Global Warming

[Seth8530]

so what do yall think? Is it phoney bologni, or is it real deal. Are we going to burn a hole is our o zone with cfc, or are they to heavy to get up there. Are we going to smother in co2 from our own machines, or could this all be "the inconvienent lie"

YALL DECIDE!

[Kapitan_Phillips]

It has the potential to be a threat, but its all bloated out so the government has an excuse to charge us a 'Green Tax' :shifty:

[KevinB]

Were're all DOOMED. Let's pack our bags and get the hell outta here.
Any suggestions?

[Konovalov]

Winter finally arrived here in London today with a heavy blanket of snow.

My personal view on the topic is that blobal warming is happening right now. IMO there is no doubt about that. For me the question is how much of this global warming is because of us? :hmm:

[Oberon]

We got winter two days earlier than London, which is unusual for Suffolk, usually we get everything about fifty years after London.

There's definately something going on that's mucking things up, whether it's a natural process, or a man-made one...or even a natural process that's been made worse by man...that I can't say...though my money is on the last answer.

Now can we do something about it in time? At the moment, I'd say, yes we probably could...but our window of opportunity is closing fast...at some point in the next thirty years I'd say we'll hit the point of no return, and then it won't matter what we do because we'll have screwed ourselves.

[KevinB]

The main problem is that the planet is vastly overpopulated and there needs to be a drastic plan to bring it down. Perhaps take a lead out of China where they limit one child per family.
The other serious matter is the felling of the Amazon rainforest. Without this we are definitely in the deep S***

[waste gate]

Seems NASA is saying that Mars is also warming. Last I checked there weren't any little green men driving SUVs and burning coal on Mars.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

[robbo180265]

I think its definatly happening and the really terrible thing about it all is that the people who are contributing virtually nothing towards GW are the ones who will suffer the most, ie; Africa

It's interesting how us Brits accept that it's happening and real and our American friends here are still not sure (this is just an observation and not a dig I promise)

It was on the news the other day that by 2060 the UK may not have any more summers and that from then on it could be warm rain in the summer and cold rain in the winter(yeah I know - no change there)

What really is annoying is that if we have to abandon ship then the only ones who'll be able to afford to go, will be the rich g#ts who helped cause the problem in the first place - the likes of you and me will roast(or drown)

[STEED]

It has the potential to be a threat, but its all bloated out so the government has an excuse to charge us a 'Green Tax' :shifty:

Darn right there Kapitan_Phillips have a drink on me.

[STEED]

The main problem is that the planet is vastly overpopulated and there needs to be a drastic plan to bring it down. Perhaps take a lead out of China where they limit one child per family.
The other serious matter is the felling of the Amazon rainforest. Without this we are definitely in the deep S***

The UN is on the case. :shifty:



"The United Nation’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day." Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, November 1991.

[Boris]

The current problem is most of the worlds governments would rather have a healthy (and steadily growing) economy first, than a healthy planet.

They need to get their priorities sorted out.

[KevinB]

The main problem is that the planet is vastly overpopulated and there needs to be a drastic plan to bring it down. Perhaps take a lead out of China where they limit one child per family.
The other serious matter is the felling of the Amazon rainforest. Without this we are definitely in the deep S***

The UN is on the case. :shifty:



"The United Nation’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day." Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, November 1991.




That's quite a chilling statement. I remember reading this quote sometime ago.
The other culprit is Henry Kissinger, yes him of the Club of Rome.

[SUBMAN1]

The main problem is that the planet is vastly overpopulated and there needs to be a drastic plan to bring it down. Perhaps take a lead out of China where they limit one child per family.
The other serious matter is the felling of the Amazon rainforest. Without this we are definitely in the deep S***

1.5 child per family - ie twins happens sometimes - should stabilize the population at 2 billion people. At our present rates and resource usage, we will die and science won't be able to save us if some crazy bombs our infrastructure or something. I predict mass starvation is in the worlds future because of some terrorists act, or even the act of another state (China comes to mind again).

ANyway, if anyone cares to see what our future holds, read up on Easter Island.

-S

[dean_acheson]

Well, if it is going to happen, I wish it would hurry up, it has been unseasonably cold here in the midwest....

[ReallyDedPoet]

The current problem is most of the worlds governments would rather have a healthy (and steadily growing) economy first, than a healthy planet.

They need to get their priorities sorted out.

You can't have one without the other, good point:up: I am tired of hearing " we won't do it if it will hurt the economy ", if that continues to be the attitude, we wil not have an economy to worry about.

RDP

[geetrue]

so what do yall think? Is it phoney bologni, or is it real deal. Are we going to burn a hole is our o zone with cfc, or are they to heavy to get up there. Are we going to smother in co2 from our own machines, or could this all be "the inconvienent lie"
YALL DECIDE!

I think the news media are on the wrong track on what's causing the problem, even the people in the street admit that the weather has changed in the last ten years, but the scientist blame it on a little hot spot in the Pacific Ocean called El Nino.

I say it goes deeper than that ... all the way to the core of the earth. I started reading Edgar Cayce books back in 1984 and one particular passage always intrested me ... Edgar Cayce said in one of his prophecies that the world's poles would change (this has happened before) and that strange weather would occur from this changing of the poles starting in 1997.

In 1997 California/Arizona had one of it's most rainey seasons it has ever had and the weather just keeps on changing.

Here's an article about the changing of the poles ... I'll go find a link and add it later, but it is worth considering and it will be very nasty for a lot of poor people, not to mention us above average modern electronic people. We still have about five years left by the way ... Not suppose to finish changing till 2012


The Shifting of the Earth's Poles Has Begun,
as predicted by Edgar Cayce in 1936

The reason this is of interest to us is that Edgar Cayce predicted that the beginning of the New Age would coincide with a pole shift.

In this NOVA show, scientists explained: “2,000 miles beneath our feet is the Earth’s molten core. Here a vast ocean of liquid iron generates an invisible force, the Earth’s magnetic field. It’s what makes our compasses point north. But it does a lot more: it helps to keep the Earth a living planet. Our neighbors, Venus and Mars, have only weak magnetic fields, which means they’re unprotected from the deadly radiation sweeping through the solar system. The Earth, on the other hand, exists within a vast magnetic cocoon, a force-field that for billions of years has sheltered us on our journey through space.”

But now scientists have made a startling discovery: it seems there’s a storm brewing deep within the Earth, a storm that is weakening our vital magnetic shield. Peter Olson at Johns Hopkins University explained that “the Earth’s magnetic field has been our protector for millennia, and now, it appears, it’s about to go away.”

Cayce indicated that the pole shift would become apparent in 2000 to 2001. The NOVA show revealed that the shift has indeed begun in the South Atlantic Ocean region, between Africa and South America. Here the north-south polarity is fluctuating back and forth, weakening the shield against solar radiation. During the pole shift process, the planet’s electromagnetic shield will no longer channel the solar winds to our current poles, where few people live. The Northern and Southern lights are a result of radiation moving to the poles. Since radiation causes many problems, the weakening of the shield is a concern. A weak magnetic shield also means that the Northern and Southern lights will be seen all around the planet, even along the equator. It may be a beautiful, wondrous, visionary time for Earth but not a healthy time for many of its inhabitants.



http://www.edgarcayce.org/historychannel/cayce7prophecies.asp

Here's the link, but don't go and join these people they are the new age greedy gurus you need to stay away from, but Edgar Cayce himself was a true prophet.

After I re-read the post I sound like Chicken Little, uh ... Don't be afraid of something we have no control over.

[flintlock]

Human activity is negatively effecting the earths climate. This is being echoed time and again by some of the worlds most gifted scientists. Yet others feel the whole thing is a lie and dismiss it outright. I'm no expert or scientist, though from everthing I have witnessed and read on this topic, there's no doubt in my mind global warming is a very real crisis. I encourage everyone to open their mind to the possibilty and do your own research. Read reports from reputable sources from both sides of the issue and form your own opinion.

[STEED]

The main problem is that the planet is vastly overpopulated and there needs to be a drastic plan to bring it down. Perhaps take a lead out of China where they limit one child per family.
The other serious matter is the felling of the Amazon rainforest. Without this we are definitely in the deep S***

1.5 child per family - ie twins happens sometimes - should stabilize the population at 2 billion people. At our present rates and resource usage, we will die and science won't be able to save us if some crazy bombs our infrastructure or something. I predict mass starvation is in the worlds future because of some terrorists act, or even the act of another state (China comes to mind again).

ANyway, if anyone cares to see what our future holds, read up on Easter Island.

-S

Here's a vision which could come true

Some time in the next hundred years powerful men will come forward with the solution which will be mass killing of selected areas of the human population and they will sell this idea as the only way forward.

I hope this never See's the light of day.

[joea]

The main problem is that the planet is vastly overpopulated and there needs to be a drastic plan to bring it down. Perhaps take a lead out of China where they limit one child per family.
The other serious matter is the felling of the Amazon rainforest. Without this we are definitely in the deep S***
The UN is on the case. :shifty:



"The United Nation’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day." Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, November 1991.



Where did you find that quote? You don't happen to have an old copy of the UNESCO Courier?

[Mush Martin]

Dont Panic. it will all work out at the end.

Humanity on earth is analogous to a slime mould spore, and I dont mean this in a derogatory manner. but its our job to soil our bed, its all part of the natural mechanism.

in the case of a slime mould spore it lands on the rotting peach on the ground
and starts to colonize it.
as the colony starts it begins work on a spore tower and over the life of
the colony the spore tower is slowly constructed. during the first 80% of the colonies expansion and existence 80% of the peach and 80% of the membership of the colony is consumed building the first 20% of the spore tower
As the peach starts to run out of resources and the colony out of members
there is a flurry of exponentially increased activity and efficiency and during the last 20% of the colony and its resources existence the last 80% of the spore tower is completed. as the last resource and last of the colony membership is consumed.

Population pressure and resource crisis are the mechanisms that drive the evolution.

Mankind may like to think of themselves as individuals but the creature man on earth is indeed a single entity with base reflexes and instincts that are far more subtle than our ability to divine on an average day.

so dont panic simply put if it is observed data it is all a natural occurance.
and nature has been doing this much longer than we have.

MM

[Seth8530]

Now listen to this, we dont need the rain forest for our oxygen, (the surely help and clean the air) but 75% of our air is from........ ALGEE. the stuff in the ponds:ping: :huh: .

I personaly dont think it will kill us but we are affecting the enviro. As for the hurcains and late winter( I attribute this to Elnino) its just odd seasonol

[geetrue]

Now listen to this, we dont need the rain forest for our oxygen, (the surely help and clean the air) but 75% of our air is from........ ALGEE. the stuff in the ponds:ping: :huh: .

I personaly dont think it will kill us but we are affecting the enviro. As for the hurcains and late winter( I attribute this to Elnino) its just odd seasonol

Are you sure? Algee? Is that just a rumor? I've heard a lot of things in my short 62 years,
but I've never heard that 75% of our air comes from algee (the stuff in ponds). :o

I won't make you prove it, but where did you get this idea? :lol:

[Mush Martin]

Now listen to this, we dont need the rain forest for our oxygen, (the surely help and clean the air) but 75% of our air is from........ ALGEE. the stuff in the ponds:ping: :huh: .

I personaly dont think it will kill us but we are affecting the enviro. As for the hurcains and late winter( I attribute this to Elnino) its just odd seasonol
Are you sure? Algee? Is that just a rumor? I've heard a lot of things in my short 62 years,
but I've never heard that 75% of our air comes from algee (the stuff in ponds). :o

I won't make you prove it, but where did you get this idea? :lol:

the majority of oxygen content in the atmosphere does get generated
by the photo synthesis of algae.

if the planet were two thirds land then it would be grass probably.
MM

[STEED]

Sir Richard Branson wants you to come up with the solution.


Branson offers $25m to save planet (http://www.itv.com/news/world_f6b962de649849de99a9c5cafce5f324.html)

[Oberon]

Whereas the Norweigans are being a bit more realistic. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6335899.stm)

Personally I think that they should build another vault for animal embryos, and then perhaps large bomb shelters in each country. Won't do anything for Global Warming....but should help against large rocks.

[geetrue]

Mush Morton

the majority of oxygen content in the atmosphere does get generated
by the photo synthesis of algae.

if the planet were two thirds land then it would be grass probably.
MM


So in other words we are breathing slime ...

We weren't breathing slime (algee if you will) on my sub ...
the air came by taking in salt water that got distilled and turned into
fresh water then broken down with a two deck high oxgen generator
back in the machinery space into pure air and then recycled through
huge amounts of charcoal of which we had to load all the bags one time
with an all hands working party ... took a long time too.

No slime for me, no siree ... :lol:

[Boris]

As for the hurcains and late winter( I attribute this to Elnino) its just odd seasonol

The el nino effect is a natural phenomenon that's been happening for yonks. But it's strength and effect is being intensified and warped by global warming (which is why it's only become a media issue in recent years). Hence the hurricanes in the states, and the droughts back in Australia.
It's amazing what a few degrees change in ocean currents can do.

[waste gate]

As for the hurcains and late winter( I attribute this to Elnino) its just odd seasonol

The el nino effect is a natural phenomenon that's been happening for yonks. But it's strength and effect is being intensified and warped by global warming (which is why it's only become a media issue in recent years). Hence the hurricanes in the states, and the droughts back in Australia.
It's amazing what a few degrees change in ocean currents can do.

Or, have we only heard of el nino in recent years because a 24 hour news cycle has to be filled, and not because it has changed in yonks?

[Onkel Neal]

Global warming: natural cyclic phenomena or heavily augmented by manmade activities. I've been a skeptic of the latter, mainly because I feel the verdict is not in, and I know there is a propensity for some people to cry "end of the world". But Al Gore aside, evidence is firming up in favor of the impact greenhouse gasses have on the climate.

Feb. 9, 2007, 12:47AM
Exxon Mobil has no more doubts on warming
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4539329.html

Still, there are a lot of unanswered questions about what to do about it, and how willing people are to affect major changes in their lives. If the projections are correct that even if we completely stopped emitting greenhouse gases today global warming would not abate for 100 years. If we are going to do something effective, it will have to be sweeping and massive. So, are we ready for these changes? These changes will be more than outlawing gas guzzling SUVs and hot tubs in California. Government caps on electricity usage (1 hour a week on the Internet)? Forget owning a private auto, and yes, you will need to move your residence to walking or bike distance of your job. No more air conditioning (note to self, buy stock on screen door manufacturers). Yeah, I know what you're thinking, I'm being silly. Maybe… but will small changes in our lifestyles have any effect on global warming? :hmm:

I have a strong feeling even the greenest Chicken Littles will squeal when they have to give up many of the things we have come to see as normal. But, this may become a global necessity.

