31,000 US scientists sign petition against hydrocarbon caused Global Warming

[SUBMAN1]

Its about time that the 31,000 said something against the 7 or so that are hyping it up, since the 7 are in the pockets of the control crowd.

-S


Global Warming Grievance

Briefing | By Ben Giles | May 22, 2008

Over 31,000 United States scientists have signed a petition urging the U.S. government “to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.”


At the National Press Club here, Arthur B. Robinson, who led a team of scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in researching the hypothesis of the Kyoto Protocol, presented the petition and his research on the subject at a time when the United Nations and various political interest groups urge the U.S. government to take actions to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Robinson claims his research puts to rest the claim that increased emission of carbon dioxide and other gases are causing the simultaneous global rise in temperature.


“That is a general principle of logic: correlation does not prove causality,” said Robinson. “In this case, hydrocarbons don’t correlate with the temperature; the sun does.”


Robinson’s research does present solar activity as a possible cause of the rise in temperature. However, he is clear that his research in no way presents a culprit for the cause of rising temperatures; it only rebuts the Kyoto argument.


“There is nothing in the correlation that leads us to say it’s all the sun,” said Robinson, “but there is everything in the correlations to say that it isn’t hydrocarbons; they have no measurable factor."

The petition was, in fact, started 10 years earlier, when the Kyoto agreement was first signed by the U.S. government. Since then, the U.S. has refused to sign a ratification of the agreement that would allow the United Nations to monitor America’s output of greenhouse gas. The U.S. is currently the nation that emits the most greenhouse gases, the U.N. alleges.


Now Robinson has started the petition once more, at a time when support of the belief of human-caused global warming has increased in the mainstream media. Robinson mentioned Al Gore’s recent Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, as an example of the popular belief that greenhouse gas emissions are at fault for any climate change that has occurred. In presenting the petition, Robinson hopes to prove that a majority of scientists do not agree with the assumption.


Robinson contends that unlike the United Nations’ discussions in Kyoto, his research has been done in the proper manner dictated by the scientific community. Replies to inquiries of his petition have varied; Robinson would not detail how great the response was, but he noted that negative replies were simply “vulgar.”


“Not a single person, in email and so forth—including people who wrote me email saying I was crazy—has ever contested one of the facts in this paper,” said Robinson. “And I don’t think they can, because we’re very good at out jobs, we’re excellent scientists, and we have been reviewed carefully by brilliant people, and we reference every fact in the literature.”
Robinson added that no scientific paper he’s written has been retracted in the last 20 years.


The petition also argues that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have been beneficial to the environment. Robinson’s report outlines sharp increases in growth of forests in the United States and the Amazonian rain forests, arguably due to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions; trees respond well to carbon dioxide fertilization.


Despite providing alternative evidence to confront the mainstream beliefs about global warming, the petition is grounded in the fact that the hypothesis made in Kyoto, signed over 10 years ago, has failed, and to continue to take government action on the assumptions made at the conference would be irrational.


“I can’t imagine anyone with a background in science proceeding this way,” said Robinson, “where we have a political movement which wants to turn off the energy source that 85 percent of America is fueled by on the basis of a committee that got together to give an answer on a problem that is so far unsolved.”


Robinson reiterated the importance of continuing to advance U.S. capabilities in the use of hydrocarbons as an abundant and low-cost energy source.


“Are we really going to take away the human right to use energy, which is the currency of technology and progress; not only for the American people, but for the poor people around the world, on the basis of this nonsense? It’s just not right, and it’s certainly not science.”



http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/7654/alspolarbears1hw1.jpg
http://www.aim.org/briefing/global-warming-grievance/

[XabbaRus]

Nice try subman, just did some research on the Oregon Petition using OMG Wikipedia to get some quick info and some links (which of course discredits everything I'm going to write here in your view) and basically it is old news and although maybe not discredited fullstop are inconsitencies ie duplicate names etc, business as signatories. Also following on the on the author and what he is affilitated with ie the discovery Institute leads me to take the petition with a grain of salt.

Seems to be a case of having a theory and fitting the facts to prove it instead of looking at the facts and coming up with a theory to explain the facts.

[SUBMAN1]

Nice try subman, just did some research on the Oregon Petition using OMG Wikipedia to get some quick info and some links (which of course discredits everything I'm going to write here in your view) and basically it is old news and although maybe not discredited fullstop are inconsitencies ie duplicate names etc, business as signatories. Also following on the on the author and what he is affilitated with ie the discovery Institute leads me to take the petition with a grain of salt.

Seems to be a case of having a theory and fitting the facts to prove it instead of looking at the facts and coming up with a theory to explain the facts.Lets see, you are discrediting 31K signatures vs a few? So what if a few were duplicated? 31K people of stature, 9,000 with PhD's mind you, don't sign something like this without it being completely accurate. Maybe you missed this part:

“Not a single person, in email and so forth—including people who wrote me email saying I was crazy—has ever contested one of the facts in this paper,” said Robinson. “And I don’t think they can, because we’re very good at out jobs, we’re excellent scientists, and we have been reviewed carefully by brilliant people, and we reference every fact in the literature.”

Robinson added that no scientific paper he’s written has been retracted in the last 20 years.
And on top of all this, there are some other dramatic consequences of the Kyoto protocol as well, but that is best left to another thread.

And by the way, why wouldn't the discovery institute come to him if he can help them find what they are looking for? Duh!!! That type of argument means you can raise that doubt against everything!

One more thing to add to the fire - Global Warming is 'not a theory' since it has been debunked. It can't stand up to scrutiny.

Here is another reason why its BS:

“That is a general principle of logic: correlation does not prove causality,” said Robinson. “In this case, hydrocarbons don’t correlate with the temperature; the sun does.”
I like how we have conversations around here where you say everything in this article is BUNK becuase some guy worked on a project for some other guy? Nice try.

-S

PS. Just a clue - he never said he had a theory. His simply discredited the GW theory since its not based on Science. This is how real science works. Excuse me, i should have called GW a hypothesis since it was never proven with fact.

[Skybird]

Nice try subman, just did some research on the Oregon Petition using OMG Wikipedia to get some quick info and some links (which of course discredits everything I'm going to write here in your view) and basically it is old news and although maybe not discredited fullstop are inconsitencies ie duplicate names etc, business as signatories. Also following on the on the author and what he is affilitated with ie the discovery Institute leads me to take the petition with a grain of salt.

Seems to be a case of having a theory and fitting the facts to prove it instead of looking at the facts and coming up with a theory to explain the facts.

I can already imagine what nonsens is being repeated here by just seeing the headline. i can also assume that once again it is "Accuray in Media" being the centre to which is being referred, and from where it originally has been started back then. however, that site has a wellknown bad reputation.

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


Accuracy in Media (AIM) has grown from a one-person crusade to a million-dollar-a-year operation by attacking the mainstream media for abandoning the principles of "fairness, balance and accuracy" in its reporting. New Right philanthropies, think tanks and media support its work, and many members of its advisory board are former diplomats, intelligence agents and corporate directors.

