Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 14830 times)

Yeager · « **Reply #45 on:** January 23, 2007, 05:56:54 PM »

Im of the opinion we may be undergoing an exponential climate shift, that is to say, accellerated

I remember reading an artical in a defense journal a few years back where the DoD was exploring the possibility of an event trigger with regards to global climate change where as there may be a tipping point where we could undergo an extreme climate shift in a ten year period. The DoD was looking into this because of the obvious ramifications a rapid global climate catastrophe would have on the viability of the nation.

But I will yield to 10-15 year window of extreme scrutiny. Better safe than sorry.

2bighorn · « **Reply #46 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:08:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by tedrbr
And if is limited to melt water only, and no further break-ups of the ice shelfs in West Antarctica occur in the future ....

Actually it is for overall net loss, break-offs included.

Of course as the temperature rises so does the melting rate and the changing ice surface/mass ratio would even further accelerate the melting.

It is also possible that precipitation will increase as well due to warming and slow the shrinkage to more acceptable rates.

There's no doubt global warming is here. The question is what's causing it. Judging by all the available data, it is very likely that human activity is one of the contributing factors if not the main, although we can't be certain.

If you think that it took roughly 30 years of global effort to fix the ozone layer, then, this time, we're in for some rough ride no matter what we do.

Gunston · « **Reply #47 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:35:26 PM »

If you want the truth about Global Warming (environmentalism) I suggest you go to this speech by Michael Crichton. If you have not already been indoctrinated into this scary new religion this will shed some light on why trying to deal in facts with these people is a waste of your time. Facts to the Global Warming crowd have no place it's a matter of faith.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

Debonair · « **Reply #48 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:54:10 PM »

"facts go out the windoe when politix comes in teh door"
confucius said that.
for example u willl probably deny that goerge bush is gay even tho he was a male cheerleedar in collige, but OMG that is SO GAY. maybe he was just teh victam of some frat hazing, but L0L GAY

rpm · « **Reply #49 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:03:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hey, if Colbert can get a word like truthiness created, I figure, what the heck.

http://www.skuzzynation.com

Mark Luper · « **Reply #50 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:05:02 PM »

Gunston,

That man made sense to me. Thanks for the link. Great read.

Mark

2bighorn · « **Reply #51 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:05:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunston
If you want the truth about Global Warming (environmentalism) I suggest you go to this speech by Michael Crichton. If you have not already been indoctrinated into this scary new religion this will shed some light on why trying to deal in facts with these people is a waste of your time. Facts to the Global Warming crowd have no place it's a matter of faith.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

Blah, I don't care what religion is using global warming to further their pro/contra agendas.

I still leave open the possibility that I was indeed "indoctrinated" with false facts by NASA, NOAA, DOD, AAS, BMI and such and that Crichton is right, but what are the chances for that?

Common sense rather tells me that you were the one indoctrinated by a novel writer or TV show. "I want to believe".

What's next? Next time I get sick you'll suggest a voodoo priest?

Gunston · « **Reply #52 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:28:50 PM »

2bighorn
Apparently you did not go to the link. The religion “using” Global Warming is called Environmentalism. I may be wrong but from your response I think your probably already a member so don’t bother to go to the link it will only challenge your beliefs (faith) with a bunch of messy facts.

2bighorn · « **Reply #53 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:53:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunston
2bighorn
Apparently you did not go to the link. The religion “using” Global Warming is called Environmentalism. I may be wrong but from your response I think your probably already a member so don’t bother to go to the link it will only challenge your beliefs (faith) with a bunch of messy facts.

Huh?

Ya know what, those who say that there's absolutely nothing wrong are as bad as those who scream that world will end tomorrow.

When it comes to science I don't have to chose between liberal or conservative or anything else but science alone.

Yeager · « **Reply #54 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:43:18 PM »

I read that crichton editorial last year and I did find alot of truth and valuable warnings in it, but at the same time I know what the result is from piping my car exhaust into a closed room with me in it. Stay smart on this and think for yourself.....use your best observational skills and use critical thinking.

lukster · « **Reply #55 on:** January 23, 2007, 10:20:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
I read that crichton editorial last year and I did find alot of truth and valuable warnings in it, but at the same time I know what the result is from piping my car exhaust into a closed room with me in it. Stay smart on this and think for yourself.....use your best observational skills and use critical thinking.

The earth does have built in filters and is one big recycling machine but I agree that I'd rather not breathe your car's exhaust. Are you willing to stop driving so that I don't have to?

I don't know about you but I also don't want to encourage or give to any world organization more power over my life. The government we have is already far too powerful.

tedrbr · « **Reply #56 on:** January 23, 2007, 10:30:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunston
2bighorn
Apparently you did not go to the link. The religion “using” Global Warming is called Environmentalism. I may be wrong but from your response I think your probably already a member so don’t bother to go to the link it will only challenge your beliefs (faith) with a bunch of messy facts.

