Global Warming: A Political Lie.

[JaggedEdge]

I would like to begin by saying I don't expect serious and well thought out responses from the global warming supporters, however, if you do not respond at all (to those of you I know believe it) I will assume you are conceding to the professor, scientists not motivated by a political agenda, and ordinary citizens like myself who have looked at the "actual" data.

Considering the political implications of Global Warming, I feel this board is appropriate, and considering I was recently attacked for providing "biased" and "unreliable" sources, I figured I would simply start a new thread after coming across this gem.

Now, luckily for me, youtube has the video of a distinguished professor of science giving a lecture on Global Warming, and provides many of the graphs I have in my library. It saves me time on having to photocopy images and in delegating the process of explanation to someone far more expert than myself I waste even less time. He explains it far better than I ever could anyway.

Below each video you will find notes on what he discusses and what the graphs show, although I highly suggest watching all four videos. Below that, I will post a new release from NASA as well.

Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Notes:
"Science is not about consensus, it is about testing hypothesis."

The hypothesis in question is about dangerous human caused climate change.

Global temperature has been steady for last 10,000 years and warming since 16,000 BP.

Last 2,000 years, cooling at fast rate.

Last 700 years considered little ice age.

Last 8 years temp spike, than steady. This time period to short for accurate analysis and spikes like this are not abnormal.

Last 5,000 years there have been 5 periods of warming. The three previous to our current one had warmer temps than we currently have.

Between these warming periods are mini ice ages.

During these times of cooling, grainery crops are destroyed. Good chance we will be in one (cooling stage) in next 20-30 years.

Last warming period was 1 degree warmer than today and is called "Climate optimum," because it is a good place to be.

Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

Notes:
Over past 6 million years inter-glacial warming periods were much warmer than today.

Rapid climate change is normal. In fact, ice age temps fluctuated +/- 15 degrees per 100 years. Today we fluctuate +/- 2 degrees per 100 years.

1998- Largest peak in temp during El Nino. No change since. Yet their has been a 4% increase in CO2 in last 8 years.

The AU Parliament minority leader wrote a report and stated:
"Most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of an ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering."

Part III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaYNotes:

A study was recently done on climate in the tropics monitoring climate change over week long periods and there were spikes in heating and cooling throughout these weeks. Study found that as heating starts, clouds form, trapping radiation which continues the warming trend. When the clouds move, there is a drastic cooling. Essentially, proof of Iris effect.
If this is taken into account on a 100 year scale, it accounts for 75% of warming predictions.

As a result of increased CO2, More water vapor causes more clouds. The clouds reflect the light back into space, in reality it causes cooling.

In other words, climate is self regulating and has natural checks and balances to control global temperatures in relation to CO2.

A U.K. study that predicted global warming trends through computer models admitted they did not take natural variations into account.

Part IV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
Notes:
A study recently found (by NOAA) a lot of U.S. climate stations are in hot urban areas. Many are located on asphalt and/or below suggested monitoring height levels.

After Y2K, NASA restored the wrong weather data for many stations. When these errors were corrected it shows the hottest period in the last decade was in the 1930's.

84 stations have no data. 35 stations have been moved at least twice meaning the data is inaccurate.

The green agenda and empirical scientific data have no correlation.

Our climate is continuously changing.

CO2 is not a pollutant but a benefit to humans.

"Attempting to stop climate change is an expensive act of utter futility."

The only sensible thing to do, is prepare for the real problem which is most likely global cooling and the warming scam is taking focus away from those preparations.


Now, more on global cooling:

From NASA: April 1, 2009.

The sunspot cycle. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm)

-We are currently in a deep solar minima. Since the 1950's solar activity has been high.

-Five of the last ten solar cycles have been the most intense in 50 years.

-1901 and 1913 were the last periods of solar minima; both before last rise in temperature.

Although they claim the increase in solar activity will not effect "global warming," they are government owned and have been in bed with Al Gore and the green movement for years now.

It is highly likely solar activity affects temperatures here on earth considering our climate is effected by solar patterns.

Also note: Most climate stations are owned by the government as well, in particular, the ones mentioned above that were found on asphalt, etc.

Also, here is a nice little chart and the graph regarding the amount of "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere. Images provided by Mike Church.

Do you really believe political agendas should be implemented based on the theory of global warming? Carbon taxes in particular?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

you are beating a dead horse to no particular end. you might just as well try to convince a devoted catholic of the pope's fallibility. for every learned response to the man made climate change hysteria you may post, there is another to be posted by one of the faithful. we have entered the realm of religion and fact has little to do with it. better to just admit that there is more we could do reduce our impact on the world around us, i'm sure you can agree with that, and get on with your life.

i'm becoming a bit more fatalistic of late. i watch the sheep run around in the circles prescribed by their masters and i just don't see a way out any more. i'm old enough to have come to the conclusion that it is best to just smoke more and die well.
:hippy:

[bigtopsfinn]

Great post JE... would rep you, but I guess I have to spread it around a little.

And DON, I don't think he's beating any horse. I was once a believer of Al Gore's bullshit, but it takes certain people to bring out the facts, and others will eventually get it. Is it too late to change?...maybe. Am I going to sit back and do nothing? no way. I'm not marching around the streets, but I did upload it on my facebook account for more people to see. If I hear someone mention climate change, I tell them the facts and ask them to look it up themselves. If everyone did this, we would have a chance... enjoy your smoke :jointsmile:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

And DON, I don't think he's beating any horse.aw, i'm just feelin' crotchety today.;)

[JaggedEdge]

aw, i'm just feelin' crotchety today.;)


I actually don't expect it to change any minds. If it does great, I just wanted to post it in order to find out for certain if those particular members here, would view the actual evidence with an open mind. Considering it is a long post and the videos themselves are long, I will give them time to concede or debate their point and post counter evidence.