[waste gate]

What about the hole in the ozone layer we used to hear so much about. I recently read, can't remember where but I'll look for it, that the colder the earth is the larger the hole and visa versa. Perhaps we will do more damage over all if we try to fix a non-existant problem. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Tchocky]

Are we going to burn a hole is our o zone with cfc, or are they to heavy to get up there.
Already happened, Seth. There's many hole in the layer, some of them seasonal, the rest permanent.

CFC dispersion has little or nothing to do with the weight of the particles.

http://www.so.wustl.edu/science_outreach/curriculum/ozone/info/stratosphere/myths/heavier.html

[Onkel Neal]

Perhaps we will do more damage over all if we try to fix a non-existant problem. Wouldn't be the first time.

True. I don't advocate jumping the gun. And it could turn out that by the time we know conclusively that we are warming the planet, it will be too late to do anything to stop it.

[waste gate]

So much evidence of warming:

Snow blankets the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) as crew members prepare for an ammunition onload with the Military Sealift Command (MSC) dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Lewis and Clark (T-AKE 1). Truman is currently underway conducting operations in the Atlantic Ocean.
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_070207-N-9475M-029.jpg

Attack submarine USS Virginia (SSN 774) is covered in snow and moored to the pier at Submarine Base New London.
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_070202-N-8467N-002.jpg


(Feb. 7, 2007) - Deck department Sailors manning the phone and distance line bundle up against the cold and snow on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_070207-N-5345W-015.jpg



OSWEGO - Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer declared a state disaster emergency Thursday for Oswego County - battered by five straight days of lake-effect squalls that have buried some areas in nearly 7 feet of snow.
http://www.buffalonews.com/graphics/2007/02/09/actualsize/0209shovel.jpg

[Tchocky]

I'm confused. Barring active interference, how could action like emissions reductions & recycling do more damage than doing nothing?

@ waste gate - A large part of global warming involves increased weather extremes and volatility. It's putting the planet on speed rather than a sunbed.

[waste gate]

I'm confused. Barring active interference, how could action like emissions reductions & recycling do more damage than doing nothing?

@ waste gate - A large part of global warming involves increased weather extremes and volatility. It's putting the planet on speed rather than a sunbed.

I'm not sure what your second statement means.

To my initial response regarding doing nothing I may have been vague. What we need is an unbiased cost/benefit analysis. Much like your response to the nuclear power response as to the transmission loss due to out of state nuclear power.

An off the head example would be; the farming industry will have to reduce the emissions from their harvesting equipment and still be able to provide food stuffs for the native population and send emergency aid to 'starving' nations in Africa or the Indian sub-continent, while continuing to pay for the things of life that will be affected by the increased cost home side.


Whether you or I like it everything has a cost.

[robbo180265]

. Perhaps we will do more damage over all if we try to fix a non-existant problem. Wouldn't be the first time.

That's not making any sense to me at all. How can cutting down on emissions and leading more green lives do damage?

Nice pics by the way - did I mention I saw a butterfly in December this year?

[Onkel Neal]

So much evidence of warming:

Snow blankets the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) as crew members prepare for an ammunition onload with the Military Sealift Command (MSC) dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Lewis and Clark (T-AKE 1). Truman is currently underway conducting operations in the Atlantic Ocean.




Gosh, who can argue in the face of those hard, scientific facts? Snow!!

[waste gate]

So much evidence of warming:

Snow blankets the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) as crew members prepare for an ammunition onload with the Military Sealift Command (MSC) dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Lewis and Clark (T-AKE 1). Truman is currently underway conducting operations in the Atlantic Ocean.




Gosh, who can argue in the face of those hard, scientific facts? Snow!!

That is my point. Where is the scientific fact that we are causing global warming.

Back when Lief Erikson discovered Greenland it was green. Not so much today. Did humans contribute to Greenland being green?

Besides, people cannot even tell me what the weather will be next week, much less in the next decade, or, the next century or millenium.


This whole 'global warming' thing is meant to do one thing. Take money from those who have and redistibute it to those who don't. If I came to your house in the same manner you would shoot me.

[Boris]

Being more efficient with what we have, and trying to repair the environment can only be a good thing. Unfortunately most people are still ill informed about global warming, and there are still those which believe it to be unconfirmed. The topic cropped up as far back as the 70s.

To say that acting now would be jumping the gun is dangerous thinking. The scientific reality is that it's almost too late to reverse the effects, and maybe to late to stop it, given our current behaviour. The last thin postive action is going to do is damage the environment.
It seems some people do not know the principles involved, so I'm going to sum it up:

- Global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses.
- Greenhouse gasses are gasses such as carbon dioxide, a gas which traps heat.
- Our atmosphere has a natural mix of gasses, mostly nitrogen, with a small amount of oxygen and other minor gasses.
- Industry since the industrial revolution have been releasing the carbon dioxide trapped in oil, coal, and other fossil fuels into the atmosphere. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are therefore at increasingly unnatural levels.
- Because CO2 traps heat, and there is more and more of it in the atmosphere, obviously the earth's average temperature is getting warmer.

... Hence the term "Global Warming"

So why is this harmful? Warmer weather is nicer weather, right? Wrong!

The Earths temperature and weather patters have been set in an equilibrium, that is not used to changes as dramatic as those of the last 200 years. Warmer weather influences the temperature of ocean currents, their direction and their seasonality, which has a surprising effect on the world's weather patterns. Warmer weather also encourages more violent and dramatic weather.

Storms will be stonger and more frequent, droughts longer, monsoons heavier. Deserts will expand. Changes in ocean temperature are killing the worlds marine life. Coral is dying (coral bleaching), about a third of the world's reefs are already dead.

Most of the changes aren't so apparent yet, because they're not in our backyards. But Australia (my backyard) has had the worst drought ever. And although it's snowing here in Europe now, the winter has been ridiculously warm on a whole.

Don't be fooled by the small temperature rises that you see quoted as the global increase. These seemingly small rises impact alot. They are in scientific terms actually big rises in temperature.

So please realise that global warming (or more accurately global climate change) is happening. It quite simply can't not be. To ridicule the concept and it's proponents is the height of ignorance.

EDIT:

@ at Wastegate

I'm trying really hard to hold back on calling you an idiot. Global Warming is not made up, it's not some conspiracy some nut pulled out of his butt. The reason it's an issue, and the reason people noiced it's happening, is because of empirical evidence. Cold hard facts! Google it and you will find many.

Also, greenland was not warmer and greener when it was discovered. It just so happened to be discovered in summer, when it was green.

The idea of Global Warming has nothing to do with economics. It is the greedy money grubbers who have ignored the issue, because fixing it costs money. It's unfortunate, but we either live with it and pay the price now. Or let it happen and pay much more later.

[waste gate]

Here is an idea. Let the EU cut all the human made emissions over the next ten years and the scientists can report on the effects. Certainly the population of Europe will make a measurable difference. After the report a decision can be made.

[Onkel Neal]

Being more efficient with what we have,

Global warming or not, I agree with you. I hate waste in general.


Being more efficient with what we have,

@ at Wastegate

I'm trying really hard to hold back on calling you an idiot. Global Warming is not made up, it's not some conspiracy some nut pulled out of his butt. The reason it's an issue, and the reason people noiced it's happening, is because of empirical evidence. Cold hard facts! Google it and you will find many.

Also, greenland was not warmer and greener when it was discovered. It just so happened to be discovered in summer, when it was green.

The idea of Global Warming has nothing to do with economics. It is the greedy money grubbers who have ignored the issue, because fixing it costs money. It's unfortunate, but we either live with it and pay the price now. Or let it happen and pay much more later.


Yes, don't call names. There are better ways to handle it. :yep:

[waste gate]

Being more efficient with what we have,

Global warming or not, I agree with you. I hate waste in general.


Being more efficient with what we have,

@ at Wastegate

I'm trying really hard to hold back on calling you an idiot. Global Warming is not made up, it's not some conspiracy some nut pulled out of his butt. The reason it's an issue, and the reason people noiced it's happening, is because of empirical evidence. Cold hard facts! Google it and you will find many.

Also, greenland was not warmer and greener when it was discovered. It just so happened to be discovered in summer, when it was green.

The idea of Global Warming has nothing to do with economics. It is the greedy money grubbers who have ignored the issue, because fixing it costs money. It's unfortunate, but we either live with it and pay the price now. Or let it happen and pay much more later.


Yes, don't call names. There are better ways to handle it. :yep:

When you say 'yes' does that mean you are agreeing with Boris if so you have each called me an idiot because I have a different opinon on the subject than you.

Inappropriate!

[Konovalov]

Did you miss the "don't call names" bit that Neal wrote?

[Onkel Neal]

Did you miss the "don't call names" bit that Neal wrote?

Lol, maybe I should increase the font size :smug:

[waste gate]

Did you miss the "don't call names" bit that Neal wrote?

Lol, maybe I should increase the font size :smug:

Lol, be more objective. just because some believe the sky is falling doesn't mean everyone does.

Here is an idea. Let the EU cut all the human made emissions over the next ten years and the scientists can report on the effects. Certainly the population of Europe will make a measurable difference. After the report a decision can be made.

[Tchocky]

I'm confused. Barring active interference, how could action like emissions reductions & recycling do more damage than doing nothing?

@ waste gate - A large part of global warming involves increased weather extremes and volatility. It's putting the planet on speed rather than a sunbed.
I'm not sure what your second statement means.

Global warming is a misleading term. Climate change is more descriptive, although what is happening now is a definite rise in the average temperature of the planet. However, this doesnt mean that we'll all be sunbathing in Lapland any tiime soon. The rise in temperatures increasing global weather volatility, some of which is hot (drought in Australia) and some of which is cold (Upstate NY at the moment, the storms in Europe recently).

So it's getting warmer, but stormier too.

[waste gate]

I'm confused. Barring active interference, how could action like emissions reductions & recycling do more damage than doing nothing?

@ waste gate - A large part of global warming involves increased weather extremes and volatility. It's putting the planet on speed rather than a sunbed.
I'm not sure what your second statement means.

Global warming is a misleading term. Climate change is more descriptive, although what is happening now is a definite rise in the average temperature of the planet. However, this doesnt mean that we'll all be sunbathing in Lapland any tiime soon. The rise in temperatures increasing global weather volatility, some of which is hot (drought in Australia) and some of which is cold (Upstate NY at the moment, the storms in Europe recently).

So it's getting warmer, but stormier too.

[QUOTE]To my initial response regarding doing nothing I may have been vague. What we need is an unbiased cost/benefit analysis. Much like your response to the nuclear power response as to the transmission loss due to out of state nuclear power.

An off the head example would be; the farming industry will have to reduce the emissions from their harvesting equipment and still be able to provide food stuffs for the native population and send emergency aid to 'starving' nations in Africa or the Indian sub-continent, while continuing to pay for the things of life that will be affected by the increased cost home side.
QUOTE]

Can you respond to this?

[ASWnut101]

To all "Global Warming" belivers:

Please tell me why, way back in the ice-age, did the MASSIVE glaciers reaching down to where Kansas would be, melt? did the cavemen have SUV's and Jet Aircraft to pump CO and CO2 into the atmosphere?

[waste gate]

Another opinion, no less valid than a 'scientist's'. Opinion is opinion.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/adamo/print/02092007.htm

[Seth8530]

To all "Global Warming" belivers:

Please tell me why, way back in the ice-age, did the MASSIVE glaciers reaching down to where Kansas would be, melt? did the cavemen have SUV's and Jet Aircraft to pump CO and CO2 into the atmosphere?

That right thier is one of the best arguments against global warming one can find. But not nececairly the correct one or wrong one.

[Boris]

Yes, there is a natural fluctuation of climate change between ice ages and warm periods going back millions of years. Problem is we've just come out of an ice age, and it's getting warm way too early and far too quickly. The same type of temperature rise we've seen over the past couple of hundred, should be happening over thousands of years.

[sunvalleyslim]

Boris I love your picture man,
Let's say we start a factory and build us some subs......Probably have to go nuclear so we don't harm the world... But hey the world will be 90% water. We can go anywhere..........And what better skippers than the guys right here

[peterloo]

so what do yall think? Is it phoney bologni, or is it real deal. Are we going to burn a hole is our o zone with cfc, or are they to heavy to get up there. Are we going to smother in co2 from our own machines, or could this all be "the inconvienent lie"

YALL DECIDE!

I'm afraid that its real... Go to wikipedia and you will see those horrible figures... White House probably related to the covering up of this, hoping that they industrial outputs are not affected or cut (in order to reduce emission of CO2)

However, you should also ask the Australian guys... They have just suffered... Next time, it might be YOU...

[bradclark1]

Billionaire Offers $25M Prize to Fight 'Warming'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020900693.html

[flintlock]

Another opinion, no less valid than a 'scientist's'. Opinion is opinion.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/adamo/print/02092007.htm Honestly, you can't be serious...can you?

Why should one care what agencies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or what gifted scientists with an impressive track record of a life's work in this field, report? Why bother with the opinion of accredited scientists with PhDs in environmental geology and environmental science, with many cumulative years of laborius and meticulous work within this field, have to offer -- when by your rationale, young Billy's opinion, who's flipping burgers at a local fast food joint, is no less valid?

Scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming. Perhaps they're onto something? Don't we owe it ourselves and others to do some intelligent research into this?

[August]

Scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming. Perhaps they're onto something? Don't we owe it ourselves and others to do some intelligent research into this?

There is no consensus as far as I can tell although both sides of the debate will try to tell you there is (and that their side is right).

As for research, there is plenty being done by both sides. The problem is how much of it can be believed.

The pro human caused global warming camp seems quite willing to make wild claims because it means their research teams continue to get funded. The anti human caused global warming camp are accused by the pros as selling out to the government.

So who can we believe here?

[ASWnut101]

Yes, there is a natural fluctuation of climate change between ice ages and warm periods going back millions of years. Problem is we've just come out of an ice age, and it's getting warm way too early and far too quickly. The same type of temperature rise we've seen over the past couple of hundred, should be happening over thousands of years.

Well, seeing that the last ice age was 20,000 years ago... or is that not enough?

[Mush Martin]

In somewhat more practicle terms.

whether or not you believe in global warming

(which by definition is the increasing mean temperature worldwide
and climate change is a different thing all together that is effected
by this global change. so dont substitute
what you dont understand research it)

or whether you dont

this planet is doomed and we have to leave,
whatever cause anoxic atmosphere nuclear war global warming
meteor strike plague of frogs doesnt matter

the only way you can beat a supernova is to be elsewhere
wouldnt it be a more efficient use of resources if we
started the spore tower now. early in the game.

