PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?


Pages : [1] 2 3

doubly
08-01-2005, 12:57 AM
I'm reading a really interesting book by Michael Chriichton (the guy who wrote Jurassic Park) called State of Fear. In this novel, seroius flaws are pointed out in the theory of global warming. Really, it's news to me that it's a "theory", not an established fact.

Chrichton argues that the Earth is going through a natural warming trend. Also, it has never been proven that CO2 emissions are the actual cause of the warming trend. Other issues, such as the reliability of so-called "climatologists", are also raised.

One of the most interseting things I found was the mention of a guy named Bjorn Lombrg. Apparently, this guy set off to disprove another scientist who put forth that the envoronment was actually improving. In the process of doing this, though, Lomborg found out that the scientist he was disproving was actually right. (Maybe some Scandinavian members could shed further light on this.)

I just want to get some opinions from people worldwide. I believe in things like the Big Bang and evolution, but I know they're only theories scientifically. Global warming, on the other hand, I'm just beginning to doubt....

JackYang
08-01-2005, 03:41 AM
I blame it on CHINA's POLUTIONS! :mad:

meegaan1
08-01-2005, 08:03 AM
I think that global warming has gone down, but that's only because here in North Nevada, we didn't have ONE DAY during summer that was one-hundred degrees (Fahrenheit) or more. That's unusual for us.
Maybe we'll all freeze instead of fry!

deviljet88
08-01-2005, 12:07 PM
I blame it on CHINA's POLUTIONS! :mad:
Eff off. You can't blame the people for wanting to own cars. Freezing, how cool. Ice age seems fun, need ice down in Australia. This is going to end up with a particular greenie on KKW shouting at everyonelse, so I'm not going to post how ignorant I am. Refer to the other tonne of Global Warming threads if you want.

PhoeniX
08-01-2005, 05:41 PM
We live on this planet,…, this planet is our home,…, this planet is our house,…, and people who can't have respect for their own house/planet, aren't worth living in/on it!


I never thought of it like that but I think that you're right

When are they gonna invent environmentaly friendly cars? Or do they have them yet?

frodo1511
08-01-2005, 05:58 PM
Watch the Day After Tommorow.

Although not completly accurate, it's hypothesis' could come true, just not as fast as in the movie(an ice age in 2 weeks? Obsurd).

Mags
08-01-2005, 06:17 PM
There's quite a lot of evidence that the earth is going through natural temperature changes. It's also pretty definite that those changes may be exacerbated by global warming and pollution, but there's not really anything to say that this wouldn't be happening anyway.

The earth goes through climate cycles. It's natural, and it happened quite a bit before we were even here.

Anyone who wants more information, I'd suggest they read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. Excellent read.

Narg
09-01-2005, 02:00 AM
I never thought of it like that but I think that you're right

When are they gonna invent environmentaly friendly cars? Or do they have them yet?

Never. They wont invent environmentaly friendly cars ever. Know why ? oil companys would loose FUCKLOADS of money, were talking trillions of dollars. There have been heaps of cars invented that could run of non-fossil fuels, but the people who made them have just been bought out by the large oil companies. Even if they refused to sell their product, they would most likely either be beaten into submission, or killed. Its all about money, thats why doctors are NEVER going to cure cancer, know why ?, there making shitloads of money from the treatments, fuck the cure, weres the money in that. Its the same with AIDS etc. Doctors dont cure shit.

Also, Nice post FF, but you forgot to add the fact that you drive a car and live in a large house that would use lots of electricity. So infact, your no environmentalist are you :).

frodo1511
09-01-2005, 02:02 AM
Only monks have appreciation for the environment.

Anyone agree with the Day After Tommorow theory I stated earler?

Narg
09-01-2005, 02:05 AM
No, like most holywood movies its a load of bullshit.

apoggy
09-01-2005, 02:08 AM
No, like most holywood movies its a load of bullshit.

Just like your sex life.

frodo1511
09-01-2005, 02:08 AM
No, like most holywood movies its a load of bullshit.

Actually, it could happen. We ARE, as a whole, dumping hundreds of gallons of fresh water into the seas and oceans daily, unbalancing the delicate ratio of salf:fresh water. Other than the sun, the North Atlantic Current is the most powerful force for worldwide weather patterns. It's quite possible global warming could trigger an ice age in a couple thousand years.

Narg
09-01-2005, 04:24 AM
Just like your sex life.

Good example.

Scott
09-01-2005, 05:32 AM
Never. They wont invent environmentaly friendly cars ever. Know why ? oil companys would loose FUCKLOADS of money, were talking trillions of dollars. There have been heaps of cars invented that could run of non-fossil fuels, but the people who made them have just been bought out by the large oil companies. Even if they refused to sell their product, they would most likely either be beaten into submission, or killed. Its all about money, thats why doctors are NEVER going to cure cancer, know why ?, there making shitloads of money from the treatments, fuck the cure, weres the money in that. Its the same with AIDS etc. Doctors dont cure shit.

Also, Nice post FF, but you forgot to add the fact that you drive a car and live in a large house that would use lots of electricity. So infact, your no environmentalist are you :).

And also, the amount of money the government rakes in from the tax on oil doesn't give them much of an incentive to invest money on other forms of power.

deviljet88
09-01-2005, 10:51 AM
Never. They wont invent environmentaly friendly cars ever. Know why ? oil companys would loose FUCKLOADS of money, were talking trillions of dollars. There have been heaps of cars invented that could run of non-fossil fuels, but the people who made them have just been bought out by the large oil companies. Even if they refused to sell their product, they would most likely either be beaten into submission, or killed. Its all about money, thats why doctors are NEVER going to cure cancer, know why ?, there making shitloads of money from the treatments, fuck the cure, weres the money in that. Its the same with AIDS etc. Doctors dont cure shit.

Also, Nice post FF, but you forgot to add the fact that you drive a car and live in a large house that would use lots of electricity. So infact, your no environmentalist are you :).
That is utterly not true! You think doctors delibrately hide a cure or attempt to not find a cure for cancer? If they didn't cure shit, you'd have died of the common cold you ungrateful bastard. If you learn more about cancers and AIDS, you'd realise why they're so hard to find cures for. However, the actual RELEASING of cures, then you may be correct. Pharmaceutical companies, especially in AIDS, want to have a monopoly on it. Problem is though, Africa is a poor country and its where AIDS is hitting the most. Catch 22, companies don't get cash, people don't get cured. The stuff about oil companies I agree on though.

Onto Scott's point, you're Victorian, surely you've heard of the wind farm plans in the Gippslands? Bloody assholes there keep complaining about unsightly turbines though, more about political ambition than cash, for not oil based economy countries I'd think anyway.

Edit: Scientists try to find cures anyway, not doctors in most cases.

barrington
09-01-2005, 02:34 PM
Fact 1: Earth naturally warms and cools in cycles due to an elliptical oscillation in it's orbit. I think it's every 15,000 years or thereabouts.
Fact 2: Humans are producing gasses that warm the environment.
Fact 3: Global Warming occurs naturally, but humans are accelerating the process by which this happens.

There's not really much else to say. It's happening, and we're making it worse. If you doubt it, you've got your head in the sand.

Dionysus
09-01-2005, 03:19 PM
i've always though that any major changes our planet goes through, is by no fault of its inhabitants, its been thousands and thousands of years since the last major change in the planet and i think another is due, everything in the universe is expanding and contracting and moving around so its ignorant to believe that everything will stay this way forever, however luckily for us humans, we now have the capabilities to change with it, and as the bloke in jurassic park said (damn Michael Chriichtons on the ball) "life finds a way"

EDIT:
Its all about money, thats why doctors are NEVER going to cure cancer, know why ?, there making shitloads of money from the treatments, fuck the cure, weres the money in that. Its the same with AIDS etc. Doctors dont cure shit.

actually they would make more money on a cure than they would not having one, the price of drugs for specialty diseases are VERY high

my grandad died of lung cancer on the 6th October this year and his doctor said that the fact is they will probably never cure cancer, they will eventually however find a really good treatment, where they will give you medication that will keep it dorment and say "come back for another check up in 10 years", the cancer will not effect your way of life, so i supose its as good as a cure

hasselbrad
10-01-2005, 12:50 PM
Only monks have appreciation for the environment.