AIM was founded by Reed Irvine in 1969, when Irvine called for sedition charges to be brought against Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the Progressive Labor Party, arguing, "If you're going to halt treason, you've got to do it while it's small." [Village Voice, January 21, 1986]

In the 1970s, Irvine endeared himself to the New Right by alleging that the corporate media were a propaganda tool for the Soviet KGB and Fidel Castro. In 1982, AIM attacked New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner for his reports (later proven accurate--see Extra!, January/February 1993) about the El Mozote massacre. Along with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, AIM succeeded in pressing the Times to pull Bonner from his Salvadoran beat.

Irvine later called for napalm to be used against FMLN guerrillas in El Salvador. (AIM Report, March 1990). During the Gulf War, he encouraged a nuclear strike against Iraq. [Seattle Times, January 16, 1991]

With the end of the Cold War, AIM now assails environmentalists as the "infiltrators" of the media establishment. Critical reports about industries that fund AIM--such as chemical and oil interests--ara a frequent target of AIM critiques.

During the Clinton era, alleged conspiracies related to the Democratic president were a frequent topic in AIM's work--particularly the notion that Vince Foster was not a suicide but a victim of foul play. AIM charged that Republicans, including independent counsel Kenneth Starr, were somehow complicit in covering up Clinton's plots; discussing Hillary Rodham Clinton's notion of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," Irvine retorted that "the only conspiracy I knew of was the conspiracy of the Republican leadership to protect Bill Clinton." [AIM Report, February 1998]

AIM has been criticized as a censorious group eager to silence voices it disagrees with and disdainful of the First Amendment. The group for a time offered as a donation premium Target America, written by AIM board member James L. Tyson, a book advocating that government "ombudsmen" police major-network newscasts for "accuracy" and "fairness".


Funders
Bethlehem Steel
Carthage Foundation; see Scaife Foundations
Chevron
Ciba-Geigy
Coors Foundation
Dressor Industries
Exxon
Lawrence Fertig Foundation
Getty Oil
Horizon Oil and Gas
IBM
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
F.M. Kirby Foundation
Mobil Foundation
Pepsico
Phillips Petroleum Company
Smith Richardson Charitable Trust; also see Smith Richardson Foundation
Texaco Philanthropic Foundation
Union Carbide


And some info they have on the Scaife Foundation, which may not be known by many people, while the other names pretty much speak for themselves.


Scaife Foundations
The Scaife Foundations consist of the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, the Allegheny Foundation and the Scaife Family Foundation. All four have been heavily involved in financing conservative causes under the direction of reclusive billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, uranium and banking fortune.

The Mellon fortune is built on at least 5 pillars; the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corporation, the family's monopoly ownership of Alcoa and Alcan going back to 1891, ownership of Koppers and Carborundum corporations, and their participation in the uranium cartel.

The Foundation commenced funding conservative "causes" in 1973 when Richard Mellon Scaife became the foundation's chairman. During the 1960s, Richard inherited an estimated $200 million from his mother, Sarah. His net personal worth was estimated at $800 million by Forbes magazine, which would make Richard the 38th richest person in the United States. Richard controls the Scaife, Carthage, and Alleghany foundations. In 1993 alone, the Scaife and Carthage foundations donated more than $17.6 million to conservative think tanks.

Some years ago, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation was estimated to be worth $200 million. Since Richard took charge of the foundation in 1973, it began to finance "New Right" causes.

Although Scaife has dedicated vast sums of money to influencing the way the public thinks, he prefers to operate behind the scenes, granting few interviews. When former Wall Street Journal reporter Karen Rothmyer attempted to interview him in 1981, he responded by calling her a "****ing Communist ****" and telling her to "get out of here."

Between 1985 and 2001, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation donated $15,860,000 to the Heritage Foundation; $7,333,000 to the Institute for Policy Analysis; $6,995,500 to the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; $6,693,000 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); $4,411,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $2,575,000 to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; $1,855,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute; $1,808,000 to the Hudson Institute; and $1,697,000 to the Cato Institute.

For the years 1985-2001, the Scaife Family Foundation donated $702,640 to the Heritage Foundation; $590,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $275,000 to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University; $200,000 to the CSIS; and $175,000 to the New Citizenship Project, Inc., alone.

Recently, however, the Scaife Family Foundation came under the control of Scaife's daughter Jennie and has changed focus. It continues to give some money to conservative causes, but most of its funding now goes to nonpolitical projects such as medical programs, treatment for substance abuse (a problem for several family members) and animal welfare. Jennie Scaife said that her father doesn't support her spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights. However, the Charlotte Observer reported in July 2003 that Scaife donated money to Children Requiring A Caring Community, which pays poor women, especially those addicted to drugs, either to be sterilized or to undergo long-term birth control

As I often said, the war against a consenus on global warming, and against the process being taken as a reason to take action against economical interests that does not want to change but continue to do business as usual and to hell with all envrionmental concerns, is being waged by propaganda campaign supported with several hundreds of millions of dollar. The only purpose is to discredit all and everything that defends that global wamring is taking place, is threatening and damaging, and is caused by man, and to raise doubt on scientific results showing this - at all cost, no matter how absurd or scientifically distorted the counter-"arguments" are. Behind that stands the knowledge that if you repeat untruths just often enough and yell loud enough, people will start to believe it.

Just today's news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7418041.stm

You cannot truly depict climate if you only look at the imminent future of the next ten years or so. Climate and atmosphere simply do not work that way, and so simplistic. they even create paradoxical short-termed effects that in the short run seem to support denial of warming, but by their mere existence in fact prove that warming is taking place. the growing of ice in one half (only one half) of the antarctic (while the other half is decreasing!), or the reversing of greening at the end of the green phase of the "carbondioxide is helping to help the planet' plants"-fairy-tale when the produced carbondioxide from the additonal biomass starts to nullify and then to kill the shortly won additional green, are just two examples.

In other words: climate sceptics just look as many days into the furture as is opportunistic for them, and leaves them the freedom to ingore all medium and longterm consequences. they compare to pedestrians who look at the ground immediartely before their feet while walking, so they cannot sumble, and for exactly that reason run into every wall and against all telephone poles they meet.

[Skybird]

I just unlocked that starting posting and had a look.

What a surprise - it IS Accuracy in Media indeed.

