links in this thread that I read before I seen the "swindle" documentary.
Did you even follow any of the links in this thread?
lazs
-
The thread is about 16 pages long, I'm not going to search for the links you claim are there. I remembered the issue from the documentary, not from a link.
-
doesn't matter.. the fact that you never did follow the links in the first place pretty much proves what I said about you.
I think most guys here follow the links to both sides.. you don't.. you are too intent on making your point. You have no compunction about posting a link yourself tho and expecting everyone to follow it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
doesn't matter.. the fact that you never did follow the links in the first place pretty much proves what I said about you.
I think most guys here follow the links to both sides.. you don't.. you are too intent on making your point. You have no compunction about posting a link yourself tho and expecting everyone to follow it.
lazs
lol
Yup, that proves it lazs. I'm just Al's stooge.
I follow virtually all the links that are posted. I've looked back about 5 or so pages and can't spot the one you refer to. Are you sure it is in this thread? I didn't even really get involved in this thread until it was well along.
But, you have made an assumption...and claim it as proof of something.
Pretty much proves what I say about you I suppose.
-
Ok, this one is done. Wy don't you two take it privately.