MM:|\\

[Seth8530]

In somewhat more practicle terms.

whether or not you believe in global warming

(which by definition is the increasing mean temperature worldwide
and climate change is a different thing all together that is effected
by this global change. so dont substitute
what you dont understand research it)

or whether you dont

this planet is doomed and we have to leave,
whatever cause anoxic atmosphere nuclear war global warming
meteor strike plague of frogs doesnt matter

the only way you can beat a supernova is to be elsewhere
wouldnt it be a more efficient use of resources if we
started the spore tower now. early in the game.

MM:|\\

Thats the spirtit! Mars shall beceome tattoine and earth Nalhutta

[Bort]

Having taken a very technical class on this very issue recently in school, I thought I might toss in my own two cents. I came into the class thinking that global warming is a done deal, definitely a problem, and I Left much the same, but with a greater appreciation for the complexities of the issue as well as the uncertainties that surround it. All sorts of scientists, politicians, pundits, businessmen, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers have weighed in with their own facts and opinions about it and I think the most important thing to consider about any analysis is who's making it and those coming down in denial of global warming are, by and large with some notable exceptions, those with interests that will be adversely impacted by measures to combat it. The bottom line is that right now we have no way to absolutely and definitively prove or disprove global warmings existence, although the preponderance of the evidence points in favor of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. My stance, better to be safe than sorry.:roll:

[Boris]

That's one of the ironies of the whole problem. Some say it's difficult to prove, and others say we should act yesterday, and there's no time to wait and see.

Personally I don't see what is so unclear about the whole thing. What is unclear is exactly how much of an impact human climate change will have. But what should be crystal clear is that we have infact damaged our atmosphere somewhat.

The gasseous makeup of our current atmosphere is different to that of 50, and in turn of 100 years ago. There are now more greenhouse gasses than before, and this is easily measurable. A natural process? Unfortunately not... at least for the most part.

Carbon dioxide is to trees and plants, what oxygen is to us. When plants photosynthesise (breathe it in, in our terms), they remove the carbon from the atmosphere, setting free the O2, which most should regognise as oxygen. If the plants are doing their job, there should'nt be an atmosphereic increase in CO2.

The fact that there are slightly less trees than there were a couple of hundred years ago only has a minor effect on this. This can be fixed again by planting more, and letting them trap the carbon again.

The real problem is fossil fuels. Fossil fuel is so called, because it really is that old. Fossil fuel is the reamains of organic matter trapped millions of years ago. But we happenend to find out that coal und oil make awesome energy.

So what is happening, is that we are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that is not naturally supposed to be there. It was meant to stay underground.

So it is only logical that the atmosphere has chnged since we started using fossil fuels.
It is also known that the carbon dioxide gas given off traps heat.

So I don't understand in this regard, how global warming can be unclear.

I think most scientists agree on global warming, because given what we've done, it must be happeing. The real issue is, is how bad it's going to affect us, and that is where the experts don't agree.

[STEED]

Game over let's all get drunk. :()1:

[U-533]

Its just the cycles the earth goes through...

Somebody has just figured out away to make money off of it. I call it "Environmental Terrorism".

:sunny:

[Boris]

Did you read my posts or do you just choose to be ignorant?

[geetrue]

Settle down Boris ... you made a very good post. A lot of good points were in your post. For example:

The real problem is fossil fuels. Fossil fuel is so called, because it really is that old. Fossil fuel is the reamains of organic matter trapped millions of years ago. But we happenend to find out that coal und oil make awesome energy.

So what is happening, is that we are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that is not naturally supposed to be there. It was meant to stay underground.

You hit the nail on the head, but what can we do about it? Notice the huge oil profits USA has made in the last year alone, but even the general public would get mad if they started spending to reduce emissions ... due to the fact that the cost would be passed on to the general public so they could retain their huge profits.

What do they do with all of that money anyway ... to be a profit they have already taken out their overhead, right?

Ask Singapore what the problem is and they will tell you as soon as they can see to read their paper again. The entire city is wrapped up in smog ... the smog is like a magnifying glass for the sun ... resulting in global warming. Just a theory of course. :yep:

[waste gate]

Desperation is the chief cause for this campaign of intimidation. The Kyoto accords are failing to curtail greenhouse gas emissions in a serious way, and although it is convenient to blame Bush, anyone who follows the Kyoto evasions of the Europeans knows better. The Chinese will soon eclipse the United States as world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, depriving the gas-rationers of one of their favorite sticks for beating up Americans. The economics of steep, near-term emissions cuts are forbidding--though that's one consensus the climate crusaders ignore. Robert Samuelson nailed it in his syndicated column last week: "Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution."

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/275tmktp.asp

[Boris]

Great, so we're stuffed :-?

[AJ!]

Of course we are stuffed....

America has been so arrogant about global warming up until recently. I loved Bushs comment that it "wouldnt be a good deal for america" to cut back on its CO2 emissions.

Sadly now that america is finaly thinking about pulling its finger out, China is pouring out immense amounts of pollution and is apparantly going to be out polluting the US in a few years.

China also seems to have no interest in cutting back on its emmisions and will keep growing.

The UK and europe have been trying to combat this issue for some time now but sadly as long as the superpowers like China and US keep up their output we are about to hit the peek of no return :nope:

[waste gate]

Great, so we're stuffed :-?

We all die, it's not an 'if' question, it's a 'when' question.
based on the global warming argument the human race will end in a whimper instead of a bang. Some, those watching the doomsday clock, would consider that a good thing.

[waste gate]

Of course we are stuffed....

America has been so arrogant about global warming up until recently. I loved Bushs comment that it "wouldnt be a good deal for america" to cut back on its CO2 emissions.

Sadly now that america is finaly thinking about pulling its finger out, China is pouring out immense amounts of pollution and is apparantly going to be out polluting the US in a few years.

China also seems to have no interest in cutting back on its emmisions and will keep growing.

The UK and europe have been trying to combat this issue for some time now but sadly as long as the superpowers like China and US keep up their output we are about to hit the peek of no return :nope:


I see you are still using electricity. You contribute to the problem. How is that for an inconvenient truth?

[AJ!]

Of course we are stuffed....

America has been so arrogant about global warming up until recently. I loved Bushs comment that it "wouldnt be a good deal for america" to cut back on its CO2 emissions.

Sadly now that america is finaly thinking about pulling its finger out, China is pouring out immense amounts of pollution and is apparantly going to be out polluting the US in a few years.

China also seems to have no interest in cutting back on its emmisions and will keep growing.

The UK and europe have been trying to combat this issue for some time now but sadly as long as the superpowers like China and US keep up their output we are about to hit the peek of no return :nope:

I see you are still using electricity. You contribute to the problem. How is that for an inconvenient truth?

Theres no doubt that the UK still contributes... i never said it didnt. We still have cars pumping out CO2 and loads of other polluting factors. Point is we are trying to change this... Car manufacturing companies have been give a deadline to cut down at least 20% emissions on their products in the next few years. there are taxes on 4x4s and new products being produced which create less and less pollution.

America on the other hand is still in no possition to cut back. cars like the H2 are rediculos gas guzzlers and its industry is bleeding the planet of resources then pumping the leftovers into the environment.

To say america is not the major problem in the global warming crisis is just stupid.....

[waste gate]

Of course we are stuffed....

America has been so arrogant about global warming up until recently. I loved Bushs comment that it "wouldnt be a good deal for america" to cut back on its CO2 emissions.

Sadly now that america is finaly thinking about pulling its finger out, China is pouring out immense amounts of pollution and is apparantly going to be out polluting the US in a few years.

China also seems to have no interest in cutting back on its emmisions and will keep growing.

The UK and europe have been trying to combat this issue for some time now but sadly as long as the superpowers like China and US keep up their output we are about to hit the peek of no return :nope:

I see you are still using electricity. You contribute to the problem. How is that for an inconvenient truth?

Theres no doubt that the UK still contributes... i never said it didnt. We still have cars pumping out CO2 and loads of other polluting factors. Point is we are trying to change this... Car manufacturing companies have been give a deadline to cut down at least 20% emissions on their products in the next few years. there are taxes on 4x4s and new products being produced which create less and less pollution.

America on the other hand is still in no possition to cut back. cars like the H2 are rediculos gas guzzlers and its industry is bleeding the planet of resources then pumping the leftovers into the environment.

To say america is not the major problem in the global warming crisis is just stupid.....

Only if you contribute global warming to human activity. I have yet to be convinced. Mars is warming also.

PS when I say 'you' I don't mean the UK, I mean you personally. If you feel so strongly then perhaps you are willing to make a sacrafice?

[AJ!]

Of course we are stuffed....

America has been so arrogant about global warming up until recently. I loved Bushs comment that it "wouldnt be a good deal for america" to cut back on its CO2 emissions.

Sadly now that america is finaly thinking about pulling its finger out, China is pouring out immense amounts of pollution and is apparantly going to be out polluting the US in a few years.

China also seems to have no interest in cutting back on its emmisions and will keep growing.

The UK and europe have been trying to combat this issue for some time now but sadly as long as the superpowers like China and US keep up their output we are about to hit the peek of no return :nope:

I see you are still using electricity. You contribute to the problem. How is that for an inconvenient truth?
Theres no doubt that the UK still contributes... i never said it didnt. We still have cars pumping out CO2 and loads of other polluting factors. Point is we are trying to change this... Car manufacturing companies have been give a deadline to cut down at least 20% emissions on their products in the next few years. there are taxes on 4x4s and new products being produced which create less and less pollution.

America on the other hand is still in no possition to cut back. cars like the H2 are rediculos gas guzzlers and its industry is bleeding the planet of resources then pumping the leftovers into the environment.

To say america is not the major problem in the global warming crisis is just stupid.....
Only if you contribute global warming to human activity. I have yet to be convinced. Mars is warming also.

Those martian Tripods dont run on pixi dust you know :rotfl:

[STEED]

Great, so we're stuffed :-?

Help we're all going to die. :eek:

[Mush Martin]

My turn, didnt you guysread my posts
action is how we fight despair
but we arent really looking
at the big picture when we
focus on a small issue like
life altering global climate change.
its time to leave now that
we are capable of concieving it.
after that all planets will be
disposable.

MM

[U-533]

I once stood in downtown Jacksonville Florida and listened to a man and three women rant and rave about how Humans are the cause of Global Warming and pollution of the seas and air and soil. They spoke of cutting back the populace of the world to save Mother earth and to avoid her retaliations against humanity.They gave their solutions for the problems of OVERPOPULATION. I walked up to the man who was speaking at the time pulled my Colt Python from under my vest and handed it to him. I said " There are 5 Bullets in that pistol. There are 4 of you folks and one of me...do the math."

Im not sure how many people believe the way these individuals believe... but I for one wish they would start with themselves.

[waste gate]

“The world is undergoing a wonderful change, and we should stop trying to convince the believers that this change is natural - part of the cycle of our planet - and should instead begin to speak of the glorious future ahead. Is the planet warming? Yes! It has been either cooling or warming in cycles for many millions of years. Does mankind have anything to do with this? No, but if some want to believe it, then we should make the case that everything we can do to accelerate global warming should be done.


If the globe warms a few degrees, the benefits for mankind and for the environment will be enormous. The earth’s population is increasing fast - not in the modern industrial nations and not so much in the demographic giants of China and India - but the population is growing fast in areas which are becoming overcrowded.


Global warming will largely solve the problem of inadequate space. Canada, the second largest nation in the world, has enough land to house several entire nations if there were only enough warmth. Russia, the largest nation in the world, has even more land which can be used for people - and the demographic trend of Russia is slow or declining, so Russia will not be filling up those open lands with Russians. Global warming, and the unfreezing of these virgin lands will create an enormous amount of hope for billions of our planets peoples who are now trapped in poor, overcrowded and unproductive lands.


Huge areas of the world that are currently uninhabitable will become inhabitable. The poor will be the beneficiaries, and they will not only gain materially but psychically from the pride of ownership of land. The congestion of cities - one of the biggest social and health problems of our age - will end as people from crowded, nasty, ugly coastal cities move to open farmland and countryside, in touch with nature and living a free and independent life.


One of the most serious problems facing the growing population of the world is an adequate amount of freshwater. Global warming is a tremendous boon to mankind (and to wildlife) in solving this problem: seventy-five percent of the freshwater of our planet is now trapped in glaciers and ice caps, and our technology is insufficient to melt those. Global warming, however, will do that in a slow, predictable way. Pure, clean and abundant water - one of the most precious and essential resources of the healthy and happy lives of all people - we will soon have in increasingly happy amounts.


In fact, we may have enough freshwater that desert areas currently uninhabitable may be able to bloom again. How many problems in the Middle East would be solved if the deserts of Sahara, Arabia and elsewhere were blooming gardens of fruit, flora and grain? How many people could leave the urban hotbeds of radical hatred and instead farm a plot of what had been the Saharan Desert on his own farm?


As the sea rises, some cities will have to rearrange their structures, but that is hardly a calamity. Does anyone really believe that our coastal cities could not be made better and prettier? In fact, the very “problem” of rising waters could lead to some of the best changes in our coastal urban areas. New Orleans has long been below sea level. Some of the most exquisite cities in history - Venice, Stockholm, Amsterdam - are built essentially on water. Far from “destroying” New York or Los Angeles, a long term and well planned construction project to provide for the cities being above the waters can, if we simply wish it, turn ugly urban blight into beautiful cities filled with nature and natural “blue belts” replacing artificial “green belts.”


Warmth is energy. Global warming will, quite naturally, increase the amount of alternative energy available to mankind. The need for heating will decline. The melting ice caps and glaciers will provide vast opportunities for centuries of hydroelectric power. The radiant heat of the warmer earth will be able to be converted directly into useable power, and just when our technology is finding more and more effective ways to derive energy directly from heat.


The environment will be better as well. The number of trees on earth will increase as the glacial areas of our planet recede. Trees are natural purifiers of our air, and we will all breath cleaner and fresher air as global warming enriches our lives. The water will become purer as well, because the water in the melting ice caps is much more pure than our rivers and lakes today.


What can we do to hurry this new edonic age? We should begin by doing all in our meager power to help the planet warm. Repeal all wrong-headed treaties, statutes and regulations which were intended to stop global warming and encourage that behavior which helps warm the planet. Can any of us alone do much to make this happen? Probably not. But we owe it to the planet, to our children, and to the environment to do all we can to hasten global warming. “

[Seth8530]

That was a superb post, i have never thought of all that. Excellent man!

[Tchocky]

Sarcasm, waste_gate? I can't tell

[Seth8530]

If it is its some of the best sarcasm ever and makes perfect sence:lurk:

[ReallyDedPoet]

Sarcasm, waste_gate? I can't tell

Wondering the same thing?