Yawn.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh my gosh. Now you are discrediting the site that is reporting it because it is funded by whom? Are you guys for real? You are just like the guys sending that Robinson email - you can't attack his facts, so you are looking for a pathetic little foothold! It's actually quite funny!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Wow! AIM actually has some high profile people on its board (These are not the funders mind you, but the people who run the show):

Office holders


Don Irvine (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Irvine), Chairman (also heads Parents and Grandparents Alliance (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Parents_and_Grandparents_Alliance) )
Samuel Shepard Jones, Jr. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Samuel_Shepard_Jones%2C_Jr.&action=edit), Treasurer and General Counsel
Joan Hueter (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joan_Hueter), Director, (Former President, National Association of Pro-America)
Malcolm E. Smith (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Malcolm_E._Smith&action=edit), Retired Advertising Executive
Nancy Morgan (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nancy_Morgan&action=edit), Conservative activist
Trevor Armbrister (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trevor_Armbrister&action=edit), Author [edit (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media&action=edit&section=4)]
National Advisory Board


Arnold Beichman (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arnold_Beichman&action=edit), Writer and Analyst
Midge Decter (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Midge_Decter), Writer
Charlton Heston (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charlton_Heston), Actor
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Admiral_Thomas_H._Moorer&action=edit), USN (Ret), Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
R. Adm. William C. Mott (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=R._Adm._William_C._Mott&action=edit), USN (Ret), Vice-President, National Strategy Information Center
Dr. Frederick Seitz (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
James L. Tyson (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_L._Tyson&action=edit), President, Council for the Defense of Freedom [edit (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media&action=edit&section=5)]
Staff


Deborah Lambert (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Deborah_Lambert&action=edit), Director of Special Projects
John Wessale (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Wessale&action=edit), Executive Assistant
Charles Rozier (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Rozier&action=edit), Director of the Speakers Bureau
Roger Aronoff (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_Aronoff&action=edit), Media Analyst and Documentary Producer
Claudia L. Mason (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Claudia_L._Mason&action=edit), Administrative Assistant
Mercedes M. Amaya (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercedes_M._Amaya&action=edit), Mailroom Manager
Cliff Kincaid (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cliff_Kincaid), AIM Report Editor
James Davis (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Davis&action=edit), Financial Consultant
Jerris Leonard (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jerris_Leonard&action=edit), Attorney [edit (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media&action=edit&section=6)]

[XabbaRus]

Well according to the National Academy of Sciences it has never been peer reviewed (by them) and that it was written in the style of a National Academy Proceedings publication.

[SUBMAN1]

Well according to the National Academy of Sciences it has never been peer reviewed (by them) and that it was written in the style of a National Academy Proceedings publication.That's because it's not a theory.

The argument being used is like this - I have done extensive work for Microsoft. Gone in, video taped multiple times on their various products, and yeah, I was compensated for it. Using this method of debunking means that any Microsoft article that I post must automatically be wrong because I did a few jobs for them.

That's what I'm seeing and that's BS! That's why i initially laughed at the posts I saw! :D

I mean from here on out, any computer advice I ever post you better ignore because I helped MS out a few times! Hahahaha!

-S

[Skybird]

Well according to the National Academy of Sciences it has never been peer reviewed (by them) and that it was written in the style of a National Academy Proceedings publication.
Haven't we had this same topic one, or one and a half year ago, with Avon Lady? Carbondioxide and the claimed benefit for the planet? Something called oregon institute or something like that? Thousands of scientists being claimed of having signed it - but nobody of them knowing that he did, and a project leader for that petition who was of questionable credibility, and even had no scientific credibility? I tried to search and find the thread again, but I did not find the thread. I am sure it is there, since there I had posted the links that shreddered that "project".

No need to repeat myself here, then. I'm out.

[NEON DEON]

If I wanted to make a contested point, would I not qualify thoses 31 thousand scientists by providing their credentials and the source, or should I assume they are all into climateology and pay no attention to the source of the information?

[bradclark1]

Its about time that the 31,000 said something against the 7 or so that are hyping it up, since the 7 are in the pockets of the control crowd.

-S


Read it instead of just quoting for once. Educate yourself. In fact didn't you quote that same dumbassed petition last time?

[Skybird]

Ha, I found it,

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105352&page=4&highlight=Oregon+petition
#144, page 4


The Avon Lady][/b]
Skybird][/B]
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 (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:

Skybird][/b]
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".



I recommend to read that old thread instead of keeping this one alive. whatever will be said here - has been said several times before.

[Safe-Keeper]

Nice try submanPretty much sums up all his political or religious threads, doesn't it?

PS. Just a clue - he never said he had a theory. His simply discredited the GW theory since its not based on Science. This is how real science works. Excuse me, i should have called GW a hypothesis since it was never proven with fact.Global Warming is a theory now? Last time I checked it was an observation, not a theory (a theory explains observations), and last time I checked the average temperature of the Earth has been increasing for the last thirty years (you do know the difference between climate and weather, I presume).

Come on, Subman. Even most of the most fervent AGW deniers have abandoned the "OMG its not warming!1" head-in-sand stance. The train's left, Subman. Catch up with it already.

“Are we really going to take away the human right to use energy [...]:rotfl:

[...], which is the currency of technology and progress; not only for the American people, but for the poor people around the world, on the basis of this nonsense? It’s just not right, and it’s certainly not science.”Subman, when people spout strawmen like these, that's an indicator that you should disregard them on principle.

First of all, no one's talking about taking away humans' right to use energy. We're pushing for regulations that'll curb Co2-emissions, and for research to come up with new, environment-friendly alternatives. You can try to make environmentalists look like communists all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

And secondly, the above paragraph really doesn't matter because it's all a red herring and a strawman. No one's claiming anti-AGW politics are science. Politics and science are two different things. No matter how many hypothetical nutcases scream that we need to stop using energy and go back to the stone age... it doesn't matter, because it says nothing about the veracity of AGW theory.

The petition also argues that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have been beneficial to the environment. Robinson’s report outlines sharp increases in growth of forests in the United States and the Amazonian rain forests, arguably due to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions; trees respond well to carbon dioxide fertilization.Another pathetic red herring, trying to cast AGW in a black-and-white light - it's either all good or all bad, period. It's so pathetic it's a joke.

We have a saying in Norway - "Never so bad that it's not good for something". There will always be those who benefit from a given event, no matter how bad. Doesn't mean the event is favorable.

[cobalt1]

I approve this thread

+1

[Safe-Keeper]

Co2 doesn't warm the Earth if scared off by political pressure.

Ha, I found it,

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105352&page=4&highlight=Oregon+pe tition (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105352&page=4&highlight=Oregon+petition)
#144, page 4
Why did you link to that?! That thread was so full of fail from the deniers that it's scary. I shall have to poke my eyes out with rusty sticks.

[Schroeder]

Come on guys. Wasn't it great back in the 70s when no one gave a damn for pollution (not that I was already alive then)? We had fat cars, cheap gas, no worries....

Yes, we (in Germany) also had dead rivers (no one would have been stupid enough to swim in them), our rain contained a big part of acid which damaged all plants, we had plenty poisonous substances in the air that made us sick etc...but was that realy important?

And those freaks came and claimed that this was all bs. Now we have clean rivers again in which animals live!!! Who needs that?
I can walk again through a city without a pinch in my lung (maybe I have to start smoking to get that great feeling again) and the acid amount in the rain has also lowered.
I don't know how they could do that to us!!!
It was all so nice back with all the pollution.

@Subman
I'm fully on your side! Do what ever you can to stop those tree worshippers before they manage to screw up our lives. I don't know how these fools can dare to trade economical interests to unimportant things like health, responsibility for the planet, nice landscapes (some have even turned green again already, pah!!!) and conserving energy for our grandchildren. It's pathetic indeed.