Anyone agree with the Day After Tommorow theory I stated earler?

Only the "obsurd" part...but then, only if it's spelled absurd.

doubly
15-01-2005, 03:27 PM
I don't really know about your facts, Barrington. But let me throw in a caveat and say that nobody does.

Maybe this warming trend has something to to with our incredible urbaniztion over the last century--concrete and metal and things like this certainly reflect sunlight and make it hotter in a city than the countryside. I don't think scientists know if CO2 emissions are causing warming or not.

The problem is is this: scientists get funding from environmental groups, environmental groups get funding from the public. Say a scientist does an experiment that finds no conclusive evidence for global warming. Don't you think that he may fudge the results so he can get funding? Don't you think that the environmental groups may want him to fudge the results so the public (now fearful about global warming) will give them money?

It's a terrible cycle, but it could just as easily apply to industry wanting anit-global warming info.

Pete
15-01-2005, 10:44 PM
recent bbc article on global warming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4171591.stm)

it might be a natural cycle - but im sure ive heard that the next ice age is over due?

bbc article on ice age cycle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm)

Flightfreak
15-01-2005, 10:57 PM
Why should we need prove?
The way we are exploiting the planet now does not only has a bad affect on our planet, but also on everything that lives on it!
So why do we need to prove that we are fasten up the "global warming of the earth", why?
There are alternatives!

There is nothing going to change as long as there are a few multinationals that control our whole economy.
There is nothing going to change if we keep choosing for huge profits instead of an economy based on a healthy way of exploiting the planet.

bob
16-01-2005, 02:43 AM
well provided it doesn't affect me too much during my lifetime... i'm gonna be selfish and declare that i don't care enough.

wait for our non-renewable resources to run out and then let's see what happens, shall we? the united arab emirates' days are numbered.

deviljet88
16-01-2005, 03:54 AM
They'll probably find some useful environmentally way of using sand. Man those buggers are going to be rich for a long long time :(

qzx00
16-01-2005, 09:38 AM
I could use some global warming out here in Vegas, it's cold as hell right now. It's currently 43 degrees, which is about 43 degrees too cold. It snowed last week in Vegas.....IN LAS VEGAS!!! It's too damn cold.

Flightfreak
16-01-2005, 09:55 AM
well provided it doesn't affect me too much during my lifetime... i'm gonna be selfish and declare that i don't care enough.

You will think other wise if someone from your family, or maybe your own children die from cancer, or another sickness because of the pollution!

Well, the only thing you actually need to do is say that you want something to change!
That isn’t that much of an effort is it?
But if everybody says; “I don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect me” (what a very naïve thing to say btw.) then nothing is going to change, is it?



wait for our non-renewable resources to run out and then let's see what happens, shall we? the united arab emirates' days are numbered.

True. But why wait and take the risk of destroying more than we already have? The alternatives exist, but the system rather makes a lot of money instead of a bit less profit and a less aggressive way of exploiting the planet.

bob
17-01-2005, 03:36 AM
Originally Posted by bob
well provided it doesn't affect me too much during my lifetime... i'm gonna be selfish and declare that i don't care enough.
You will think other wise if someone from your family, or maybe your own children die from cancer, or another sickness because of the pollution!

Well, the only thing you actually need to do is say that you want something to change!
That isn’t that much of an effort is it?
But if everybody says; “I don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect me” (what a very naïve thing to say btw.) then nothing is going to change, is it?
i don't think i'll be complaining too much once i'm dead.

plus i wasn't being serious. at all. i have opinions on the matter, i just prefer to save them for real conversations. deviljet picked up on the humour.

Flightfreak
17-01-2005, 09:03 AM
Well, maybe he did, but the thing he said wasn’t stupid: sand (silisium) is the main substance for solar cells.
Pity you were not serious, some people without an opinion could be convinced by your arguments.

bob
18-01-2005, 05:17 PM
but i didn't put forth any arguments... and if people were convinced to think as i suggested then they're silly :(

barrington
24-01-2005, 01:05 PM
To turn the question on it's head, put it this way: Do you really think that a century of industrialised society, now totalling about 6 billion people, is NOT warming the planet?

All activities generate heat, that's one of the tenets of thermodynamics - replicate over the planet's population and there's a big heating effect. I don't see why anyone would dispute this.

apoggy
24-01-2005, 03:40 PM
you are forgetting badger depreciation

deviljet88
24-01-2005, 10:50 PM
To turn the question on it's head, put it this way: Do you really think that a century of industrialised society, now totalling about 6 billion people, is NOT warming the planet?

All activities generate heat, that's one of the tenets of thermodynamics - replicate over the planet's population and there's a big heating effect. I don't see why anyone would dispute this.
So instead of making protests and causing activity and therefore heat, environmentalists should just go and sit down in their chairs, and reeeeeeelaaaaax.

Flightfreak
26-01-2005, 12:40 PM
Special Reports On Key Topics In Science And Technology (http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in20)
Humans cause global warming, US admits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm)
World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert (http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=415878)

Do some of you really need to have a tsunami in your backyard before you start to realise that we can’t go on like this?!
The economy needs to be adjusted in function of the planet and humanity.

hasselbrad
26-01-2005, 01:35 PM
What does a tsunami have to do with global warming?

Flightfreak
26-01-2005, 01:42 PM
What does a tsunami have to do with global warming?

That’s not the point, we push the planet out of her natural balance by warming up the planet, the planet reacts on that with extreme weather and climate changes.
We can’t win we need to adjust our life style to the planet! The planet won’t adjust her self to us, even better she will do everything to bring it back in balance but there are borders!

deviljet88
26-01-2005, 10:57 PM
*laughs at Queensland's rich snobs who live it out on the coast* Take that bitches!

JackYang
27-01-2005, 12:06 AM
BLAME IT ON CHINA!!! :mad:

deviljet88
27-01-2005, 01:00 AM
BLAME IT ON CHINA!!! :mad:
Eff off. You can't blame the people for wanting to own cars.

Oh wait, didn't I post that already? Numbnut.

SimplyKnightley
27-01-2005, 01:23 AM
BLAME IT ON CHINA!!! :mad:

no one country is to be blamed for global warming. it's a collective doing.

besides, there may be more bicycles than there are cars in China. bicycles in China are ingrained in every day life, an important means of transportation and are visible everywhere. In the big cities, bicycles dominate streets even though cars and highways are being built.

Flightfreak
27-01-2005, 07:56 AM
:music342:
Why pointing fingers out at other countries? Do you have any idea how long it takes for a nuclear cloud to come from Russia to Europe? (Referring to the accident in Chernobyl)
Global warming, Is a world problem, there are of course countries who pollute(d) more than others, but they cant salve the problem on there own.
It’s not because it doesn’t happen in your front yard that it doesn’t affect you!
I could easily point out my finger to Russia, or the USA or china, but than you should also know that Belgium is the richest country of Europe, but its also the biggest polluter of Europe.
It starts at your own front door,…, how many of you people recycle?
We individuals can’t do much, we can only try to change our personal lifestyle as much as possible, we can only try to give a good example to our children, and too the younger ones.
There are other agencies who have more power and better ways, to make countries and companies change there policies.

SUPPORT GREENPEACE (www.greenpeace.com) NOW

Maybe they exaggerate on some subjects in your point of view, but do you really think they get what they ask? You need to ask more to have the change you actually want. ;)

Alias
27-01-2005, 04:00 PM
Never. They wont invent environmentaly friendly cars ever. Know why ? oil companys would loose FUCKLOADS of money, were talking trillions of dollars. There have been heaps of cars invented that could run of non-fossil fuels, but the people who made them have just been bought out by the large oil companies.

"All this and it’s looking to the future as well. In a genuine show surprise, BMW unveiled the enormous H2R, its hydrogen-powered concept which points to what the company sees as the fuel of the future. The 6.0-litre V12 engine produces 245bhp when running on liquid hydrogen, and accelerates to 60mph in 6 seconds. Even more impressively, a few days before the show, it clicked 300km/h in tests, a world record which officially makes it the fastest hydrogen car in the world. The styling and sheer size caused controversy, but as a showcase for discussions on future fuel technology, it didn’t fail."
Quote from article about the paris motoshow.

