Log in

View Full Version : Global Warming?



8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 05:29 AM
So, what do you think. Man made disaster that's destroying our planet, or maybe if you would prefer, an American made disaster?

Or, bullshit?

My vote is for bull shit.:thumbsup:

akimbo1013
02-07-2008, 05:39 AM
here's hopin its bullshit:jointsmile: Georgia's winter is pretty much non-existent now though. 70's in february is just ridiculous.

Innominate
02-07-2008, 05:44 AM
It's a natural occurrence for our planet. However, also take note of the changes that are taking place elsewhere in our solar system. (The melting ice-caps on Jupiter's moon.)

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 05:51 AM
It's a natural occurrence for our planet. However, also take note of the changes that are taking place elsewhere in our solar system. (The melting ice-caps on Jupiter's moon.)

Not just Jupiter, each planet in our solar system has shown an incrimental increase in relative temp. Unless someone can explaing how people are causing that, simplest explanation seems the most logical, might have something to do with the GIANT BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY!!:jointsmile:

r0k
02-07-2008, 06:07 AM
Random articles about global warming were pulled from 983 peer-reviewed scientific articles, and NONE of them question its existance.

Yes, temperatures (along with CO2 levels) naturally fluctuate. However, 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded throughout this planets entire history. Surprisingly enough, it is also the year with the highest CO2 levels ever recorded. It is also a well established fact that greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation from the sun, and trap it in the atmosphere.

Once again, global warming's existance is not disputed (even though the politicians may suggest it is :thumbsup:)

Do some research.

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 06:18 AM
Random articles about global warming were pulled from 983 peer-reviewed scientific articles, and NONE of them question its existance.

Yes, temperatures (along with CO2 levels) naturally fluctuate. However, 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded throughout this planets entire history. Surprisingly enough, it is also the year with the highest CO2 levels ever recorded. It is also a well established fact that greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation from the sun, and trap it in the atmosphere.

Once again, global warming's existance is not disputed (even though the politicians may suggest it is :thumbsup:)

Do some research.

I think the "cause" is what is at question. How do you account for "solar system warming"? 2005, hottest year recorded, what percentage of the earths climate history has been offically recorded? Hottest year since they started recording? All living organisms aside from plants, exhale CO2 every time they breath?

By the way, I could easily post many many articles that dispute WHY global warming is happening. I guess it comes down to whether or not one would care to read them.

And from what I see, most politicians accept the myth blindly on both sides of the isle for fear of political suicide if they question it.

So I say to you, do some research!:thumbsup:

dragonrider
02-07-2008, 06:29 AM
Global Warming is real, and it is man-made.

We know for a fact that human activity has altered the compostion of the earth's atmosphere by removing carbon from under ground and adding it to the air in the form of CO2 --- that fact is not in dispute by anyone, not even those who doubt the end result of Global Warming. The only dispute is whether that extra CO2 can actually alter the climate. Most scientists say it can, while others say it is unproven.

I think it can alter the climate, and it has already begun to do so. It is possible to measure the historical concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years, and it is also possible to measure the historical temperature. Those measurements have shown that periods of higher CO2 concentration have corresponded to periods of higher temperature and vice versa. Those measurements also show that the CO2 concentration has spiked up in less than a century to the highest levels in the record. The temperature is begining to catch up to the rapid CO2 spike, and I think it will result in rapid and upredictable climate change.



BTW, 8182KSKUSH, if you want real responses to your survey, you should try not to build a bias into the answers. If you want it biased toward your own way of thinking, leave it as is.

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 06:45 AM
Fact is co2 levels spike in relation to temp increase, but not as presented in that propoganda film. CO2 levels increase AS A RESULT of temp increase, they don't cause the increase. Can any of the believers explain how we are warming our entire solar system? It's a natural occuring event. How can multiple periods of warming and cooling be explained that pre-date the modern industrial age?:wtf: Please someone explain how WE are warming all of the other planets in our solar system!:D

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 06:58 AM
This is not intended to be an unbiased survey, remember I openly stated that I think it's bull shit!:thumbsup:

Seriousely I will sell anyone that wants them some carbon offsets, c'mon it will make you feel good!:D

dragonrider
02-07-2008, 07:50 AM
Fact is co2 levels spike in relation to temp increase, but not as presented in that propoganda film. CO2 levels increase AS A RESULT of temp increase, they don't cause the increase.

Temperature increases do release CO2 trapped in permafrost and can increase decomposition of organic matter into CO2. There is some concern that this feedback loop may exacerbate the human caused waming by dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere as warming procedes. But what is the evidence that historical CO2 levels have spiked as a result of temperature increases? For someone who doubts that CO2 effects temperature, which is a fairly well modeled phenomenon, you seem pretty confident that warming affects CO2. You don't believe that the past century's increase in CO2 concentrations are the result of warming, do you? I think that it has been proven that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is fossil carbon, not carbon from the normal atmospheric carbon cycle.


Can any of the believers explain how we are warming our entire solar system?

What evidence is there that the whole solar system is warming? I heard someone else say that the other day. First I've heard of it. The sun does vary its output over time, but I have not heard that it has been measured actually doing so to the point of affecting global (or solar system) temperatures. And I have not heard that other planets have been measured to be experiencing warming. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. It seems amazing to me that we could actually prove that other planets are heating up, but according to some we can't prove that our own is heating up. Maybe we need to get some of those thermometers they are using in space.


It's a natural occuring event. How can multiple periods of warming and cooling be explained that pre-date the modern industrial age?:wtf:

Climate variability is a naturally occuring phenomenon --- everyone knows that. There have been multiple ice ages and warmer periods throughout geologic history. There are long term periodic cycles that have to do with changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun and the angle of the axis on which the earth spins. There are also cycles within the atmosphere and oceans that change the climate over time. The rise of a mountain range over millions of years alters climate for entire continents and even the whole planet. Catastrophic events like meteor impacts alter the climate.

But just because climate change occurs naturally does not mean that human activity is not also affecting the climate. Human activity has indisputably alterd the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Why is it difficult to believe that changing the atmosphere would have consequences?



Please someone explain how WE are warming all of the other planets in our solar system!:D

Certainly no one has ever claimed that we are warming all of the other planets in our solar system.

pisshead
02-07-2008, 07:52 AM
Not just Jupiter, each planet in our solar system has shown an incrimental increase in relative temp. Unless someone can explaing how people are causing that, simplest explanation seems the most logical, might have something to do with the GIANT BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY!!:jointsmile:

that's got my vote...

