Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SteveBailey on April 07, 2007, 09:44:19 PM
-
Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!
The National Weather Service was predicting record lows Sunday for parts of the Southeast and Midwest, and an unseasonably cold weekend for much of the Northeast. Snow was forecast in parts of Ohio, Michigan and New England.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980146/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980146/)
-
crud.. meant to post this in OT
-
It snowed here in Texas....
:furious
-
all weather change will be blamed on man made co2 until the people pushing that theory have made enough money and power off of it or get caught by real science... whichever comes first... then they will look for another "man made" environmental disaster to guilt people into paying them over.
environmentalism is the new tactic of the left. Nothing else seems to work but they have struck real gold here.
the carbon credit idea was pure genius too.. it allows the rich liberals to continue their lifestyle while limiting the common mans.
lazs
-
the carbon credit idea was pure genius too.. it allows the rich liberals to continue their lifestyle while limiting the common mans.
ya...they sure know how to run the media..lol....all i been seeing on tv is global warning and guns..lol...so they get rid of are gas hogs..but the rich liberals still get to have there limo gas hogs.....they will get rid of are guns they hate so much..but there still aloud to have them and have armed body gaurds..lol..the rich are just tring to completely controll us as usual..lol..that still cracks me up..when i see rich libs like clooney show up at a red carpet event in a limo with armed body gaurds..lol..he allways complaining about guns and envirment...if he cared so much he would show up alone in a battery powered yugo:P
-
(http://www.andreaharner.com/archives/proof_of_global_warming499x280.jpg)
-
Global warming was the brain child of the "father of the internet"....
How in the heck could he sell "carbon offsets" unless there was mass hysteria..
What a crock of donkey doo....
When you fail to have concensus within the scientific community as to if this is global warming or the natural cycle of climate change how can this be the GLOBAL CATASTROPHY they are claiming.
-
there will no doubt be some real debate once the socialists get down to telling us how much we all need to suffer for the good of eliminating "man made global warming".
By then tho... algore will have made a fortune and fame over it... the "scientists" will have gotten all the lucrative grants they could milk out of it and.. we will all be screwed.
How anyone who heard these same loons talk about man made global cooling 30 years ago can keep a straight face now is beyond me.
Why is it that it is the left that is so adamant about man made global warming? Why is it that there is no debate allowed by them?
Man made global warming is the last gasp of the left and decaying system of socialism. It is fear driven and emotional with no real facts.. just like all tactics of the left.
lazs
-
Hehe, explain this one then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
"A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.
It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years.
"
-
Dont feed the troll Angus :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, explain this one then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
"A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.
It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years.
"
Counterpoint:
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
Professor of Meteorology, MIT. Full article here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, explain this one then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
That's easy...wrong scientists. Unless they appeared in the swindle video or are Chinese and Saudi bureaucrats they cannot be relied upon.
-
Then this so called scientist hype:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073675.stm
"The US space agency's latest research into climate change has revealed a dramatic thinning of some ice regions in Antarctica.
A number of glaciers have been observed to be advancing into the ocean at eight times the rate they were a decade ago."
Cannot be true......:cool:
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0922-02.jpg)
Text:
"Glaciers once held up by a floating ice shelf off Antarctica are now sliding off into the sea -- and they are going fast, scientists said on September 21, 2004. Two separate studies from climate researchers and the space agency NASA show the glaciers are flowing into Antarctica's Weddell Sea, freed by the 2002 breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf. The Larsen ice shelf is shown Aug. 8, 2000. (NASA/USGS via Reuters) "
(All probably faked by those so-called scientists)
Another linkie:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html
Hope this works:
(http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/images/larsenb_20020131_20020307_animation.gif)
Linkie:
http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/animation.html
-
how soon can we start planting crops in Antarctica ? There are starving people to feed.
-
LOL... they just "discovered" that the ice is thinning or... melting faster than the 1,000's of em thought last week... so... they didn't know how to measure last week?
How the hell do they know that it didn't melt faster or grow faster than they think in the past? they can't even do the math today while looking it staight in the face.. how do they know exactly to the sec what happened in the past?
Why is it that there is never any numbers... just descriptions like "massive" or "significant".
What is wrong with the MIT professor that he isn't on board with all the hype?
Why is the globe not heating at any rate that is unusual? It has heated and cooled at higher rates in the past...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
Yep.. the big yellow ball overhead.
angus... watch the "swindle" documentary.
Why was the sentances in the UN report that said that man could not be proven to be a factor in the current heating cycle of the globe.. why were those sentences removed?
Why is it that sun activity always matches global warming and cooling cycles..
and... what happened to the ice age these chicken littles predicted to cover North Amercia by the year 2000? where are these "scientists" now? they took their grant money and ran... no one is holding them accountable now.
If things go as they have in the past.. if the sun cooperates like it has in the past... we will see a normal cooling trend in the next few years...
The panic mongers know this and they know they need to hustle to get "something done about mans contribution to global warming" very very quickly so that they can take credit for saving the planet when nature takes its course...
lazs
-
"How the hell do they know that it didn't melt faster or grow faster than they think in the past?"
By looking into Ice cores, which I belive you described once as a silly waste of time.
Ice cores reveil the quantity of snowfall and what the atmosphere was like at this and that time back to several thousand years. In antarctica, uou can go as far back as 740.000 years.
(Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm)
Anyway, give or take some cycles of temperature changes, we are seeing melting on both caps, which have not occured for a VERY long time, nothing so small as our periodic swings in temperature. Measure the temp in Texas as you like, there is no way getting arount what the big result is.
This:
"Why is the globe not heating at any rate that is unusual? It has heated and cooled at higher rates in the past... "
Yeah, but you have to go MILLIONS of years back to match the last 100 or so. So, back to dino times, - that is indeed news IMHO. So, the globe is indeed heating (and thereby melting ice) at an unusual rate. The sun curve follows the heat curve, but not at the same angle I'm afraid....
This:
"and... what happened to the ice age these chicken littles predicted to cover North Amercia by the year 2000? where are these "scientists" now? they took their grant money and ran... no one is holding them accountable now."
Apart from predictions of the possibility of a "nuclear" winter, I completely missed these predictions, and I did my metreology studies in the 80's. Maybe it was a rather American thing like the warming denialism?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, explain this one then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
"A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.
It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years.
"
Hehe. OK. :)
From your article..."It is not known whether the melting is the result of a natural event or the result of global warming."
That`s not even considering this...."A team of UK researchers" :rofl :aok
Then to go on, we will use your quote from the article.
A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Previously been thought by who , whom, whodat? :)
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.
Under-estimated by who, whom , whodat? :)
Am I the only one who reads this as "We didn`t have a clue then , but we sure don`t have one now"?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Apart from predictions of the possibility of a "nuclear" winter, I completely missed these predictions, and I did my metreology studies in the 80's. Maybe it was a rather American thing like the warming denialism?
Indeed.
I think lazs is just regurgitating something he read again.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
That`s not even considering this...."A team of UK researchers" :rofl :aok
Jackal...have you not seen the Great Global Warming Swindle? It is the scientific basis upon which lazs denies GW.
It's a BBC show....a UK show.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Curval
It's a BBC show....a UK show.
And it`s been played on everything from youtube , channel 1 through 5000 , and every video hosting on the net.
Your point is?
Maybe you are suggesting that the BBC has now fell in line with China and Saudi Arabia as you suggested was so amusing in the other thread.
Jackal...you and lazs etc are firmly on the side of China and Saudi Arabia in the GW debate.
Is that it?
Also who is etc? :)
-
My point is very simple. Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy given that you and lazs are hanging your hats on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.
"etc" includes all of the other ostriches on this board that deny that humans contribute at all to GW.
.....like the Chinese and Saudi bureaucrats that I referred to.
The BBC have already apologised for showing the swindle show.
-
One more note I`d like to add about this quote from the article in question your honor. :)
A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought
Global warming is causing the ice to melt in Anartica??????
So......an unproven , unagreed upon , highly debatable , non-supported theory is casing the ice to melt. That`s a pretty big stretch in anyone`s book.
Here`s the cure then. Stop paying these morons to come up with off the wall , money scamming theories and the ice will stop melting.
-
No matter what words you use, and what calculations, the caps are shrinking, - melting in a way that has not occured in the times of mankind, and well more.
Always funny to see the same arguments, typically: "It ain't warming", then going to "so what, screw the bears and penguins". The people saying one week "it ain't warming" go to "it's natural", then on to "we can't do anything about it", then to "well anyway, we won't do anything about it"
In the meantime, the caps are melting at record speed. Was expected and is happening. No matter how much money Exxon pays people to say otherwise....
-
Originally posted by Curval
My point is very simple. Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy
Geeez Louise. Just exactly how do you figure I attempted to belittle anything because it comes out of the UK????????
To continue.....
Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy given that you and lazs are hanging your hats on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.
Maybe you can point me to where you got the idea that I was "hanging my hat" on this show. Can you do that for me?
And then................:)
"etc" includes all of the other ostriches on this board that deny that humans contribute at all to GW.
I could in turn say......"Run down the hill a little faster to insure you keep slack in the rope , that is connected to the ring in your nose , that you are being led around by." :)
Further confusion and switching horses in the middle of the stream.
The BBC have already apologised for showing the swindle show
So..... is that a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion and where does that coincide with global warming?
You stated above....
on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.
I just don`t get it. A show that was produced in the UK and interviewed scientists from the UK is totaly disagreeable to your way of thinking......but it`s a good thing the BBC apologized for showing it???
