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

[Safe-Keeper]

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

Ha, I found it,

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...regon+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]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

...@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! 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.
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

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.

[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 testing

That'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

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!

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by Letum

...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]

Originally Posted by McBeck

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]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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...