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 08:13 AM
Temperature increases do release CO2 trapped in permafrost and can increase decomposition of organic matter into CO2. There is some concern that this feedback loop may exacerbate the human caused waming by dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere as warming procedes. But what is the evidence that historical CO2 levels have spiked as a result of temperature increases? For someone who doubts that CO2 effects temperature, which is a fairly well modeled phenomenon, you seem pretty confident that warming affects CO2. You don't believe that the past century's increase in CO2 concentrations are the result of warming, do you? I think that it has been proven that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is fossil carbon, not carbon from the normal atmospheric carbon cycle.



What evidence is there that the whole solar system is warming? I heard someone else say that the other day. First I've heard of it. The sun does vary its output over time, but I have not heard that it has been measured actually doing so to the point of affecting global (or solar system) temperatures. And I have not heard that other planets have been measured to be experiencing warming. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. It seems amazing to me that we could actually prove that other planets are heating up, but according to some we can't prove that our own is heating up. Maybe we need to get some of those thermometers they are using in space.



Climate variability is a naturally occuring phenomenon --- everyone knows that. There have been multiple ice ages and warmer periods throughout geologic history. There are long term periodic cycles that have to do with changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun and the angle of the axis on which the earth spins. There are also cycles within the atmosphere and oceans that change the climate over time. The rise of a mountain range over millions of years alters climate for entire continents and even the whole planet. Catastrophic events like meteor impacts alter the climate.

But just because climate change occurs naturally does not mean that human activity is not also affecting the climate. Human activity has indisputably alterd the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Why is it difficult to believe that changing the atmosphere would have consequences?



Certainly no one has ever claimed that we are warming all of the other planets in our solar system.

I don't believe that man made co2 is the cause of the warming trend on our planet or any of the other planets in our solar system. I believe that there is just as much data that better coorlates the temp increase with measured sun activity. I still say the giant glowing ball of fire in the sky is the real cause. It is human nature to assume that we are the cause. What about the rise in co2 levels that coorspond with temp increases on earth that predate the use of fossil fuels? I look at global warming as if I were on a jury, I am not going to convict human civilization without rock solid conclusive evidence, and yes there are plenty of scientests that oppose the popular theory that actually study climate change. This is by far not an open and shut case. Until someone can explain the warming trends that are happening throughout the entire solar system as well as the ones that predate the use of fossil fuels, I am calling bull shit!:) Even NASA, who does know a thing or two about the atmosphere and our planet has provided evidence to the contrary or the popular belief. It's also HIGHLY suspicious that now there are people out to make money on global warming, they are also the same people that are pushing this dogma down our throats, do I need to name names?:jointsmile:

I have a bridge that I can sell you too with that carbon offset!

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 08:26 AM
What evidence is there that the whole solar system is warming? I heard someone else say that the other day. First I've heard of it. The sun does vary its output over time, but I have not heard that it has been measured actually doing so to the point of affecting global (or solar system) temperatures. And I have not heard that other planets have been measured to be experiencing warming. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. It seems amazing to me that we could actually prove that other planets are heating up, but according to some we can't prove that our own is heating up. Maybe we need to get some of those thermometers they are using in space.

It's not the "solar system" per say, it's the temps of the individual planets, and yes that is easily measurable. Check out some of the studies that NASA has done, or better yet just google search "global warming debate" there is plenty of contradictory evidence for it being an open and shut "consenses"? The New York Times also ran a story on this as well as The Boston Globe last summer, and they aren't exactly right wing schills. The fact is that sure there is alot of evidence that can be interputted to support the popular theory, ONLY IF you disregard anything else that contradicts it. I am just speculating that it's bull shit just like anyone else would speculate that it's real. Fact is no one, nobody, really knows. Everytime there is a "New" piece of evidence there is always a contradiction that can be found. But thank you for being civilized despite the fact that we disagree, that's more than I can say for some people!:thumbsup:

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 08:29 AM
here is a link to just a random story about it that I clicked on with a google search on said topic. Offers both sides, the fact that there is evidence to the contrary leads me to believe that someone is just out to make a buck!:)

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html)

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 08:32 AM
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Other Side of the Global Warming Debate (http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm)

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 08:36 AM
Looks like there is plenty to debate.:)

Fencewalker
02-07-2008, 08:42 AM
INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8)) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=DE6A54BF-802A-23AD-45ED-60AE6F3FEBE2))

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF) ]

To read the entire report, click here (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport).

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 08:51 AM
INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8)) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=DE6A54BF-802A-23AD-45ED-60AE6F3FEBE2))

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF) ]

To read the entire report, click here (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport).

I don't know if this talks specifically about what I am going to say or not, but it should be noted that the UN study that everyone claims proves beyond a doubt that it's real, was HEAVILY altered from it's original content, and that multiple scientest that have their name attributed to that study threatened law suits over what they claim was a misrepresentation of their findings. It should also be noted that not all the "names" on the study are names of people that are even remotely scientests. To my knowledge, no one has actually seen the original un-edited study, I wonder why?:wtf:

dragonrider
02-07-2008, 08:58 AM
I don't believe that man made co2 is the cause of the warming trend on our planet or any of the other planets in our solar system. I believe that there is just as much data that better coorlates the temp increase with measured sun activity. I still say the giant glowing ball of fire in the sky is the real cause. It is human nature to assume that we are the cause. What about the rise in co2 levels that coorspond with temp increases on earth that predate the use of fossil fuels? I look at global warming as if I were on a jury, I am not going to convict human civilization without rock solid conclusive evidence, and yes there are plenty of scientests that oppose the popular theory that actually study climate change. This is by far not an open and shut case. Until someone can explain the warming trends that are happening throughout the entire solar system as well as the ones that predate the use of fossil fuels, I am calling bull shit!:) Even NASA, who does know a thing or two about the atmosphere and our planet has provided evidence to the contrary or the popular belief. It's also HIGHLY suspicious that now there are people out to make money on global warming, they are also the same people that are pushing this dogma down our throats, do I need to name names?:jointsmile:

I have a bridge that I can sell you too with that carbon offset!

I had to go look up this solar system warming thing because it was pretty much the first I had heard about it. This is the first article I found: Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html)

Sounds like it basically says the other temperature changes on other planets have alternative explanations specific to each planet, not a result of solar increase, and they are also not of the same scope as what we are experiencing here on earth. The solar variation is about 1/10th of 1 percent --- not enough to cause significant climate change. The big glowing ball of fire is too stable to account for the temp increases we are getting here.