[bradclark1]

“The world is undergoing a wonderful change, and we should stop trying to convince the believers that this change is natural - part of the cycle of our planet - and should instead begin to speak of the glorious future ahead.
Pollution is a problem. The U.S. government has admitted global warming is man made.
The writer is looking through rose colored glasses to make it how he wants. What he has failed to mention anything about is the shift of arable lands to lands of drought. Look at how long the American midwest has been shifting from steady rainfall to drought for more than ten years. The writer assumes or wishes that the uninhabitable lands will become Garden of Eden's and and the now habitable lands stay habitable. I think thats a whole lot of wishful thinking.

[geetrue]

You have to scroll down, but this is a very interesting article about global warming solutions ...
You wouldn't believe where I found it unless you go there.

Estonian Wind Farm at Russian Nuke Base

http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2193/html/energy.htm (http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2193/html/energy.htm)

[Tchocky]

If it is its some of the best sarcasm ever and makes perfect sence:lurk:

My favourite part is where rising sea levels create more arable land..................

[Oberon]

Wow, that is the best piece of writing since the "Peace in our time" treaty at Munich! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Haven't laughed so much in ages, Waste gate, where d'ya get this stuff? Some humour site on the net?

[waste gate]

Certainly governments can save the human race. No. Human endeavor does that. For millenia man has adapted to and changed his enviroment. Its the far sighted who save the rest of the gloom and doomers. Why cant my previous post not be the vision? Why must some always point to what is wrong with mankind instead of looking toward the challenge and say 'yes we can'. (remember the little engine that could?)

BTW fresh water is the elixor of life. More fresh water means more arable land, even in a warmer climate. Human imagination and hard work is all it takes to bring baren deserts to full bloom.

EDIT: If it were not for men of vision we would not have running water, electricity, computers or this forum.

EDIT 2: You may not like this but there is a great deal of money to be made if the dire global warming predictions are true and if you think in the positive instead of the negative. Above all don't allow government to dictate the path!!!

EDIT 3: Everyone of you who believe in the global warming because of humans scenerio need to turn off all power to your homes. If you post on this thread or any other your arguments are hypocritical. How can you ask others to make sacrifices for the globe if you are not willing to make the sacrafice first?

[Ducimus]

I personally think global warming is real. I used to think it was alot of left wing Hippi treehugging BS, but over the years ive changed my mind. The evidence and signs are all around us. The problem is many people obstinatly refuse to beleive it. I love it when people point to cold weather as "proof" that global warming is hogwash.

The fact that some areas are getting colder then normal weather IS proof of global warming. In layman's terms, there's two major ocean currents that act is sort of a circulation system. The gulf stream and north atlantic dift, they are responsible for the weather many areas traditionally experience. As the ice caps melt, it throws these circulation systems out of whack with colder water entering this system, resulting in a temperature drop because its not circulating the warmer currents like it used to.

[August]

I personally think global warming is real. I used to think it was alot of left wing Hippi treehugging BS, but over the years ive changed my mind. The evidence and signs are all around us. The problem is many people obstinatly refuse to beleive it. I love it when people point to cold weather as "proof" that global warming is hogwash.

The fact that some areas are getting colder then normal weather IS proof of global warming. In layman's terms, there's two major ocean currents that act is sort of a circulation system. The gulf stream and north atlantic dift, they are responsible for the weather many areas traditionally experience. As the ice caps melt, it throws these circulation systems out of whack with colder water entering this system, resulting in a temperature drop because its not circulating the warmer currents like it used to.

I don't anyone believes that climate change isn't happening Ducimus. The argument is what effect is man having on it and whether we can, or should try to reverse it and what that would mean for our quality of life.

[Ducimus]

Well, i was responding to the OP. And yes, there are many people who dont' beleive it. You should hear my grandfather on this issue. WOW.

Again, personnally, i don't think we'll do anything about it because of right wing politic's. By the time even they concede that something should be done, it will be too late. I find solice im adopting the same selfish stance as alot of people do..... "ill be dead by then, so it won't matter". Although, a climate shift could concievablyh appen in my lifetime, but ill be one foot in the grave by then anyway, so again, it wont matter.

That's not to say i dont want to do anything about it. I think for starters we need to stop using fossil fuel. Much to the arab words dismay im sure :lol:

[waste gate]

Well, i was responding to the OP. And yes, there are many people who dont' beleive it. You should hear my grandfather on this issue. WOW.

Again, personnally, i don't think we'll do anything about it because of right wing politic's. By the time even they concede that something should be done, it will be too late. I find solice im adopting the same selfish stance as alot of people do..... "ill be dead by then, so it won't matter". Although, a climate shift could concievablyh appen in my lifetime, but ill be one foot in the grave by then anyway, so again, it wont matter.

That's not to say i dont want to do anything about it. I think for starters we need to stop using fossil fuel. Much to the arab words dismay im sure :lol:

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil. If you are not willing to do those things don't ask anyone else to make the sacrafice you are not willing to make.

I for one do not believe that human activity has anything to do with any warming so I will continue to use electricity, drive my car and live in the 21st century.

I challenge you to have the courage of your convictions.

[waste gate]

Of course we are stuffed....

America has been so arrogant about global warming up until recently. I loved Bushs comment that it "wouldnt be a good deal for america" to cut back on its CO2 emissions.

Sadly now that america is finaly thinking about pulling its finger out, China is pouring out immense amounts of pollution and is apparantly going to be out polluting the US in a few years.

China also seems to have no interest in cutting back on its emmisions and will keep growing.

The UK and europe have been trying to combat this issue for some time now but sadly as long as the superpowers like China and US keep up their output we are about to hit the peek of no return :nope:

I see you are still using electricity. You contribute to the problem. How is that for an inconvenient truth?
Theres no doubt that the UK still contributes... i never said it didnt. We still have cars pumping out CO2 and loads of other polluting factors. Point is we are trying to change this... Car manufacturing companies have been give a deadline to cut down at least 20% emissions on their products in the next few years. there are taxes on 4x4s and new products being produced which create less and less pollution.

America on the other hand is still in no possition to cut back. cars like the H2 are rediculos gas guzzlers and its industry is bleeding the planet of resources then pumping the leftovers into the environment.

To say america is not the major problem in the global warming crisis is just stupid.....
Only if you contribute global warming to human activity. I have yet to be convinced. Mars is warming also.

Those martian Tripods dont run on pixi dust you know :rotfl:

I see you don't have the courage of your convictions.

[Tchocky]

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil. If you are not willing to do those things don't ask anyone else to make the sacrafice you are not willing to make.

It's not a binary decision, waste gate. Sustainable development means acheiving all the goals that you can, without decreasing the quality of life for future generations. There's a certain amount of carbon/nitrous oxide/general pollution that the planet can take. To work against human-induced climate change doesnt have to require total abandonment of a modern lifestyle, just some widespread changes.

You can "challenge you to have the courage of your convictions" all you want, but please dont make absurd statements.

[waste gate]

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil. If you are not willing to do those things don't ask anyone else to make the sacrafice you are not willing to make.

It's not a binary decision, waste gate. Sustainable development means acheiving all the goals that you can, without decreasing the quality of life for future generations. There's a certain amount of carbon/nitrous oxide/general pollution that the planet can take. To work against human-induced climate change doesnt have to require total abandonment of a modern lifestyle, just some widespread changes.

You can "challenge you to have the courage of your convictions" all you want, but please dont make absurd statements.

So you don't really believe your own position. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Take the first step.

[Tchocky]

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil. If you are not willing to do those things don't ask anyone else to make the sacrafice you are not willing to make.

It's not a binary decision, waste gate. Sustainable development means acheiving all the goals that you can, without decreasing the quality of life for future generations. There's a certain amount of carbon/nitrous oxide/general pollution that the planet can take. To work against human-induced climate change doesnt have to require total abandonment of a modern lifestyle, just some widespread changes.

You can "challenge you to have the courage of your convictions" all you want, but please dont make absurd statements.

So you don't really believe your own position. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Take the first step.

Maybe less yoda-posturing and a little more explication?

[waste gate]

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil. If you are not willing to do those things don't ask anyone else to make the sacrafice you are not willing to make.

It's not a binary decision, waste gate. Sustainable development means acheiving all the goals that you can, without decreasing the quality of life for future generations. There's a certain amount of carbon/nitrous oxide/general pollution that the planet can take. To work against human-induced climate change doesnt have to require total abandonment of a modern lifestyle, just some widespread changes.

You can "challenge you to have the courage of your convictions" all you want, but please dont make absurd statements.

So you don't really believe your own position. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Take the first step.

Maybe less yoda-posturing and a little more explication?

Your not a stupid man you know exactly what I'm saying. If you are not willing to make sacrafices for what you believe you have no ground to stand on.

I for one will be looking for opportunities in the climate change, not the doom and gloom. Currently Haliburton is a good bet.

[Tchocky]

You are positing that to believe humankind is causing global warming necessitates giving up transport, electricity, home heating.

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil. If you are not willing to do those things don't ask anyone else to make the sacrafice you are not willing to make.
I see you are still using electricity. You contribute to the problem. How is that for an inconvenient truth?
EDIT 3: Everyone of you who believe in the global warming because of humans scenerio need to turn off all power to your homes. If you post on this thread or any other your arguments are hypocritical. How can you ask others to make sacrifices for the globe if you are not willing to make the sacrafice first?

^This^ is all rubbish. How dare you breathe, we need that oxygen etc etc I could go on all day.

If you are not willing to make sacrafices for what you believe you have no ground to stand on.
Um, ok. Where did I say that I'm not willing, or indeed that I'm not currently doing my part?

[Ducimus]

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil.
..

I challenge you to have the courage of your convictions.

First part. That is some of the most ignorant **** i've ever had the misfortune of reading. Ever hear of a little word called "INFRASTRUCTURE"?

Second part.
Shut up. Don't EVER challenge that to me. EVER! Something about a 7 years Time in Service makes me take that comment VERY personnaly.

[August]

You can stop using fossil fuels tomorrow my friend. Call your power company and cancell your service. Do not use your automobile or any conveyance which uses electricity or fuel oil.
..

I challenge you to have the courage of your convictions.
First part. That is some of the most ignorant **** i've ever had the misfortune of reading. Ever hear of a little word called "INFRASTRUCTURE"?

Second part.
Shut up. Don't EVER challenge that to me. EVER! Something about a 7 years Time in Service makes me take that comment VERY personnaly.

First, get off your high horse Man. You aren't the only vet here and even if you were that gives you absolutely no right to tell anyone to shut up.

Secondly, tossing out a word like infrastructure out means absolutely nothing.

The US alone has a land mass of 3,539,224 sq miles. What infrastructure is going to cover that area? What infrastructure is going to reduce (sufficiently) the needs of 6.5 billion people to the point that global warming is reversed or at least stabilized? Assuming of course global warming has anything to do with human activity at all?

[Ducimus]

edit:

modding myself.

This crap just aint worth having an anerisum over. Screw this place.

[CCIP]

Whoa, whoa!

That said... I agree with Ducimius.

On the other hand, why spew the "challenges" when I don't think anyone here would think that anyone plans to throw out modern technology. I have yet to hear anyone but ultra-green extremists argue for something like that.

But I don't see something like cutting down on fossil fuels, promoting energy efficiency, and giving up on excess wasting of resources as unreasonable. Hell, you can challenge me all you like and I'll say I'm living my ideal - never in my life have I over-consumed or wasted energy; I'm quite fine using public transport, being a very modest buyer-of-things, eating little meat, and if I ever get a car - it'll be a smart and economical little thing built for the purpose of getting a bloke like me from A to B, just what 99% of people need them for.

Noone on the left of the spectrum (and you can't get further left than me) argues
for some severe banning of consumption, but rather against unreasonable waste. I know what you'll say - wasting is a right. But don't rights come with responsibilities? Eh?

[Oberon]

Fine, fair does, you carry on what you're doing, let the sea levels rise, I mean, who really cares about Eastern England and Holland, eh? And all those little islands in the Carribbean? Naaah, it doesn't matter, we'll be alright.

And all the refugees from the equatorial regions? No problems, we need someone to dig all these swimming pools, install all those air con units.
The crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we can just export from another country...their crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we'll just have to have meat, never mind those tree hugging veggies.

Wow...the hurricanes are powerful this season, but never mind....we didn't really want Houston anyway...and the Midwest? Naah...we can do without it, besides, all that dust and desert condictions...not good for my tan.

So...yeah, roll on climate change!! I'll be sitting in my cave far up Everest where the weather should be just about habitable for my children.

[The Avon Lady]

I found the following question posed to 3 professionals in this week's Businessweek Magazine:
QUESTION OF THE WEEK

A new UN report on global warming states with 90% certainty that human activity is the culprit. As a skeptic about policies to cut CO2 emissions, what's your response?

ANSWERS

"The report had nothing to lead me to change my view that global warming cannot, at this stage, be distinguished from natural, unforced internal variability. The 'certainties' are bogus."
- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT

"Saying that humans have a significant role in the warming is like saying there's gambling in Las Vegas. What can you do about it? A lot of politically possible solutions will do less than nothing."
- Patrick Michaels, environmental sciences professor, University of Virginia

"Yes, humans have caused the earth to be slightly warmer, but much less than the report says. many natural forces are not accounted for. I'd make a big bet that in the next 5 to 10 years the globe will start to cool."
I have no particular opinion regarding who is right. There are credible professionals on all sides. However, my personal opinion in such cases of doubt is to side with what overall would be best for everyone. Reducing polution, using resources more efficiently and the political benefits of reducing the use of fossil fuels is good for everybody, except maybe for the Saudis. :smug:

[August]

Whoa, whoa!

That said... I agree with Ducimius.

On the other hand, why spew the "challenges" when I don't think anyone here would think that anyone plans to throw out modern technology. I have yet to hear anyone but ultra-green extremists argue for something like that.

But I don't see something like cutting down on fossil fuels, promoting energy efficiency, and giving up on excess wasting of resources as unreasonable. Hell, you can challenge me all you like and I'll say I'm living my ideal - never in my life have I over-consumed or wasted energy; I'm quite fine using public transport, being a very modest buyer-of-things, eating little meat, and if I ever get a car - it'll be a smart and economical little thing built for the purpose of getting a bloke like me from A to B, just what 99% of people need them for.

Noone on the left of the spectrum (and you can't get further left than me) argues
for some severe banning of consumption, but rather against unreasonable waste. I know what you'll say - wasting is a right. But don't rights come with responsibilities? Eh?

Heh, I got you beat. I walk to and from work... :D

Seriously though, while it will never be eliminated completely people waste considerably less than they used to. Even the so called gas guzzling SUVs are much cleaner and more fuel efficient than earlier models.