Am I reading you right?
Now...who was it that was accusing hypocricy
?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Hehe. OK. :)
From your article..."It is not known whether the melting is the result of a natural event or the result of global warming."
That`s not even considering this...."A team of UK researchers" :rofl :aok
So, why did you put the rofl smilie icon next to your comment about UK researchers?
Why even mention it?
I naturally assumed that as you so vehemently deny global warming that you agree with lazs on the impact of the swindle show. Look a little further up this thread...he mentions it AGAIN and refers Angus to it.
I'm not sure why you think I am being hypocritical. I could care less what the BBC shows on its broadcasts. Lazs is the one who continually looks to it as scientific proof that there is no GW....and it is British, something you think deserves a ROFL afterwards when you mention it.
-
Originally posted by Curval
So, why did you put the rofl smilie icon next to your comment about UK researchers?
Ummmmm........maybe because I find the terms researcher and scientist so loosely thrown around when it comes to this subject that I find it hilarious. If you have me so pegged as you seem to profess as of late you would know that.
It`s sort of a case of..... "Yesterday I couldn`t spell scientist or researcher , then someone gave me a grant and told me what they wanted my published findings to say. Today I R one."
Labcoats for hire.
Why even mention it?
Why not?
I naturally assumed that as you so vehemently deny global warming that you agree with lazs on the impact of the swindle show.
Pretty quick assuming considering just above you asked this......
Jackal...have you not seen the Great Global Warming Swindle?
.............Then felt the need to explain it to me here...........
It is the scientific basis upon which lazs denies GW.
It's a BBC show....a UK show.
Then a quick shuffle to this......................... ........................
Your attempt to belittle something purely because it comes out of the UK is hypocricy given that you and lazs are hanging your hats on a show that was produced in the UK and which interviewed scientists that were predominately also from the UK.
From pop test to a quick lesson to hypocrite to hat hanger.
I`d say all of your jumping back and forth and assuming has you totaly confused by the looks of it.
Look a little further up this thread...he mentions it AGAIN and refers Angus to it.
And??????????????
I'm not sure why you think I am being hypocritical.
Yea, I think that is pretty evident.
I could care less what the BBC shows on its broadcasts.
So it only bothers you because Laz mentions it or what?
I certainly could care less what the BBC airs or does not air.
I don`t depend on the BBC for info. In this case , as mentioned before, the show has been on every channel that has a spot for it and on every video hosting site that has room for it , as far as I know.
If the BBC aired it , then found they felt that an apology was needed for airing it, then I would probably get the impression that they stepped on the wrong toes and got their hands spanked. In other words manipulated by something or some group that finds it highly unacceptable to publicly express views that do not coincide with the message that they wish to stand on. That`s just a guess. I know nothing of the circumstances. :) (There`s that little guy again)
Lazs is the one who continually looks to it as scientific proof that there is no GW
And that upsets you in some way?
and it is British, something you think deserves a ROFL afterwards when you mention it.
Read above for full details and an indepth explanation as to why assuming too much can be avoided by knowing what you are talking about before you stick your foot in your own mouth.
:rofl (There he is again. This time he is used in the context of humor i.e. a joke son, a joke)
-
Angus, thanks for your input on this thread. Also, though I know you didn't intend this result, I was able to take those who made ad hominem attacks &/or played to the cheap seats and update the ignore list.
Worked great too!
All the Best,
hap
-
I think I just spotted an ostrich. :aok
-
Jackal...you write something and put a ROFL after it that certainly appears to be a slam against the UK and then you need explain it as follows:
"Ummmmm........maybe because I find the terms researcher and scientist so loosely thrown around when it comes to this subject that I find it hilarious. If you have me so pegged as you seem to profess as of late you would know that.
It`s sort of a case of..... "Yesterday I couldn`t spell scientist or researcher , then someone gave me a grant and told me what they wanted my published findings to say. Today I R one."
Labcoats for hire."
You expect waaaaay too much out of your "readers". Silly me for not realising that THIS is what you meant.
lol
-
Well, pardon me, but I rather take a UK "scientist" (Who probably has a British qualified university degree in i.e. physics or metreology) to be worthy of his words than somebody called Jackal1. Same goes vs a "scientist or researcher" who is sponsored by a corporation who's absolute short-term benefit is that global warming does NOT get connected to human activity.
hehe, here's a new thing.
It's MAN, stupid.
(Wonder if I get away with this)
-
one good thing about it if they do melt california new york and a few other places will be gone and repulicans will rule again lol
-
Flood would be the key rather than melting.
Which would prove that the democrats and Gore and Liberals were right, who would do what to the surviving poll?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Jackal...you write something and put a ROFL after it that certainly appears to be a slam against the UK and then you need explain it as follows:
I only needed to explain it to you for the simple reason that you were the one who asked this question....
So, why did you put the rofl smilie icon next to your comment about UK researchers?
What anything appears
or appeared to you was brought on by your assumptions. If you don`t want an answer , don`t ask the question.....please.
If I had wished to make a slam
against the UK on anything I don`t believe their would have been any question in your mind about it. You can find many examples here on these boards .I`m not
at all PC and don`t beat around the bush. I speak my mind in clear terms that you should even be able to understand.
You expect waaaaay too much out of your "readers". Silly me for not realising that THIS is what you meant.
As far my readers
go, I expect nothing. From you I would prefer it.
Let`s face it. The whole thing boils down to you jumping in and twiddling the digits on the keyboard with comments directed at me has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. You have had an ongoing burr under your saddle when it comes to anything that Laz states an opinion on. You have shown that you have a real issue and a little more than a mental hangup over starting crap on just about any subject in any thread that his opinion is posted on.
You did the same in this thread only you blew your cover from the very start by making statements directed at me that had no merit.
The end result is that you have once again peed in your hat and claimed it rained............as usual. :)
I could care less what you assume or what your problem is .
Here`s an idea......If you don`t like my opinion, that`s fine. I state my opinion. You state yours. All is well in Happy Town as far as I`m concerned.
If you wish to debate me on a subject, then go for it. All I ask is of you , if anything, is to base your argument on facts that I have stated instead of assumptions and a little more than an obvious hangup you have because someone tells you like it is.
I suppose you will accomplish one thing by this. More than likely this thread will be closed like the previous one due to this little fiasco.
Whatever trips your trigger.
-
C02 levels are seen to be increasing. However, planets in our solar system are also showing a proportional increase in temperature. Must be the cars on pluto causeing it, or wait, plutos not a planet but it is also showing the temperature change.
The Ice age ended only 10000 years ago. How old are the pyramids. Would have been a nice climate there at that time. Things are still warming up, how hot will things get. Here is a clue, in Canada's arctic there are all kinds of tropical plant fossils. We dont know what caused the ice age but it was a very fast change. Mastodons were found in northern Siberia with plants still in their mouths. These hardy animals froze so fast they couldnt eat the plants which were growing there.
So whats the real story. Air polution is a problem we can do something about. Global warming not so much. Like UFO's why panic people about something they can do nothing about. It's pointless to correct global warming so better placing the blame on polution. Afterall, when was the last time a politician cared about anything, that is unless there was a political agenda behind it. Which there probably is. Cover up the truth to prevent a panic.
Did I mention that solar flares have been going off the scale lately. Pft, Xclass flares, we see them all the time now, what else ya got.
RASTER
-
this is silly... most scientists predicted a man made ice age by the year 2000. I have linked to the articles that were written in the 70's on this.
The scientists in "swindle" were from the U.S and Japan and england... probly the U.S. had the lions share along with some from the UK.
The man who first started research on ice cores was on the documentary and he believes that the ice core samples prove that man and, more importantly, co2 is not a cause of global warming from studying the cores.
The jap scientist is an expert on the polar ice caps and he sees nothing out of the ordinary.
The more people ignore them the more outrageous the claims of these chicken littles... At some point I wish that they would just say it is too late and leave us alone.
We will go into a global cooling cycle soon... relax. or.... go on another "man made global ice age" panic binge. If you live long enough you will finally get tired of the alarmist BS.
lazs
-
Our glacier scientists (living at the edge of the arctic circle) certainly spot an abnormality. So do the farmers, the fishermen and the botanists, the maritime biologists, the insect experts, the metreologists, the tourists, the photographers and the common people. All within a few dozen years.
The abnormality means very fast warming. Must be a fake, huh?
-
Thats exactly right 'lazs', in the 60's they said a second ice age was on the way. I remember it. However, you might also know that a 20 year period of warming preceedes an ice age. So the CO2 build up might be a good thing if you believe the absorption science they are claiming.
What we really need to worry about is a Gamma Ray burst anywhere in our galaxy. The only reason there is life in the milky way is because a Gamma Ray burst is behind schedule due to the build up of iron.
RASTER
-
Laz, I guess us old fellers that survived the "Population Bomb" of 1968 (Remember Paul Ehrlich?) and luckily made it out of the New Ice Age announced in the June 24, 2974 Time magazine, dodgede the swine flu, bird flu, running out of oil, death of the oceans, etc., etc., may have a different view of the disaster du jour that is routinely announced whenever scientists run out of funding.
-
Angus,
Ice core samples for atmospherics are inherently flawed. If glaciers were a closed system, the numbers would be usable in making a good arguement. They're not. Glaciers are an open system. There's too many variables.. like the gas release when crushing the crystalline ice structure simply drilling to get the sample.