So what Oil companie owns BMW then?

apoggy
27-01-2005, 04:16 PM
there is a difference between producing a concept car and something to be put on the production lines to be mass produced. What you, or they failed to mention was the cost, which I expect is significant for its looks and performance.

Alias
27-01-2005, 05:05 PM
Good point. It may be expensive and just a concept now, but their steps in the right direction, there was another car like this at the paris motor show which seemed like it could be mass produced, i think they might have just changed the engine and kept the body but im not sure.

SimplyKnightley
28-01-2005, 12:07 AM
there are recycling bins in my neighbourhood for plastic, paper and cans. i do keep plastic bottles (shampoo, skin care products etc) for recycling but that's about my only involvement with saving the earth. i know there's more to be done. this concept should be imbued from young in schools so it comes naturally to people to spare more thought for pollution and global warming before they do something destructive. simple acts like buying refills, using recycled paper, no littering can make a lot of difference. it's about how much you care and the effort you are willing to put in.

barrington
28-01-2005, 12:16 AM
Hear hear! A ideal concept - a planet where everyone's primary instinct is an imbued desire is to save their world.

deviljet88
28-01-2005, 12:35 AM
We need a leader though, kinda like Captain Planet.

Zavender
28-01-2005, 12:51 AM
Ughh, Captain Planet. Such a terrible cartoon.

deviljet88
28-01-2005, 01:24 AM
Ughh, Captain Planet. Such a terrible cartoon.
At least it cared for the environment. Compared to whatever anime cartoon you watch, it's probably more useful.

Zavender
28-01-2005, 01:34 AM
It maybe more useful, but it wasn't entertaining. The episodes with Captain Pollution were pretty cool, but other than that, I hated it.

Physis
16-02-2005, 11:11 PM
"According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%." Nuff said! http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Plus, I know for a fact that Honda and Toyota are both taking steps to produce low-emmision vehicles. For example, the Toyota Prius is a hybrid car already on the market and it's only about $20,000 and the 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid, although it costs about $30,000, is still available. And those prices are still extremely cheap for a car.

Flightfreak
17-02-2005, 08:05 PM
http://home.tiscali.be/flightfreaks/bush.jpg

What is Kyoto?
The Kyoto protocol has the aim to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide with 5.2% under the carbon dioxide level of 1990.
Who does not cooperate with it? Big countries like the USA, China and India.
Knowing that they just need to put a coffee filter on their industries to accomplish the norm, while Europe and others need to invest big amounts of money above the measures we already took.

AureaMediocritas
17-02-2005, 08:24 PM
Absolutely.
Ironically enough, the U.S are among the countries that will be affected first
by climatic deterioration , as far as diversity of nature is concerned.
It seems that in Alaska, some habitations are literally "swallowed" by the earth
as higher temperatures turn initially rigid and dry soil into mud.
It is about time to THINK about assuring survival of mankind in the future ,
even if reckless capitalism is still predominant everywhere , or start a more
massive production of boats , gas masks and coffins (not crematoria, obviously).
I wish you luck. :)

deviljet88
18-02-2005, 11:10 AM
That's not ENTIRELY true... The protocol decided to excempt developed countries, which incidentally include India and China. However, I get your point as this editorial says:

Its supporters say Kyoto is a symbolic first step. But how many first steps have their already been. Who remembers the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 or its decisions? No one, because they were ignored. Kyoto is doomed too, not just because it does not include the US, but also because it does include China, India, and Brazil. If global gas emissions are to be reduced, they all have to be brought into the equation.

You also have to understand that most of the Chinese people aren't extremely rich, and in countries of such large populations, you need as cheap as (and its easy to find) possible labour and fuels to suceed, which sadly damages the environment. Find a solution?

Flightfreak
18-02-2005, 04:43 PM
Doing something about the unfair poor rich situation would help.
How many western companies moved their fabrics to the east to escape from the strict environment rules, and the cheap workers? ALOT
But for those governments is work for their people the first priority.
The problem in India is not only the poor people, but the way they think about life. They don’t give a damn about environment in their life philosophy.
China is not longer in the category of "third world country" i believe, they are a NIC (new industrialised country's) now.
They have a huge coal industry and don’t really want to invest in alternatives, so in way they need to get the correct signal, but if countries like the US don’t cooperate well than why should they? The US made a fool of the whole thing again (luckily we have them to play the cop of the world, *COUGH*).
The effect of the Kyoto protocol on it self will make a change of 10 - 15 years on a hundred year base what is of course not enough.
But it is signal; it is a step to change our life habits.
The alternatives exists but the economy and governments (that are directly connected with each other) earn still too much money on fossil fuels.

The reason why the USA doesn’t corporate with the Kyoto norm is because there were some agreements in it that would have a negative effect for their economy and power position. (When will they finally understand that they need to give up their power position, it has a fucking bad affect on the world)

deviljet88
18-02-2005, 11:09 PM
They are trying. The Three Gorges Dam Project (which has environmental debates for and against, but since this is about Global Warming, I don't care) on the Yangtze River when finished will generate around 40 million tonnes of coal being burnt. About 25 billion US dollars is being spent on it. I think they're trying to invest in alternatives...

Flightfreak
19-02-2005, 10:17 AM
I hope so,
Belgium could have been the number one for alternative energy, but the current prime minister cancelled al the projects in 1985.
Now countries like Sweden are the number ones and earn al lot of money with projects for wind energy...

Flightfreak
14-03-2005, 11:22 AM
Water crisis looms as Himalayan glaciers retreat
Melting glaciers in the Himalayas - among the world's fastest retreating glaciers due to the effects of global warming - could lead to water shortages for hundreds of millions of people. » Read more (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/news/news.cfm?uNewsID=19111)
Witnesses to climate change - read their stories and see, through their eyes, how climate change is affecting their lives. (http://www.panda.org/campaign/powerswitch/people_power/climate_witnesses.cfm)

deviljet88
14-03-2005, 11:34 AM
We won't be seeing much until the Statue of Liberty gets washed out to sea.

hannahjane
20-03-2005, 01:22 AM
BLAME IT ON CHINA!!! :mad:

I hate to break it to you, (even if you are taking the piss), but China actually emits a much lower percentage of pollution per person than other leading countries; it's just that China is also a lot BIGGER (isn't it the third biggest country in the world?), and thus obviously it's going to emit more pollution than smaller countries. But, on the whole, it's not that bad - Britain is tiny and per person, emits a lot more. Also, as China becomes more developed IT IS polluting our environment more - but, as it claims, it has a certain right to. America and Britain have had their fair share of polluting the environment, and there are now regulations in place which allow China a certain amount of emmition; similar to Britian's levels gone before it. The other countries know full well they can't criticize China for something they themselves, have also been responsible for. Basically, if China wasn't so big it wouldn't pollute our environment so much.

Also, it's interesting that no-one has yet mentioned Global Dimming - the new environmental phenomena; the opposite to Global Warming. Global Dimming is basically the environmentalists way of saying; "we're f*cked either way". Basically, if we decrease the level of harmful gases we release into the atomsphere (such as Sulphur Dioxide), we'll decrease the earth's temperature which will incite Global Dimming - it's to do with random droplet clouds and reflection, I can't be arsed getting into (and frankly, I can't recollect it all)...

There's a kind of selfish part of me that sometimes thinks; "can I be arsed saving the environment?", and I like the fact that I'm honest enough to admit that, but then I think of my future kids, and their future kids., and so on....and then I'm thinking, something must be done. If the Americans would sign the Environmental Treaty; we'd get a lot further, but - despite the fact that the US is the biggest contributer to the Warming process - Bush refuses to promise to decrease the levels of Sulphur and Carbon he emits. What a gimp. I can't believe he won the recent election. Also I think the environmental scientists are being a little too optimistic, and thus, are setting us up for failure - which does no-one's confidence any good. For example, Britian alone was expected to reduce it's pollution emission by 30% within a time period of just two years, and by a whopping 70% within the next five (or something)! Obviously, we did not meet these ambitious targets; which sent out the disconcerning message of failure. If it felt like measures were being successful, perhaps more people would bother with trying to conserve the environment.