You said, "It is human nature to assume that we are the cause." I actually think it is the opposite. Most sceptics I have spoken to seem to think it is impossible that human activity is significant enough to affect the weather of the entire planet. They think the world is too big for us to fuck it up. It's not. Six billion of us digging carbon out of the ground and putting it up in the air has changed the atmosphere of the entire planet. Human activity has nearly doubled the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere and is proceding at an increasing rate. If this were a jury trial, the defense would have to at least stipulate that part because it is conclusively proven. The only question is what will the affect be.

I don't think of it as if I'm on a jury and need proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think of it more as a bus driver who has been warned that the bridge around the bend may be washed out. Should I put on the brakes until I know for sure what is up ahead? Or should I keep my foot on the gas even though it might be too late once I verify for myself if it is safe ahead? I don't typically gamble more than I can afford to lose. I'm the kind to heed the warning.

There are a lot of very smart people working on this who DO NOT have a financial incentive to come to one conclusion or another. Most of them think the warming is real. Our dumbass president likes to let market forces solve the world's problems, and that is where we are getting those jumping in to make a buck offereing solutions --- I say more power to them, but it probably won't be enough. The real people with a financial stake in this debate are the fossil fuel companies and auto comapanies and large users of energy (just about all industry and consumers) who don't want to have their business disrupted to make the changes that may be necessary. That is where the real money is, and I think that where this sceptical crap about lack of conclusive proof comes from.

EDIT: Looks like you found a lot more links while I was posting. I'll take a look at those later. Gotta go to bed now.

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 09:13 AM
Our dumbass president likes to let market forces solve the world's problems, and that is where we are getting those jumping in to make a buck offereing solutions ---.

It's funny you say that, because Al Gore sits on the board of his own carbon offset company.

Please keep on reading, I used to buy the global warming myth along with the rainforests are disappearing myth. In the gov screwls that I attended they taught both as if they were fact. I believe that this all has more to do with fear mongering than anything. It's now a core democrat issue, however I cringe when I hear republicans falling in line as well, just tells me who has integrity and who is just there taking up space. The fix is in, please keep on reading, did you read what fencewalker put up? I know it's from the government black helicopters blah blah, but seriousely this is a political scam, politicians are trying to use to take advantage of people. Scientific evidence at one time conclusively proved that the next ice age was just around the bend, well? What happened? Science conclusively proved at one time that ALL the worlds rainforest would be gone in 25 years, well? Satellite imagry shows that there is actually more rainforests today than their were during the 80's when that fear mongering was going on. Lots of people made money on it though, and I am not talking about coorporations, I am talking about "activists". The same crowd is now taking up global warming, and doing the same thing. There isn't nothing new under the sun folks!:jointsmile: I gotta go now, need to suffocate my wife before she destroys the planet with all her hot co2!:D

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 09:26 AM
Scientest that claim man made global warming is real. Of course, they recieve government funding, their jobs depend on it.
Politicians that claim man made globla warming is real. Of course, their jobs depend on people to "need" them, create a climate of fear then make yourself the crusader of justice to find the solution.(Al Gore as well as many others) Increase taxes to subsidize scientest to solve a problems that humans have no effect on!:wtf:
The liberal news media, obviously contradicting what the "truth" is would make their political favorites look very, very bad.
Peoples that live in 3rd world countries that may be forced to continue their lives without the advent of modern technology for the sake of "saving the earth". Most 3rd world people are not going to be buying solar panels for their grass and manure huts. I forsee a time coming soon when they will not be allowed to use certian things that many of us take for granted because they "hurt the environment". Remember when they stopped spraying DDT because it was so horrible? Yeah, is it worse than malaria, or west nile?
Just ranting though, you never know you may be right dragon.:)
Maybe I am just a cooky right wing nut job.:jointsmile:

8182KSKUSH
02-07-2008, 09:28 AM
Anyone got a 55 gallon drum I can borrow, one with a lid!:D

dragonrider
02-07-2008, 06:07 PM
It's funny you say that, because Al Gore sits on the board of his own carbon offset company.


Like I said, more power to them. There will be a lot of money made by innovative people working to solve this problem, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm just not sure market forces will be enough.

dragonrider
02-07-2008, 06:57 PM
Scientest that claim man made global warming is real. Of course, they recieve government funding, their jobs depend on it.

There are a lot of scientists involved in studying climate change who have no stake whatsoever in a particular conclusion. My father is not a climate scientist and was not involved in the global warming debate, but he was involved in one of the longest running ocean surveys in the world. The survey began 50 or 60 years ago or more when the California anchovy fishery collapsed and has gatherd temperature data and ocean chemistry data for that entire time in a consisitent area off the CA coast. The research had nothing to do with global climate change but the data do support it.


Politicians that claim man made globla warming is real. Of course, their jobs depend on people to "need" them, create a climate of fear then make yourself the crusader of justice to find the solution.(Al Gore as well as many others) Increase taxes to subsidize scientest to solve a problems that humans have no effect on!:wtf:

Politicians often do exploit fear to get what they want. For example, some politicians exploit the fear of terrorism to curtail our constitutional rights. Other examples of fear mongering include political claims that environmental protections will hurt our economy. Environmentalists want us all to live in the cold and in the dark!


The liberal news media, obviously contradicting what the "truth" is would make their political favorites look very, very bad.

The liberal news media is a myth.


Peoples that live in 3rd world countries that may be forced to continue their lives without the advent of modern technology for the sake of "saving the earth". Most 3rd world people are not going to be buying solar panels for their grass and manure huts. I forsee a time coming soon when they will not be allowed to use certian things that many of us take for granted because they "hurt the environment". Remember when they stopped spraying DDT because it was so horrible? Yeah, is it worse than malaria, or west nile?

Actually many of the "green" technologies are some of the best solutions for poor people around the world. For example, many people too poor to have access to lighting after dark are begining to user solar powered LED lanterns. Many of the power technologies are much more protable than fuel-powered generators, and after they are purchased they have almost no ongoing cost for maintenance, and none for fuel.



Just ranting though, you never know you may be right dragon.:)
Maybe I am just a cooky right wing nut job.:jointsmile:

Uh, mmmmmmmaybe....

Ha ha!

The biggest stakeholders in terms of money are the industries who have a vested interest in the status quo. Oil and coal companies. Car companies. Transportation companies. Much of the sceptical blather comes from these sources. It's very short sighted. In the early 70's "energy crisis" American auto makers refused to offer more fuel efficient cars, and the Japanese came in and ate their lunch. They never recovered the market share. Same thing is happening again today with the hybrids. It's happening with the energy efficient appliances. I don't see why these lazy-ass industries don't do a better job of seeing these kinds of changes as an opportuntity to get out in front of the curve. The fact is that even if you ignore global warming, our fuel costs are just getting higher and higher, so switching to greater efficiency is going to be the more affordable choice over time. Maybe market forces will save the world.