Mans environmental impacts locally are far worse than they are globally. We still don't even account for 3.4% of annual atmospheric co2... and co2 is a rather important trace element... if you enjoy having a food chain.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, pardon me, but I rather take a UK "scientist" (Who probably has a British qualified university degree in i.e. physics or metreology) to be worthy of his words than somebody called Jackal1.
I have no problem with that Angus. You will believe whatever and whoever you wish to believe. That`s certainly your right. It is also mine to disagree or agree.
Whether someone is worthy or not worthy of their words can be determined by many things, but most of all they have to actualy say something that can be proven or disproven to be weighed. To me a university degree of any kind carries no merit or weight when the person or persons in question does not state one way or the other and only eludes to what ifs and maybes.
In fact, a degree does not shake or bake one way or the other when it comes to someones word. I have seen way too many degree holders who couldn`t boil water on a blast furnace. Some use their studies for degrees to pursue what they have a passion for in life. Way too many degrees are nothing more than a commodity, that mean less than nothing, that is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
I base a man`s word on past experience , not on how much money some poor old Dad spent to buy Junior a wall hanging he didn`t deserve or earn.
A degree in life in a pretty good resume as far as I`m concerned.
I guess what I am trying to say is "Show me the beef". So far, nothing but baloney has been served up in my opinion. I am open to change at any time someone comes up with facts they can back up.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Angus,
Ice core samples for atmospherics are inherently flawed. If glaciers were a closed system, the numbers would be usable in making a good arguement. They're not. Glaciers are an open system. There's too many variables.. like the gas release when crushing the crystalline ice structure simply drilling to get the sample.
Mans environmental impacts locally are far worse than they are globally. We still don't even account for 3.4% of annual atmospheric co2... and co2 is a rather important trace element... if you enjoy having a food chain.
Indy: Ice core samples are just about the only samples of ancient air that we have. They also contain the particles that came with the snow.
As for our "share" of the CO2, man's impact is also on the disposal side. Fling the numbers as you like, but please also look at CO2 ppm vs what used to be. What is it, - double, heading for triple?
Anf Jackal1, - you may also belive what you like, that does not change the fact that the caps are indees melting rather fast. It is your right to carry on so untill you have your nose in water.
(See the film "Eric the Viking" :D)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Our glacier scientists (living at the edge of the arctic circle) certainly spot an abnormality. So do the farmers, the fishermen and the botanists, the maritime biologists, the insect experts, the metreologists, the tourists, the photographers and the common people. All within a few dozen years.
The abnormality means very fast warming. Must be a fake, huh?
How does this or any of your theories prove that global warming isn't simply a measure of the effect of the Sun? The Earth's temperature is rising. I didn't deny that un my original post. I'm asking for some proof that man is causing global warming. Do you have any?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anf Jackal1, - you may also belive what you like, that does not change the fact that the caps are indees melting rather fast.
I`ll take your word on the caps melting Angus. I have said so many times before.:)
What I haven`t seen is anything to link it with the global warming theory that has any backbone to it.
The ice is melting. Once again.....ice has been known to melt. The ice melting or sluffing off can be caused by many things.
It is your right to carry on so untill you have your nose in water.
Hehe. And you have the right to hang on to this doomsday scenario until a new version is released.
-
Tell you what.
The other day, I watched the Gore movie, - finally.
Maybe it's a bit over the top, - OTT, - so some people discard it alltogether. I still have to say, that my opinion was that the film is dramatic, and paints us the things pretty much in black and white.+
It still brings up some clear stats, and some go along with many things I have been posting, such as forests being burned down being a pretty naughty thing (30% of CO2 emissions only due to forest-burndowns), etc etc.
Anyway, as it goes to the ice melting (yes, actually melting), we are entering a very interesting zone, complicated as it is, the things happening are rather absolute, and sticking out as NOT being a part of the normal swings known before.
So, warming is happening, we can just debate wether we have a part in it.
Since I think it is sheer folly to think that mankind has no impact on the globe as a whole, and thereby also the atmosphere, I put the debate into the park of "How much has mankind to do with global warming".
Break that up into various categories, and you will find out that CO2 emissions are but a part of the equation. We have methane as well, we have deforestation and other things.
Gore puts it rather simple, but the whole circus is complicated. However, the basics are there. We have a warming blueball, as well as record breaking greenhouse gas quantities. Coinsidence ??
Oh, and to put this straight:
"The ice melting or sluffing off can be caused by many things."
Such as who apart from...warming?
-
i have been wanting to plant some trees to offset my carbon footprint, but i can't , it's still unseasonably cold.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and to put this straight:
"The ice melting or sluffing off can be caused by many things."
Such as who apart from...warming?
You have mentioned one yourself...deforestation. Erosion patterns changing due to many things. Population and agriculture increases and changes. Chemicals.
Changes in current. The list could go on and on.
The earth is in a constant state of change.
-
I suggest you look back at the US before man had moved all across the country in numbers. You actually see less trees not more. Where there were grassy plains for miles it is now striped with trees running along fences, put there by man. Gloabal warming is a hoax being pushed along by a "has been" that would otherwise not be heard of again.
Anyone see how the temperatures in the Carribean have been below normal for quite some time now.
Anyone see the poster used by the "look at me I'm fighting global warming" community where 2 polar bears are on a small ice flow..... that is what polar bears do... they swim for miles and eat food from the sea as well. Has nothing to do with "global warming". It only has to do with ignorance of the world we live in puttered along by its weak minded minions.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
If I had wished to make a against the UK on anything I don`t believe their would have been any question in your mind about it. You can find many examples here on these boards .I`m not
at all PC and don`t beat around the bush. I speak my mind in clear terms that you should even be able to understand.
lol
I am well aware that it wouldn't take me more than five minutes to find a quote where you didn't clearly intend to "slam" the UK. That is PRECISLEY why I assumed you had done so in your comment above. You've done it before and you'll no doubt do it many more times in the future. Your jab above was "cut and dried" when I read it...but apparently I should have known better....even though it took a full paragraph, with even an obsure quote in it, to explain why it wasn't a slam.
But, thanks for proving my point as to why I thought it was.
Anyhoo....I should also thank you for this gem:
"You have mentioned one yourself...deforestation. Erosion patterns changing due to many things. Population and agriculture increases and changes. Chemicals.
Changes in current. The list could go on and on.
The earth is in a constant state of change."
Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patters that are causing the ice caps to melt. I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.
Population and agricultural increases and changes....chemicals? These things are driven by man..no? I mean, are you suggesting that man actually IS causing the polar caps to melt? I'm confused, because I've read so many times that it is a natural cyclical occurance that has happened for millions of years. Please expand on this for me.
Changes in current? Caused by what? Is this a natural occurence or did man do this too. Please clarify.
The earth IS in a constant state of change...I agree with you on that. That statement would be true with or without any global warming.
-
For those of you with enough of an open mind to read the other side of the "we're all gonna DIE!!!" global warming argument.
It has three parts,
1. Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
2. Past predictions of “Global Weather Catastrophe” made by the environmental movement
3. What happened to the Environmental Movements “Population Bomb” crisis of the 1970’s?
and they're all interesting, at least to me.
Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe (http://www.warriorssociety.org/voices/?p=117)
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
-
Certainly the debate can only increase the scientific knowledge of our planet but for a solution we really need to take some core samples from the moon. The moon geology will tell us the same kind of information that reading a tree ring or a ice core does. The information we desperately need is to know the solar cycles and the moon will give us a good look way back into history. A manned mission is nice but I can't help wonder if a AI mission would be better science.
Mars is good science but we need to get to the moon right away and find out what the sun is doing. We can build a big umbrella at the Lagrange point if the problem is serious. If the chest beating could be put into actually doing something rather than doing the chicken little thing we might put ourselves in a better position for survival.
However, if its just science for the fun of it, I suggest screw the manned missions and build a gigantic space telescope. This would answer one of the biggest questions, whats at the end of the universe and what did the big bang look like. As you know light travels so far so fast and we can see 10 billion years of the 13 or so billion of years of existance. With a new telescope we will be able to see to the 13 billion years and further. As such we will see the creation of the universe and we could be doing that now. Why we havn't replaced Hubble is a big question when the answer is so close.
Someone cited methane as a problem. The plains which were mentioned were once covered with buffalo and farther back the earth had much larger animals. It can't be that much of a problem. However, the amount of CO2 given out in one breath from a human being is frightening. It's so much that human breath is almost toxic. I would not like to think China's answer to population density would be needed. Want to stop global warming, kill somebody is logical. In fact thats a good reason to start a war.
Stop breathing you stupid bastards, you're killing my children. "Won't somebody think of the children".
RASTER
-
Originally posted by Curval
Jackal...have you not seen the Great Global Warming Swindle? It is the scientific basis upon which lazs denies GW.
It's a BBC show....a UK show.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
So is Benny Hill, Fawlty Towers and Monte Python and these shows are FUNNY!!!!!!!!
Of course the crys that the Sky is falling from global warming is amusing too but just not in the same vein...
-
Here's the crux of it all. I asked some of the global warming people to provide proof, any proof that global warming is caused by man... all I got were crickets.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You have mentioned one yourself...deforestation. Erosion patterns changing due to many things. Population and agriculture increases and changes. Chemicals.
Changes in current. The list could go on and on.
The earth is in a constant state of change.
Don't get lost here. Deforestation is IMHO one of the factor behind warming, while the warming causes the melting.
(Actually, IMHO deforestation properly calculated, probably has a bigger impact than for instance all transport CO2 emissions. That means adding up the CO2 from burning forests down which already is 30% of CO2 emissions, then calculate the effect of the ground emitting some methane while being worked and cropped untill the topsoil is milked dry, and that instead of what was before, binding of charbon. But this does have an influence on coffe, beef and tobacco prices for instance...)