I agree with some, and disagree with other things from that article.

Have some turned environmentalism into a religion of sorts? Yes... the back to nature crowd and technophobes I look at suspiciously.

* Has forest stewardship been a fiasco, yes... knocking down all fires, preventing controlled burns, and allowing huge volumes of dead wood (read fuel) to build up in the forests was a mistake.

* Are wild claims made and put forth as iron clad fact? Yep. Happens in all debates any more. Put out enough contradictory information to make everything sound questionable. The alternative is to repeat the same sound bite long, and loud, and repeatedly until it becomes accepted as fact. Joesph Goebbels would have done well working for big tobacco.

* Does anyone know for sure which way the global environment is headed? Of course not.... like he states, it is a very highly complex system to try and decipher. But, I've been alive for 38 years, I've followed the weather for much of it (I ride motorcycles and snowmobiles and skied.... keeping track of weather was habit), and I've noticed things in my life's experience, in addition to what I follow and read, that has me convinced that the world is growing warmer.
I also believe that, in addition to other cycles, that humanity is a major source of that warming. We, as a species, *are* capable of alternating our environment, intentionally or unintentionally.

* I see too much evidence that fits various models and theories that the world is growing warmer, and there will be consequences.

stantond · « **Reply #57 on:** January 24, 2007, 07:29:46 AM »

Those that believe that "science" is immune from politics are very ignorant. From the days of Galileo up to the present, there has and always will be science to support the status quo. That's why there is inconsistency and contradiction. All scientific theory is biased towards a specific belief. It is repeatable experimental evidence that demonstrates the validity (or truth) of that theory. Often in the past, experimental evidence generated new 'modern' theories because the accepted theory contradicted experiments.

Adding politics to pseudo science is a very volitile mixture. Taking scientific data and spinning a new "theory" to fit the data is nothing new. It's how work is funded. Not that all science is tainted, but for a very complex subject such as global warming that involves not only our planet but also our moon and sun it's not hard to make up a theory that coincides with a short term (~100 year) trend.

I am not saying scientist supporting this are intentionally being vague or untruthfull. However, if they believe in global warming, most if not all of their data will support that position until something conclusive is found. Even after something conclusive has been recognized, some will still look for 'loopholes' or chinks in the evidence to re-establish their belief.

The problem comes in when governments make sweeping changes based on inconclusive science. However, (and I am not sure global warming fits in this category) sometimes the risk described by scientific evidence warrants consideration of changes. Nuclear weapons fits in that category.

Not to stray too far off topic, but this reminds me of a chapter from "Gullivers Travels" by Johathan Switft. In one land, "learned" scientist locked themselves away in a ministry of science then came up with ideas which were made into law throughout the land. While this is extreme, the notion of goverments making stupid decisions based on "science" is not new.

Regards,

Malta

lazs2 · « **Reply #58 on:** January 24, 2007, 08:32:39 AM »

tedbr.. you accuse me of sitting on my hands and doing nothing and saying that the environmentalist whackos have to have 100% proof before I will act...

That is not entirely true.. I am saying that global warming is happening as a natural cycle and that even if we are contributing...I want to know how much. I want to know that I am not throwing a million dollars away to save a penny. Or.. that what I am forced to do will not only have a real and measurable effect on making things better but that it won't be worse in the long run...

On the other hand... you seem to be saying that... just because there is no proof is not a good reason to not destroy our economy and way of life. You are saying that if there is even a slight chance that the most fanatic of the environmentalists are even half right... that we need to do something.... and do it fast and damn the consequences.

If you tell me that for instance... I have to pay $4000 more for a car that will decrease pollution by half or... the same amount of spilling a couple of teaspoons of gas a year while filling the lawn mower... I am going to fight you..

The "recovery" nozzles we were forced to put on pumps make most people spioll more gas than the old styles they replaced for instance... this was a result of handwringing "we have to do something NOW" regulation way back when...

So was MTBE in the fuel... It is now polluting our groundwater worse than any other disaster... worse than all the corperate pollution combined (here in kalifornia at least)

No... "We have to do something cause the frizzy headed guy said the sky is falling" is not good enough. Unless doing something is the research. and... we are doing that.

environmentalism is the the back door into power for the socialists and it is mostly a scam... and a very cruel and dishonest one at that.

lazs

Eagler · « **Reply #59 on:** January 24, 2007, 08:56:59 AM »

goron should go pedal his movie to the chinese who by far are out of control with their manufacturing processes .. but he won't as he has nothing to gain there ...