McLeodGanja
02-07-2008, 10:01 PM
I believe that our climate is on the verge of going through a period of instability. I think the north pole is going to completely melt at least once within my lifetime.

yokinazu
02-07-2008, 10:05 PM
i beleive global warming is taking place. and we do have somethig to do with it. i beleive it to be a natural event but has been sped up by us.

dragonrider
02-07-2008, 10:21 PM
I believe that our climate is on the verge of going through a period of instability. I think the north pole is going to completely melt at least once within my lifetime.

The instability is the greatest concern.

Complex systems like climate are always variable within a certain range. They have a certain amount of chaos, but also a kind of order that brings them back to predictable "averages," or equilibrium. So, for example, you might know that a certain area is good for growing corn on average --- you might have good years and bad years, but on average it's pretty reliable. When a complex system gets an outside input, like extra CO2, it can often maintain it's stability up to a point. But if the input grows too big, it reaches a tipping point where the feedbacks do not pull it into equilibrium any longer and there is a period of extreme chaos. Generally the system will eventually settle into a new equilibrium, but not the same one as before. Our challenge will be to survive the chaotic period until the new equilibrium is reached. There is likely to be unsettled weather for years which will result in crop failures, flooding, drought, and wildfires. If it is bad enough, then part of the chaos will be be the social chaos as we deal with stravation and displaced refugees. This holds true even if the warming is not manmade.

And, yes, you will see the north pole melt within your lifetime. It is only a few years away.

McLeodGanja
02-07-2008, 10:39 PM
Last I heard 40% of it had melted, by the estimations of submarine radar. Like all floating ice, it's melts faster from the underneath than it appears to from the surface.

The Guardian Weekly went all Independent on us this week and printed a front page climate change propaganda sheet. They said within ONE year the Indian monsoon will destabilise and within 10 years the arctic ice melts and the W African Monsoon collaspes. Not sure how a monsoon can collapse, or if what they mean by those time scales is how soon it will happen or how long the "tipping point" will take to tip.

Either way I skimmed over most of the article, as I usually do, because whilst I believe we are going through a major shift in pretty much everything to do with our existance, I don't think these scientist predictions are really worth reading too much into.

dragonrider
02-07-2008, 11:05 PM
Either way I skimmed over most of the article, as I usually do, because whilst I believe we are going through a major shift in pretty much everything to do with our existance, I don't think these scientist predictions are really worth reading too much into.

Often these kinds of predictions need to be take with a grain of salt. Especially when the prediction relates to long term phenomena, but the prediction is for changes in the short term. Too many factors can complicate something like that. The idea that in one year the monsoon will collapse seems a bit precipitous to me. Do they mean no more monsoons in 2009? Or maybe they mean that once the tipping point is reached, the changes could occur in time frames as short as one year or a decade, because that I do believe.

This is one of the things that most people do not intuitively understand about complex chaotic systems. They see something like a prediction that the sea level could change by 1 meter in 100years, so they think that means it will change a centimeter per year. It doesn't work that way. Chaotic systems change suddenly and dramaticaly when tipping points occur. There might be nothing for decades and then the entire 1 meter rise could happen in a few short years. The great thing about his is that Florida will be submerged and no longer able to screw with our politics.

Fencewalker
02-08-2008, 12:16 AM
They can't predict the weather for next month...But they know for damn sure what will happen in the next 50 years?

8182KSKUSH
02-08-2008, 03:54 AM
This was a great thread, I am really happy that the discussion stayed level headed, no name calling or anything! Awesome!! :hippy:

Psycho4Bud
02-08-2008, 12:19 PM
I'm sure that man has some effect but not as much as what the Al Gores want us to believe. When I watch the nightly weather report and see that the high temps were from the 1930's and the lows from the 50's it's pretty clear. There are cycles.......just to bad that some fat cats use this to line their pockets.

Have a good one!:s4:

jchap
02-08-2008, 12:41 PM
dont cows create just as much co2 farting as cars do?

true?

i voted bullshit btw as global warming has happend before, way before humans

and global cooling

i do think we are adding to the problem thus speeding the process up

8182KSKUSH
02-08-2008, 12:47 PM
dont cows create just as much co2 farting as cars do?

true?

i voted bullshit btw as global warming has happend before, way before humans

and global cooling

i do think we are adding to the problem thus speeding the process up

Intresting,
My real problem with the issue is that if you really really believe that we are destroying the world and humanity could come to an end as we know it, then you should probably not ever use anything made of plastic, use electricity, and last time I checked, using a 350 hp gas engine to move a 180 lbs, is not very fucking efficent!:wtf::D Sorry just being a smart ass.

Psycho4Bud
02-08-2008, 03:13 PM
Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The mass of the Earth atmosphere is 5.14?1018 kg [14], so the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0?1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes). Its concentration varies seasonally (see graph at right) and also considerably on a regional basis: in urban areas it is generally higher and indoors it can reach 10 times the background atmospheric concentration.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; see greenhouse effect for more.

Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[15] In 1999, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were produced in the U.S. as a result of electric energy generation. This is an output rate of 0.6083 kg (1.341 pounds) per kWh.[16]

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution.[17]

Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial volcanic eruptions is carbon dioxide.[18] According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Carbon dioxide is also produced by hot springs such as those at the Bossoleto site near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy. Here, in a bowl-shaped depression of about 100 m diameter, local concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals, but warm rapidly when sunlit and disperse by convection during the day[19] Locally high concentrations of CO2, produced by disturbance of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37 fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986[20]. However, emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons).[21]
Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)

Mother nature creates...and mother nature will take her own bath eventually. We can assist the clean-up process but saying that man is the cause is ridiculous.

Have a good one!:s4:

melodious fellow
02-08-2008, 04:11 PM
It does not matter exactly how much man is contributing to the problem.

The point is, our mother earth is dying and heating up quickly. We have the moral responsibility to ourselves, our home, and our children and grandchildren to at least attempt to slow down the process so perhaps the human race can survive a little while longer?

:hippy:

dragonrider
02-08-2008, 07:32 PM
dont cows create just as much co2 farting as cars do?

true?

Ha ha! Funny, but not true. Cow farts do not produce as much CO2 as cars.