On the topic of "when will they make environmentally friendly cars", to which someone answered; "never". They already have. Cars which run on electricity can be bought, though for ridiculous amounts of money, and obviously they are not wide-spread yet; but they conserve a lot of important resources such as oil. (If we continue using that at the rate that we do we've only got 45 years of the stuff left. I think we've got about 240 years left of coal).

Finally, the thread-starter post mentions the new book by the Jurassic Park author; I think it's worth noting that although (without having read the book) I am lead to believe it contains solid scientific information, I am still informed that it is classed, nonetheless, as fiction. And thus, we can't be expected to believe all it entails. (C'mon he's the author of JURASSIC PARK for god's sake....when was the last time you saw a T-Rex walking down ya street?!)

Flightfreak
20-03-2005, 08:19 AM
i think i have a new crush,...,want to mary me? http://www.flyingcirkus.com/forum/upfiles/smiley/smiley31.gif

Also I think the environmental scientists are being a little too optimistic, and thus, are setting us up for failure - which does no-one's confidence any good. For example, Britian alone was expected to reduce it's pollution emission by 30% within a time period of just two years, and by a whopping 70% within the next five (or something)! Obviously, we did not meet these ambitious targets; which sent out the disconcerning message of failure. If it felt like measures were being successful, perhaps more people would bother with trying to conserve the environment.

Actually they found a trick for that. If a country sees that they are not going to make it (the 30% for example) than they can buy "clean air" in Russia.
Something what always annoys me is that, countries spend billions of dollars on prestige projects, knowing that they could spend that money on reducing the price of solar cells.
Because now the billing price of solar sells is expensive.
I also annoy my self to the fact that the Belgium state could reduce the energy costs of the public buildings with 30% if they would make those buildings more energy durable.
It annoys me that the world spends billions of dollars on space projects while the half of the world doesn’t even have decent drinking water!
(Ah well maybe capitalism isn’t as pretty like most people think it is)
We spend billions of dollars to fly to the moon, but we can’t make the emission of harmful gasses drop, why? The replacing technologies already exist, money should also not be a problem, if we can fly to the moon,...
The world raised and will disappear again too, humans won’t be able to stay on earth.
But is that a reason to say, “what do I care, it will pass my time”
That’s like saying “I wont be careful with my new car, he will be broke in 10 years anyway”
Apparently people have it a lot easier to care about their own car, than caring about the world they live on.

deviljet88
20-03-2005, 08:29 AM
KKW is now the home of spontaneus marriage proposals... Back on topic, that's some great arguing there, FF... Yes, why shouldn't we cut budget spending from law enforcement and defense and god knows what else, when the poor and hungry are... well poor and hungry? Here's an idea, let's have charity organizations run our countries!

Flightfreak
20-03-2005, 08:52 AM
KKW is now the home of spontaneus marriage proposals... Back on topic, that's some great arguing there, FF... Yes, why shouldn't we cut budget spending from law enforcement and defense and god knows what else, when the poor and hungry are... well poor and hungry? Here's an idea, let's have charity organizations run our countries!

where did I exactly say that I want to cut on defence?

deviljet88
20-03-2005, 09:30 AM
Belgium's going to be attacked, OMFG OMFG OMFG.

Edit: OK lets do this properly..

Since when were the poor the ones who supplied the bulk of votes? Ahh wasn't that hard was it.

hannahjane
20-03-2005, 12:02 PM
i think i have a new crush,...,want to mary me? http://www.flyingcirkus.com/forum/upfiles/smiley/smiley31.gif



Actually they found a trick for that. If a country sees that they are not going to make it (the 30% for example) than they can buy "clean air" in Russia.
Something what always annoys me is that, countries spend billions of dollars on prestige projects, knowing that they could spend that money on reducing the price of solar cells.
Because now the billing price of solar sells is expensive.
I also annoy my self to the fact that the Belgium state could reduce the energy costs of the public buildings with 30% if they would make those buildings more energy durable.
It annoys me that the world spends billions of dollars on space projects while the half of the world doesn’t even have decent drinking water!
(Ah well maybe capitalism isn’t as pretty like most people think it is)
We spend billions of dollars to fly to the moon, but we can’t make the emission of harmful gasses drop, why? The replacing technologies already exist, money should also not be a problem, if we can fly to the moon,...
The world raised and will disappear again too, humans won’t be able to stay on earth.
But is that a reason to say, “what do I care, it will pass my time”
That’s like saying “I wont be careful with my new car, he will be broke in 10 years anyway”
Apparently people have it a lot easier to care about their own car, than caring about the world they live on.

If the marriage proposal is referring to meh, (to which I certainly hope it is, else this is really beyond wanting to crawl into the earth embarrassing), then I will certainly consider it. ;)

Especially on the grounds that you can argue a serious point, very well. I agree with all you say. I guess it boils down to greed really. Or over exuberent ambition - to want to fly to the moon rather than feed people or whatever. I agree that the logic in that is a bit f*cked.

Anyway to get back on topic, I'm really interested in what you said about buying clean air space from Russia. Could you eloborate on that in any way? I'm in love with Russia (as of reading Boris Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago", a few years back now), and, I dunno I'm interested in this "clean air" theory. I mean, they're a huge country, but I'd guess they're not too polluting because they're nowhere near developed enough?! I'm not sure on their pollution status.

Flightfreak
20-03-2005, 12:14 PM
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1508

oh btw, do you have any instant messenger program? it could be handy to organize the wedding :p

Kelsey
14-06-2006, 01:06 AM
I would love to hear what everyone has to say on this topic, especially since we all live in such a variety of places around the world and therefore experience all kinds of different examples and opinions on the matter. Today I got in an argument with a co-worker about global warming (I don't necessarily believe it's the huge deal we're told it is), and it's obviously becoming more and more of an issue (if not in nature, then among the earth's population). Is global warming as big of a deal outside of the U.S.? What are your thoughts on the subject?

hasselbrad
14-06-2006, 01:16 AM
While I would like to see us burn cleaner, renewable fuels like ethanol, I don't think global warming is a phenomenon over which we have any control. Most of it is bunk science backed up with far too narrow a scope of data. People are all excited because the polar ice caps are shrinking, but they are actually larger now than they were in the '20s and '30s. Permafrost is melting, but I have a suspicion that this has more to do with what's going on beneath the Earth's surface than with what the air temperature is. A one degree change in the temperature isn't going to cause soil that's been frozen for ten millenia to thaw. People like to point to the increased cyclonic activity taking place in the Atlantic Basin as proof that global warming is taking place. What they fail to mention is that there has been a reduction in the amount of cyclonic activity in the Pacific Basin recently. This is a natural cycle that the Earth goes through over a span of about 20 years. And, the intensity of storms hasn't increased, only the population density of the areas they've hit.
If there is another Ice Age on its way, there isn't anything me, you or Greenpeace can do about it.

EmotionSickness
14-06-2006, 01:26 AM
I'm none too educated on the subject, to be honest, but from what I DO know, I think it goes in cycles. They say "record heat", but we've experienced heat like this before...100 years ago.


In essence, there is little we can do to prevent global warming, or freezing, for that matter.

Edit -- haha, in other (more articulate and refined words): what Brad said. ;)

Katielondon
14-06-2006, 01:29 AM
global warming is mostly a natural thing, and that which is man made only accounts for a small amount of the total, of which most is factories etc, i hate the government using it as an excuse impose stupid taxes on motorists more just because thier short on money, the truth is everyone could drive around in 7 litre V8s that do about 10 miles to a gallon and it wouldnt affect the climate at all, the same must go for factories and plane companies whos taxes have been raised under the faulse acusation of ' causing climate change and global warming' if you ask me its just a thing which is mostly made up by the government to scare us and tax us more.

deviljet88
14-06-2006, 05:57 AM
Of course it's a big issue outside the US, greenies and scientists don't just live there. I think global warming sucks but there's more destructive events headed humanity's way, and a lot sooner.

Kelsey
15-06-2006, 06:16 PM
I think global warming is all crap. people just want something to be scared of.

dave
16-06-2006, 01:48 AM
you're entitled to have your opinion of course but i doubt you'll be able to refute the more and more upcoming evidence provided by scientists all over the world who spent their days and billions of dollars investigating this matter.