[Captain Nemo]

The UK amongst others is trying to persuade other countries to tackle climate change, however I wonder if it is a wasted effort given that rapidly emerging economies such as China plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, opening at a rate of one per week, adding to some 2,000 power stations, that produce carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Against this, I feel it would be more prudent for Governments to put more resources in to ways to combat the resulting effects of climate change rather than to try and change the views and the way that other countries produce energy, which in the end might ultimately fail.

I also agree with earlier posts that in the UK the Government will use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes.

Nemo

[August]

Fine, fair does, you carry on what you're doing, let the sea levels rise, I mean, who really cares about Eastern England and Holland, eh? And all those little islands in the Carribbean? Naaah, it doesn't matter, we'll be alright.

And all the refugees from the equatorial regions? No problems, we need someone to dig all these swimming pools, install all those air con units.
The crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we can just export from another country...their crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we'll just have to have meat, never mind those tree hugging veggies.

Wow...the hurricanes are powerful this season, but never mind....we didn't really want Houston anyway...and the Midwest? Naah...we can do without it, besides, all that dust and desert condictions...not good for my tan.

So...yeah, roll on climate change!! I'll be sitting in my cave far up Everest where the weather should be just about habitable for my children.

So if we do manage to reverse what could very well be a natural global warming cycle and accidentally trigger an ice age, which scientists were claiming we were going into as recently as the 1970s, how do you think jolly old England will fare then?

[The Avon Lady]

So if we do manage to reverse what could very well be a natural global warming cycle and accidentally trigger an ice age, which scientists were claiming we were going into as recently as the 1970s, how do you think jolly old England will fare then?
No more warm beer. :D

Always look at the bright side of life.

[Oberon]

Fine, fair does, you carry on what you're doing, let the sea levels rise, I mean, who really cares about Eastern England and Holland, eh? And all those little islands in the Carribbean? Naaah, it doesn't matter, we'll be alright.

And all the refugees from the equatorial regions? No problems, we need someone to dig all these swimming pools, install all those air con units.
The crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we can just export from another country...their crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we'll just have to have meat, never mind those tree hugging veggies.

Wow...the hurricanes are powerful this season, but never mind....we didn't really want Houston anyway...and the Midwest? Naah...we can do without it, besides, all that dust and desert condictions...not good for my tan.

So...yeah, roll on climate change!! I'll be sitting in my cave far up Everest where the weather should be just about habitable for my children.

So if we do manage to reverse what could very well be a natural global warming cycle and accidentally trigger an ice age, which scientists were claiming we were going into as recently as the 1970s, how do you think jolly old England will fare then?

We'll put on another woollen jumper :know:

Lol, well, maybe thirty years ago, nowadays, we declare a national emergancy when two inches of snow fall :damn:

Still, it's a tricky thing, I think I'm with the Avon Lady on this one, err on the side of caution. :|\\

[August]

So if we do manage to reverse what could very well be a natural global warming cycle and accidentally trigger an ice age, which scientists were claiming we were going into as recently as the 1970s, how do you think jolly old England will fare then? No more warm beer. :D

Always look at the bright side of life.

Hey I own three pairs of snowshoes. You won't find me complaining about a few snowflakes.... :D

[bradclark1]

Hey I own three pairs of snowshoes. You won't find me complaining about a few snowflakes.... :D
You'll be able to use them when you wake up tomorrow.:)

[August]

Hey I own three pairs of snowshoes. You won't find me complaining about a few snowflakes.... :D You'll be able to use them when you wake up tomorrow.:)

Man I sure hope so. If school is cancelled I'll get a whole day to work on my new curriculum without students bugging me.

[tycho102]

Well, I pretty much agree with Avon Lady as far as "global warming".

We've been drawing on coal, natural gas, and oil for 200+ years. Before that, it was all wood. Wood is from the surface, of course. The Brazilians (and every other S.A. nation) are tearing down rainforest to plant either soy beans or sugar cane. Soy beans go to "biodiesel", typically the European market. Their own reliance on sugar cane is actually very minimal. There is a lot of illegal clearing done which the Brazilians just do not have the army/police to control.

I am unsure of the extent that mankind plays, in a manner similar to the "ozone hole". The hole isn't there year round -- it comes and goes, and it's position and size changes.

What does rattle the fillings in my teeth is oceanic carbon-dioxide saturation. The oceans trap a huge amount of carbon dioxide, simply because the gas goes into solution. There are previously unseen "black" areas in the worlds oceans, where the localized oxygen has been depleted. They are not static, and currents eventually bring fresh water and oxygen, but it is something that simply hasn't been recorded before. Could be runoff from fertilizers, could be a little of both. I don't really know, but I do know that oceanic CO2 saturation concerns me to an extent that "global warming" does not.

However, regardless of everything, I want us off oil. Jihad oil to be specific, but might as well go the whole way than do a half-arsed job of it. If going around wanking about global warming and the Koyoto Protocol and fundies gets us off oil, then I say go for it. Get the signs and the VW bus and head down to the NAFTA and WHO conventions. My agenda just calls for us to get off oil. If we've got to run twenty busloads of nuns right off a cliff, then baby, load up the busses. Just burn some frankincense and myrrh and tell them to take their rosaries (<< "black" joke, but not so "black" joke because people really are going to die in the course of moving our economy off oil).

[waste gate]

http://www.benyami.org/Proof%20of%20global%20warming.jpg

[Penelope_Grey]

The thing I remember most is that in geological terms the last ice age only ended a fortnight ago. So to my mind, We're still cool. Check the pun there.

In my opinion Global Warming is sort of necessary, because if it gets too hot, we all die, if it gets too cold, we all die, so you gotta strike the right balance. My brother feels that fuel for cars is probably the biggest threat to the enviroment going, and I agree with him. Consider how many cars there are in the world like!

Course we need cars, so thats that. But there has to be more enviromentally friendly ways to help the earth, but, I honestly don't wanna freeze.

[malkuth74]

The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.


Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.


Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.



Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."




Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...06fef8763c6&k=0 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0)

[ASWnut101]

Talk about a way to BUMP up an old thread!:o

Although, those are some good graphs below.

[malkuth74]

http://www.clearlight.com/%7Emhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/CO2_0-2000_yrs.gif



http://www.clearlight.com/%7Emhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-2000_yrs.gif


http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_2000_yrs.html (http://www.clearlight.com/%7Emhieb/WVFossils/last_2000_yrs.html)

[THE_MASK]

Just 15 years ago i had a log fire in my old house and it was always cool in winter (27deg south) and now for the last 10 years i wouldnt even bother having a log fire . Unusually low rainfall for a subtropical climate to match .:yep:

[STEED]

I also agree with earlier posts that in the UK the Government will use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes.
Nemo
The Green Tax is here. :damn: stand by for the raise. :damn: :damn:
Budget day coming but don't panic to much it's Browns last one, so he is hardly going too put the sting on us all.

As for global warming there are no real answers while world leaders and scientist's fart around talking and producing reports for and against global warming, this will go on and on. My advice get on with your life and live it to the full.

[bradclark1]

This is always good for a laugh. Kind of.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml

[The Avon Lady]

This is always good for a laugh. Kind of.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml
Read beyond the hyped headline. Dissed? Dismissed? What exactly did Bush say, other than the single quoted 9 word sentence?

[bradclark1]

............
President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment.

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued — that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.

But it suggests nothing beyond voluntary action by industry for dealing with the so-called "greenhouse" gases, the program Bush advocated in rejecting a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 calling for mandatory reduction of those gases by industrial nations.

"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

[Boris]

Here's another graph taken from data in Hawaii:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/6.jpg

But as Nir Shariv says, even if CO2 plays only a small part, pollution is still bad. I'm not sure if an astrophysicist is qualified to comment on climate change though. The problem with global warming denial, is that it gives license to pollute, thinking there will be no consequences.

Here, a nice article on the science of global warming denial:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/

[malkuth74]

Here's another graph taken from data in Hawaii:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/6.jpg

But as Nir Shariv says, even if CO2 plays only a small part, pollution is still bad. I'm not sure if an astrophysicist is qualified to comment on climate change though. The problem with global warming denial, is that it gives license to pollute, thinking there will be no consequences.

Here, a nice article on the science of global warming denial:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/


Hawaii Is a bad place for Co2 data, for ovious reasons. Its like taking Co2 readings on mt st helan.

[ASWnut101]

Here's another graph taken from data in Hawaii:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/6.jpg


Ok, see what Malkuth74 wrote? Hawaii is a volcanic mountain chain.:yep:


But as Nir Shariv says, even if CO2 plays only a small part, pollution is still bad. I'm not sure if an astrophysicist is qualified to comment on climate change though. The problem with global warming denial, is that it gives license to pollute, thinking there will be no consequences.

What kind of consequenes?

Here, a nice article on the science of global warming denial:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/


:rotfl: :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

............
President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment.

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued — that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.

But it suggests nothing beyond voluntary action by industry for dealing with the so-called "greenhouse" gases, the program Bush advocated in rejecting a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 calling for mandatory reduction of those gases by industrial nations.

"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

You're in a loop, Brad. Look carefully - just one 9 word verbatim quote, from which no definite conclusions can be drawn.

Incidentally, this story is not being carried much by anyone. Did an appropriate [u]Yahoo News search and maybe this is buried several pages in. Not typical for a Bush-bashing news story. :hmm:

[Bort]

Ok, see what Malkuth74 wrote? Hawaii is a volcanic mountain chain.:yep:
There is an argument to be made there, although there are more sources of data than just those sensors. I'm not sure if the sensors on Hawaii are flawed or not, but there is some evidence to suggest that may be true. Dumb place to put them, maybe the scientists liked the idea of some surfing to go with their research?:lol:

[bradclark1]

Incidentally, this story is not being carried much by anyone. Did an appropriate [U]Yahoo News search and maybe this is buried several pages in. Not typical for a Bush-bashing news story. :hmm:
Who said it was a Bush bashing? I said it's kinda funny. To me it is anyway.
"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

Yep, I looked at it again and it still is kinda funny.:yep:
Maybe you did'nt get it. Bush is president, the present bureacracy is his. Get it? :doh:

[The Avon Lady]

Maybe you did'nt get it. Bush is president, the present bureacracy is his. Get it? :doh:
I'm not familiar with a government anywhere worldwide that doesn't have a bureaucacy, no matter who is president, prime minister or monarch at the time.

[bradclark1]

I'm not familiar with a government anywhere worldwide that doesn't have a bureaucacy, no matter who is president, prime minister or monarch at the time.
Come on AL. You're trying to make something out of nothing.:roll: If you can't see the humor in it, oh well.

[Skybird]

If humour is disputed, I can bring it to an end ;) :

There are many experts today that get payed by interested industrial businesses (cars,oil, energy) for just one job: casting doubt and discredit scientists that argue that there is climate change, that it is man-made, that it is coming at high costs for life on earth, and mankind. It is interesting that thinktanks that help to still spread such propaganda are always seem to have links to the politcal right and industrial conservatism, they get their money and funding from there. They are always seem to come from camps that have much to lose when today's economy and energy behavior would be made subject to tough changes.

One of the world's absolutely leading top adresses on climate research is the "Potsdam Institut für Klimaforschung", which nevertheless is relatively unknown to the wide public. It's an adress where even NASA sometimes knocks on the door to ask for advise. It's president 3 or 4 weeks ago became very angry on TV when reporting that "ridiculous sums" (talking of hundreds of millions) are being spentevery year by interested circles just to produce "counter-analysis" that discredits scientific data and findings that within the community of politically unambitioned experts from around the globe is undisputed since the better part of two decades now. But the scientific relevance of such propagandistic "examinations" and "data" is often nil, or is coming from extremely questionable sources - that often are already proven wrong. the amateur often does not know these links behind the surface. The man stressed that several times - the unbiased scientific community worldwide is united in it's agreement on assessing global climate changes since almost 20 years now. We talk about an overhwelming majority. The public nevertheless is being fooled by small lobbies that spend millions and millions for campaigns and personal attacks on leading experts in order to discredit them, so many people still think - and feel reasonable in that - that the situation is blackpainted and exaggerated by reports like the latest climate report by the UN. Scientific competence is replaced by loud yelling, and the one who shouts the loudest and most often, will win public opinion. Simple psychology.

The costs for national economies/societies to compensate for the increasing damages done by nature becoming rougher in intensity and frequency of desasters, are already to be felt and measured. The Gulf Stream has lost one quater in energy. Since years, the seasons are changing in quality of typical indices in many regions. the average global temperature has seen the by far fastest climb since several tens of thousand years, at least. The glaciers in the Alpes have almost died. the arctic is retreating, changing the suboceanic temperatures. The spreading of animal species currently is subject to immense changes. Climate-dependant deseases come to regions where they have not been found before. Desertification in Africa and southern europe races faster than ever. Floods in Asia are growing in frequncy and dimensions. Typhoons, hurricanes, Tornados - more of them, and stronger. Weather phenomenons that you have not seen in your place before suddenly pop up. Ground water levels are falling dangerously in many regions, both being a consequence of man'S doing, and causing consequences to the environment. Insurances see fast climbing costs caused by damages due to floodings, storms, avalanches. The fastest dying-ut of species since the era when the dinosaurs died.

One must be mercylessly determined not to see what is going on in order to question that something is going on. In other words: one needs to be a suicidal, dumb, total idiot.

It is argued that the costs for measures to adopt to climate change right now would be around 1% of the globes industrial profits. It is also said that not starting with that and paying for the damages that will be allowed unprepared that way in the coming decades will reach levels between 10 and 20% of global industries profits. Not checking how these numbers have been put together, simple reason tells me that the to-be-expected costs when not trying to adopt and becoming prepared for what is left to become prepared for, most likely will outclass the investements when trying to start adotping and preparing right now. We already have lost the better ammount of time that we had. We wasted it by not only doing nothing, but by pushing the harm that we did.

Even Americans have started to realise that it is becoming too expensive. Currently, Mercedes and Crysler are in a process of divorce (jajaja, I know it is not confirmed, but I tell you this is what it will end like, that marriage was a loser from the beginning). This is because Crysler simply does not sell as much cars as it would need to sell in order to stay competitive, not too mention to compensate the billions of investements Mercedes has done in recent years. Why? Because the engineers planned car types that simply do not sell as well anymore as they used to be in the past: SUV, and gasoline-thirsty megacars with monstrous engines. With surprise I red last week, that the market for such cars is slowly declining in the US. The engineers stayed with old habits, the German management gave it's nodding agreement to go on with that - and additionally to the said unspectacular quality of Crysler cars, they now sit on stocks of cars that do not sell as well anymore and do not have immediate blueprints for more economic alternatives on the table. One had invested in dinosaurs. Instead, both in america and germany, the clever Japanese cars steal the show and so far get away with it while we were sleeping too long. german car makers still believe that the premium segment is their future. they will not wake up until it is to late, I think. they lost in catalysator teczhnology against the French and Japanese, now they are in danger to loose contact to hybrid engine technology.