Also, cow farts and other natural sources of CO2 are part of the carbon cycle. The carbon in cow farts comes from the grass that the cows eat. The CO2 that the cow farts out will be reabsorbed by the grass that grows to replace the grass eaten by the cow. The CO2 levels stay relatively constant because the natural carbon cycle is in balance, exchanging carbon into the air and reabsorbing it back into living things. The difference with cars is that the fossil fuels that are burned by cars are not part of the carbon cycle. That carbon was taken out of the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago and stored under ground in the form of oil and coal. When we mine the fossil fuels from underground and burn them, the carbon released into the atmosphere overwhelms the carbon cycle. There is no natural mechanism to get that carbon out of the atmosphere at the same rate that we put it in, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.


Intresting,
My real problem with the issue is that if you really really believe that we are destroying the world and humanity could come to an end as we know it, then you should probably not ever use anything made of plastic, use electricity, and last time I checked, using a 350 hp gas engine to move a 180 lbs, is not very fucking efficent!:wtf::D Sorry just being a smart ass.

There are actually a lot of people who believe what you are saying here, and they live their lives as much as possible like you describe.

It is worthwhile to try as much as possible not to buy unnecessary plastic, reuse the plastic containers that you do buy, and recycle them when done with them.

There are sources of electricity that do not come from fossil fuels. Where possible, it is best to use those sources rather than the fossil fuel sources.

And, yes, using a 350 hp gas engine to move a 180 lbs, is not very fucking efficent! We all love our cars, but it might be better not to get the 350 hp motor unless you NEED that kind of power. There are much more efficient cars coming out all the time. And there are automotive fuels that are not fossil fuels --- fuels that ARE part of the natural carbon cycle. Bio-fuels that are made from plant and animal products do not pull carbon from underground and put it up in the air. They use carbon that is already in the cycle.



Mother nature creates...and mother nature will take her own bath eventually. We can assist the clean-up process but saying that man is the cause is ridiculous.

I'm not sure how you make that conclusion based on the article you quoted.

The article said:

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas."

And it said:

"Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization."

How is that natural? Man is the cause.

The most important thing in the article is the background info about how five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was more prevalent than today and continuously decreased over time until the industrial revolution. That was the period in which the coal and oil we burn today was formed. We are reversing five hundred million years of natural processes in about 100 years. That's going to shock the shit out of the system.

Fencewalker
02-08-2008, 09:09 PM
Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas, water vapor is.

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.

Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century).

Source (http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html).

8182KSKUSH
02-08-2008, 09:30 PM
There are actually a lot of people who believe what you are saying here, and they live their lives as much as possible like you describe. .

I disagree, there are ALOT of people that believe we are destroying the world and causing global warming, there are not ALOT of people that live their lives in a way that is consistant with their beliefs.



It is worthwhile to try as much as possible not to buy unnecessary plastic, reuse the plastic containers that you do buy, and recycle them when done with them

There are sources of electricity that do not come from fossil fuels. Where possible, it is best to use those sources rather than the fossil fuel sources. ..

Anything that is made of plastic, is made from oil, a fossil fuel. From what I can tell, every alternative energy "alternative" is not possible without first using fossil fuels somehow directly or indirectly.

Even a 110hp gasoline engine is inefficient as hell to move a 180 of skin. And oh yeah, the plastic that the car is made of to make it light so that it is fuel efficient.:jointsmile:

There aren't any easy answers for sure, and I believe that we should be looking for the next best thing, and that we should always strive to be better. I loath the fact that people would try to tell me the world is going to end due to mankinds use of fossil fuels, I just personally believe it is rubbish. Again, it makes me suspicious when people or groups rely on this kind o a tactic to prop up their argument instead of facts. I am not directing that at you Dragon at all, I am referring to the news media and politicians. I know you believe what you are saying, and respect you for standing by your beliefs, I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I would still burn one with you, in an environmentally friendly way of course!:D

dragonrider
02-08-2008, 10:03 PM
This shows how statistics and half truths can be used to mislead.


Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas, water vapor is.

All of the gasses in the atmosphere contribute to the greenhouse effect and help to keep the planet warm. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. Without these gasses and the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a ball of ice. The greenhouse effect is not the problem, it is the increase in the greenhouse effect that is the problem. We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is increasing the greenhouse effect. It's irrelevant which gas contributes the most to the overall greenhouse effect, what is important is the gas that is contributing to the increase in the greenhouse effect --- CO2.


Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Again, it does not matter which gas is the "main" greenhouse gas. It matters that one of them (CO2) is increasing in concentration and is increasing the greenhouse effect.


Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

Same thing.


Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.

This is very misleading. If you go to the source material, it may be true that 14% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. But there was CO2 aleady in the atmosphere before burning of fossil fuels bagan, and what is important is the increase. According to the source material, 64% of the increase is due to fossil fuels --- so most of it is from fossil fuels. Acccording to the source material cited, the rest of the increase is from deforestation and making cement, and both are human activities. So, according to the source material, all of the increase is due to human activity, and most of that is due to fossil fuels. This is how statistics are used to lie.


Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century).

Source (http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html).

The link to the footnoted material in the source document is broken, so I can't check this one. But I do not think it is true. All of the hottest years on record are in the past few decades, mostly in very recent years. Shit is melting. It's getting hotter.

Half the time these "Fact Checks" you see are just more propaganda. You need to fact check the fact checks.

dragonrider
02-08-2008, 10:06 PM
I would still burn one with you, in an environmentally friendly way of course!:D

I sequester the carbon from my burning joints in my lungs.

8182KSKUSH
02-08-2008, 10:11 PM
I sequester the carbon from my burning joints in my lungs.

Just sucks we have to use a flint stone to spark it!:D A nice plastic bic lighter would be much easier!

dragonrider
02-08-2008, 10:15 PM
Just sucks we have to use a flint stone to spark it!:D A nice plastic bic lighter would be much easier!

Get a hemp lighter that runs on bio-fuel. Works just as good as a bic, smells like french fries, and when it's empty you can compost it!

8182KSKUSH
02-08-2008, 10:17 PM
Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas, water vapor is.

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.

Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century).

Source (http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html).

Great points, sorry Dragon.
I am never gonna buy that 14% of .03% of all the greenhouse gases are causing anything to happen that wouldn't be naturally occuring anyway. And water vapor obviously contributes in a far more significant manner to the overall "greenhouse effect". But it would not be as easy to convince people that THEY are the reason this is happening if this were acknowledged. So lift up the rug, and sweep that tid bit under it, place rug back down, go on like nothing happened! After all, it would be a little tough to launch a massive political movement on the premise of eliminating or reducing water vapour in the atmosphere!:D

8182KSKUSH
02-08-2008, 10:20 PM
Get a hemp lighter that runs on bio-fuel. Works just as good as a bic, smells like french fries, and when it's empty you can compost it!