When 'Scientists' disagree the Scientific World becomes interesting. When I asked some of the Physicists that I worked with, they were pretty unanimous in saying that Global Warming isn't happening.

What I learned from working with some world famous Physicists is that there is a definite heirarchy in the Scientific Community. The money people make is determined by how much they 'Publish,' and how famous they are; not necessarily whether they are 'right.' Although being 'right' oftener than not does help. One of the things that is apparent is that Climatologists are not very high up on the 'Scientist' scale. To become more important, like Al Gore, they 'invent things.'

Flightfreak, when you say 'most Scientists do' thus and so, you are using statistics to lie. You have no clue what 'most Scientists' do so you pretend that you do and expect us not to challenge you. I challenge you to prove what you said.

You could show us some evidence presented by Scientists outside the field of Climatology. (Believe me that just because they have an advanced degree does not make them a Scientist. They even give PhDs in Psychology, and there is damn little Science there.)

Hazzle
16-06-2006, 07:31 AM
OMG finally someone's challenging Pete to back up what he says :p This should be interesting ;)

dave
16-06-2006, 12:07 PM
OK, the first of your references I checked spent most of the 120 some pages of their 'report' telling why their computer projections didn't match their conclusions. They wanted more something or other to study further... Not a good sign for your side.

You list something called 'New Scientist' magazine. I thought that was one of those 'Popular Science for Democrats' type of magazines. Anyway I didn't read much of what they said because they seemed to be quoting the first report without any of the 'sorry that we couldn't actually prove what we are positing, because our computer models don't seem to match what our direct observations tell us' stuff.

Tell me something, please? Isn't the entire 'Science' of climatology based on Computer Models? and if those Computer Models don't match the direct observations within a 3 sigma margin of error, doesn't that lead you to suspect that either the computer models are wrong, or the conclusions drawn from that very mismatch are suspect? Now, if a 'Scientist's' entire field is based on Computer Modeling, and he can't get it right, doesn't that bother you a little bit?

Everyone who does really huge Hydrodynamic Codes knows that modeling is really hard. The Physicists that I worked with, (and the ones I talked about in my first note,) deal with modeling the effects of an atomic bomb blast underground. There aren't many codes bigger, or more important to 'get it right.' So, when a code looks like it works to model something up close (in time) and then diverges over time, there's usually a problem with the code. Since the divergence we are talking about here is the entire basis for their claims that 'the sky is falling', don't you think it might be more productive to develop a code which didn't diverge from their own observations?

Features

On top of that, our expert team of writers explores key developments in depth, in at least four feature-length articles every week.So, 'New Scientist' is written by writers, not Scientists. I'll bet, when you're paid to write a story, you write it the way they tell you to write it. I know I did back when I was a Technical Writer for about six years.

AureaMediocritas
16-06-2006, 08:42 PM
Wow nice discussion... holy moly !

As for me, I do not understand the details of the question and yet... if you are
not convinced of the negative effects of toxic emissions, try to let the engine
of your car run in a closed garage. I would say that at least for you, at that
moment, there is some minor damage being felt. And then imagine the same
experience with billions of cars world-wide, with the garage being our planet.
Imagining this, although it might sound retarded, makes me feel a tatty wee bit
unconfortable about it all.

Carry on please. :icon_popc

dave
17-06-2006, 12:04 AM
And what do you say about Response when I put "global warming is false" in the firefox address line (http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1323.htm) On That Site (http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1523.htm) According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:
"To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest". 9

The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, accuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.

And I do seem to remember some 'paper' awhile back which said that trees emit more CO2 than automobiles, (thus cutting down the rainforests is a method of stopping global warming...) :fencing:

and when I put "global warming is false" into Internet Exploder's address line I got
Amazon.com: Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death: Books: Ronald Bailey,Competitive Enterprise Institute by Ronald Bailey,Competitive Enterprise Institutewww.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604?v=glance

Letter from Frederick Seitz - Global Warming Petition Project
... Review of Global Warming Evidence. Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a ...www.oism.org/pproject

"There is nothing so powerful as truth" - Daniel Webster. Global Warming and Modern Environmentalism. from Fascism, Environmentalism, and the Third Way. July 30, 2002 ... Editor's Note: This article on global warming, as well as separate articles on ozone ... crowd almost universally dismisses the anthropogenic-CO2/global-warming hypothesis as false ...opinionet.com/staff/gw1-switalski.shtml?PHPSESSID=4b320eb96a6f8c21f...

Global Warming: True or False?
... Global Warming: True or False?* C. O. Brittle, University of Michigan ... This paper is an attempt to examine this interplay, using the issue of global warming as an example ...www.riskworld.com/Abstract/2002/SRAam02/ab02aa028.htm

A False Consensus on Global Warming? - Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI)
Naomi Oreskes looked at 928 peer-reviewed studies in a data base on "climate change" and found "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" on the Greenhouse Theory. ... A False Consensus On Global Warming? Dennis Avery. Do all of the world's climate scientists agree that humanity is causing dangerous global warming ...www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/jan_10_05.htm
I deleted the link to The Sierra Club since they obviously support the Global Warming Theory, (They must have had the word 'false' somewhere on the page. [aren't search engines wonderful?] )

Since I can't argue with people who do this all the time; and since I will undoubtedly deal with the weather no matter what it is for the rest of my life, I'm only willing to spend a little while longer trying to find a 'Scientist' I respect enough to talk about it with.

Oh, one more thing. You said that Physicist's aren't expert enough to dispute the climatologists and to debunk their modelling efforts. I ask you, "Where did the climatologists get their modeling codes?" Check back, and you'll undoubtedly discover that ALL of the climatologist's codes were originally hydrodynamic codes written by Physicists and modified for use by the climatologists.

This is a little later. The first link I chose to check is the last one above.
A False Consensus On Global Warming? by Dennis T. Avery (http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm)
The "climate change" keywords also yielded one of the most famous studies in modern climate science: Gerard Bond's 2001 Science paper, "Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene." Being a historian, Ms. Oreskes may not have recognized that Bond's physical evidence of past climate cycles trumps the unproven Greenhouse Theory. In a seabed sediment core, Bond found a series of moderate, natural climate cycles—roughly 1500 years long, plus or minus 500 years. They stretch back hundreds of thousands of years. His 2001 paper confirmed the cycle's link to variations in the sun's irradiance, through carbon 14 and beryllium 10 isotopes in the sediments.

Ms. Oreskes should have looked under "climate variability." Bond and his colleagues don't think our climate is changing so much as varying naturally, but in roughly predictable ways. There's been a whole series of Chapman conferences on climate variability, with another proposed this year at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

Three other papers found under "climate variability": Switzerland's Jan Esper and Fritz Schweingruber studied tree line changes in the mountains of Siberia, where the boles of one tree variety are preserved—living and dead— for hundreds of years. They found the treelines around 1000 AD were 30 meters higher than today, indicating the Medieval Warming had higher temperatures than we do. They also found the treelines had receded around the year 1350, at the start of the Little Ice Age, and advanced again with the Modern Warming.

Berger and Von Rad retrieved a 5000-year sediment core from the Arabian Sea—and found the same 1500-year cycle already found by Bond in the North Atlantic. It revealed the unnamed cold period before the Roman Empire, the 1150-year Roman cycle, the 900-year Medieval cycle, and the beginning of the Modern Cycle. Each cycle moves Earth's temperatures 2 degrees C above and then 2 degrees C below the long-term mean.

J.P. Kennett and a scientific working group on "Climate Variability and Mechanisms" concluded that Earth's climate in the past 10,000 years "is now known to have been highly unstable and prone to major, rapid changes, especially warmings, that occurred briefly within a few decades or less. . .The scientific community has made major strides in documenting the history of millennial-decadal scale climate change. . ."

There's no need for scientists to vote on whether the Earth has warmed in the past 150 years. Ms. Oreskes and the UN bureaucrats just need some way to distinguish their Greenhouse Effect from the natural cycle.

Let me suggest one: the Greenhouse Theory says CO2 will first warm the atmosphere above the Earth. The atmosphere will then overheat the planet by radiating heat from above.