-
now see angus... this is why you look so silly.. do you even read what you write?
If co2 is for some really strange reason... Your's and algores idea of why you are getting some warmer temps in your area and...
If, as you and the other scientist algore say, burning forests are 30% of all co2 production... If man accounts for only 3% of co2 production...
If we stop the burning of forests we will need to make up a co2 deficiet of double diggets... we will have to double our co2 production to simply supply the food chain!
Here is the kicker tho.. the doomsday scientists have a perfect record. They have been right.. or even close.. exactly... 0.0000% of the time even tho they have predicted imminent global disasters dozens if not hundreds of times.
You are looking at things from a very narrow perspective.. if you were in the carribean and they told you this was man made global cooling instead of warming you would be pointing to how the temp in your area was colder and had dropped faster than at any time in history... you have a very local view of the whole thing.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
so relax... don't let the algores get you worked up... the sun will go back to less activity any time now and we will all forget this whole silly mess...
till next time... at which time you will be laughing at the kids all worked up and point back to this silly scam..
They will ignore you of course and defend the "scientists" who are making the latest doomsday predictions because.... well... young people and women love to imagine the end of the world.
gives em a reason to be depressed and wring their hands.
lazs
-
you might recognize some of these "scientists" and if you are old enough.. their "predictions".
Keep in mind the following past statements of the environmental movement during their current campaign against “Global Warming:”
- The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. — Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971) -
- This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century — Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976 -
- 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 drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. — Newsweek, April 28, (1975) -
- This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976 -
- If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970) -
- In “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek proclaimed that scientists are “almost unanimous” in their concern that an “ominous” cooling trend “will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century” and the world might be heading into another “little ice age.” -
lazs
-
30% of man made emissions, don't twist around, for you know perfectly well what I mean.
As for man being the cause of only 3%, please back that up, I have seen that figure nowhere. And what do the other 97% consist of?
As for this:
"If we stop the burning of forests we will need to make up a co2 deficiet of double diggets... we will have to double our co2 production to simply supply the food chain!"
Please explain. Looks like absolute rubbish to me, since :
a) Lots of forests are NOT burned down to supply the food chain
b)There are other ways to supply or improve the food chain than burning forests!
Then here:
"Here is the kicker tho.. the doomsday scientists have a perfect record. They have been right.. or even close.. exactly... 0.0000% of the time even tho they have predicted imminent global disasters dozens if not hundreds of times."
The scientists were right with many things, such as the Ozone layer. The doomsday sayers have luckily not proved right except in the "what-if" scenario, - the typical forecast from the 80's being a nuclear doomsday.
Only a part of global warming scientists are doomsday sayers, since there can be only one way to wipe out mankind through global warming, and that is if the warming enteres a vivious circle strong enough to copy Venus'es atmospherical conditions. If these theories are wrong (Which I hope they are), global warming will cause drastic changes globally, but not wipe out mankind. (Iceland might become an orchyard, while Texas will be unbearable).
Then here:
"You are looking at things from a very narrow perspective.. if you were in the carribean and they told you this was man made global cooling instead of warming you would be pointing to how the temp in your area was colder and had dropped faster than at any time in history... you have a very local view of the whole thing."
Am I? I am taking very big areas where the warming effect is detectable in a very clear way. And Antarctica is closer to your place than mine....
So, maybe it's after all, MAN, STUPID. MAybe I will be telling my grandchildren how hopeless the fight was against greed and stupitity, and how large areas of the globe became uninhabitable, and whole economies collapsed, just because no measure was taken in time.....
-
Actually Lazs, laugh ye not. Maybe global cooling is what is happening only disguised by the sun's current state.
I remember years ago, an early sceptical global warming programme, the BBC again so no references. It was the programme that got me thinking rationally about global warming.
They showed that, indeed there is a rise in overall temperatures when you collate all the results of met stations for the last so many years. However, when you eliminate all the results of met stations based at airports. There was in fact global cooling. Airports, it concluded are hot places with large areas of concrete which increase the local ambient temperatures. The results were skewed because of course there are a lot more airports around in modern times.
It occurs to me that if the premise that the sun is currently causing the warming effect is true. As soon as it reduce, we could in fact be facing an ice age!:O
Of course, for both Iceland and Ireland it is academic. According to the global warming pundits, the gulf stream which keeps both of us relatively warm, will change direction and Iceland will suddenly be well named and Ireland the new ski destination for all those Europeans looking for skiing after the Alps melt:lol
-
The Gulf stream split up last year for the first time known. And yes, without it, we'd be a tundra.
Actually, warming is belived to screw up the Gulstream (those predictions are some 10 years old, so they might be coming true) as well as causing an increase in westerly winds in our area, - that pushes drift ice to our coasts, causing cooling. This is happening, but the melting has been so fast that the drift ice is nothing but little chunks once it arrives.
As for the measurements being twisted because of the relative amounts of data gathered from the "hot" airfields, that does not explane things like melting caps, and altered habitats of plants, animals and diseases, which advance from hotter areas into what used to be colder areas.
Smoking gun + dead body = ?
-
angus.. you said..
"It still brings up some clear stats, and some go along with many things I have been posting, such as forests being burned down being a pretty naughty thing (30% of CO2 emissions only due to forest-burndowns), etc etc"
Maybe I read you and your scientist algore wrong but you seem to be saying that 30% of Co2 is because of burning forests... I think that is wrong but...
lazs
-
also...
Indy said...
"Mans environmental impacts locally are far worse than they are globally. We still don't even account for 3.4% of annual atmospheric co2... and co2 is a rather important trace element... if you enjoy having a food chain."
Now this does seem about right to me.
lazs
-
"Fires unleash huge amounts of CO2 greenhouse gas
According to the story in Nature, the fires in Indonesia released upwards of 2.57 gigatonnes of carbon, 40 percent of the mean carbon emissions released annually from fossil fuels, and "contributing greatly to the largest annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration detected since records began in 1957."
The study highlights that tropical peat stores huge amounts of carbon that will continue to be released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide during future forest fires and land conversion from forest to agriculture. Carbon dioxide, one of the so-called “greenhouse gases," is responsible for global warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. Recurrent fires have the threatening potential of making a very significant contribution to this warming, particularly during an El Nino.
"The data presented in Nature are as relevant as ever because the forests in Indonesia have again been burning during this year’s extended dry season, caused by a weak El Ni'�o weather event," commented Dr. Florian Siegert, managing director of Remote Sensing Solutions (RSS) GmbH, a Munich-based consultancy and applications developer of Earth observation solutions. "Unfortunately the world does not pay attention to that."
some how we must find a way to blame this on the evil USA
-
So, dear Lazs, please help out here:
1: Where do the other 97% come from?
2: how did they rise to such an extent that the global CO2 PPm is somewhat double what it used to be before the industrial revolution??
BTW, don't "local" events sum up to become global, once you are referring to chemicals and exhausts released into the atmosphere? For instance, the "Lake deaths" in Scandinavia were from Sulphur emissions from the continent of Europe (Notably UK and Germany), - that was through the atmosphere. Same goes to CO2, - actually, greenhouse farmers up here USE CO2 to increase plant growth (photosyntetics at maximum bind C as fructose in the herbs grown), - but they can put that usage aside once we have the winds blowing from Europe. (drastic change of CO2% when the "industrial" air mixex with the air from the arctic)
Then here:
"angus.. you said..
"It still brings up some clear stats, and some go along with many things I have been posting, such as forests being burned down being a pretty naughty thing (30% of CO2 emissions only due to forest-burndowns), etc etc"
Maybe I read you and your scientist algore wrong but you seem to be saying that 30% of Co2 is because of burning forests... I think that is wrong but...
lazs"
30% of human caused release of CO2 to state it accurately, and AFAIK.
You clinging onto the interpretion of this makes me think you're out of ammo, - strawman.....
-
It's funny how all these global warming threads are started by people who don't believe it's happening, or that it's not man's fault.
* We had luckster claiming it wasn't happening, because his region of TX had had a cold winter.
* We had shuckins suggesting it wasn't happening because it's been cold in AR.
* Now we've got steve!
Why the denialists would bother to start these threads is a mystery to me. It's like a total atheist starting thread after thread about the nonexistence of God/gods. :lol
And why do the denialists always ask for proof here in the o club? There's a welter of data out there on the web, on sites dedicated to the subject. Why come here asking for it? Can you say "troll"? :rolleyes:
At least some progress has been made. The denialists are now split into two camps - those who still don't believe that warming is happening, and those who concede that it is, but is not being caused by man.
In luckster's thread, Mace2004 claimed that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was too small to play a part in the warming. It isn't.The CO2 in earth's atmosphere is essential. It plays a vital part in keeping the earth's temperature stable. Without it, the average temperature on earth would be about 18°C less than what it is now. But the converse is true - too much, and the earth becomes too warm. Some countries would not survive, but it will be the "insignificant" countries (eg. Bangladesh) that will suffer first, and may become submerged under sea water.
Mace2004 didn't believe that man's CO2 output was significant, but I was able to prove mathematically, using Mace2004's own figures for atmospheric CO2 concentrations together with CO2 data from the US Department of Energy, that within 60 years, man will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as the amount that's currently out there. In fact because CO2 output is set to increase rapidly in the next few decades, it may only take 30 years.