I am positive I would have to use fossil fuels somehow just to get the hemp lighter. But seriously, hemp lighter? Really? Like made out of hemp? No plastic or metal? That sounds awesome!

8182KSKUSH
02-08-2008, 10:21 PM
If it smells like french fries it must be a gift from the devine, I can't think of anything bad that smells like french fries!!!:stoned:

dragonrider
02-08-2008, 10:32 PM
Great points, sorry Dragon.
I am never gonna buy that 14% of .03% of all the greenhouse gases are causing anything to happen that wouldn't be naturally occuring anyway. And water vapor obviously contributes in a far more significant manner to the overall "greenhouse effect". But it would not be as easy to convince people that THEY are the reason this is happening if this were acknowledged. So lift up the rug, and sweep that tid bit under it, place rug back down, go on like nothing happened! After all, it would be a little tough to launch a massive political movement on the premise of eliminating or reducing water vapour in the atmosphere!:D

Already rebutted above ^^^^. These "facts" are misleading and do not address the real point --- the increase in greenhouse gases, not the existence of greenhouse gasses. The earth could not survive without the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is not the problem --- it makes life possible on this planet. The problem is the increase in the grrenhouse effect. It's like putting on a blanket in the winter to keep warm. You might need one to be comfortable, but two is too many, and you'll get hot. Blankets are not the problem, too many blankets are.

dragonrider
02-08-2008, 10:33 PM
I am positive I would have to use fossil fuels somehow just to get the hemp lighter. But seriously, hemp lighter? Really? Like made out of hemp? No plastic or metal? That sounds awesome!

Well.... i might have made that one up...

dragonrider
02-08-2008, 11:43 PM
Damn. If I could've produced a hemp lighter, I probably would've made and environmentalist out of him....

Fencewalker
02-09-2008, 05:41 AM
All of the hottest years on record are in the past few decades, mostly in very recent years. Shit is melting. It's getting hotter.
We can argue this forever and not get anywhere because the bottom line is nobody knows for sure whether temperature rising follows carbon dioxide rising or carbon dioxide rising follows temperature rising.

The "models" that are being used is a form of guesswork that has little to do with science.

Everybody seen the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9119246014303435741&q=%22global+warming+swindle%22&total=184&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9)? Damn youtube has to break it up into 10 minute segments, but some good counter points made to the whole Gore, the world is dying, scenario.

I also disagree with the hottest years on record being in the last few decades. Using 50 year time frames when discussing climate change is just a speck of dust in eternity.

Let's crank it back a bit longer and see where we fall in temperature ranges:

dragonrider
02-09-2008, 06:29 AM
We can argue this forever and not get anywhere because the bottom line is nobody knows for sure whether temperature rising follows carbon dioxide rising or carbon dioxide rising follows temperature rising.

Well, you are right about that. Nobody knows for sure. It's a gamble. How much do you want to bet? Wanna go all in and bet your entire civilization?


Using 50 year time frames when discussing climate change is just a speck of dust in eternity.

Yes, 50 years is a tiny speck of time. The most interesting thing to me on the second graph is the red line line at the very very far right edge of the graph that spikes straight up. You have half a million years of history and in our "tiny speck" of time the CO2 shoots to the highest level in the whole history. It's perfectly straight up. Nowhere in the entire history does it go up as steeply or as high. Fastest change and highest magnitude in the whole 500,000 years occuring within a generation or two. Can't wait to see what happens next!

8182KSKUSH
02-09-2008, 09:55 AM
If you really look at the graph, it looks like there are multiple periods of co2 spiking drasticly.
I did see that show FW, critics usually just discredit it based on the producer who is controversial, none the less it raises serious reasonable doubt, especially when you look at other evidence from multiple sources. I rank this up there with the is there life after death kind of stuff, I think you there are some people like dragon that really "believe in it" and I think it's great! If people want to live cleaner lives and impact their immediate environment in a positive way then great!
I just don't want this to be another excuse for the fed to take more of my money and give it to someone else or some special intrest group or bull shit project, I really "believe" that not buying the story is as valid as the contrary view, until science can advance and conclusively without a doubt convince me that it is just as real as the oranges growing on my trees in the backyard,I think this one will remain,
Up In the Air. Ha ha ha I am so clever, up in the air!:D I am perfectly capable of taking care of my immediate environment and I am confident that everyone else can too. I am not too worried about the earth melting. I take your bet, I am all in, the entire human race and this hemp lighter!:D

Fencewalker
02-09-2008, 08:16 PM
Yep, I'm all in too. :)

I managed to survive the global cooling "certainty" of the 70's.

dragonrider
02-09-2008, 10:03 PM
If you really look at the graph, it looks like there are multiple periods of co2 spiking drasticly.


Each increment on the graph is 10,000 years. The spikes that occur are usually in that range --- occurring over 10,000 years. You don't see anywhare on the graph a spike of 100ppm in the blink of an eye like you do at the very very end. And you don't see anywhere on the graph a spike as high as the one at the very very end.

That's where my concern comes from, an instantaneous spike to the highest levels ever.

Max Blast
02-10-2008, 12:28 AM
Less than 700 years ago the Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland and there were Oranges grown in what is now Great Britain.

Global cooling then so radically changed the climate that there is almost no agricultural activity in these places.

Thank God that Global warming has finally kicked in a little bit to save us from the longer term Global Cooling disaster that we have suffered from for several centuries now.

regards,
Max Blast

McLeodGanja
02-10-2008, 12:43 AM
Right, so 600 years ago, or thereabouts, people were going Oh it's a bit cold this year, we haven't had a good orange crop for a few years, they are saying that within the next ten to twenty years that rain could freeze before it hits the ground and we might die.

8182KSKUSH
02-10-2008, 02:33 AM
Right, so 600 years ago, or thereabouts, people were going Oh it's a bit cold this year, we haven't had a good orange crop for a few years, they are saying that within the next ten to twenty years that rain could freeze before it hits the ground and we might die.

Yeah you are probably right we are all gonna die. What "they" say is always true!;) I am glad that god intervened and helped man kind avert the last ice age predicted in the middle of the last century by "they", "concensus of scientests". PHeww!:D

angry nomad
02-10-2008, 05:47 AM
I actually talked to a climatologist from MIT for 45 minutes on the phone. He was in an anti-global warming documentary. Anyway, he said the movie was edited to make him sound like he was "against it."