So far, the Earth's surface is warming two or three times faster than the atmosphere. That's a big Mother Nature vote against the Greenhouse Theory.

dave
17-06-2006, 01:20 AM
And what do you say about Response when I put "global warming is false" in the firefox address line (http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1323.htm)


You might not want to research this particular link. It appears that it would result in our discussing the absolutely best way to eliminate the problems you see evidenced by 'Global Warming.' Nuclear Power Plants (http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1534.htm) and almost free power for everyone.

Imagine, just as a 'thought experiment' that everybody had plenty of almost free power, that all cars were electric, that houses were heated with free electricity... That no industry burned coal, or wood, or even Natural Gas... That only trees emitted CO2.

You probably don't want to read this one (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html) , either.
The Global Warming Folly

by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. A multidisciplinary scientist, he has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. He is well known as an expert on radiation effects, and has served as the chairman of the UNSCEAR (United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Among his previous articles in 21st Century Science & Technology is "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase, " Spring 1997, p. 42.

Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real
Opinions critical of the IPCC reports have been expressed by many prominent, competent scientists. For example, Or. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board, and former Science Adviser to NATO, stated: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Dr. Keith Shine, one of the leading authors of the IPCC reports, described the editing process of the IPCC reports as follows:

"We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it's presented .... They don’t change the data, but the way it's presented. It is peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientist's report."

About half of the scientists who took part in preparing the IPCC report of 1996 do not agree with its conclusions hardly a consensus. Even the leading establishment science journals, Science and Nature, have exposed the IPCCs lack of consensus and its wrong methodology. Nature devoted two editorials to the subject, and an editorial in Science stated that: "If one examines some of the scientific articles on the subject [climate warming modeling], one finds virtually unanimous agreement that the models are deficient." The incompatibility of IPCC procedures with the usual standards of scientific research led Science to write that "IPCC's reputation for procedural correctness and consensus-building around scientific accuracy will be permanently compromised."


Thank you for making me do this. That was fun. I suspect you have some ruminations to attend to.

the 48th Ronin
17-06-2006, 04:37 AM
I'll vote for your nuclear when you tell me what you are going to do about nuclear waste which is not free ...

Darn it Dave... I was enjoying reading this till you went nuclear!

Kelsey
17-06-2006, 04:57 AM
First of all it's pretty important that you have some understanding of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun's energy, warming the Earth enough to support life. Most mainstream scientists believe a human-driven increase in "greenhouse gases" is increasing the effect artificially. These gases include carbon dioxide, emitted by fossil fuel burning and deforestation, and methane, released from rice paddies and landfill sites.
So what is your solution? Cut down all the trees? If Al Gore is to be believed, the problem lies within the carbon dioxide. His argument, which from your above response sounds like you would agree, is that the greenhouse effect is causing the heat from the sun to be trapped within the atmosphere, thus heating up the earth and causing "global warming." This idea has too many holes. One being: what grows when it gets warmer? Algae. What does algae do? It sucks up the CO2. So what's the problem?

Here is a quote from an article that cites Professor Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist from Carleton University: when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Something what most people don’t understand is that global warming is not something straight, it is exponential. For that reason, the smallest influence we have on a complex system as the world’s climate has far-reaching consequences.
What scientific study points to that? We can't even control the effects of the coyote-elk population in Yellowstone National Park. How the fuck can scientists accurately predict the temperature in fifty years, or what will happen when and if the average temperature of the earth rises a few degrees.

For example, when the upper water layers of an ocean warm up more, they mix up less good with the layers from below, which means that there will be less feeding substances in the top layer that can take up carbon dioxide (CO2) by photosynthesis. But the warmer weather means longer growing season, so nature, as it has in the past, can easily balance itself out to make up for the lack of initial nutrients provided to the algae or whatever else on the surface of the water.

For example, the icecaps reflect the light back to the atmosphere, but when the ice melts, what is happening all over the world, decreasing ice cover will mean exposed land absorbs more heat and speeds up warming further.
Melting icecaps can mean more moisture in the air, right? More moisture can mean more clouds.... So isn't it possible that the increased number of clouds will reflect the sunlight? If that's the case, the water won't heat up. We don't know that won't happen any more than we know it will.

The latest reports on increased levels of glacial discharge, in the journal Science, reports the amount of ice being dumped into the ocean from the Greenland Ice Sheet has doubled in the last 5 years. Scientists had thought that global warming did not yet significantly threaten the ice sheet and it would take over a thousand years to break down.
A full breakdown would result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of 7 meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.
Says Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki: "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
He's not the only one who thinks that:
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

you're entitled to have your opinion of course but i doubt you'll be able to refute the more and more upcoming evidence provided by scientists all over the world who spent their days and billions of dollars investigating this matter.
Try me. I think if I got enough people with titles and so called status to tell you that the moon is made of cheese, you'd believe that in a heartbeat. Oh, but that's just silly isn't it?

I'll be back later...this topic is awesome, let's keep it going.

Swordsman
17-06-2006, 07:11 AM
Our asses are doomed one or the other, the atmosphere is screwed.

dave
17-06-2006, 10:17 AM
I've got to get some sleep, but before I quit for the night, is four days ago recent enough?

one more note about the movie (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)

duckula
17-06-2006, 11:24 AM
This is like watching tigers fight with knives.

Hazzle
17-06-2006, 12:35 PM
Cockfighting's got nothing on this...

dave
17-06-2006, 06:55 PM
<snip>
You and Dave still haven’t answered my question, while I try to keep answering all of yours, I think that's a pity:

Give me one reason why we should not take the uncertainty that “global warming is caused by human activity” for an certainty?

Oh! Is that all you want? OK. The answer is that YOU should. It seems to have captured your imagination and interest. It gives you meaning. So YOU should take this seriously, unless you are meant to do something more important with your life...

As for me, I don't believe the particular 'Scientists' who seem to be manipulating the facts so as to make themselves more important than they are entitled to be.

Occam's Razor, The simplest explanation for a situation is almost always the truth. The simplest explanation here is that these "Scientists" are misrepresenting the results of their process.

dave
17-06-2006, 11:16 PM
Wel dave, i assume you don't face problems like cancers, asthma,... in your family. I suppose you live with eye covers and don't care about things like deforestation, desertification, all round pollution etc. and the chance that all this may influences our climate with far-reaching consequences. I hope you live long and happy in that small world of yours called 'home'. Thank You, I suspect that I will. Also, I am extremely happy that some of these fake 'Scientists' have found other people to lie about. Living and working around Los Alamos New Mexico, I've had to put up with fake 'Scientists' and their 'directed research results.' for the last 30 years. True Scientists do not do their research with a foregone conclusion in mind when they start. (It's bad for their reputation when the results don't match the goal they set for themselves, bad for their blood pressure also.) Note that results not matching projections is a major problem for Climatologists. They have managed to sufficiently obfuscate the issue that people actually believe that modeling the atmosphere is not possible. When their long range projections don't match the models they lie about it instead of adding in a "global warming" factor, rerunning the computations and "proving" their hypothesis, (as close as they can to proof, anyway.)

But No! Adding a 'global warming factor' is not possible for them, as they don't really understand the problem or any possible solution. So they wave their hands in the air crying 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...'Oh and believe me i do find it important. Good, then go on about solving the problem. It is obviously not something I can deal with, and since I already saved the world back in 1988, (Kearsarge and CORRTEX [where I worked] (http://npc.sarov.ru/english/projects/reportaccess/section3.html) ) I'll applaud your efforts, but will stand down this time and let you do it. I'm disgusted by the fact <skip typical liberal balderdash>

I'm disgusted because of the fact that Greenpeace has to <skip>You don't want to know about the conversations I had with the founder of Greenpeace when I was working across the street from his boat back in 1979.I'm disgusted to see that every year 20 000 km² of forest is cut down for monoculture soya in Brasilia and still 5 million people became unemployed the last five years in the agriculture sector. I question your figures, but no matter what the truth is I also believe this is a bad thing. But I seriously question your '5 million people' figure. I'm disgusted to see how western countries buy tons of cobalt for cheap prices knowing that the money is used for an rebellion war in Rwanda and Congo.References please? I'm disgusted to see how China buys as much wood as possible legal or illegal cut, to foresee the demand of it industries that make wood products for the world market.
Nothing above a good economy, isnt it?… I believe we send most of our scrap wood to Japan where they salvage it and turn it into plywood and sell it back to us. You find something wrong with that? Pray tell, what is wrong with that? Would you rather see it go up the chimney as Presto-logs?
It may be your truth but time will tell, it’s funny as I just saw this documentary from the bbc. Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm)Relevance? The BBC is definitely not a Scientific Outlet. While I do believe that some of their news is better than US-Media, I don't believe their Scientific Staff deserves the same respect as their News Staff. (My response may be a little bit confusing because your translation doesn't make much sense. I don't believe you said what you meant to say, and I'm sorry I can't guess closer than this as to what you meant to say.) A pity you don't take the effort to think about a good reason why we should not take the uncertainty “global warming is caused by human activity” for an certainty. As I can think of a dozen reasons why we should. I suppose the eye covers are to blame for. I reiterate my response. (Basically I distrust your sources, so I am not wont to become involved.) Another reference which purports to dispute the 'Global Warming Theory' in 2006 (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=65) Oh! Is that all you want? OK. The answer is that YOU should. It seems to have captured YOUR imagination and interest. It gives YOU meaning. So YOU should take this seriously, unless you are meant to do something more important with your life...