Given that the tiny proportion of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is responsible for maintaining temperatures at current levels, can someone please explain to me that a man-made doubling of this amount in the next 30-60 years will have "no effect" on average temperatures.
cpxxx - how many airports are there in Antarctica or the Arctic, where all the ice is melting? ;)
(Iceland might become an orchyard, while Texas will be unbearable).
Some people think it already is! LOL - just kidding... ;)
-
(http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/08/20/in_schweizer_1.jpg)
Here's the main cause of Global Warming...
Hot Air.
Mac
-
Originally posted by AWMac
(http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/08/20/in_schweizer_1.jpg)
Here's the main cause of Global Warming...
Hot Air.
Mac
LOL..... Is that an Armani suit Chicken Little is wearing
-
Look at the "small and insignificant and local" areas of ice in the North :D
-
Originally posted by Curval
Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patters that are causing the ice caps to melt.
I didn`t realize that erosion "pattered". At least it didn`t on the farm where I was raised before we fixed it. It was real quiet.
:)
I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.
No doubt.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Here's the main cause of Global Warming...
Hot Air.
Mac
:aok
-
Originally posted by Angus
Don't get lost here. Deforestation is IMHO one of the factor behind warming, while the warming causes the melting.
That`s like saying the highway caused a wreck to happen when two passed out drunks met head on. :)
then calculate the effect of the ground emitting some methane while being worked and cropped untill the topsoil is milked dry
Not to mention all those cow farts. :p
-
Silly.
1: The deforestation parallel should be like it was the drivers and not the cars...
2: Before cow farts there was cow farts, and in America, before all the Buffaloes got shot (Some indian alarmists warned that their numbers were getting dangerously low), there was...BUFFALO FARTS!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Silly.
1: The deforestation parallel should be like it was the drivers and not the cars...
Yep. You can mix and match and scramble on just about anything to find and label a cause for anything. If the highway hadn`t been there , there would be no wreck. Man causes all the total wrecks around the world by his building of highways. :)
2: Before cow farts there was cow farts, and in America, before all the Buffaloes got shot (Some indian alarmists warned that their numbers were getting dangerously low), there was...BUFFALO FARTS
And before that there were dinosaur farts.
And still the world survived.
Forest fires were caused by storms and lightning.
The storms in those times must have been the onslaught of global warming.
:rofl
-
Wow Jackal.....you've got this quoting thing down pat and now you are a spell checking expert. Amazing stuff.
You didn't answer any of my questions though.
I'll repeat them (and ensure accurate spelling):
Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patterns that are causing the ice caps to melt. I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.
Population and agricultural increases and changes....chemicals? These things are driven by man..no? I mean, are you suggesting that man actually IS causing the polar caps to melt? I'm confused, because I've read so many times that it is a natural cyclical occurance that has happened for millions of years. Please expand on this for me.
Changes in current? Caused by what? Is this a natural occurence or did man do this too. Please clarify.
I look foward to very detailed and scientific explanations and clarifications. Don't worry I can google all the scientific stuff I don't understand. Maybe I'll learn something along the way.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I'll repeat them (and ensure accurate spelling):
Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patterns that are causing the ice caps to melt. I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.
If techical
terms confuse you.....I can see why. Your googling the wrong stuff. :rofl
As said before it can be caused by many things. Local weather pattern changes. Chemicals.....or perhaps changes in the sun, undersea volcanic actions. Many things.
Google many. :)
I mean, are you suggesting that man actually IS causing the polar caps to melt?
Nope. What I am saying is there is not evidence one way or the other. Some are jumping on a wagon that has no wheels. The caps melting is proof of nothing in relation to global warming. Ice has been known to melt before.
Changes in current? Caused by what? Is this a natural occurence or did man do this too. Please clarify.
See above.............or use the google that you mentioned.
Don't worry I can google all the scientific stuff I don't understand.
Feel free. Please. :rofl
-
fastfwd.. the chicken littles of the planet are bombarding us with this scare every day... are you afraid of debate? Perhaps you can tell us what is causing the warming... do you agree with algore? Do you think the sun has anything to do with it?
angus...
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
this site has the numbers... what is means is that if greenhouse gas is causing global warming that... we are contributing 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account... if we discount water vapor our contribution is more like 5% total.
Of that... nature contributes 6
-
Originally posted by Angus
Indy: Ice core samples are just about the only samples of ancient air that we have. They also contain the particles that came with the snow.
As for our "share" of the CO2, man's impact is also on the disposal side. Fling the numbers as you like, but please also look at CO2 ppm vs what used to be. What is it, - double, heading for triple?
Multiple studies on this so far have thrown out any high number (700ppm+) shown by the cores as erroneous. They keep the small numbers that fit their conclusion. Seems backwards to me considering in their processes to study it you actually lose co2 instead of gain it. It's a bad case of showing up with a conclusion in mind, and hunting data to fit it... instead of finding data and then drawing a conclusion. If you use the high numbers that didn't fit their conclusion, historically, co2 levels were much higher than they are now.
Your points about deforestation are valid.. however I think we'll have some radically different conclusions about how to fix it... I know you've mentioned your support for alternative fuels like Ethanol.... well, the demand for corn is now much higher. Shortages have hit the 3rd world, and deforestation is accelerating rapidly because of it. This is the exact opposite of progress. It's political gains for those that push for it, with a by-product of heavy environmental damage. The only boon from it is reducing dependence on oil from people that really don't like us... but again, that's political and not environmental.
-
fastfwd.. the chicken littles of the planet are bombarding us with this scare every day... are you afraid of debate? Perhaps you can tell us what is causing the warming... do you agree with algore? Do you think the sun has anything to do with it?
angus...
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
this site has the numbers... what is means is that if greenhouse gas is causing global warming that... we are contributing 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account... if we discount water vapor our contribution is more like 5% total.
Of that... nature contributes 68,500 ppb and we contribute 11,500 ppb
now... if 30% of that tiny amount is forests being burned by man... What do you want to do? Tell people in starving countries that to save the planet we want to reduce greenhouse gases by maybe 0.08% because there is a chance that this tiny amount is killing the planet and to do so they will just have to frigging starve?
or... iceland or england will just send them a monthly check to make em stop?
What do you want to do? How much are you willing to suffer to feel good about it.. like you are "doing something"... or.... more accurately... how much are you willing to make everyone else suffer?
lazs
-
for those of you who were unable to see the "swindle" documentary or just want the short written version....
http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-not-due-to-manmade-carbon-dioxide.html
lazs
-
lol
You are very good at pointing out spelling mistakes and using the quote function of this BBS, but not so good at answering questions.
"As said before it can be caused by many things. Local weather pattern changes. Chemicals.....or perhaps changes in the sun, undersea volcanic actions. Many things."
LOL! Riiiight. [<- Spelling mistake done on purpose] Local weather pattern changes eh? Caused by what...PRECISLEY? Chemicals? WHICH chemicals? Changes in the sun? Can you be any more vague? Undersea volcanic "actions"? You have to do better than that man. Which undersea volcanos? Where are they, under the polar ice caps or elsewhere?
Many things...yes...that come right off the top of your head with no basis in fact at all.
LOL! Your criticism of the scientific community is a little thin if you expect anyone to even suspect YOU know what you are talking about. It is ovious to me so far that you have NO IDEA.
Enlighten me and prove me wrong.
-
Indy:
So, you side with Castro on that one?
Regarding the food chain, BTW, our habits and selection of food have a lot to do with how much land is needed to feed each person. Eating corn directly is for instance many times more effective than feeding the corn to pigs and eating the bacon.
As forr PPM, I'm not getting you. CO2's PPM's are measured all around the globe, and are simply showing increases. We are not breaking the world record yet, but we're sure heading there.
And Lazs....what do I want to do?
"What do you want to do? How much are you willing to suffer to feel good about it.. like you are "doing something"... or.... more accurately... how much are you willing to make everyone else suffer?"
Maybe stop buing their tobacco (then they can use their land to feed themselves) and stop paying them with artillery and ammo? :D
Honestly, we fat westerners are a good source for the 3rd world pillage, since we benefit from their quick and illgotten gains. It gives us cheaper colonial products while it lasts. In many cases our western productions cannot compete with their prices, since we have a different setup for ourselves.
Of course this will eventually have an end. Might be a rather naughty one.
Then on to vapour. Yes, Water vapour is indeed the greatest of the greenhouse gases, and I think it was actually me who pointed that out in the first place. Here we enter the borders of the doomsday theory, for heating will also increase the quantity of water vapour, and with heating enough we will enter the vicious circle leading to Venus atmosphere. (I rather don't favour this one).
And Jackal, this is the funniest .... ever....
"The caps melting is proof of nothing in relation to global warming. Ice has been known to melt before."
So, the ice suddenly starts melting at an increased rate without it having anything to do with warming? Looks like you have to go back to physics, - 1st grade :D
-
angus... so you don't have a solution?
Or.. your solution is to stop trading with those countries that are already starving? Punish them into even more poverty?
Maybe you will send them a check to make up the difference?
How many people are you willing to see go into mind numbing poverty and how many die in order to test your theory on c02 which.. is being discredited more and more every day.
And why are more and more people starting to doubt? well.. the science doesn't add up for one thing but...
As we have seen, people love a good scare... armagedon is real popular with the masses.. they (and you) love that crap.
When they start to wake up is when the chicken littles start telling em what sacrafices they have to make to back up the latest whack job theory..
To prove my point.....
What again are willing to have us all do? what will we need to do? How will that affect us each on a personal level?