What he told me basically is: (paraphrase, of course) global warming is real. We don't know all the factors right now, and we may not for a decade or even a century. It is a cause for concern, though. He also emphasized repeatedly that it is a very complex issue, and he was exasperated with people making a political issue out of it, and reducing such a complex issue to a ten second sound bite.

Personally, I think we need to stop deforestation, and all this fossil fuel pollution. The answer is hemp. Hemp for paper, plastics, and fuel. We can stop cutting down trees for paper, and we can replace all fossil fuels with ethanol and biodiesel from plants. I heard biodiesel vapors smell like french fries.

Al Gore flies a private jet, by the way.

angry nomad
02-10-2008, 05:49 AM
We can argue this forever and not get anywhere because the bottom line is nobody knows for sure whether temperature rising follows carbon dioxide rising or carbon dioxide rising follows temperature rising.

The "models" that are being used is a form of guesswork that has little to do with science.

Everybody seen the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9119246014303435741&q=%22global+warming+swindle%22&total=184&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9)? Damn youtube has to break it up into 10 minute segments, but some good counter points made to the whole Gore, the world is dying, scenario.

I also disagree with the hottest years on record being in the last few decades. Using 50 year time frames when discussing climate change is just a speck of dust in eternity.

Let's crank it back a bit longer and see where we fall in temperature ranges:

Oh yeah, that is the movie I was talking about. The Great Global Warming Swindle. I talked to one of the scientists in that movie. I just called him at his office. He was really cool. I forgot his name. I'll try and remember it.

Anyway, that movie is just as propagandistic as Al Gore's.

8182KSKUSH
02-10-2008, 05:56 AM
Oh yeah, that is the movie I was talking about. The Great Global Warming Swindle. I talked to one of the scientists in that movie. I just called him at his office. He was really cool. I forgot his name. I'll try and remember it.

Anyway, that movie is just as propagandistic as Al Gore's.

I agree with you 100%, it should not be a POLITICIZED issue. It has nothing to do with politics. And from what I read in your post, even this man is hesitant to attribute this to mankind. We don't know conclusively yet, we will someday though. I don't want to pay for something that is at this point, a religious belief, as far as whether or not human activity is destroying the earth. I believe that people will always in the end do the right thing, I have faith in humanity I guess.:jointsmile:

Yeah, EGore is a snake oil salesman, prime example of why it is not a political issue, the science is still out and he is preaching the holy friggin' word like it's all said and done. LET SCIENCE do it's work, the science behind climate change is far from anywhere near solid, don't legislate environmental morality to me when you have no idea what the hell you are talking about federal government thank you.:D

yokinazu
02-10-2008, 07:27 AM
no matter what anyones here stance is on the global warming issue either you beleive we caused it or its not even happening i think we can all agree that suckin deisal fumes is bad. ever stan on a busy down town street and notice you can almost taste the deisal in the air? im sure thats not very healthy.

so maybe it is in our best intrest to go a little greener if for no other reason so we can breathe

skunke
02-22-2008, 06:56 AM
Shit i clicked the wrong one!
Anyway ithink that global warming is not the issue which the world should be focusing on , but the bigger picture of Climate CHange

skunke
02-22-2008, 06:59 AM
Dont tell me pumping oil which is trapped underground and then intruducing the bypruducts into the atmoshere, wont cause a change, logiclly it will definatly have some effect on the climate.

dragonrider
02-22-2008, 07:06 AM
Shit i clicked the wrong one!
Anyway ithink that global warming is not the issue which the world should be focusing on , but the bigger picture of Climate CHange

Dude! Clicked the wrong one! Are you a Florida voter?

Yes, climate change is the real issue. Calling it "global warming" suggests a forgone conlcusion about exactly what will happen. No one knows for sure. Probably there will be a periond of chaotic change, and no one can say for sure how it will end up.


Dont tell me pumping oil which is trapped underground and then intruducing the bypruducts into the atmoshere, wont cause a change, logiclly it will definatly have some effect on the climate.

Exactly. Puttng all that carbon from under ground up into the air will have an effect. We don't know for certain what effect or how big, but we can be sure it will cause a change in the climate.

MadSativa
02-22-2008, 08:33 AM
lotta good debate here, I have not seen the data on the rise of the other planets but I can tell you that their temperatures have not drasticaly started to rise in the past hundred years. and yes our planet goes through changes but these changes have been drasticaly speed up in the past hundred years or so. I am sure this is not the first time this planet has seen the green house effect but I dont think this time it was a natual occurance. But wether it is man or natual made, people are debating if it is even real. that is what we have to think about now. In the next 300 to 500 years we could be in another ice age, what ever the case is drastic changes are going to occur, such as deserts turning to forest, forests to deseerts, flooding, etc. We are starting to see species like frogs and deep sea creatures, die off or come into exsistance (how ever you want to think of it). these are all proof that the climate is drasticaly changing. The blame doesnt matter any more, the shit has hit the fan and no matter who or where you are your gonna get sticky eventualy.

northerngrower
02-22-2008, 01:37 PM
mine is for bullshit too. my gf did a whole 20 page paper for her school. she's a hippy kinda girl and she thinks its bull too. "naturally occuring climate change" look it up

Rusty Trichome
02-22-2008, 03:31 PM
Total BS.
Good luck convincing me that global warming data doesn't follow an Al Gore type of agenda. (make big money on a contrived fear...job security)
Watts Up With That?: weather_stations Archives (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/)
Do you really think placement of sensors is random, un-biased and protected from outside influence?

Back in the 70's, glaciation (global cooling) was the panic.
Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
"In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[1] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend had stopped going down, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects.[2] It was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate."

Sounds uncannily familiar.

But wait...there's more fear on the way:
Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling | NewsBusters.org (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/02/08/canadian-scientists-fear-global-cooling)

Ok, so grab your jackets and your shorts...It's going to be a cold/warm day tomorrow.

Guess the only thing to do is grow more plants. Carbon Dioxide Absorption (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen06/gen06115.htm)

dragonrider
02-22-2008, 03:57 PM
Total BS.
Good luck convincing me that global warming data doesn't follow an Al Gore type of agenda. (make big money on a contrived fear...job security)


The big money and job security concerns are on the side of industries that have a vested interest in the status quo. Industries fear losing money if they have to change the way they operate to mitigate their emision of greenhouse gasses. Most of the research casting doubt on climate change is funded by these industries who have a big money stake in the outcome. That's where the money is. I've known people involved in various forms of research all my life, and believe me, there's not much money in it --- certainly nothing compared to the oil, coal, and auto industries.