As for me, I don't believe the particular 'Scientists' who seem to be manipulating the facts so as to make themselves more important than they are entitled to be.

Occam's Razor, The simplest explanation for a situation is almost always the truth. The simplest explanation here is that these "Scientists" are misrepresenting the results of their process. Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

Kelsey
18-06-2006, 12:17 AM
So it sounds like you've researched both sides, FF. So if you have, and this is the interpretation that you choose to take from that, then fine. You worry about it. I think it's a waste of time and energy though, and I don't think you're in the majority. The loudest maybe (which can sometimes seem like the majority), but not the majority. People always need something to be worried about. The Cold War. Y2K. 6-6-06. Bird flu (finally something actually tangible!) When something is no longer able to be feared, something else will always come around.

If you want to believe everything you hear about global warming, then fine. But these scientists on both sides can do nothing more but speculate. No one knows what is going to happen. No one knows what is likely to happen. All you can do is continue to ask questions, and there can be a question asked for everything that's brought up, whether pro or con.

I live in a 900 square foot apartment. My dad drives a 1988 Honda. I walk to work. We don't have an air conditioner. Do you think these scientists who are paid thousands, sometimes millions, a year to conduct studies so that they can be published live like I do? I bet not. They preach, but can't practice.

dave
18-06-2006, 01:51 AM
Sorry dave but these both webpages/articles were modified for the last time in June 2004 according to the server data. <snip>
The last link you refer to is again a page with out a date but according to the server data last modified end 2004 and if you’ve read the last ICCP report <snip>

The last ICPP report was issued in 2001. There is another one due out in 2007 and it is in 'Final Review' stage, but it is very hard to obtain a copy. I can't seem to find it on the net. It seems that your references are older than the ones I was quoting. What is your problem with them?

dave
19-06-2006, 12:05 AM
Sorry my bad, I meant this report. ( http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf) If you’d followed the fifth link like I said you’d know I meant that one.

No, You did not. This is the first time you've tried to use a NOAA Report, and you've chosen a particularly disingenuous one to start with.

Most of your previous citations depended on the credentials of the United Nations and the IPCC reports.

You say I should have followed the fifth link to prove that what you wanted to use to prove your point was this particular report. You however ignore the fact that this particular report is the first link you gave, and, concomitantly the one which I criticized the most.

I will repeat myself only to the extent that you should pay particular attention to the opening summary of the report, it is full of dissembling.

Since they have "increased confidence", how long do you think it will be before they actually have proof? Proof good enough that we should go back to the energy expenditure level of the '80s?

dave
19-06-2006, 01:52 AM
<snip>When I say:
“why not take the uncertainty “global warming is caused by human activity” for an certainty.”

The uncertainty refers to the fact that it’s not sure, that it may be wrong, manipulated,…
What I am asking you is: Why not act as though 'Global Warming' is true (if everything that “would” cause global warming is bad for us and our environment)? So why not act as though 'Global Warming' is true until the day we know for sure whether it is true, as the world will be better off if we do.
Because that immediately turns the United States into a 'Third World Country." And it only affects the United States that way. I am not one of the people over here who 'wrings my hands and cries about how we have left the rest of the world behind, we have to stop and let them catch up!' That's not me. If the rest of the world wants to catch up, tell them to 'start running.' You might also tell them to shed their Dictators, their Princes and Princesses (except Queen Nur, Diana and Grace Kelly) and start rewarding people who do good things. We will be easy to catch as our Politicians have somehow decided that we are to blame for the troubles of the world, and made sure that the 'electorate' elected people who feel that way. (Have you ever thought about why they like to 'get out the vote? Because when everybody votes the statisticians are right. But, when some people stay home, the statisticians haven't got a clue. That's why the new polls are broken up into 'likely to vote' columns.)

As long as scientists don't fully understand how our climate works, what the influences are, and they don't have the computer power to simulate “accurate” models, you'll always be able to doubt these results.

Something both sides agree on is: More data and research is needed.

Everything that would cause global warming is bad for our planet. The only thing they are not sure about is whether it influences our climate or not. So for gods sake why not take the uncertainty for a certainty, because at the end, either way, if its true or not, we’re better off believing in it.

Flightfreak, again you are wrong. Back when I was running some of the biggest Hydrodynamic codes in the world, I was called on by Climatologists from NOAA to run some for them on the same computers, at the same time. You are wrong. Also, you might find it interesting to hear that I have a Beowulf Cluster upstairs made out of old junk PCs. (Some of those old junk PCs are faster than the Cray-1s were.) This particular Beowulf Cluster contains nine PCs at this point, runs Linux, and can whip the pants off your 'State of the art' Windoze machine. But, the people you are talking about don't think that way. Instead they spend their time trying to 'weasel word' their pseudo 'Scientific Reports' so they can say "I never said that! Of course I know we've been going through a Solar Cycle which heats up the atmosphere! Of Course I know that! I would NEVER say that the US should do something so the rest of the world can catch up!"

As I take it from you Dave, is not believing in it is more a political decision than a rational.Not now. You've made me look at the papers, and what I saw was a bunch of 'self serving lies' put out as fake Scientific Reports with misleading words to obfuscate the real meaning. Thank you. You have convinced me that the only reason for the lies about 'Global Warming' is to make the United States turn off their power plants and wait for the rest of the world to catch up. AND to get a whole bunch of people who couldn't get a PhD in Physics the esteem and salaries that they would have gotten if they had actually taken and passed those courses. (Too bad they had to stop at Climatology...) "I coulda been a Con... a Physicist!"

Thank god they flunked them out! They are letting too many Cheaters and Liars get PhDs these days as it is. :fencing:

Ranman
19-06-2006, 01:58 AM
Why don't you two get a room. I'll pay for it
I'll suply two bottles of Jack, a pack of smokes
and two baseball bats so you can beat the shit out of eachother

dave
19-06-2006, 02:13 AM
Why don't you two get a room. I'll pay for it
I'll suply two bottles of Jack, a pack of smokes
and two baseball bats so you can beat the shit out of eachother
Is that how you deal with a good constructive intelligent argument? That's also 'not me'.

AureaMediocritas
19-06-2006, 10:34 AM
Constructive ? With you arguing that the world should get rid of their dictators.
Heh yeah like Saddam, right ? What about Pinochet, the Contras, just to stay
in an area geographically close to yours ?

Hazzle
19-06-2006, 10:57 AM
Dave we just want entertainment. And this is so close to being great, it just needs some bloodshed.

dave
19-06-2006, 11:05 PM
Constructive ? With you arguing that the world should get rid of their dictators.
Heh yeah like Saddam, right ? What about Pinochet, the Contras, just to stay
in an area geographically close to yours ?About Pinochet (http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html)
In a heartbeat. It is my understanding that "The Contras" are better people than the government that they were opposed to (Well, except for a Nun here or there...). However, This is one of those things that "The Media" picked the wrong side to proselytize about, consequently America did too.

I do not believe in Dictatorships, Kingdoms, whatever you call it when some one man/woman is in charge and tells everybody else what they MUST do. So, those of you who don't see that point, I hope you don't sneak up behind me. If I see you coming...