Practicing like this:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
does not help to raise the reputation of sceptical critics who still try to put in doubt that we need to conduct massive adjustments that will affect every single one of us.

It should tell us something that those scientists that authored the UN climate report, for example, alraedy mentioned it in the title and opening summary that they leave the decision building to the policy makers. whereas those "scientists" that attack such data demand to directly influence policy (in favour of conservative industrial practices), and demand data they do not like to be seen as biased, "uncorrected", in need of being checked again. And again. And again. Since years. Since decades. Of course, more data is needed, to. And more data. And more data. And much more, always, forever. Anything is welcomed if it helps to prevent coming to unwelcomed conclusions. Nevertheless the latter call the first "incompetent", "unrespectable", "questionable in their motives", "unbalanced", "being on crusades", "fanatical believers", "people wishing for doomsday". He who calls the loudest is right, that means. Correcting factors are demanded by such critics, that should dampen the "apocalyptic conclusions", measurements should be taken that help to find "an unbalanced and objective interpretation of data from examinations that still need to be conducted in the future". As if the data that is needed is not already there - since almost 20 years, Potsdam says, and I remember the thick report that I partially red while still being a schoolboy: "Global 2000. The report to the president". I did a project on that at school. That was during Reagan's term...!
Winning time for the old industrial establishment to spend the time on doing nothing - that is what it's about. Business as usual, enjoy the profits. I flew over parts of the IPCC report. Such diffamations that often are used by critics are not to be found in it, and public commentators who spend more time with it than I did also say the same.

As an essay in a German print magazine had pointed out, the situation reminds of the hate-filled attacks of religious fundamentalists against for example Darwin'S evolution theory, and in favour of creationist's view on things. In fact there are many personnel and financial links between these circles and many platforms functioning as critics to the reports on global climate change. Also, the global criticism very massively is influenced and funded by sources and institutions of or in the US. As that essay concluded, emotion and religious feelings that way are brought into debate to raise the heat and to shout even louder, intentionally. "Den anderen niederschreien", it is called in German, "to shout down the other". And where the latest report (by far not the first one, isn't it) limits itself to deal in argument and data, sentiments amongst critics are raising - who complain about "apocalypse-believing" in such reports and do not realise that what they are up against is scientific data and argument, while they themselves turn it into an emotional debate and a question of believing only those things that fit their own lobbyist agendas. It is not about questions of practical relevance - like with the debate about evolution theory, it is about a far more general, even religious world view, that is defended with as much bitterness and spiking emoptiuons, as religion always has been fought for. Data is only objective if it allows data contradicting it. Experts are only experts, if they surrender to arguments of climate sceptics. Opposing opinions are only true if they admit that they are wrong.

Well, the IPCC study has been done by 2500 scientific experts and 1250 contributing authors from 130 countries over 6 years. See if the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, or the American Enterprise Institute, both with their highly biased agendas and links to American Corporations, conservatives and religious right-wingers, can rival that.

Who is attacking demands for climate protection the loudest? The OPEC, for it sees the financial basis of it's existence in danger if oil sales would drop. America, for it's heavy industry is aged and would desperately need modernization that would cost immense ammounts of money to make it competetive again and ecology-friendly, and countries like India and China, both with booming industries of the old orthodox design, who do not want to stop in the middle of the process of becoming economic superpowers. Interests are revealing.

What it comes down to is this: Even if by wonder and miracle all harmful emissions worldwide would be brought to zero from one day to the next, the harmful processes we monitor in the atmosphere right now would continue at the same pace for another 30-60 years, with the same self-dynamic that is present in them right now. That is caused by the longevity of the chemical agents we talk about. that means that the situation will detoriate over that ammount of time, causing maybe new independant variables that additionally project new effects, even beyond that time frame. The world in the end phase of that climatic transition without doubt will be a very, very different one than that that we know now. The trends will go on. - But we do not debate reductions on global emissions. We do not even speak about a freezing of emissions on their current levels. We simply talk about a small reduction in the speed by which we additonally raise emission rates! And even that is already too much for nations like the US, and some others. What would be needed is not only to stop the way we do, but to actively intervene in efforts and attempts to repair the damage that has been done. and that is probbaly beyond both willingness and competence of man.

Draw your conclusions. It's human megalomania - the craving for everlasting, unlimited growth.

In a physically limited environment! :lol:

[ASWnut101]

Algore's movie producing energy habits: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Algore's home energy useage questioned: http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382/1321/MTCN06


:rotfl: :rotfl:

[August]

Algore's movie producing energy habits: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Algore's home energy useage questioned: http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382/1321/MTCN06


:rotfl: :rotfl:

Now there's an inconvenient truth....

[waste gate]

Algore's movie producing energy habits: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Algore's home energy useage questioned: http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382/1321/MTCN06


:rotfl: :rotfl:

I've heard that Algore is asking for a BTU recount.

[flintlock]

In related news: Major polar study set for launch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6406735.stm)

[Wim Libaers]

Who is attacking demands for climate protection the loudest? The OPEC, for it sees the financial basis of it's existence in danger if oil sales would drop. America, for it's heavy industry is aged and would desperately need modernization that would cost immense ammounts of money to make it competetive again and ecology-friendly, and countries like India and China, both with booming industries of the old orthodox design, who do not want to stop in the middle of the process of becoming economic superpowers. Interests are revealing.

What it comes down to is this: Even if by wonder and miracle all harmful emissions worldwide would be brought to zero from one day to the next, the harmful processes we monitor in the atmosphere right now would continue at the same pace for another 30-60 years, with the same self-dynamic that is present in them right now. That is caused by the longevity of the chemical agents we talk about. that means that the situation will detoriate over that ammount of time, causing maybe new independant variables that additionally project new effects, even beyond that time frame. The world in the end phase of that climatic transition without doubt will be a very, very different one than that that we know now. The trends will go on. - But we do not debate reductions on global emissions. We do not even speak about a freezing of emissions on their current levels. We simply talk about a small reduction in the speed by which we additonally raise emission rates! And even that is already too much for nations like the US, and some others. What would be needed is not only to stop the way we do, but to actively intervene in efforts and attempts to repair the damage that has been done. and that is probbaly beyond both willingness and competence of man.

Draw your conclusions. It's human megalomania - the craving for everlasting, unlimited growth.

In a physically limited environment! :lol:

Well, you mention the important factors opposing reductions. It looks like they will not change, so perhaps reductions in consumption are a bad idea? If some countries reduce their consumption, what happens? They harm their economy, and the oil they aren't burning will be consumed by others who will benefit more. The better strategy might be to plan for possible problems with global warming, but just keep consuming oil as required until better alternatives appear.

Unilateral reductions would just penalize the good guys and reward the bad guys, if one can describe it in such admittedly simplistic terms. (of course, in the end, everybody loses, but the good guys would lose more, earlier. The unregulated commons at work link (http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/sotp/commons.dtl))

Also keep in mind that several factors are involved in climate change, and CO2 is the most intensively studied. While it is significant, there might be some others that matter too, and would be even harder to stop (e.g. solar changes). It's nice to want to prevent global warming, but one has to consider that, perhaps, there's not much that can be done about it and resources are better spent trying to deal with the consequences.

[waste gate]

Well isn't this special!


Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists. "In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

[August]

If global warming on Earth is caused by human activity then how come Mars is also experiencing global warming?

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

Could global warming on both planets be the result of increased solar output?

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469608,00.html

[Skybird]

If global warming on Earth is caused by human activity then how come Mars is also experiencing global warming?

On Pluto there are no human industries, and thus it is icy cold.
On Earth there is human industry, and it becomes warmer and warmer.

Don't you see the pattern? ;)

Sorry, only adopting to the niveau in that argument of yours.

Desperately seeing even the most abstruse excuses not to see man as the causing origin of Earth's warming, eh? See what I wrote in the long topic somehwere above. But okay, we will forever disagree on this.

[August]

If global warming on Earth is caused by human activity then how come Mars is also experiencing global warming?
On Pluto there are no human industries, and thus it is icy cold.
On Earth there is human industry, and it becomes warmer and warmer.

Don't you see the pattern? ;)

Sorry, only adopting to the niveau in that argument of yours.

Desperately seeing even the most abstruse excuses not to see man as the causing origin of Earth's warming, eh? See what I wrote in the long topic somehwere above. But okay, we will forever disagree on this.

You meant obtuse? If you're going to use insult as a weapon against global warming perhaps you ought first to learn to spell.

Seriously Skybird, I only asked a question based on an article I had just read on the subject and your very weak attempt to ridicule the messenger instead of discussing the merits of the argument only shows that if anyone is being obtuse here it is you.

To me your post illustrates the the main problem with the human caused global warming camp. To your side anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you must either be in the pay of big oil or fooled by their evil propaganda. Sorry, but that is not a scientific argument.

So just in case you have gotten it out of your system perhaps you could explain to this big oil lackey how the sun could be causing Mars to warm but not warm Earth.

[The Avon Lady]

There are many experts today that get payed by interested industrial businesses (cars,oil, energy) for just one job: casting doubt and discredit scientists that argue that there is climate change, that it is man-made, that it is coming at high costs for life on earth, and mankind.
Are the 17,000 verified professionals signed on this petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm) on the take?

[kiwi_2005]

I hired out that Movie The Inconvienant Truth (SP) on friday last and was blown away by it. If hes correct then major flooding of cities are gonna happen within the next 50yrs - unless we act now.

[Skybird]

[
You meant obtuse?
No I meant "abstruse", correctly written and spelled as I did. Check your dictionary. Mine is Collins-Langenscheidt: A-B-S-T-R-U-S-E. From the German word "abstrus". Any questions?

Concerning the rest of your post, you performed exactly the way that I criticised way above - and then accuse me of doing what you do.

If it is not sun activity, then it would be solar winds, cosimic radiation, near comets braking earth rotation so that the atmosphere gets mixed a bit slower and thus warms easier. It would be anything, but that human emissions cause the feelable, seeable, perceivable, recognizable massive weather changes decisively - of course every other explanation is more reasonable than this one.

and we are wasting time becasue of this tactic to delay: years and decades because this endless, endless attempts to prevent anything that could change the usual business, and this method hides between appearing to be reasonable, logical, understandable. It will cost us and our children dearly.

And when they ask us why we did not act just in time, since we had so very very much time when the first signs showed up, what will we say, then? What will you say? "We needed more scientific data", maybe?

There is a buddhist parable, I have quoted it before over the years, but I quote it again, since it matches human life so very often. A villager is shot, is hit by a poisened arrow. Other villagers run to him to help. but he starts shouting and send them awqy and reject them to pull the arrof out of his shoulder. He says: "Fiorst I want to know, what kind of pöision it is, and what kind of wood the arrow is made of. Tell me who the shooter is, where he shot from, and over what distance. Tell me about his bow, and tell me why he did it. I want to know about the people who sent him, too." And while he asks the many questions, he dies of the poison.

Pulling out the arrow first would have been the more reasonable choice, one should think.

Before you and me die, we will see nations waging wars - not for oil, but for sweet water.

[Skybird]

There are many experts today that get payed by interested industrial businesses (cars,oil, energy) for just one job: casting doubt and discredit scientists that argue that there is climate change, that it is man-made, that it is coming at high costs for life on earth, and mankind.
Are the 17,000 verified professionals signed on this petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm) on the take?
Quote: "To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. "

Petition closed. I am not willing to waste any more time on such pseudo-sciences anymore, if the agenda of the initiator is that obvious. This is a prime example of the attempts of interested lobbies to spread doubt and prevent action by spending ridiculous sums on shaking public opinion.

And to shatter what is left of the reputation of this ridiculous petiton thing (based on highly suspicious non-academical papers from 1997!), see here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine


Funding: In its IRS Form 990 for 1999, OISM reported revenues totalling $355,224, most of in the form of contributions from unspecified sources
(...)
Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wall_Street_Journal) editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz)/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.
(...)
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Academy_of_Sciences), which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Research&action=edit), which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)
(...)
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher.
(...)
"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Raymond_Pierrehumbert&action=edit), a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=F._Sherwood_Rowland&action=edit), an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."
(...)
Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chuck_Hagel) called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty.
(...)
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science
(...)
Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth. The Greening Earth Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greening_Earth_Society), a front group of the Western Fuels Association (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association&action=edit), has produced a video, titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth Continues," publishes a newsletter called the World Climate Report (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Climate_Report&action=edit), and works closely with a group called the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio xide_and_Global_Change).

Must we continue with this ridiculous "petition"...? I close with quoting myself:

One of the world's absolutely leading top adresses on climate research is the "Potsdam Institut für Klimaforschung", which nevertheless is relatively unknown to the wide public. It's an adress where even NASA sometimes knocks on the door to ask for advise. It's president 3 or 4 weeks ago became very angry on TV when reporting that "ridiculous sums" (talking of hundreds of millions) are being spentevery year by interested circles just to produce "counter-analysis" that discredits scientific data and findings that within the community of politically unambitioned experts from around the globe is undisputed since the better part of two decades now. But the scientific relevance of such propagandistic "examinations" and "data" is often nil, or is coming from extremely questionable sources - that often are already proven wrong. the amateur often does not know these links behind the surface.
the word to keep in mind is : "politically unambitioned experts".

[Wim Libaers]

the word to keep in mind is : "politically unambitioned experts".

Which, unfortunately, doesn't mean much in politically "hot" topics, as the people who ARE politically ambitioned are going to decide which of those politically unambitioned experts are going to get funding, and which projects will be funded.

[August]

If it is not sun activity, then it would be solar winds, cosimic radiation, near comets braking earth rotation so that the atmosphere gets mixed a bit slower and thus warms easier. It would be anything, but that human emissions cause the feelable, seeable, perceivable, recognizable massive weather changes decisively - of course every other explanation is more reasonable than this one.

Whereas you my fine German friend belong to the camp that feels it HAS to be human activity and are willing to automatically disparage all evidence to the contrary as well as label anyone who doesn't toe your party line as being in the pay of the evil industrialists.

All I asked was whether a warming sun, which is what NASA thinks is heating up Mars, could also be what was causing global warming on Earth, but you don't even want to hear it because it gets in the way of your pet theory. That is the mark of a fanatic and listening to them is rarely a good idea.

[ASWnut101]

I have yet to be explained how a gas which IS HEAVIER than air can get caught in the upper atmosphere...CO2 my butt...:nope:

[Skybird]

If it is not sun activity, then it would be solar winds, cosimic radiation, near comets braking earth rotation so that the atmosphere gets mixed a bit slower and thus warms easier. It would be anything, but that human emissions cause the feelable, seeable, perceivable, recognizable massive weather changes decisively - of course every other explanation is more reasonable than this one.