;)

[SUBMAN1]

...@Subman
I'm fully on your side! Do what ever you can to stop those tree worshippers before they manage to screw up our lives. I don't know how these fools can dare to trade economical interests to unimportant things like health, responsibility for the planet, nice landscapes (some have even turned green again already, pah!!!) and conserving energy for our grandchildren. It's pathetic indeed.;)First off, I'm for less pollution, but not at the expense of energy needed for progress so that we can develope the tools we need to keep our planet pollution clean. This energy you talk about cutting back on will kill roughly 3 Billion people. Time to get ugly in this thread I can see.

So much for your conserving grandchildren theory.

-S

PS. Some things to keep in mind you brainwashed monkeys! :D Each one of you that continues down this path is a baby killer in my opinion.

“World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”
Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.


Dennis Avery, Director for the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. “Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing,” said Avery. “To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.”

The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away.
When the U.N. and others want to limit hydrocarbons, which account for 85% of the current United States energy supplies, the consequences are disastrous, Robinson said.


“America is buying 30 percent of its energy abroad... Now we’re getting to the point where we can’t afford energy abroad,” said Robinson. “The problem was created by state and federal taxation against…now they want to [make]…further regulations that will stop these hydrocarbons.”

“We wouldn’t have six billion people on Earth without technology,” said Robinson. “If you reduce energy, you [are also] reducing technology. The biggest problem is people in the third world who die in enormous numbers.”
Avery said that a vast number of people are already suffering in the third world, because they are forced to cook inside their homes.


“The indoor cooking fires in the third world are vastly more harmful to the health of women and children than smoking cigarettes,” said Avery. “If you eliminate their opportunity to move up from burning dung and straw and wood to burning kerosene…then you are eliminating their possibility of having healthy lungs.”

In addition, Avery said that energy restrictions cause “an awful lot of premature deaths.” However, if Green Peace decides to eliminate nitrogen fertilizer, even more people will suffer.


“If we eliminate the nitrogen fertilizer, then that will cut the world’s crop fields in half immediately,” said Avery. “Half the world will be hungry.”

Robinson said that the U.N. is doing more harm than good.

[Schroeder]

“We wouldn’t have six billion people on Earth without technology,” said Robinson. “If you reduce energy, you [are also] reducing technology. The biggest problem is people in the third world who die in enormous numbers.”
Avery said that a vast number of people are already suffering in the third world, because they are forced to cook inside their homes.


“The indoor cooking fires in the third world are vastly more harmful to the health of women and children than smoking cigarettes,” said Avery. “If you eliminate their opportunity to move up from burning dung and straw and wood to burning kerosene…then you are eliminating their possibility of having healthy lungs.”

This is the most stupid stuff I heard for a long time. It's not about reducing technology, just the opposite. We shall use better technology that needs less energy. That's the plan. Kyoto doesn't want us to go back to the stone age. We shall reduce our output of CO2 (and other stuff) by ADVANCING in technology.
Here in Germany for example they are developing a new car called LOREMO. (http://evolution.loremo.com/index.php?lang=en)
It shall have a gas mileage of 120miles/gallon.
That is just one example how a CO2 reduction can be achieved. I think Mr. Robinson is trying to create panic by scaring people with a horror story of the return of the middle ages. Not very professional IMO.

People in the third world need kerosene to cook? Well, there is a solution for the sunny parts of the world: parabolic reflectors.
They don't need any energy at all. Why isn't he considering this? As if fossil energy would be without any alternatives....

Besides, what are we all supposed to do when we run out of fossil energy?
If we continue like this we will remain extremely dependent on oil. The rising oil price will be disastrous. We have to do something NOW. If we start thinking about this after it has hit us it's surely too late.


In addition, Avery said that energy restrictions cause “an awful lot of premature deaths.”However, if Green Peace decides to eliminate nitrogen fertilizer, even more people will suffer. I'm not sure whether I understand this text correctly. Is he talking about fertilizers as energy? Or is he claiming that the energy restrictions will kill people and the elimination of nitrogen fertilizers will add to it?

If he claims that the reduction of energy consumption is killing someone I would like to know how that shall be possible. As I already said, we aren't supposed to switch all machines off that we have. We shall develop them further so that they can do the same things as now but with less energy consumption.


“If we eliminate the nitrogen fertilizer, then that will cut the world’s crop fields in half immediately,” said Avery. “Half the world will be hungry.”
I'm no expert for fertilizers but there are alternatives:
.Doc about fertilizers (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/www.msue.msu.edu/.../download.cfm/revision_id.288127/workspace_id.28853/Alternative%20Fertilizers.doc)

I'm not sure whether they can be used as substitutes, I have to leave that to someone who knows something about this.


Time to get ugly in this thread I can see..
I did not intend to offend you with my last post. It was just supposed to be an eye opener.
;):D

[bradclark1]

:rotfl: :rotfl: That Robinson is rich. Must be a headliner at Comedy Central.

[Safe-Keeper]

First off, I'm for less pollution, but not at the expense of energy needed for progress so that we can develope the tools we need to keep our planet pollution clean. This energy you talk about cutting back on will kill roughly 3 Billion people. Time to get ugly in this thread I can see.First of all, where did we talk about cutting back energy? Who's the "we" in the first place? How much energy would need to be cut back to kill 3 billion people in your eyes? Got any evidence?

PS. Some things to keep in mind you brainwashed monkeys!Em, actually, Subman, you're recycling stunningly and frankly insultingly fallacious arguments that've been shot down and recycled many times over. And yes, I do mean insultingly literally. That you deniers keep recycling the same useless transparent fallacies as if you expect anyone to actually believe them is nothing short of a slap in the face to me.

Each one of you that continues down this path is a baby killer in my opinion.I thought we were "Darwinists".

World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it.Non-sequitur fallacy. It doesn't follow that Co2 can't alter temperatures just because there are other ways to change temperature.

Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.600? I thought it was 7 or so.

Oh, and Robinson/Subman? I hate to break it to you, but 600 scientists is nothing. 600 is, what, a single institute? There are far more than that supporting AGW.

Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testingThat's bold of you to quote, after your "OMG look how many ppl agree with me!!1111" Original Post.

To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.They don't. You pretend they do, and that it matters, to further your stance. Which is disgusting.

Looking at past climate change is well and good, but saying that past climate change means current change can't be Co2-fueled... is ludicrous. It's as if the US, after bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said, "I don't see how you think nukes destroyed those cities. If you look at every single previous instance of a city being destroyed, nukes have never been responsible in the past! Why's it suddenly our fault now?!"

Pathetic.

The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away."Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing."
31,000 US scientists sign petition against hydrocarbon caused Global Warming
"Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing."
31,000 US scientists sign petition against hydrocarbon caused Global Warming
:damn:

This is the most stupid stuff I heard for a long time. It's not about reducing technology, just the opposite.Of course. Subman and his mentor Robinson are building a strawman image of environmentalists as anti-industrialists, anti-capitalists, and, quite frankly, anti-lots-of-other-things-Subman-and-his-ilk-like-such-as-babies. It's inaccurate, has ntohing to do with the science of AGW, and is, to be blunt, childish.

[McBeck]

Interesting thread! :up:

[Takeda Shingen]

Let's argue about the issues, and not who is a poopy-head.