The thing about these industries is that they are going to lose most because of their short sightedness. If they don't look ahead and adapt to a changing future, they will lose everything. In the 70's oil crisis, Japanese car comapnies came into this country and sold fuel efficient cars when US companies were still pumping out muscle cars. Those Japanese companies got a toehold because Detroit didn't face up to the future, and the Japanese have continued to grow their market share ever since. Same thing is happening now with appliance brands. If US industry doesn't start to adapt soon, the Asian and European companies who already have a head start are going to come here and eat our lunch.

We used to have the most innovative companies in the world. Not anymore.

Rusty Trichome
02-22-2008, 05:06 PM
Without any supporting documentation, your statements fall on deaf ears.
Please explaim how carbon credits will lower greenhouse emmisions?

Global Warming Solution Known as â??Carbon Creditsâ?? Collapses | NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/node/10989)
So who is it that benefits from all this?
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm)

dragonrider
02-22-2008, 05:21 PM
Without any supporting documentation, your statements fall on deaf ears.
Please explaim how carbon credits will lower greenhouse emmisions?

Global Warming Solution Known as â??Carbon Creditsâ?? Collapses | NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/node/10989)
So who is it that benefits from all this?
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm)

I'm not going to restate all my previous supporting evidence for you. Read my previous 20 or so posts in this thread. I'm pretty much done.

As for carbon credits --- I never brought it up, so I don't figure it's on me to explain it to you. Carbon credits and carbon offsets would not be my preferred way of dealing with this problem. However, similar cap-and-trade mechanisms did work for reducing acid rain --- they were very effective. Many industries prefer these kinds of market-oriented mechanisms for dealing with pollution.

Rusty Trichome
02-22-2008, 06:36 PM
I'm not going to restate all my previous supporting evidence for you. Read my previous 20 or so posts in this thread. I'm pretty much done.

Below was the only link you provided. The rest of the 20 or so posts appear to be your suppositions.

I had to go look up this solar system warming thing because it was pretty much the first I had heard about it. This is the first article I found: Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html)


Also, using the first article you come across in researching for truth, is a lazy way to represent the truth. Is this a common practice, or just an isolated incidence?

dragonrider
02-22-2008, 06:45 PM
Below was the only link you provided. The rest of the 20 or so posts appear to be your suppositions.


Also, using the first article you come across in researching for truth, is a lazy way to represent the truth. Is this a common practice, or just an isolated incidence?

I am a lazy moron with nothng but my own suppositions. You win. Climate change is not real.

BlazinINthe617
02-22-2008, 07:33 PM
No one knows anything that they think they know about "Global Warming"....That being said the Earth is around 3.5 to 4.6 billion years old. BILLIONS!!! Of years, the "Expert Scientests" can get wonderful data from the glaciers and all but thats only Hundreds of thousands of years of data( NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE 3.5 - 4.6 BILLION THAT THE EARTH HAS BEEN HERE) and there are still more billions of year to look at after that. So knowing that how can anyone in there rite mind say that they have the answer to this question of global warming. Everything is speculation. I mean, shit, its priddy fucking obvious that theres a fucking pattern of co2 build up and what not but, we are just making what we think is an educated guess about the situation. Theres no way that one can think they have the real answer to our problem( UNLESS THEY LEAVE OUT EVIDENCE THAT IS AGAINST THEIR ARGUMENT )
Because there is simply no know way to figure out if it ever happend before(global warming) or not.

So I say just like with religion, we are( as a world ) making up answers for what we do not know about.

MadSativa
02-23-2008, 08:45 AM
^^ earth is older than that, 5.5 Billion is the current theroy. And the model is acurate so far, up until now.

Aerow
02-24-2008, 06:52 PM
I haven't read the entire thread, I just wanted to post these videos. Anyone who hasn't seen the other side of the debate watch and listen.

It's important to be informed, regardless if it changes your mind or not.

Just click the play all button: http://www.youtube.com/user/GlobalWarmingFraud

Some people may not like some of te videos because they have hannity and glenn beck...if you really can't stand listening to them, you can go ahead and skip those videos the other ones will still provide you with most of the info.

I haven't taken sides on this issue, but I almost always argue it's not man-made to even out the debate. The people who believe global warming is not man-made get steam-rolled many times by people who refuse to listen and blame them for the downfall of humanity.

8182KSKUSH
02-26-2008, 09:47 AM
WARINING!!
You are about to accidentally read right wing propoganda!


No, not really, but it is a good article, just read it and thought that it would fit in on this thread well, raises very good points, ACTUAL climate scientest are cited as well. Enjoy!

I can't believe how many people chimed in here! Obviously, if I am correct ;) this thread will go on for a long time, since we will still be wondering if we are destroying the earth 50 years from now, and probably still only know a small fraction of all the relevant factors that impact our environment and to what extent that they do!

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
:thumbsup::jointsmile::thumbsup:
:jointsmile::thumbsup::jointsmile:
:thumbsup::jointsmile::thumbsup:
:jointsmile::thumbsup::jointsmile:
:thumbsup::jointsmile:;)
:D

MadSativa
02-27-2008, 07:49 AM
^^ haha this isnt the first thread like this bro, infact all of em in the past have gotten closed down or lost. But usualy the discusion turns toward bickering and name calling and thats, that, no more thread. So more than likely same will happen here. Not the first thread like this and not the last, and no I dont want any carbon filter inserts. it is a kinda biased thread though, but the problem has to be unignored, as we have ignored it for so long. Also at first I was with alot of you and thought the whole global warming was BS and if so definitly not man made, but after hearing and seeing the data facts and real debates, I had to change my thoughts on the subject, as I was wrong.

And I still have never seen the Al gore vid, I dont have much time to watch vids and to watch al gore seams like death.

8182KSKUSH
03-04-2008, 09:05 AM
Right off the press.

TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'

http://www.businessandmedia.org/images/site_banners/printfriendly2.jpg (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080303175301.aspx) By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM


http://www.businessandmedia.org/images/2005/selfpromo.gif
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 (http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm) in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

??The Weather Channel had great promise, and that??s all gone now because they??ve made every mistake in the book on what they??ve done and how they??ve done it and it??s very sad,? Coleman said. ??It??s now for sale and there??s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced ?? several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let??s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.?


The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel??s Heidi Cullen argued (http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html) on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called ??the fraud of global warming.? He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

??[I] have a feeling this is the opening,? Coleman said. ??If the lawyers will take the case ?? sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.?

Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303154249.aspx) and the ??scare? of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.


Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.