Whereas you my fine German friend belong to the camp that feels it HAS to be human activity and are willing to automatically disparage all evidence to the contrary as well as label anyone who doesn't toe your party line as being in the pay of the evil industrialists.

All I asked was whether a warming sun, which is what NASA thinks is heating up Mars, could also be what was causing global warming on Earth, but you don't even want to hear it because it gets in the way of your pet theory. That is the mark of a fanatic and listening to them is rarely a good idea.
I have heared of that theory you refer to, too. I also remember that that theory DOES NOT want or attempt to question that human emissions nevertheless are the primary cause for the drastic warming of Earth'S climate, and that sun activity may add around 10-30% to this process. It also says that this increase in sun activity, caused by certain nuclear processes, seem to be a regular phenomenon, taking place every 62-65 million years (nice we happen to live in this rare time window, it gives our economies a nice excuse) Some even mention that the hole solar system may be affected by this. Which does not mean that a measurable effect is also a perceivable effect on the outer planets.

However, there is also massive doubt on this theory, especially concerning Mars. Critics say the data seem to be misinterpreted and ignoring the characteristics of Mars's climate and season (Mars year is only half as long as Earth year). They also argue that the fluctuating in polar ice caps can easier be explained and understood as a local, not a global phenomenon, and give their reasons for that argument. Again, Mar'S atmosphere cannot be compared to Earth'S atmosphere, same is true for it'S seasons.

All in all the clear majority of what i found about it on german sites agrees that the Mars theory (on increased sun actvivity) may essentially be true, but nevertheless it's conclusions may be exaggerated in that way that they cannot wash away the much more likely, imminent and obvious explanation of methan, CO2 and other agents being the major cause for earth's global warming - which already is taking place at a speed and pace that is unique since the time of the dinosaurs. It is therefore simple reason to assume that the coincidence between huiman activity, and this climate pohenomenon is not by random chance.

As I said above, and as that president from Potsdam Institute also said, there is wide, global consencus amongst scientists that are not directly engaged with this or that politcal or economical lobby, that human emissions are the primary cause for global warming. Since a very long time.

In how far increased sun activity should be an argument not to take efforts to reduce global pollution and adopt our living ways and economies to global warming, escapes me. It will take place nevertheless. It would be clever to do our best to adopt, and not to help speeding it up further.

I do not advocate the Un report becasue it is from the UN. I think it has some weight, becasue so many scientists that are better qualified in the concernign fields than those victims in AL's petition joke, from around the globe, from institutions independently working from each other, contributed to it - the UN was only the bureaucratical initiator. And even in the title the say that they do wish to leave the implementations of accordng consequences to the policy-makers. It may be true that many universities are under pressure to give up pure research in favour of applicational research(? anwendungsoprientierte Forschung), and that they must also accept economy's jobs given to them in order to financially survive. However, at least in Germany, not all their time and money is spend for the latter, and our system not letting universities directly dpeend on private and business hands leaves them some sovereignity over a good ammount of time and effort which they can spend on pure research that is not interferred by lobbying. And that gives such institutions th eedge over thinktanks and governmental institutions which necessarily are more or less running the agenda of those that give them their finacial funding.

The UN report wasn't the first scientific report to spell a clear warning, btw. By far it was not. It's just the latest in a long row. and it does not simply feel that it has to be human activity cuasing wamring, it concludes it on the basis of data. Which is something very different than saying of somebody that he is in a camp that "feels that it must be human activity".

but every exycuse, every campaign, every true or untrue theory of even minor importance for excusing human pollution of the planet is welcomed and acceptable to prevent actions now, and prevent changing the profit-rich interest structures of economies as they are currently run. but the report makes a simple math: the measurements to save what is left to be saved, that means: to adopt (not to prevent - that is no longer possible, they conclude), would cost the global economy 1% of it'S yearly profits. The costs of not startzing to prepare now but repair the damages being done my a nature that brakes loose, will be in the range of 10-20% of the economies' yearly profits. This will be threatening to the financial intergity of even the highest developed nations.

Not to mention that we talk of the death of hundreds of millions that need to face this "mother" nature with nothing more than their bare hands.

conclusuons: solar actiivty is all nice and well, but in no way it can be an excuse to abandon the understanding of man's emissions and pollutions being the major and decisive factor for global warming.

BTW, they have corrected the to.-be-expected range of temperatur eincrease from 2.5- 4°C to now up to a "likely" 6.5°C, and the same science docu I refer to, on German TV Thursday, also showed that the melting of the core ice in the inner regions of the arctic is taking place with much more speed and pace than previously expected. "We are stunned and horrified to see how incredibly sensible the arctic system reacts to the global chnages", one scientist said. "the ice disappears much faster in the centre of the arctic contiennt, than anyone would have dared to think before." - Unshaken optimists dared to call it "just a relocation of some ice plates."

[August]

Oh I see now that i called you on it you finally respond with something more than derision. I guess we'll just have to disagree but I promise the next time I go up to the cabin in my SUV i'll build a bonfire and eat a plate of beans in your honor Sky... :up:

[U-533]

I have yet to be explained how a gas which IS HEAVIER than air can get caught in the upper atmosphere...CO2 my butt...:nope:

NO NO no... Methane its methane that comes out your butt... well I guess some CO2 also but...


We should be careful here the next thing you know the EPA will have all of us to capture all gasses that exit our behinds just to keep us at an even temperature.

Beans and cabbage anyone????
:rotfl: :rotfl:
:sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

[turnerg]

I don't know who's complaining about global warming here.... its cold in DC!:arrgh!:


And greetings after a long time, Skybird!

[The Avon Lady]

I don't know who's complaining about global warming here.... its cold in DC!:arrgh!:
You must be experiencing a blast from the past (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf). :roll:

[waste gate]

I don't know who's complaining about global warming here.... its cold in DC!:arrgh!:
You must be experiencing a blast from the past (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf). :roll:

It certainly sounds familiar. The only difference between then and now is which end of the thermometer is being looked at. And back then the scientists weren't paid enough to say that human activity causes the change.

[waste gate]

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.


http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_docume ntary

[ASWnut101]

I have yet to be explained how a gas which IS HEAVIER than air can get caught in the upper atmosphere...CO2 my butt...:nope:

NO NO no... Methane its methane that comes out your butt... well I guess some CO2 also but...


We should be careful here the next thing you know the EPA will have all of us to capture all gasses that exit our behinds just to keep us at an even temperature.

Beans and cabbage anyone????
:rotfl: :rotfl:
:sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:


I didn't mean it that way!:p I know methane comes from there.....(what a lovely topic to discuss before dinner!).

[Skybird]

Rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere will at first help the plant world. Vegetation growth will be stronger and the planet will become greener. The absorption of CO2 by plant life will to a certain extent work against climate change, but not forever. "In the second half of the century terrestrial ecosystems will become a source of carbon which will then accelerate climate change," the IPCC report warns.
The ability of the world's oceans to absorb CO2 is also expected to be depleted by the end of the 21st century. By then they could begin to release greenhouse gases instead of absorbing them.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469608,00.html

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn. .
Does "ice falling from glaciers" also include the complete dissapearing of glaciers as we witness in the alpes and some areas in South America? there are many glaciers in the Alpes that a hundred years ago were up to 400 m thick - and now are gone - not only in summer.

A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

and on the reference to the co-founder of Greenpeace, he is about economic arguments and that of social justice:
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is shown saying: "Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but this is anti-human.
"They are saying the world’s poorest people should have the world’s most expensive form of form of energy – really saying they can’t have electricity."
what has social justice or unfair distribution of wealth to do with environmental questions, in this context?

I also want to point out that we would open a "poison box" if 6 billion people's families would all drive their own car and live the same industrialized life as Western people do. China and India, for example, already can sing a song of this.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461828,00.html

[The Avon Lady]

I have yet to be explained how a gas which IS HEAVIER than air can get caught in the upper atmosphere...CO2 my butt...:nope:

NO NO no... Methane its methane that comes out your butt... well I guess some CO2 also but...


We should be careful here the next thing you know the EPA will have all of us to capture all gasses that exit our behinds just to keep us at an even temperature.

Beans and cabbage anyone????
:rotfl: :rotfl:
:sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:
I didn't mean it that way!:p I know methane comes from there.....(what a lovely topic to discuss before dinner!).
You are all under arrest (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2019571.html)!

[ASWnut101]

:rotfl: Poor guy! I wonder if it was a "spur of the moment" thing or just a ginuine accident. Anyway, I guess I should take up that offer to move to the Falklands......oops, did I say that?:p

[Skybird]

Where is it, indeed?

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/missing-climate-action-report/

and a German blog quotes conservative Uber-Christian Jerry Falwell like this:

The problem is that global warming has become a trendy issue of limousine liberals and Hollywood elitists, and the media is promoting it as virtual, if not substantive, fact.
National Review Editor Rich Lowry recently reported: "Shock tactics inevitably mean simplifying in an area of unimaginable complexity. No one knows how to create a reliable model of the planet's climate, and inconvenient anomalies muddy the story line of the warming zealots. From 1940 to 1975, the global temperature fell even as CO2 emissions rose. Since 2001, global temperatures have only gone up a statistically insignificant 0.03 degrees Celsius. And in recent years, the oceans have actually gotten cooler."
In other words, there's no need to panic.
Further, there's no need for the Church of Jesus Christ to be wasting its time gullibly falling for all of this global warming hocus pocus. We need to give our total focus to the business of reaching this world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stop running down meaningless rabbit trails that get our focus off of our heavenly purpose.

Alles klar! :up:

God has given us a brain to think about our man-made problems, but he did not say that we have an obligation to use it... Maybe he lacked a bit of fantasy to imagine that his creation might not know what to do with a brain. Maybe Lemmingolympics: whose brain falls the deepest? :lol:

Reminds me of this movie about Rapa Nui, and the people of the Easter Islands. The people there built these huge stone heads on the beach, to please their gods. They destroy more and more of the forest protecting them from the wild sea winds in that process, and it's roots keeping the islands soil together is thinned out. More and more farmers and hunters get forced to stop their working and participate in helping to build these monuments instead. They start to suffer from starvation, rough weather. They start to die. The gods are angry. There is revolt in the air. The priests can save their power and privileges only when sealing the doom of all by pressing even further into the direction they are already marching at. So their priests tell them they must built even more monuments to tame the god's anger. More forest gets chopped down, and even less food is taken care for. Of the fruitable vegetation, more and more is destroyed. Until their people had died out, and their gods died along with them.

It's not much different today. There are other examples from history as well. Many examples. Those stone heads on the beach are reminders of a suicidal failure.

[The Avon Lady]

Kill the apostate (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)!

Kill the messenger (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)!

No, wait - this messenger (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)!

No, wait - this messenger (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)!

Or is it this messenger (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html)?

I know! Bush toasted the universe! :yep:

And Al Gore is one cool dude (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html)!
There are other examples from history as well. Many examples.
Like Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).

[August]

Reminds me of this movie about Rapa Nui, and the people of the Easter Islands. The people there built these huge stone heads on the beach, to please their gods. They destroy more and more of the forest protecting them from the wild sea winds in that process, and it's roots keeping the islands soil together is thinned out. More and more farmers and hunters get forced to stop their working and participate in helping to build these monuments instead. They start to suffer from starvation, rough weather. They start to die. The gods are angry. There is revolt in the air. The priests can save their power and privileges only when sealing the doom of all by pressing even further into the direction they are already marching at. So their priests tell them they must built even more monuments to tame the god's anger. More forest gets chopped down, and even less food is taken care for. Of the fruitable vegetation, more and more is destroyed. Until their people had died out, and their gods died along with them.

Great analogy. Only problem is that movie was pure speculation, not something you want to be basing your arguments on... :D

[August]

Kill the apostate (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)!

Kill the messenger (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)!

No, wait - this messenger (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)!

No, wait - this messenger (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)!

Or is it this messenger (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html)?

I know! Bush toasted the universe! :yep:

And Al Gore is one cool dude (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html)!
There are other examples from history as well. Many examples. Like Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).

Just so your post didn't get buried AL.

[Skybird]

reat analogy. Only problem is that movie was pure speculation, not something you want to be basing your arguments on... :D
You are right, I should have made that clearer instead of assuming that everybody knows the movie. It is some historians theory, not solid proven fact, yes. But I meant it to be understood as an analogy only anyway, like you said.

[August]

Kill the apostate (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)!

Kill the messenger (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)!

No, wait - this messenger (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)!

No, wait - this messenger (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)!

Or is it this messenger (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html)?

I know! Bush toasted the universe! :yep:

And Al Gore is one cool dude (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html)!
There are other examples from history as well. Many examples. Like Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).

I guess none of our forum "global warming caused by ebil humanz" experts want to tackle those dissenting opinions AL. After all they buck the party line...

[ASWnut101]

ahh, August, I doubt one will give you a Straight answer. Sometimes, people choose to ignore the truth.

[August]

ahh, August, I doubt one will give you a Straight answer. Sometimes, people choose to ignore the truth.

I didn't want or expect a straight answer but at least they could call the Nasa or National Geographic "oil company shills" like they do anyone else who bucks the politically approved theories on global warming causes...

As it is AL has seemed to shut them up so completely that you can hear tumble weeds bouncing through this thread.

[ASWnut101]

As it is AL has seemed to shut them up so completely that you can hear tumble weeds bouncing through this thread.


Maby for the better....

[Tchocky]

Warming on Triton, or Pluto, or Jupiter doesnt affect the argument on Earth so much. I'm no astronomer, nor am I a climatologist, but we've only been observing Pluto for what equates to three months of it's annual weather cycle. Planets/asteroids/moons differ. Jupiter is a gas giant that sends out twice as much heat as it receives from the sun, Pluto's year lasts 248 Earth years.
There's a phrase that involves apples and oranges which I might use.

I guess none of our forum "global warming caused by ebil humanz" experts want to tackle those dissenting opinions AL. After all they buck the party line... ahh, August, I doubt one will give you a Straight answer. Sometimes, people choose to ignore the truth.
Maybe the post would be easier to "tackle" if it didnt read like a news aggregator. Seriously, it's not really a post when the poster doesn't get involved. Expecting an answer, nevermind a straight one, is a bit much to ask when presented with a collection of hyperlinks.
Nice display of "what she said + pithy insult" though, guys.

[ASWnut101]

Nice Answer.