The Management

[Dowly]

I will prolly be WAAAYYYY off by saying this, but doesnt the sun heat stuff? The ground, the trees, the water and all the stuff that is floating in the air around the world (particles etc. etc.). So, wouldnt it just make sense that the more hydrocarbon (and other stuff cars, factories etc. are spitting into the air) there is = the more stuff the sun is heating = the warmer the temperatures will be? :hmm:

[McBeck]

I think the core is that CO2 reacts with other stuff causing the ozonlayer to break down - among other things.

[Letum]

I think the core is that CO2 reacts with other stuff causing the ozonlayer to break down - among other things.

...no, CO2 does not directly interact with Ozone at all.
Ozone does not have a lot to do with global warming either.

Ozone depletion and CO2 levels are totaly diffrent issues.

Very briefly:
Ozone filters dangerous ultraviolet light from the sun and is depleated mainly by CFCs.
CO2 reflects infrared radiation (Heat) more than air, in the same way glass on a
greenhouse reflects infrared radiation.

[McBeck]

I think the core is that CO2 reacts with other stuff causing the ozonlayer to break down - among other things.

...no, CO2 does not directly interact with Ozone at all.
Ozone does not have a lot to do with global warming either.

Ozone depletion and CO2 levels are totaly diffrent issues.

Very briefly:
Ozone filters dangerous ultraviolet light from the sun and is depleated mainly by CFCs.
CO2 reflects infrared radiation (Heat) more than air, in the same way glass on a
greenhouse reflects infrared radiation.


OK, so CO2 insulates the earth keeping the heat from escaping?

[Skybird]

OK, so CO2 insulates the earth keeping the heat from escaping?
Yes.

That is the main effect. However, the changed, easier availability of carbon in the atmoshere also has an effect on plants and biotopes that consume or suffer from it, and change that way. Here you have an additional field of a new set of factors that indirectly affects climate developement by changing what in German would be called intermittend variables (I'm not sure if the term could be used in the same meaning in English). Both warmth and carbondioxide itself especially play a major role in oceanic biotopes, algas, and krill, and in the end: oxygene production. So, carbondioxide has both direct and indirect effects that affect climate, and atmosphere.

[McBeck]

Not to mention that CO2 is a deadly gas

[August]

And those freaks came and claimed that this was all bs. Now we have clean rivers again in which animals live!!! Who needs that?

I WAS alive during the 1970's and i'd be interested in hearing where you got the idea that people were claiming pollution was BS. IIRC nobody denied that pollution existed or that it was harmful. Hard to ignore a polluted river. The smell alone will draw your attention to it.

Global warming on the other hand is a lot more like the ice age scares of the same time period. Lots of preaching and vaguely defined threats, like increased and more powerful hurricanes for example, that don't seem to pan out. Often accompanied by requests for increased funding...

[Schroeder]

I meant the people started to think that causing so much pollution is bs and that they should stop doing it. I didn't mean that they thought there wouldn't be a thing like pollution.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough....:-?

[Safe-Keeper]

Global warming on the other hand is a lot more like the ice age scares of the same time period. Lots of preaching and vaguely defined threatsNo. Global cooling was a real event in that the average global temperature did sink a bit, but it didn't get nearly the attention that AGW is getting today.

Not that it matters. A theory can be similar to another theory without it having any bearing on its veracity.

like increased and more powerful hurricanes for example, that don't seem to pan out.Exactly - they didn't come true. Unlike the predictions for Global Warming, which ARE coming true and can be empirically observed.
Thank you for playing. You can redeem your price at the reception.

Often accompanied by requests for increased funding...
I love how deniers somehow seem to think that the fact that there's money to be made on AGW somehow means it isn't true. Name one branch of science that doesn't have scientists interested in making money. You won't find one.

[August]

I love how deniers somehow...
And I love how the global warming crowd resorts to name calling for whoever doesn't buy 100% into their wild theories. Doubters are "deniers" or "paid shills of the ebil oil companies".

Well two years ago global warming was supposed to cause hurricanes to become more numerous and severe. It hasn't. Winters were supposed to get progressively warming. They haven't. The gulf stream was going to shut down, it hasn't. Seems like every time an effect is supposed to be observable it isn't.

[bradclark1]

Winters were supposed to get progressively warming. They haven't.
The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

[August]

Winters were supposed to get progressively warming. They haven't. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

Couldn't prove that by the winter we just had here in New England.

[Schroeder]

I love how deniers somehow...
Winters were supposed to get progressively warming. They haven't. The gulf stream was going to shut down, it hasn't. Seems like every time an effect is supposed to be observable it isn't.
Winter? What winter? We haven't had one here in central Europe this year.:roll:
And that last year was a joke compared to the winters we had when I was a kid...

I'm not sure about the gulf stream but I don't think it can cut out within two years. We are talking here about global climatic changes. That takes time and two years are definitly not enough. it's not like we are getting one fast blast like with a nuke and then everything is changed forever. It takes several years, maybe decades.

[Safe-Keeper]

Winters were supposed to get progressively warming. They haven't.Average global temperatures have risen for the last thirty years. This is a fact, and it'd be hard for this to happen without winters getting warmer, too.

The gulf stream was going to shut down, it hasn't.Huh? Give me a link to whoever said that the Gulf Stream should've shut down by now ("now" being any date or time before today, May 27th 2008).

The Gulf Stream is indeed getting weaker, and this is observable. It's nowhere near a catastrophic change, or even a significant one, but in the future, it might become one. We don't know yet.

The effects of AGW are noticable. That is, to those who either look for them, or, like me, live in areas affected by the effects of faster-than-natural climate change.

[SUBMAN1]

Average global tempuratures have been warming at the same rate since our last mini Ice Age. What you see this year is its peak year.

But yeah, the global warming crowd resorts to insults and threats the moment someone doesn't agree with their propaganda, no matter how strong the evidence against it.

Sad. Must be dealing with teenagers or something.

If you would rather have a scientific discussion instead of insults, we can start with how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. Let's analyze it.

And whomever called CO2 a deadly gas - that's not quite correct. Every time you exhale, you release CO2 from your own lungs! Guess we'd all be dead from breathing!

-S

[antikristuseke]

I love how deniers somehow...
Winters were supposed to get progressively warming. They haven't. The gulf stream was going to shut down, it hasn't. Seems like every time an effect is supposed to be observable it isn't.
Winter? What winter? We haven't had one here in central Europe this year.:roll:
And that last year was a joke compared to the winters we had when I was a kid...


There was a winter? I thought it as an unusualy long autumn and then suddenly spring. But the year before that we had the coldest winter since 1941 here.

[bradclark1]

Winters were supposed to get progressively warming. They haven't. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

Couldn't prove that by the winter we just had here in New England.
It was still below the norm unless you have different weather 60 miles from here and it's also been one of the wettest as in rain and not snow..

[bradclark1]

If you would rather have a scientific discussion instead of insults, we can start with how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. Let's analyze it.
-S
Ok, lets.