I bet when you say what you want done you start losing the "true believers" of the doomsday religion like ice melting on a hot day (to use a relevant analogy).
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Jackal, this is the funniest .... ever....
"The caps melting is proof of nothing in relation to global warming. Ice has been known to melt before."
So, the ice suddenly starts melting at an increased rate without it having anything to do with warming? Looks like you have to go back to physics, - 1st grade :D
Might not be so funny to you Angus if you would read what is written. The terms used are global warming . G L O B A L...global.
The ice melts here when we get it. It`s local warming....not global.
Once again ...ice has been known to melt. It was melting even before the flavor of the week was donned global warming. It melts in my Jack and Coke. Sad , but true. It is not due to global warming unless I happen to sit on it. :)
Curval when you have something to say just let us know. :)
Enlighten me and prove me wrong.
Would be equal to trying to teach a rock about gravity.
It is ovious to me so far that you have NO IDEA.
But still you find the need to to debate......................y ourself.
-
LOL
Yup...just as I thought. You CAN'T answer my questions.
-
Originally posted by Curval
LOL
Yup...just as I thought. You CAN'T answer my questions.
Curval when you have something to say just let us know.
-
Again...awesome use of the quote function. WTG!
Still no answer to my questions.
-
what was the question?
-
Angus, Cuval, the rest of you "the end is near, repent!" guys...
There are a significant number of scientists that are actual climatologists that disagree with the entire "oh NO! global warming!" scenario/crisis.
Many have been linked or quoted here. I have yet to see any of you address their remarks.
It has been noted that many of the Gore camp scientists are not in fields related to climatology.
How can you casually and totally disregard what the actual climatologists are saying?
-
"Or.. your solution is to stop trading with those countries that are already starving? Punish them into even more poverty?"
Well, there might be some way to convince Brazil to decrease their deforestation without directly starving them.....such as....NOT buying their cheap food? :D
(They're the biggest one in deforestation).
Of course this "problem" will solve itself, when deforestation is no more, for eventually it will reach the end limit, and according to your theories, that will not have any influence on the global climate any more than other doings of mankind. Funny that we can hack and burn down the forests of the globe, and pump out long stored charbon from ancient times without even making a dent in the normal cycles of the thin veil we call atmosphere....
And Jackal1, always the Joker:
"Might not be so funny to you Angus if you would read what is written. The terms used are global warming . G L O B A L...global.
The ice melts here when we get it. It`s local warming....not global.
Once again ...ice has been known to melt. It was melting even before the flavor of the week was donned global warming. It melts in my Jack and Coke. Sad , but true. It is not due to global warming unless I happen to sit on it. "
Well, maybe the earth is having a local warming problem then. The warming only occurs where world's Jacals cannot deny it.
But wait a second. If the globe was then stable, it means that vast cooling in all other places is needed for the average, since the poles are warming. But...but...where is the cooling?Europe? nope, warming there, I'm afraid.
Africa? Neg, they complain about the heat. Asia? Same story. Okayokay, maybe in TEXAS!!!!!
-
I hate the cold. Drive an SUV.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Angus, Cuval, the rest of you "the end is near, repent!" guys...
There are a significant number of scientists that are actual climatologists that disagree with the entire "oh NO! global warming!" scenario/crisis.
Many have been linked or quoted here. I have yet to see any of you address their remarks.
It has been noted that many of the Gore camp scientists are not in fields related to climatology.
How can you casually and totally disregard what the actual climatologists are saying?
The ACTUAL climatologists are in both camps. Guess where the headcount is bigger :p
I live in a country which is a very good practice field for a climatologist/metreologist, due to it's irrational weather. I have not found one yet, that discards global warning. This actually goes further, - Agriculture experts and Maritime biologists are to be listened to as well...but same result. Air is warming, Oceans are warming, Land is warming, and Ice is melting.
-
Angus, would you like a list of actual climatologists that dispute the whole man made global warming scare?
What I am asking is, with lots of climatologists on both sides of the issue, how is it you totally disregard those that disagree with you? In other words, how can you be so certain your side is correct?
-
Originally posted by Toad
How can you casually and totally disregard what the actual climatologists are saying?
LOL..
Isn't that exactly what you are doing.. only in your case the numbers are much more "significant".
She analyzed 1,000 research papers on climate change selected randomly from those published between 1993 and 2003. The results were surprising: Not a single study explicitly rejected the idea that people are warming the planet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html
-
Originally posted by Angus
Okayokay, maybe in TEXAS!!!!!
LOL You getting in doomsday mode because some ice is melting............and only will considser one cause------------------> DOOMSDAY. Even if it is not supported or proven.
Never come to Texas. You would stay scared to death. The experts can`t predict, with any accuracy, what the weather will be from morning till night. Seems like that would be a good starting point. When they get that down in the next thosand years or so, then maybe long term predictions might be worked on.
For the impaired........
Curval when you have something to say just let us know.
-
I can actually accept the idea that there may be something to this man-made global warming craze while simultaneously understanding that we are routinely subjected to these end of the world scenarios that continually crop up.
I will say that with the history of the end of the world scares and the credentials of those who say this is an overwrought, overstated crisis, I do lean towards the we'll survive this one too side of the argument.
What I'd like to see is the we're all gonna die crowd at least admit there is clear disagreement in the scientific community on this and there are some pretty expert people out there that say it is all BS.
-
There's a welter of data out there on the web, on sites dedicated to the subject. Why come here asking for it? Can you say "troll"?
Really? Show me some proof.
-
To avoid further misunderstanding, I'll give you my opinion on global warming.
The globe is warming and mankind has some part (maybe quite some part) to do with it.
However, most of these debates only take place on the denialism stage, i.e. "The globe is warming", "No" "Is too", "No it isn't" etc.
That's my camp, and I'm not sure Gore is in it ;)
-
Note that some oil companies are starting to publicly agree with the science behind global warming:
ConocoPhillips backs greenhouse gas regulation (http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/10/news/companies/pluggedin_gunther_conocophillips.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007041109)
Mulva said no particular event caused ConocoPhillips to step forward. "We believe that the science is quite compelling," he said. "Human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to climate change. Now is the time we need a national mandated framework to deal with climate change."
I'm not naive enough believe CP doesn't have some business strategy behind this declaration, but there it is on public record, nevertheless.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Angus, would you like a list of actual climatologists that dispute the whole man made global warming scare?
What I am asking is, with lots of climatologists on both sides of the issue, how is it you totally disregard those that disagree with you? In other words, how can you be so certain your side is correct?
Angus has already addressed this, but I'll throw my $0.02 in.
I don't disregard either side Toad. I read the links and I read all of the comments.
The thing that makes me "lol" though is that you have put anyone who doesn't buy into your SIDE of the debate into Al Gore's camp and make us out to be.....well all the names you see us being called in this thread, from chicken littles to just plain stupid. Then you accuse Angus and I of completely ignoring climatologists. It's quite incredible.
YOUR side completely ignores your own Environmental Protection Agency's writings on the topic of global climate change which I have posted many times and demonises them as liberal al gore types. Well, unless an alternative energy source to fossil fuels is presented....then the calls for assesments by the EPA come out in full force.
Even the oil companies have information out there on global climate change:
http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=4529&contentId=7014604
or are beginning to alter their stance on the topic:
"Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded oil company by market value, long has been a lightning rod in the global-warming debate. Its top executives have openly questioned the scientific validity of claims that fossil-fuel emissions are warming the planet, and it has funded outside groups that have challenged such claims in language sometimes stronger than the company itself has used. Those actions have prompted criticism of the company by environmentalists and by Democrats in the U.S., who now control the Congress."
...
"Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that last year ran television ads saying that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is helpful. After funding them previously, Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 CEI and "five or six" other groups active in the global-warming debate, Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs, confirmed this week in an interview at Exxon's headquarters in Irving, Texas. He declined to identify the groups beyond CEI; their names are expected to become public in the spring, when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups."
"Myron Ebell, director of CEI's energy and global-warming program, declined to comment about why Exxon didn't fund CEI last year. But he added: "Like any company, they are concerned about both policies and image."
...
"More significant are the meetings between executives from Exxon and other companies to discuss the potential structure of a U.S. carbon regulation."
...
"The changes in Exxon's words and actions are nuanced. The oil giant continues to note uncertainties in climate science. It continues to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, the international global-warming treaty that limits emissions from industrialized countries that have ratified it. It also stresses that any future carbon policy should include developing countries, where emissions are rising fastest."
"Still, the company's subtle softening is significant and reflects a gathering trend among much of U.S. industry, from utilities to auto makers. While many continue to oppose caps, these companies expect the country will impose mandatory global-warming-emission constraints at some point, so they are lining up to try to shape any mandate so they escape with minimum economic pain."
But...no. It is Angus and I who are ignoring stuff.
LOL
Jackal is unable to answer some very specific scientific questions on the topic and is trying to say that explaining it to me would be (searches back):
"equal to trying to teach a rock about gravity"
This implies he does know but isn't telling. I wish he'd at least try as maybe I can learn something. Unlike all of the experts here I don't have the qualifications to determine that global warming is real or not.
My mind is open.
Unlike many here.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fastfwd.. the chicken littles of the planet are bombarding us with this scare every day... are you afraid of debate? Perhaps you can tell us what is causing the warming...
I thought I did, but here's a link that pretty much says what I said in my previous post.
Source: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/chemistry/carbon_dioxide.html&edu=high
Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas that helps to trap heat in our atmosphere. Without it, our planet would be inhospitably cold. However, a gradual increase in CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere is helping to drive global warming, threatening to disrupt our planet's climate as average global temperatures gradually rise.