[The Avon Lady]

Seriously, it's not really a post when the poster doesn't get involved.
Y-e-h , r-i-g-h-t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

:roll:

[August]

Warming on Triton, or Pluto, or Jupiter doesnt affect the argument on Earth so much. I'm no astronomer, nor am I a climatologist, but we've only been observing Pluto for what equates to three months of it's annual weather cycle. Planets/asteroids/moons differ. Jupiter is a gas giant that sends out twice as much heat as it receives from the sun, Pluto's year lasts 248 Earth years.
There's a phrase that involves apples and oranges which I might use.
Add Mars to that list as well as this 2003 study:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

But hey, maybe all this has nothing to do with Earths global warming, it just seems to me that there is a pretty serious effort, mostly by non scientists, to attack the credibility of anyone who postulates that global warming might be caused by anything besides human activity and that smacks of politics with all the ulterior motives that it implies.

I'm old enough to remember a time when very similar people, again mostly non scientists, did the same things to those who believed we weren't headed into an ice age. Same tactics, same often unfounded accusations of payoffs and bias, same instant dismissal of opposing evidence. It's just way too familiar to me to take the current warming hysteria without a rather large grain of salt.

[quote]Nice display of "what she said + pithy insult" though, guys.[/quote

Thanks, I suppose, but what i said was not meant as an insult, but rather a challenge to those in this thread who have argued so forcefully for human activity as the cause of global warming. A challenge that, so far, no one has even attempted to meet and I think that silence means their arguments aren't as strong as they'd like us to believe.

[waste gate]

This is a long read so I posted the top nine. A link to the entire paper is at the end.

Fact 1 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor871754). Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal a Minoan Warm Period 1450-1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250-0 BC, the Mediaeval Warm Period 800-1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th Century Warm Period 1900-2010 AD.

Fact 2 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor874213). Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric concentrations are beneficial to plant growth, particularly in arid conditions. Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.

Fact 3 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor879485). The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval Warm Period, an era of great achievement in European civilisation. The recent warm period, 1976-2000, appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25-50 years could be a cool period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.

Fact 4 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor881217). The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions and current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976 to 2000. Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth, and thus determines average global temperatures, have failed.

Fact 5. (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor884572) The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control; that the science is settled and the debate is over; and that scientific sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised. These claims are an expression of hope, not of reality.

Fact 6 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor885992). Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for high temperatures, droughts, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels and retreating glaciers, and a decline in the polar bear population. They also blame anthropogenic CO2 for blizzards, unseasonable snow, freezing weather generally and for hurricanes, cyclones and other extreme weather events. There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.

Fact 7 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor887862). Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible impact on the earth's radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere. There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.

Fact 8 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor890897). 'Tropical' diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control practices.

Fact 9 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor893297). The decarbonisation of the world's economy would, if attempted, cause huge economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.

http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html

[Skybird]

@ WG
On the author Ray Evans and the Lavoisier group:

"Ray Evans is an office-holder - and apparent creator - of a string of Australian front groups. He is President of the HR Nicholls Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HR_Nicholls_Society), Secretary of the Bennelong Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bennelong_Society), Treasurer of the Samuel Griffith Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Samuel_Griffith_Society) and Secretary of, and main contact for, the Lavoisier Group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group).
Evans was Executive Officer at Western Mining Corporation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Mining_Corporation) (WMC) from 1982 until 2001, during which time he was a close associate of WMC CEO Hugh Morgan (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hugh_Morgan). "My role was to engage in the culture wars and provide him with feedback," Evans says of his work for Morgan.
Together with Morgan, he helped found the HR Nicholls Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HR_Nicholls_Society) in 1985.

The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptic) organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.
The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ray_Evans), then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Mining_Corporation) (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HR_Nicholls_Society) and the Bennelong Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bennelong_Society). Hugh Morgan (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hugh_Morgan), former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Business_Council_of_Australia) until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.
Lavoisier is a fairly small operation, with under 100 members and an annual budget of around $10,000. [1] (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html)
In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry."

The Bennelong Society is a small organisation formed to promote a conservative view of 'Aboriginal policy' in Australia. It was founded in 2000 at a follow-up workshop to earlier conferences on Aboriginal policy organised by Quadrant (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Quadrant).
The society states that it takes its name from "a famous Indigenous Australian –one of the Wangal people - who had a close relationship with the early colonists. Bennelong soon learned English and is known to have taught George Bass the local Indigenous language...He travelled with the Governor to England and was presented to King George III and returned to his country after three years away." [1] (http://www.bennelong.com.au/)
The society takes an assimilationist stance on Indigenous issues, and attempts to discredit the ideas behind land rights and self-determination. It's upcoming conference is called "Leaving Remote Communities". Past conferences have included "Celebrating Integration", and "From Seperatism to Self Respect".

The HR Nicholls Society is a small but well-connected organisation dedicated to reducing the power of unions and promoting industrial relations changes that benefit employers.
According to its website, it aims:

To promote discussion about the operation of industrial relations in Australia including the system of determining wages and other conditions of employment.
To promote the rule of law with respect to employers and employee organisations alike.
To promote reform of the current wage-fixing system.
To support the necessity for labour relations to be conducted in such a way as to promote economic development in Australia.Western Mining Corporation (WMC) is an Australia uranium mining corporation 100% owned by BHP Billiton (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BHP_Billiton). It runs the Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia. Western Mining Corporation has been an instrumental supporter of neoliberal groups in Australia. It has provided financial backing for the Centre for Independent Studies (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Centre_for_Independent_Studies) and the Institute of Public Affairs (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs). Former WMC executives Hugh Morgan (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hugh_Morgan) and Ray Evans (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ray_Evans), have founded and contributed to the Lavoisier Group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group), the Bennelong Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bennelong_Society), and the HR Nicholls Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HR_Nicholls_Society). "

All according links here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ray_Evans

The hit on the list with those nine points has been this, it really sent me laughing for one or two minutes:
Fact 8 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor890897). 'Tropical' diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control practices.

Mission accomplished! Climate as a key variable successfully anulled! there is no climate crisis, only lacking control practices! The world is saved!

Biology lessons at school, age 13 or 14, I think: pathogen insects for example (Krankheitsübertragende Insekten) prefer certain climate types, and avoid others. They react to moisture levels, and temperature levels. Science knows such a functionality as "intermittend variables". This link is especially well-observed and -researched with Malaria and mosquitos. the whole "argument" is absurd.


The rest of the nine points, despite the clever formulation that makes it easy to miss that some aspects are ignored that nevertheless are important, left me not much more impressed. Dialectic and rethoric replaces solid argument here. Nothing new on this front. I repeatedly said now what I think of this kind of scriptures. In other words (as I also already have repeated several times): it is about raising doubt per se, no matter how solid or weak the argument is at closer look.


@ August,

maybe others just refuse to play by your personal rules? "A challenge that, so far, no one has even attempted to meet and I think that silence means their arguments aren't as strong as they'd like us to believe." Nice attempt. Try again. If I do not refer to AL's links (not yours! so stop taking the stand of defending them as if they are your argument), then this is that took the refernce to eugenics a bit queer, and the others links left me unimprerssed, and partially I see them as of the same ammount of trustworthiness or/and relevance like the petition joke she already referred to. 17000 signatures! How impressive! just learn about the thing itself, and you know what to think of it. :lol:

H, just realised that nobody here found it worth to be remarked how weak that petition was. Not in complicnace witzh your agends? "I think that silence means their arguments aren't as strong as they'd like us to believe."

But this is a democracy. Feel free to call that "avoiding the point", and feel free to assume that there is no counter argument available.

Obviously some of you expect me to type long essays of 20+ pages again. No chance, that time is over. ;)

[August]

Yeah Sky, I'm sure that dissenting opinions from NASA and those published by the National Geographic leave you unimpressed, which to me is another way of saying that you have no rebuttal because we all know you would be publishing one of those 30 pagers you're famous for if you could.

Doesn't really matter I guess, but next time you demand people take you seriously I'll be here to remind you of this.

[Skybird]

Yeah Sky, I'm sure that dissenting opinions from NASA and those published by the National Geographic leave you unimpressed, which to me is another way of saying that you have no rebuttal because we all know you would be publishing one of those 30 pagers you're famous for if you could.

Doesn't really matter I guess, but next time you demand people take you seriously I'll be here to remind you of this.
Oh holy editor,
after having accepted and having let passed several extremely faulty "sources" and texts by others yourself in this thread (for they fit into your agenda), and ignored all criticism of these or their highly questionable origin (for this would not fit your agenda), after having accused me of doing like that (where in fact I have partly indepth, partly by a quick hint adressed these items), and after you have shown yourself being unable top come up with convincing references or arguments, while always, always expecting the other do dance to your "challenges", I see you in great need to better take care of your own stand first! ;)

BTW, great phrase, that "I am here waiting for you" thing - for a moment I was almost scared... But doesn't it become a bit repetitive over the years? I mean, it's not the first time you use a pharase like that. Reminds me of this:

http://www.conservativethinking.com/files/iwo-jima-memorial.jpg

Anyway, this thread is beyond it's natural age now.

Dammit. I again admitted defeat in argument by that comment... :rotfl:

[August]

Whatever.

[tycho102]

(http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor874213)Fact 7 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor887862). Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible impact on the earth's radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere. There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.


Unless we're cutting it down for biodiesel (soy beans; Brazil) and corporate development (google "eminent domain")? Plus carbon dioxide saturation of the oceans leading to hypoxic zones.


Fact 9 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor893297). The decarbonisation of the world's economy would, if attempted, cause huge economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.


Well, that's it, isn't it? The question is risk assessment. Will 50,000,000 Americans die because of civil strife in direct relation to a sudden gasoline/diesel disruption, or will it only be 10,000,000? 10,000?

We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. However, we only have about 140 refineries in the entire United States. Over 100 of those have completely different production cycles and product. A refinery that is built for light-crude will choke (literally, from secondary reactions) with 6% sulfur blends. Almost all of the northern refineries take light-sweet because the -10C temps cause problems with carbon chains above 10 (decane). Same goes for California, but for an entirely different reason -- air quality control. A 3-week "tiger team" does not refit a refinery for multi-distillate; they have a tough enough time keeping our 30 year old refineries running. If a refinery experiences a disruption in its designed feed, it takes a major overhaul to put in scrubbers and control lines to the distillation columns.


I think it's going to get rough. Hurricane Katrina rough -- all over the country, although rural areas will fare better than urban.

[waste gate]

Fact 7 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor887862). Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible impact on the earth's radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere. There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.


Unless we're cutting it down for biodiesel (soy beans; Brazil) and corporate development (google "eminent domain")? Plus carbon dioxide saturation of the oceans leading to hypoxic zones.


Fact 9 (http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html#anchor893297). The decarbonisation of the world's economy would, if attempted, cause huge economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.


Well, that's it, isn't it? The question is risk assessment. Will 50,000,000 Americans die because of civil strife in direct relation to a sudden gasoline/diesel disruption, or will it only be 10,000,000? 10,000?

We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. However, we only have about 140 refineries in the entire United States. Over 100 of those have completely different production cycles and product. A refinery that is built for light-crude will choke (literally, from secondary reactions) with 6% sulfur blends. Almost all of the northern refineries take light-sweet because the -10C temps cause problems with carbon chains above 10 (decane). Same goes for California, but for an entirely different reason -- air quality control. A 3-week "tiger team" does not refit a refinery for multi-distillate; they have a tough enough time keeping our 30 year old refineries running. If a refinery experiences a disruption in its designed feed, it takes a major overhaul to put in scrubbers and control lines to the distillation columns.


I think it's going to get rough. Hurricane Katrina rough -- all over the country, although rural areas will fare better than urban.

That is certainly one point. If your worst case of 50,000,000 Americans die because of civil strife in direct relation to a sudden gasoline/diesel disruption thats in the nieghborhood of 16.67% of the current population. That is in the US only. If we extrapulate the 16.67% over the entire planet what would that number look like, 1,097,048,194. That first number is one billion.

[The Avon Lady]

<sarcasm>

More of those pesky bought-off-by-big-oil scientists spewing their nonsense (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1173775379-4jGvUe9/j1aoUcvJdOk+lA) again.

Let's shut 'em up (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml), for earth's sake!

</sarcasm>

[Skybird]

White House tries to censor and silence climate critics from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U..S. Geological Survey:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150.html

NASA "dampening" it's expert personnels:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/national/25MOVI.html

Bush government uses chance of opportunity to go after Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/bush-targets-greenpeace

Fish and Wildlife Service regulations on a theme that is taboo:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/306820_bears09.html
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/library/FTApprovalPerham.PDF

Scientists offered cash to challenge climate change:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

And that is just a very minor portion of the related stories that were published during the last 3 years.

We could play this game for the rest of the week, my archive is full. But I fail to be attracted by this kind of playing.

I summarize from my memory: Bush has
- significantly softened up the Clean Air Act from 1970,
- lowered emission limits for older powerplants
- while endlessly delaying the second Clean Air Act that was meant to even tigthen the demands of the first. Scientists have repeatedly sued the WH for censoring or distorting vital parts of their related works, to make these works less objecting to the WH's policies
- Kyoto protocol has been decided against.
- At the same time decisions were made that are very pleasing for energy companies,
- reduced environmental protection,
- aimed at opening Alaska and the Arctic for industrial exploitation,
- launched the Clean Sky Initiative that is everything but that, that - if passed - helps to weaken and delay health protection of the oridnary public as is already required by American laws right now and allows mercury emissions to climb by three times, sulfur emissions by two times, and also a drastic climb in nitrogen oxygens compared to current levels, people will find it much more difficult to sue industries and energy companies for health probelsm they cause by their pollution,
- while at the same time it all does nothing to battle global warming;
- and last but not least a miscalculated war was launched to tighten control over the global oil flowing patterns.

Very big :hmm:

BTW, this refers to how the US military thinks about climate change.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

But that is coming from the same camp that helped Rumsfeld to transform the army the way he wanted, so maybe it is all wrong...

[ASWnut101]

This thread is still alive?:-?

[STEED]

This thread is still alive?:-?

KILL IT BOYS

http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/a1066.gif

[Tchocky]

Alive? Technically.

Recall Congress, we have a Code Schiavo

[STEED]

Face facts folks we are all screwed and it's far to late to do anything about it just move on and get on with your lives. :smug:

[ASWnut101]

Good Advice.

[Tchocky]

Bah! Getting on with our lives is what got us into this mess! :P

Lets follow the Germans to the moon, and farm rocks.

[STEED]

Bah! Getting on with our lives is what got us into this mess! :P

Lets follow the Germans to the moon, and farm rocks.

So what your saying is we should never have come down from the trees or even left the ocean all those millions of years ago. ;)

[TteFAboB]

The thread lives.

Shoot the denier! http://www.estadao.com.br/especial/global/noticias/2007/mar/16/242.htm

Professor Aziz Ab`Sáber contests the IPCC's conclusions and predictions for the Amazon. The IPPC report claimed that the Amazon will become a sort of desert. The Professor remembers that geological evidence points to the contrary, towards a phenomenon called "retropicalization".