[SUBMAN1]

If you would rather have a scientific discussion instead of insults, we can start with how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. Let's analyze it.
-S Ok, lets.You start :up:

-S

[JetSnake]

Atmospheric Composition

This data is from http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html (http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html)
PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are: Nitrogen 78.1% Oxygen 20.9%(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)Other permanent gases: Argon 0.9% Neon 0.002% Helium 0.0005% Krypton 0.0001% Hydrogen 0.00005%VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are: Water vapor 0 to 4% Carbon Dioxide 0.035% Methane 0.0002% Ozone 0.000004%

[baggygreen]

nice, jetsnake, but where is the co2 stats?? ;):rotfl:

[TheSatyr]

Fact:Over the past 10 years,global temperatures have dropped 1 degree.

Also,many meterologists including the former head of the National Hurricane Center consider man made global warning to be complete bunk. A number of meteorologists have stated quite clearly that the tree rings from redwoods show that global temperatures is cyclical and any warming we may be having now is normal.

Alot of these meterologists also consider climatology to be a phony science...but that's neither here nor there.

[NEON DEON]

Fact:Over the past 10 years,global temperatures have dropped 1 degree.

I dont think so and neither does NASA.


http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/140894main_BlueMarble_2005_warm.jpg 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA

[Skybird]

Fact:Over the past 10 years,global temperatures have dropped 1 degree.

:dead:

You better check your facts more carefully.

IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007, Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change, Technical Summary, Figure TS-6:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5807/temperaturtrendsdf3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



IPCC (2001): Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of the Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental on Climate Change (Houghton, J.T. et al., eds), Cambridge and New York 2001;
supplemented by data provided by the National Climatic Data Centre ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat :

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1026/temp20jhbf4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

In the first figure, the four bars superimposed on the graph show the different trends of global mean temperatures for four periods of time of varying length. Comparing these one can see that there is not only warming taking place, but the speed of warming is increasing.

the second shows deviations (in milligrades) of global temperatur, compared to an arbitrarily set mean value to be seen in the years between 1961 and 1990. Again, one can see a clear upward trend of temperatures.

[bradclark1]

If you would rather have a scientific discussion instead of insults, we can start with how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. Let's analyze it.
-S Ok, lets.You start :up:

-S
:lol: Ok.

[Skybird]

Carbon Dioxide 0.035%

Claims that a healthy man with a weight of 75 kg dies from 70-130mg Curare, are wrong and just hysteric nonsens, since a dosis of let's say 100 mg would make up only for 0.00013% of that man's body mass.

How could such a minimal value have any meaning - especially when being ridiculed in bold, and big font size? :smug:

[August]

Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Claims that a healthy man with a weight of 75 kg dies from 70-130mg Curare, are wrong and just hysteric nonsens, since a dosis of let's say 100 mg would make up only for 0.00013% of that man's body mass.

How could such a minimal value have any meaning - especially when being ridiculed in bold, and big font size? :smug:

Anyone see what Skybird did here?

[Schroeder]

I think he claims that even low amounts of CO2 can be toxic.

@all
Besides, it actually doesn't matter whether there is a man made climate change or not.
We have increasing costs and a limited supply of fossil energy. Therefore it is only logical to lower the consumption of it and finally replace it with other forms of energy.
Whether you do it to save the planet or just to save your purse and stay competitive for the time after oil, what difference does it make?


Continuing like we do is definitely stupid since we will run out of fossil energy sooner or later. So why not starting to change things NOW while we still can? When we start with it when the price for a barrel of oil hits the 300$ mark it's surely a bit late, isn't it?

[McBeck]

I think he claims that even low amounts of CO2 can be toxic.

They are. CO2 is poison....when you go diving you are told to smell the air of the tanks, because even the smallest increase in CO2 concentration can be deadly while diving. This is because at presure the effect of gases increase. Kind of a forecast of what effect CO2 has if it keeps building up in concentration.

[August]

I think he claims that even low amounts of CO2 can be toxic.
They are. CO2 is poison....when you go diving you are told to smell the air of the tanks, because even the smallest increase in CO2 concentration can be deadly while diving. This is because at presure the effect of gases increase. Kind of a forecast of what effect CO2 has if it keeps building up in concentration.

Smell your tanks? :D Co2 is odorless, tasteless and invisible. What exactly are you smelling?

Too much Co2 in a scuba tank can be deadly because at depth you are taking in literally an entire phone booth of air with every breath. At that high volume even oxygen and nitrogen can become a hazard.

[August]

Therefore it is only logical to lower the consumption of it and finally replace it with other forms of energy.

You are never going to lower consumption while you allow world population to continue to increase unchecked. 6 billion people and climbing.... There's your cause of global warming right there.

[McBeck]

I think he claims that even low amounts of CO2 can be toxic.
They are. CO2 is poison....when you go diving you are told to smell the air of the tanks, because even the smallest increase in CO2 concentration can be deadly while diving. This is because at presure the effect of gases increase. Kind of a forecast of what effect CO2 has if it keeps building up in concentration.
Smell your tanks? :D Co2 is odorless, tasteless and invisible. What exactly are you smelling?

Too much Co2 in a scuba tank can be deadly because at depth you are taking in literally an entire phone booth of air with every breath. At that high volume even oxygen and nitrogen can become a hazard.I see you point. The smell is your best way to detect it because higher concentration of CO2 usually comes from the airintake for the compressor being too close to some kind of combustion exaust and being fitted without a filter. So if it smells funny(not like you are used to) - your WILL be gamling with your life to dive with it.

[kurtz]

[quote=August6 billion people and climbing.... There's your cause of global warming right there.[/quote]

It#s all those flatulent vegetarians:D

[Skybird]

I think he claims that even low amounts of CO2 can be toxic.

No, I used irony to illustrate that the structure of that argument "0.035%" was meaningless in itself. It does not matter if there is only a small fraction of a substance given. If that fraction's value lies above a certain treshold level to trigger a given effect, or serve as a catalyst, it does not matter that it only is a small fraction something - it nevertheless is too much, and thus: a very big value, despite it'S numerical size. Such way or arguing is simply deception, tricks, and trying to cheat reason and intellect.


Besides, it actually doesn't matter whether there is a man made climate change or not.
We have increasing costs and a limited supply of fossil energy. Therefore it is only logical to lower the consumption of it and finally replace it with other forms of energy.
Whether you do it to save the planet or just to save your purse and stay competitive for the time after oil, what difference does it make?
Agreed. first heavyweights , including the european Energy Agency, have started to raise the argument in public now that we are probably already in or at the beginning of socalled peak oil. Yesterday the heads of that agency were quoted in TV, saying that for years and decades , they found out, energy corproations have betrayed and deceived them by giving them wroing data and forged numbers. Which is no wonder: no oil company will ever admit in public that oil is low now, because then people would say to themselves "Oh, really? Hmn, then I better stop investing into my future by buying big cars, and oil-related heatings, and will protest against oil powerplants [etc. etc.], and support alterntaives instead." In short: admitting that oil is running out wpould cost the companies dozens and hundreds of billions in profits, and would shortne the lifespan of this business model, that's why no oil corpration will give the alarm call, but will try to defuse and calm any uneasiness and critical questions. We had two oil crisis in the early 70s, and what consequences have there been? None, zero, rien, nada, keine. Only some national reserves were stocked up a bit, usually to be proficient for around 90 days.