Some CO2 is essential, for the reasons given in that link. But the level will double in the next 60 years, with concomitant adverse effects on the planet, unless we switch to other fuels and drastically reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear energy for electricity generation will come to be seen as a "green" alternative.
-
I'm surprised no one has asked how C02 captures heat energy. The reason the moon is cold is because there is nothing to capture the heat energy. The atmosphere is very thin, by 10000 ft things are getting chilly. Not sure what colour C02 is? However, when I was young a person could look at the horizon and it was clear blue all the way down to the water. These days there is a layer of brown/blue about 4000 ft from the horizon that simply wasnt there 40 years ago.
That brown layer is not C02, its more probably unburnt hydrocarbons. Those particles are almost black and we know that black absorbs a lot more energy than a few transparent molecules of gas. Certainly the brown cloud prevents radiation from hitting the ground but I dont see it getting any warmer at higher altitudes. If anything is warming the earth it would more probably be this thick opaic layer of particles and not a few thousand feet of transparent gas.
CO2 from forest fires liberates carbon which is used in photosythesis to lock carbon back into the plant life again. Its a very dynamic process and fluctuations are going to be evident from blue moon to blue moon.
Certainly it's time to take a good look at our atmosphere but I really dont think anyone has the details to make any scientificly accurate statement for or against C02 being the monster that its claimed to be. Too simple. Wait I recall saying that before on another topic. Simple, no its not. Easy it aint. Understandable occasionally.
RASTER
-
Some quotes from the SF Chronicle I found interesting.................
"Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told the Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Climate scientist Robert Lindzen of MIT believes that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse-gas emissions."
"Scientists acknowledge contradictory data. But the faith-driven Gore argues that all scientists agree with him -- well, except for those who are bought and paid for by big polluters.
Because this is a crusade -- and not about science -- Gore is drawn, not to the most reasoned scenarios, but the most apocalyptic. "
"Consider this exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos -- formerly of the Clinton/Gore administration -- who questioned Gore's prediction that global-warming could cause sea levels to rise 20 feet. "But the consensus is several inches over the next century. Right?" asked Stephanopoulos on June 4. "Not 20 feet?"
"Not at all," Gore replied. He added that the scientists he talks to -- his disciples, if you will -- see it his way. He ignores the less catastrophic theories, which predict a rise of an inch per decade, or three feet over the next century. To Gore, the worst-case scenario is the only scenario. "
"Global warming has become so politicized that scientists must believe in it. If they predict dire consequences, they win praise from true believers and grants for their important research. Scientists who question the prophecies of doom can expect to be marginalized."
"Oddly, Gore begins "An Inconvenient Truth" discussing a young classmate who wondered if South America and Africa once had been connected. Their teacher ridiculed the friend, who turned out to be right. Sometimes the know-it-alls are wrong."
"Now Gore is the know-it-all teacher -- and woe to any scientist who does not agree with him, not just on global warming, but on a 20-foot rise in sea level. It is this alarmism -- this extremism -- that has led many a thinking person to question global warming. It's hard to trust those who believe only the most extreme scenario.
Besides, whenever the establishment says you have to believe something, you want people who question the establishment. Or as global cooling guru Gray once said, "Consensus science isn't science." "
-
If man is contributing to the natural global warming cycle we are in... even in the tinniest bit...
What are the solutions? So far... the solutions call for starving millions in poverty stricken nations and.....
buying carbon credits from algore to offset riding around in jets on vacation or having a limo full of bodyguards.
If we do nothing except study the whole thing... In a few years the earth will go into a global cooling cycle and we can study why that is happening or....
we can get hysterical and blame that on man too.
fastfwd has one "solution" that I agree should be done... not because of man made global warming but because it is a good thing to do... nuke power plants... we are way behind in getting them up and running...
Cheap, clean power should be the goal. reducing dependency on oil is a good thing so long as it does not involve radical regulation of vehicles and lifestyles.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nuke power plants... we are way behind in getting them up and running...
the last plant in the USA was built in 1973.
-
Some folks here are fond of citing global warming and climate change as a "political issue". It may be true that in the political structure of SOME countries, certain organizations stand to gain financially, if their cause can be linked to addressing the problems of global warming.
But this is not the case in every country in the world, and far from it.
For example, in the middle eastern state of Oman, the English version of the Tribune newspaper reported this story:
http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=news&id=4313&heading=News%20in%20Detail
US admits to climate change
WASHINGTON Long sceptical about climate change and its causes, the US administration on Friday finally acknowledged the "global challenge" facing the planet and called for international solutions.
"Climate change is clearly a global challenge and we all recognise that it requires global solutions," said Sharon Hays, leader of the US delegation at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Is the Oman Tribune a newspaper driven by politics? Did the editorial staff stand to gain financially from any political party by reporting this story? Hardly. Oman is an absolute monarchy, and does not have any political parties. The political situation is described in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oman Oman does not allow political parties and only holds elections with limited suffrage for a consultative assembly. Though Oman is developing into a constitutional monarchy, political parties are not yet allowed in Oman.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the last plant in the USA was built in 1973.
Look up Diablo Canyon.
Started operating in 1985.
-
the permit was approved in 73, but because of the anti-nuke protests it took 10 years to build.
-
I was there. The protests lasted maybe 1 year. The delay caused by the protests was minimal. It takes a long time to build a reactor. Needless to say, the last one built was not in 1973.
-
I used to work in the nuclear power industry. At the time I felt very guilty and was happy to distance myself from it. The technology does not suffer fools. The consequences are serious if even one moron gets into control and they always do. Complacency follows success and there hasn't been a serious nuclear accident for years. I would rather go with golbal warming than nuclear accidents.
One time, for the last time, there is no solution in our life times which can correct a nuclear accident. With golbal warming we have a fist full of good solutions once we get past the simple answers and into the complexity of climate. Letting nations like Iran, India, Korea have nuclear facilities for power generation is not very wise but as I said we have a growing success rate.
These nations would think absolutely nothing in dumping their nuclear waste into the oceans. What's to stop them? We are still fighting endlessly on where to dump our current waste and the scientists again say oh poo, there is nothing to worry about. It's simple.
Global warming gives all the chicken littles a chance to wind themselves up into the popular topic of the day and in order to have an opinion they have to learn something more than pornography. The best thing a person can do is get a small tree and plant the bastard in the front yard. That one act has done about as much as a single person can do but thats the reality. Few if anyone is planting trees and last I saw there is an increase in tree removal services. The move towards nuclear power rather defeats the purpose of global protectionism. I simply can't emphasize how stupid scientists can be from time to time.
As an addendum, the new particle accelerator in the Alps scheduled to begin research soon may have the ability to create miniature black holes. The smaller colliders were not big enough they said, so they built a bigger one. The thing about a black holes is that they are attracted to large masses, and regardless of their size they begin to compress matter as they grow bigger, in microscopic terms. Scientists know what they are doing is dangerous but they simply must.
RASTER
-
<December 12, 2006
A Dutch scientist predicts a new generation of nuclear reactors will create energy while
producing virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste.
Wilfred van Rooijen of the Delft University of Technology received his doctorate based
on research conducted at the Reactor Institute Delft. He focused on the nuclear fuel
cycle and safety features of Gas-cooled Fast Reactors, or GFR -- one of the so-called
fourth generation nuclear reactor designs.
Fourth generation GFRs are economical in their use of nuclear fuel and are capable of
rendering a great deal of their own nuclear waste harmless. They use helium as a
coolant at high temperatures and create a closed nuclear fuel cycle, in which only
natural uranium is used as a raw material and in which the resulting waste consists of
only nuclear fission products.
Von Rooijen`s research showed it is possible to obtain a closed nuclear fuel cycle with a
GFR and revealed the GFR could use the waste materials of other light water reactors,
thus serving as an 'incinerator' of nuclear waste.>>
you see, not all scientists are predicting the end of the world, some are actually doing something useful.
-
Originally posted by john9001
<December 12, 2006
A Dutch scientist predicts a new generation of nuclear reactors will create energy while producing virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste....
They use helium as a coolant at high temperatures and create a closed nuclear fuel cycle, in which only natural uranium is used as a raw material and in which the resulting waste consists of only nuclear fission products.
What are the products of nuclear fission? It produces radioactive waste, doesn't it?
-
you see, not all scientists are predicting the end of the world, some are actually doing something useful.
It certainly sounds wonderful but once again this is speculation, a prediction, a guess, estimate, whatever you want to call it, it aint real.
RASTER
-
why don't you call van Rooijen and ask him , what do i look like, a nuke scientist?
-
I think everyone admits that man has a footprint on the earth.. from almost none all the way up to "we should all slit our throats right now to save mother earth"
to admit that man has an effect is nothing... to say how much is a big thing... an actual number and why... that is where the "science" starts breaking down... C02 is being debunked... the sun is gaining in prominence in the equation.. some even predict global cooling in a few years... the science is shaky to say the least...
But even so... most are willing to listen to the chicken littles and even pay lip service to it ... politicians for instance... like the article fastfwd points to... "we are looking into it".
But where it really gets dicey... where the fecal matter really hits the fan...
Is when the lefties tell us what has to be done about it on a personal level...
fastfwd and curval and angus are all willing to see sacrafice by others... something they don't care about that is far away in other lands....It is someone else causing the problem and they are more than willing to restrict and punish those people to make themselves feel better about what may or may not be happening..