You know, in Iraq and Iran the Mullahs and their followers still hang young women because they don't wear the traditional woman's uniform. Is that the world you want to live in? It doesn't have to be a dictator to be evil. It can also be a group of bigots in white sheets with dunce caps. There is no difference between the Wahhabi Muslims and the KKK except for the names of the people in the costumes...A note about Wahhabis (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/w14.html) Saudis themselves do not use the term ''Wahhabi'', preferring to call themselves Unitarians - believers in one indivisible deity.

the 48th Ronin
20-06-2006, 05:55 AM
About Pinochet (http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html)
In a heartbeat. It is my understanding that "The Contras" are better people than the government that they were opposed to (Well, except for a Nun here or there...). However, This is one of those things that "The Media" picked the wrong side to proselytize about, consequently America did too....

???? the contras better than the sandanistas???? on a score of 1-10 I give both sides a minus 3 for Good..... Both sides represented different sides of the same old "We are the ones who get to make the rules here' argument!




I do not believe in Dictatorships, Kingdoms, whatever you call it when some one man/woman is in charge and tells everybody else what they MUST do. So, those of you who don't see that point, I hope you don't sneak up behind me. If I see you coming......

I forgive you for the nuclear garbage...




You know, in Iraq and Iran the Mullahs and their followers still hang young women because they don't wear the traditional woman's uniform. Is that the world you want to live in? It doesn't have to be a dictator to be evil. It can also be a group of bigots in white sheets with dunce caps. There is no difference between the Wahhabi Muslims and the KKK except for the names of the people in the costumes...

I have used the phrase "this is the same idea the mullahs propose from their view point to so many people lately. I begin to wonder is freedom of speech only if you agree with my side what we really want to have here now?? When did that become popular.. and from both sides of the political spectrum too.


I have a point to make IN THE DISCUSSION on global warming tho... ( which I have been delighted by ) if you prejudge that everything that is claimed to promote global warming is bad for the earth ( ???) as FF has... why would that rationally lead to the Certainly that he proposes.... Certainly implies that there is irrefutable proof that it is true, instead we are being asked to give a certain tag to a politically correct assumption... IMHO that is an example of how the Mullahs work... why are we imitating them... they do not believe in any dissent.. But We do not live in their kind of world?

Just my simple question... You guys duke it out.. I never read so many papers and tried to really understand this problem quite in this lite before!:fencing: :icon_popc

Foeni
20-06-2006, 09:18 AM
There's no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold so Chuck Norris turned the sun up.

On topic: I believe global is a problem growing bigger. Partially because of man. Letting out too much CO2 to the atmosphere. We should be better at finding alternative energy sources like ethanol. And governments should be better at supporting this. I'm normally a supporter of my government, but on this they've haven't done enough. Danish scientists know a lot about using ethanol as fuel, but they are not doing anything about it because of taxes. It's being taxed as liqour. I know taxed probably isn't the right word, but I don't know what's correct....

dave
20-06-2006, 09:44 AM
There's no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold so Chuck Norris turned the sun up.

On topic: I believe global is a problem growing bigger. Partially because of man. Letting out too much CO2 to the atmosphere. Please note that the greenhouse gasses that FlightFreak and the Scientists are worried about is no longer CO2. Everybody seems to agree that the minuscule amount of CO2 that civilization has added is not 'The Problem.' It is a major part of the smog problems, but not the atmosphere's problems. The Earth has had many epochs in the past where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

Also, there actually is a Solar heating cycle going on right now which many Scientists believe is a major part of the problem. (Along with the water in the atmosphere trapping more of the infra-red. However most Scientists admit that the infra-red was always 100% captured and thus, the additional infra-red being cast off by the Solar Cycle we are currently experiencing is the villain. But there's little we can do about that except finding some way to cool the sun. :) or perhaps eliminating all fireplaces and coal fired power plants! ) (Which, since the Japanese use Nuclear Power Plants, they believe is trivial for the rest of the world, hence the Kyoto Accords.)<snip>
If the current warming trends hold on it would result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of several meters.I’ve read the study delivered by Patterson at the Risk in 2004 and this was his conclusion:

In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Although CO2 can have a minor influence on global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle, which is what truly controls global temperatures. The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends.

There are lot of parameters that influence the way someone should interpret the results of this study. Nor does Patterson deny that human activities would influence global warming. He just questions the importance of CO2 in global warming. He also does not deny that human activities made us more vulnerable for the sun’s radiation, what he says is the leading factor for our climate.Several studies point that out, take the effort to read some.
<snip>
Greenhouse gasses adapt Infrared from the sun and defuses ultra violet, the ultraviolet radiation gets adapted by the earth surface and turns it back to the atmosphere as infrared where the greenhouse gasses adapt it again.

The ozone layer has as purpose to adapt the ultraviolet radiation of the sun, but human activity (CFC’s) demolish that ozone layer, so thus more UV gets through…
<snip>
I question that UV hitting the ground is rebroadcast back into the air as infra-red. I suspect it is just absorbed. (Which might be a partial explanation why the ground is heating up faster than the atmosphere. Oh Right, the people who made the original report changed their input data to eliminate that little problem. They found an 'explanation' and merely changed the data to match their explanation, like any true Scientist would do... :fencing: )

We should be better at finding alternative energy sources like ethanol. And governments should be better at supporting this. Ethanol produces as much CO2 as gasoline I think. Ethanol is recommended to eliminate the smog. An entirely different discussion.

I tried to get Peter to come on this board and add to the discussion, but I haven't heard back from him. He and I don't always agree about this stuff, but he is much more knowledgeable about it than I. (You'll recognize his style if he posts here, I'm fairly certain.)

I'm normally a supporter of my government, but on this they've haven't done enough. Danish scientists know a lot about using ethanol as fuel, but they are not doing anything about it because of taxes. It's being taxed as liquor. I know taxed probably isn't the right word, but I don't know what's correct.... Road Taxes are still Taxes.

Sundance
21-06-2006, 04:34 AM
I remember there was a lot of talk about global warming while I was in elementary school. That was the early 90s. Talk about it fizzled really until recently with all the bizarre, or what seems to be bizarre, weather. What makes me quizzical is the fact that historically, the earth has seen weather like this -- and worse -- without all the technologies and industries of mankind.

It seems to me that the scientists have pushed the phenomenon aside and environmentalists have taken up the banner in their stead. Not to knock the efforts of such groups -- but I just don't believe there's some gaping hole in our atmosphere getting wider and wider because we're breathing too much and letting off too much gas.

dave
21-06-2006, 10:14 AM
And here's another link that you might want to check out! (This one's for you Hazzle! ) Greenhouse (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)

And yet another Dr. Lindzen's testimony to Congress (http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf)

Hazzle
21-06-2006, 11:29 AM
Err. Thanks?

Sundance
21-06-2006, 04:28 PM
We need to become more economical with energy. Tons of energy get wasted every day again. So it would become easier to switch to alternative energy sources.

So are you saying it's "easy" to switch to alternative energy and it's just nobody's doing it? So far as I know, inventors around the world are working at finding new energy efficient means. But quite a few factors play into this. First, what Foeni hinted at -- government, economics, laws. Second, you need factories within which to work on these inventions. Third, the word efficiency. If history has taught us anything, not only do we always seem to stop just short of ruining ourselves, we also pass through various stages of efficiency -- Bronze Age, Silver Age, Agricultural, Industrial. But we've never gone back from using a hammer to using a bone. My thoughts are: the ball's in the field of someone more knowledgable than me, they're working on it, and I look forward to the possibilities on the future rather than get mired in the freak-outs of the present.

The weather we’re seeing now, may be something we’ve seen before in history, but the current state the earth is in, is something new.

But isn't that the crux of the whole debate? Just how much civilization affects climate and weather? If it's happened before, without the conditions humanity has imposed, then to the common man the wind gets taken out of that argument's sails. Note, I'm not denying our current state is new or deplorable. Neither am I saying the rainforest hasn't disappeared. But I guess what I am denying is that the sky is falling.


Isn't it a fact that the starlight we're receiving night and day first emanated from those stars at a time when the Aztecs were sacrificing virgins. Maybe it's century-old stardust clogging the atmosphere...