90 days...?

the prices will climb more, and 200$ in the forseeable future I almost take as granted.the costs will explode for anything that needs energy to be proeduced, and that gets transported. We already see it in goods that we in the West almost think as trivialities since WWII: food. It is not only higher demand, it is also transportation, fertilizer, sweetwater production, environmental erosion (thinking of Spanish region of Almeria). At the same time, households in Germjany have had only moderate or lsihgt raises in incomes over the past 15 years, but inflation and cost increases like oil and gas have increased over-proportional. Effectively, understood in "buying power", households have become poorer. The number of poor households also increases, why the fundament of society, the middleclass, in decreasing in size at an increasing pace.

Continuing like we do is definitely stupid since we will run out of fossil energy sooner or later. So why not starting to change things NOW while we still can? When we start with it when the price for a barrel of oil hits the 300$ mark it's surely a bit late, isn't it?
It has been calclated so often now that starting to invest into alternative energy and technology and production models that try to run independant from oil and áre less damaging to the climate, would be such that paying for the consequences if not doing so over the next 20-25 years would cost AT LEAST ten times as much money. But western economy never looked beyond the current end of day when that day promised to bring in one last more cheque.

There also is another dimension to all this, a cultural one. It sometimes is said that the Muslim nations would be nothing anymore if they would not have their oil. But currently they spend hundreds of billions to buy huge shares in Wetsern corproations and companies. shares that are big enough to give them a word, and more and mor eoften: the deciding word in managing these economies. several of the world'S greatest investestement funds are sitting in Dubai, Quatar, and Saudi Arabia. When they have run out of oil - and I think that is a known thing especially in Saudi Arabian politics, while they hide their numbers at the same time and make them their higest state secret - , they will not suffer sudden poverty and a shortage in profits, rest assured. It's that the Western people then will work in internationalized companies, but will not benefit from it, but the profits they create will be siphoned off by rich muslim nations, by which they also will gain a comfortable position to control, manipulate and blackmail Western nations which at that time will be extremely weak, then.

Nobody complaining, please. By all decisions we made in this time, and the past 30 years, we said loud and clearly that we reject anything to prevent this fate coming at us.

What it all means? That our world, our Western way of living, and our culture as well as our national societies are falling apart. Stormy, bitter and very conflict-heavy times - socially, politically, economically and militarily - are ahead, and I am by far not convinced that we will make it. I personally give as a chance of 1:2 or 1:3 - which I consider to be optimistic under the given circumstances.

[August]

So if it smells funny(not like you are used to) - your WILL be gamling with your life to dive with it.

I can agree with that.

[Safe-Keeper]

Average global tempuratures have been warming at the same rate since our last mini Ice Age.Doesn't look like that to me (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html).

But yeah, the global warming crowd resorts to insults and threats the moment someone doesn't agree with their propaganda, no matter how strong the evidence against it.

Sad. Must be dealing with teenagers or something.Another strawman. I'm sorry about resorting to insults, but when I do, it's because I'm sick and tired of the same garbage recycled endlessly - as I've said. When deniers don't make even the least bit of effort at understanding the issue and rather just endlessly parrot the same nonse... I get angry.

If you would rather have a scientific discussion instead of insults, we can start with how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. Let's analyze it.Does it matter to you? Please prove me wrong, but I see looming ahead of me an appeal to incredulity fallcies (2oh, so it's only x part out of y! So much for it having an effect!"). But OK. I've looked and found that it's 380ppm, as far as I could tell. This from both FOX "News" and the "greenies".

And whomever called CO2 a deadly gas - that's not quite correct. Every time you exhale, you release CO2 from your own lungs! Guess we'd all be dead from breathing!That's the kind of unreason I'm speaking of. Whether or not you exhale it is irrelevant - it's whether or not it does damage to you when you inhale it that's important.

Technically, Co2 is a poisonous gas when inhaled in too big amounts.

[August]

Technically, Co2 is a poisonous gas when inhaled in too big amounts.

So is oxygen, nitrogen or any other gas. Talk about a strawman argument...

[Tchocky]

I see a tendency to label arguments as straw man, even when such arguments are not in fact arguments and bear absolutely no relation to the straw man fallacy.

[Letum]

Well, it is true that it does not make sense to talk about CO2 reaching toxic levels in
the atmosphere. That is just is not possible.

However, there is another greenhouse gas that is often found in toxic levels and can
kill within seconds when inhaled. You might have seen it coming out of almost every
powerplants, even nuclear ones: Dihydrogenmonoxide.

Dihydrogenmonoxide is also carried in small amounts in most submarines, however
dihydrogenmonoxide leaks are responsible for over 98% of losses on board submarines.
Altho easy to detect, it often kills the entire crew without warning as the chemical
can spread quickly through the whole sub if leaks of the substance are unchecked.

It also effects the submarines systems; often causing problems with depth keeping.

/the old ones are the best.

[August]

However, there is another greenhouse gas that is often found in toxic levels and can kill within seconds when inhaled. You might have seen it coming out of almost every powerplants, even nuclear ones: Dihydrogenmonoxide.

This is pure truth. It literally drowns its victims...

[McBeck]

Technically, Co2 is a poisonous gas when inhaled in too big amounts.
So is oxygen, nitrogen or any other gas. Talk about a strawman argument...
Its OK for use to breather pure O2 or even Nitrogen for shorter amount of times - try that with CO2.
Besides...O2 and Nitrogen is NOT building up - are they?

[August]

Its OK for use to breather pure O2 or even Nitrogen for shorter amount of times - try that with CO2.
Besides...O2 and Nitrogen is NOT building up - are they?

I was speaking about breathing under pressure. You got a loooong way to go before atmospheric Co2 would ever become toxic.

[McBeck]

Its OK for use to breather pure O2 or even Nitrogen for shorter amount of times - try that with CO2.
Besides...O2 and Nitrogen is NOT building up - are they?
I was speaking about breathing under pressure. You got a loooong way to go before atmospheric Co2 would ever become toxic.
That may be, but you do agree that of CO2, O2 and Nitrogen, CO2 is the most deadly?

[August]

That may be, but you do agree that of CO2, O2 and Nitrogen, CO2 is the most deadly?
I'd have to say no. We need a certain percentage of oxygen in the air we breathe. Lowering that percentage means increasing one of the other gasses whether it be Co2, Nitrogen, helium or any other "inert" gas, to compensate. Therefore too much nitrogen is as deadly as too much Co2.

On the other hand too much oxygen and plant life dies which we need to survive as well...

[Letum]

That may be, but you do agree that of CO2, O2 and Nitrogen, CO2 is the most deadly?
I'd have to say no. We need a certain percentage of oxygen in the air we breathe. Lowering that percentage means increasing one of the other gasses whether it be Co2, Nitrogen, helium or any other "inert" gas, to compensate. Therefore too much nitrogen is as deadly as too much Co2.

On the other hand too much oxygen and plant life dies which we need to survive as well...


Lets put it this way:
If I sealed you in a room that has it's gas content controlled; would you rather I
increased the amount of oxygen, nitrogen or CO2 by 14%?

Only one will kill you with such a small rise.


But that is all academic. The toxicity of CO2 is not an environmental problem.