But.. will angus stop fishing? will he spend 100 grand on a better home more earth friendly? Will curval move from his 5,000 sq foot house into a studio apartment?
fastfwd is willing to have us all drive whatever car he drives but he is not willing to stop driving entirely... he isn't even willing to stop taking jet flights to be a tourist.
They are all willing to see the suffering affect others tho. So long as the bother and expense has little or no effect on them.
Ask them what they think should be done (as I have over and over) and watch em tapdance around the subject...
Will they or algore get smaller houses and stop jetsetting? hardly. Would they be willing to take a 50% hit on their income? no, of course not but they would certainly be willing to see you do so.
This is the way of the left. The left is driving the whole thing... some middle of the road people like curval and fastfwd and angus are sucked in but only.... so long as it affects others and not them. In this respect they are like the left.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Will they or algore get smaller houses and stop jetsetting? hardly. Would they be willing to take a 50% hit on their income? no, of course not but they would certainly be willing to see you do so.
lazs
They don't have to. They can buy indulgenc... er... carbon credits... from companies they own or have large amounts of stock in... and not actually develop new technology because all that money goes back into raising more awareness... to raise more money... to raise more awareness... to raise more money... to raise more awareness... to raise more money... to raise more awareness...
holy crap my brain just got stuck in a loop.
-
Any suggestions, ideas, data, or theories that doesn`t jive with doomnsday theory are rejected . Why? You tell me. If you were behind something as earth shaking as this supposedly is, wouldn`t you want all the facts and theories to be reviewed and considered? Wouldn`t you wish to make absolutely sure that you were giving people facts? Facts based upon proven statistics and data with a proven outcome instead of ifs, maybes , could bes, etc.
The only reason I can think of to why other theories and data or not considered is that it could possibly make you look like a fool and completely destroy your dash for cash and power.
One here is asking for answers to questions. Questions that have no definite answers. Why? Because even the suggestion of their possibilities are rejected offhand. They do not fit into the scenario or fairy tale that is being dished out in large doses. But still the what ifs , maybes, etc. are being taken for fact when in truth they have very little if any backbone to support their own pile of garbage.
If you wish people to take something seriously, give them the facts. All the facts.
Otherwise you are going fall suspect to those who think for themselves instead of being led around by a ring in your nose with no thought given.
Money and power have no conscience.
The "for the good of the world" type statements give me a chuckle. No two places in the world can agree on anything. Haven`t been able to for as long as I have lived and before. Anything that is attempted on a worldwide basis is doomed. Everyone knows that. At least anyone with half a brain realizes this. It just won`t happen. Some can be manipulated though. Only if it provides a good possiblity for money and power though.
-
As in Amityville from "JAWS" I find myself say the "beaches are safe" when I am not qualified to make that determination. My position is that "almost certain" is not a good enough answer upon which to release the laws night stick in suppressing the liberties of others.
I can't understand why planting a tree is not a good idea. If planting a tree can't hurt and in fact can benefit society in many ways, why is there no tax benefit or property tax incentive encouraging people to do it. If every person in North America planted a tree and kept it, what would be the total effect? Would it hurt the planet in any way? Obviously, if what is being said were true the direction of their actions would be full force in this direction also. So of course I am going to doubt them and question if there is some kind of selfish dual agenda at work.
RASTER
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fastfwd and curval and angus are all willing to see sacrafice by others... something they don't care about that is far away in other lands....It is someone else causing the problem and they are more than willing to restrict and punish those people to make themselves feel better about what may or may not be happening..
.
.
.
fastfwd is willing to have us all drive whatever car he drives but he is not willing to stop driving entirely... he isn't even willing to stop taking jet flights to be a tourist.
They are all willing to see the suffering affect others tho. So long as the bother and expense has little or no effect on them.
No Lazs - I never told you what you could and could not drive. But these do-gooder empty gestures would be as much use as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. If I stopped driving completely, the drop in world CO2 output would only be about one ten billionth of what it is now. Ask them what they think should be done (as I have over and over) and watch em tapdance around the subject...
I already told you - and you agreed - that other energy sources such as nuclear power should be considered for electricity generation.
And... I can prove, using warming skeptic Mace2004's own figures, that man's CO2 output in the next 60 years (in reality closer to 40) will be equivalent to the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why this will not affect the average global temperature.
Will they or algore get smaller houses and stop jetsetting? hardly. Would they be willing to take a 50% hit on their income? no, of course not but they would certainly be willing to see you do so.
How would a cut in my income begin to address the problem of climate change? :confused:
-
I din`t realize that climate changing was a problem. If it is then we have had one since recorded history began.
It is always changing. Always has, always will.
-
- because only in the last ~200 years have we engaged in the mass burning of fossil fuels.
-
Lazs: you are perhaps getting a little personal:
"But.. will angus stop fishing? will he spend 100 grand on a better home more earth friendly? Will curval move from his 5,000 sq foot house into a studio apartment?"
1. What's bad with fishing. (oh forgot, our fishing resources are relatively well balanced, since the control relys on RESEARCH of the source)
2. Earth friendly home? Depends on what you mean. Mine is heated with electricity based on hydro-power. The household utilizes lots of resources that "normal" households (i.e. a lot in your country) would dump, which means eating funny stuff like bull's liver and sheeps head. More? Well, there is the painful choice, - I do NOT buy S-American beef although it's bloody cheap etc...etc...
And, we don't use tobacco :p
On your side I don't expect you to do anything, since you don't belive it makes a difference, - that attitude extending to many other fields...
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
- because only in the last ~200 years have we engaged in the mass burning of fossil fuels.
IMHO our impact would sum together to about 400-500 years, notably the last 200.
500 counts in a lot of deforestation with a rapidly growing population, beginning in Europe, then expanding to the new world.
-
fstfwd.. I agree that cheap clean electricity should be a priority. I would love to see it... we are heading that way. It will happen no matter what we do. it is like $2 an hour internet... or .50 cent a minute long distance...
The demand will make an all you can eat electical grid... nukes and flat fees first... personal solar next when it gets about 80% efficeient and you can buy the kits at home depot...
This will all happen.
If my car got 90 mpg instead of 12 for one.. 23 for another and 12 for the other and 50 for my motorcycle... it would help...as you say... one billion of a billionth... not worth talking about.. get free electricity and I will build an electric hot rod to go to the store in for... fun.
If everyone quit taking jets for anything except emergencies.... it would have an effect on the horrible co2 levels you are talking about... and... it wouldn't bother me a bit.
But... co2...how do you know that it will reach these levels? you are counting on computer models that are admitedly flawed right? and... you don't know what will come in 60 years... we went from no aircraft to space flight in 60 years... and... plants grow faster and use more co2 as it rises... and...
If the sun goes into a less active cycle (highly likely) the major producer of co2 will lessen... we may even have not enough to keep crops going (as was predicted in the 70's by your scientists)
and angus... the world is being overfished... your fishing boat is wasteful... We could mandate that it be more efficient... that would probly mean that you would get laid off tho... but that would be fine with you right? My point is that I can take a look at your life and find dozens of things you do that are "harmful" to poor old mother earth that you could improve with just a little (or maybe even a lot) of suffering.
So I ask you... again... what would you have us all do?
fstfwd says that all we need is nuke plants... so far... I agree with you guys... for different reasons of course but... we found a thing we agree on.
What else you want?
lazs
-
On one of the billboard at my physics faculty there are correlation plots between CO2 levels, global temperatures and solar activity.
Since they are correlated and you assume that man caused global warming, the in-escapable conclusion is that human activity affect the magnetic activity on the sun!
How wonderful is that ?!:lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
Angus, Cuval, the rest of you "the end is near, repent!" guys...
that kind of reminds me that when a black plague happened ALL scientist and those in power agreed that it was caused by human (human sin to be precise). They've also said "we need to do something about, can't just wait". The solution was just that, "something". They just rounded up Jews and other non-believers and wrong-believers and burned them in mass at the stake.
I'm sure that they believed that the are doing something, and when the plaque died out, I'm sure they were convinced that their doing something about it caused it.
Also, last time the politicians did "something" to solve the air pollution we got MTBE in our gasoline.
At least the black plague was a real phenomenon.
-
It's currently 54f in Houston on April 14th.
WTF??????
Global warming my prettythang...
:D
-
end of the world scenarios always play well with the masses. Man made ones play well with the left.
If it is man made then it proves that we should all go back to the renaissance and live like socialist hippies...
It plays well with scientists because they can be important again and.... get huge grants and be on good morning america.
It plays well with lefty politicians because they can use guilt to make themselves more powerful and get more money to jetset around in and build another 20,000 square foot house.
It doesn't play too well with those who like to live and let live and have seen it all before.
lazs
-
Got to go check the tomato plants to make sure the "global warming" frost didn`t get them last night. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It plays well with scientists because they can be important again and.... get huge grants and be on good morning america.
I'd be careful saying "most", but a lot of scientists are actually against the claim of man made global warming. Some are opposed to it because they know a little about it and see that it is unfounded. A few others (from other schools of science) are opposed to this idea for the same reason that environmentalists support it - money! More money to fight the global warming ghost is less money for real science.
But then again, you don't hear about these guys. Will you invite some to "good morning america" to wave his hand and say "ahh... this is nothing"? Not really a rating magnet.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Got to go check the tomato plants to make sure the "global warming" frost didn`t get them last night. :)
Maybe you should grow the tomatoes in Cologne then. Mid April, 30 degs celcius (instead of a typical 15 yhis time of year) and forest fires due to dryness. In April :huh