[August]

That may be, but you do agree that of CO2, O2 and Nitrogen, CO2 is the most deadly?
I'd have to say no. We need a certain percentage of oxygen in the air we breathe. Lowering that percentage means increasing one of the other gasses whether it be Co2, Nitrogen, helium or any other "inert" gas, to compensate. Therefore too much nitrogen is as deadly as too much Co2.

On the other hand too much oxygen and plant life dies which we need to survive as well...

Lets put it this way:
If I sealed you in a room that has it's gas content controlled; would you rather I
increased the amount of oxygen, nitrogen or CO2 by 14%?

Only one will kill you with such a small rise.


But that is all academic. The toxicity of CO2 is not an environmental problem.

I would rather you not seal me in a room at all :D. But yeah of the three raising the Co2 level would be the most dangerous, at least to humans. Plants on the other hand would be loving it.

[kurtz]

I'll check this out in a minute but isn't it CO (Carbon Monoxide) which is actively poisonous not Carbon Dioxide which is just an asphyxiant. I'll check when I'm not so pressured (sorry 'bout the pun)

[Skybird]

I wonder what the toxic effect of CO2, when being inhaled in too large a quantity, has to do with the climatic effects of CO2 level changes in the atmosphere. Nobody has ever claimed that the threat of raising CO2 concentrations in the atmopshere has a condensate in risking medical damages of organisms breathing this atmosphere. the problem is not a chemical or physiological one, it is a physical, climatic one.

The whole discussion of this irrelevant detail of how much CO2 you can inhale without suffering physiological damage - is a distraction only, to make the climatic consequences being forgotten and ignored.

[August]

(sorry 'bout the pun)

No you're not! :lol:

[kurtz]

(sorry 'bout the pun)
No you're not! :lol:

Guilty:oops:

[August]

(sorry 'bout the pun)
No you're not! :lol:
Guilty:oops:
:p:p

[peterloo]

Well, if it isn't hydrocarbon, what is the real cause? :x

Obviously, CO2 is partly contributing to our current problem, if not completely. Should we release more and more CO2 to the atmosphere and fails to become carbon neutral, everyone is doomed to suffer from the global warming trend

Perhaps the USA scientists are right, there might be some other factors like natural changes which cannot be controlled by us. However, what we need to do now, is to do which can be done by human power, including a cut in CO2 emissions, in a hope to reverse the detoriating trend of global warming

[August]

Well, if it isn't hydrocarbon, what is the real cause? :x

Too many people on the planet. Reduce the world human population down to say 3 billion or so and watch the problem dissapear.

[Letum]

Well, if it isn't hydrocarbon, what is the real cause? :x
Too many people on the planet. Reduce the world human population down to say 3 billion or so and watch the problem dissapear.

:hmm:
Any volunteers?

[Skybird]

Any volunteers?
No, but a strong defense industry lobby, a strong pharmacological lobby, a huge chemical lobby, a huge financial and economical lobby.

When you have the power to chose who has to volunteer, you do not depend on them agreeing.

[SUBMAN1]

Lets get the facts on the table:

600 scientists agree that there is humn caused global warming (and since it may be cooling now, they have retracted that statement and called it climate change now)

31,000, including 9,000 PhD's all say this is BS. Humans are not responsible.

So let me get this straight, we have a bunch of what? Pinheads pushing an agenda for climate change? And you are saying this is a financial thing for the 31K? Heck no! That tells me that 600 scientists are in someones pocket. No other way about it, and we have a bunch of people that can't think for themselves that agree with them.

Nice world we have here. Enough said. Please continue on with your propaganda. Sorry for the interruption.

-S

[mrbeast]

Those aren't facts Subman.

Subman we've already cast doubt on the purported 31,000 'scientists' that are against climate change theory. So where is it written that only 600 scientists support man made climate change theory?

This is exactly what people have already pointed out about the denial campaign ie it simply recycles the same flawed material and spews it out again and again and again ad nauseam.

[Letum]

Lets get the facts on the table:

600 scientists agree that there is humn caused global warming (and since it may be cooling now, they have retracted [...see above...]

That's not addressing anyone else's post in any kind of serious way.
Your just repeating what you said in the first post in a little more of a vulgar way.

[SUBMAN1]

Those aren't facts Subman.

Subman we've already cast doubt on the purported 31,000 'scientists' that are against climate change theory. So where is it written that only 600 scientists support man made climate change theory?

This is exactly what people have already pointed out about the denial campaign ie it simply recycles the same flawed material and spews it out again and again and again ad nauseam.They are facts. Even if a couple names were duplicated, so you go 30K. And the wiki is not a reliable source of information by the way. I can write what I want there too.

And 600 is the number of scientists on the committee. Science by commitee - What happened to science by proven fact? Science by payouts more like.

Letum - Show me someones post that makes sense with fact first.

-S

[XabbaRus]

And how do you think other science is done if not by a commitee at some point.
wiki was a first stop from there you can link to plenty of other sources discrediting the 31,000 signatures claim.

And it is more than a couple of signatures duplicated and in a time survey a lot of scientists said they wouldn't sign it again.

[SUBMAN1]

And how do you think other science is done if not by a commitee at some point.
wiki was a first stop from there you can link to plenty of other sources discrediting the 31,000 signatures claim.All of them pro climate change. Same argument you are using to discredit the story itself. :D

A time survey a lot of scientists said they wouldn't sign it again.What survey?

-S

[August]

However, what we need to do now, is to do which can be done by human power, including a cut in CO2 emissions, in a hope to reverse the detoriating trend of global warming

Are you willing to give up motor vehicles, or doing without a computer or maybe even electricity itself? Are you willing do without heat in the winter? These are the types of things we'll have to do to significantly cut Co2 emissions and as world population continues to grow, more cuts will have to be made.

[SUBMAN1]

Just a FYI - I checked the list of names. I personally couldn't find one that was duplicated.

-S

[bradclark1]

However, what we need to do now, is to do which can be done by human power, including a cut in CO2 emissions, in a hope to reverse the detoriating trend of global warming

Are you willing to give up motor vehicles, or doing without a computer or maybe even electricity itself? Are you willing do without heat in the winter? These are the types of things we'll have to do to significantly cut Co2 emissions and as world population continues to grow, more cuts will have to be made.
I think goverment emphisis would be a good start. Lets start with basic steps before giving up motor vehicles, electricity and making cows extinct etc, etc.

[August]

However, what we need to do now, is to do which can be done by human power, including a cut in CO2 emissions, in a hope to reverse the detoriating trend of global warming
Are you willing to give up motor vehicles, or doing without a computer or maybe even electricity itself? Are you willing do without heat in the winter? These are the types of things we'll have to do to significantly cut Co2 emissions and as world population continues to grow, more cuts will have to be made. I think goverment emphisis would be a good start. Lets start with basic steps before giving up motor vehicles, electricity and making cows extinct etc, etc.

Government emphasis? You mean like this?:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236237789236363.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

[bradclark1]

Government emphasis? You mean like this?:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236237789236363.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

The executive branch would be nice. That article you point to would be nice if there was actually a story about it somewhere and not someones comical opinion on how it's going to be. I haven't seen one. Then again I haven't looked.