It pisses me off when ignorant people simply blow off facts the way a particular member did before, he knows who he is. We shall see if they respond with an intelligent response, or simply religious bull shit about how "that proves nothing" and "your an idiot."

Again, I didn't feel like going back to my book shelf and pulling all the facts out for him, so I searched for these videos. I wish I could have just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" to come to my conclusions, but I actually had to use that lost art of reading a book...

:thumbsup:

[JaggedEdge]

Great post JE... would rep you, but I guess I have to spread it around a little.

And DON, I don't think he's beating any horse. I was once a believer of Al Gore's bullshit, but it takes certain people to bring out the facts, and others will eventually get it. Is it too late to change?...maybe. Am I going to sit back and do nothing? no way. I'm not marching around the streets, but I did upload it on my facebook account for more people to see. If I hear someone mention climate change, I tell them the facts and ask them to look it up themselves. If everyone did this, we would have a chance... enjoy your smoke :jointsmile:

Thanks, and not to mention you can't help but feel a bit superior when you present actual evidence and the believers cower like a turtle in its shell or simply make accusations about how you aren't credible. ;)

The thing that pisses me off, is that a lot of these Global Warming people are the same ones to attack religion. I'm an atheist, but if you are going to ignore actual facts in order to promote your ideology blindly, you have no room to criticize the religious.

I was undecided on the subject until I read about it, but there is nothing wrong to opening your mind to counter evidence and changing your view point. That is very respectable.

[JaggedEdge]

we have entered the realm of religion and fact has little to do with it. better to just admit that there is more we could do reduce our impact on the world around us, i'm sure you can agree with that, and get on with your life.
:hippy:

Yes there are things we can do to help our environment, but this global warming propaganda takes focus away from things we should actually change. Pollution for one, instead of focusing on that, they focus on CO2. We will never actually improve our environment when these people focus on aspects that are unimportant.

Not to mention, I will vehemently oppose the squandering of our wealth in the name of a pseudo science that all empirical data suggests is a lie.

[Stemis516]

hey bud, congrats you win, all your hard work has paid off

let me be the first one to stroke your enormous e-peen in hopes of getting one big fat jagged e-load all over my face

[JaggedEdge]

hey bud, congrats you win, all your hard work has paid off

let me be the first one to stroke your enormous e-peen in hopes of getting one big fat jagged e-load all over my face

I'm guessing that is sarcasm and am assuming you didn't even really look at it. If that is the case, it only proveS what I was saying above about the inability of the greenies to defend their ideology in the face of empirical evidence.

[killerweed420]

Global warming is just more of the psuedoscience floating around for the last 30 years or so. Been a lot of it. Seen a lot of evidence where scientists say that the warming is from increased sun spot actitvity.

[Ramulux]

Anyone willing to read between the lines, can tell that this entire global warming panic was used to allow the government to pass cap and trade laws limiting companies ability to release co2 into the atmosphere.

Its all about money. These cap and trade laws are going to bankrupt so many small businesses and cost many others millions of dollars that they cant afford.

I am in no way against green technology, I think its obvious that lowering your electricity, and gas output can only be beneficial for the environment. But this is bullshit. Al Gore is a liar, a hypocrite, and a fear monger using this to frighten people into acceptance.

[JaggedEdge]

Anyone willing to read between the lines, can tell that this entire global warming panic was used to allow the government to pass cap and trade laws limiting companies ability to release co2 into the atmosphere.

Its all about money. These cap and trade laws are going to bankrupt so many small businesses and cost many others millions of dollars that they cant afford.

I am in no way against green technology, I think its obvious that lowering your electricity, and gas output can only be beneficial for the environment. But this is bullshit. Al Gore is a liar, a hypocrite, and a fear monger using this to frighten people into acceptance.

The problem with most of the "green" solutions, is that they are bad for the environment, only in different ways. Due to the sheer numbers of windmills we would need, we would wast acres upon acres of land for a piece of equipment that strikes birds out of the sky.

Not to mention, the costs are way to great to even consider shifting to an alternative right now. The ultimate source of energy would be nuclear, but they disapprove of that technology despite it being extremely safe these days.

I'm not saying that wouldn't be expensive to switch to either, but it would be far more worth the expense than supposed "green" technologies.

[8182KSKUSH]

Good luck bro! I understand the desire to educate the ignorant (I use that word in the literal sense, not in a demeaning way). This is a really important issue, in the macro sense, mis-leading folks into believing in this totally faith based myth, is actually an attempt to reign in and destroy us, America. IMO. If these numb-nuts, get their way, their ideal, life as we know it would be destroyed. So trying to educate the easily influenced as to the facts is a good thing. I know that I had started a thread on this very topic many many moons ago. I am here to tell you, there are some true believers that will never allow themselves to hear anything that contradicts their narrow world view, you will never convince them no matter what. Some will be open to discussion, and those are the minds that you may change.
I would like to point out today the way we live is way far superiour to the way the 3rd world lives as far as the "impact" on the environment. When's the last time you saw piles of horse shit in the streets from all those clean, green horse drawn buggies. When's the last time you say piles of fire at every home, burning all sorts of nice things out in the open for warmth and light? Never mind doing it in an enclosed hut, and sleeping w/ it day in and day out. There is a reason life expectancy is higher than it ever has been in our country, technology, advancement of our society. The very things these shiny turds would have you all believe are ruining the planet. If an oil tanker spilled off the coast of Somolia, do you think they could clean it up? Do you think years later people would be able to walk on those same beaches and watch wild animals thriving as they always have?
Can anyone explain how man made co2 emissions are causing other planets in our solar system to warm? I assume that is what accounts for the global warming on Mars correct? Can someone explain the percent of CO2 in our atmosphere as compared to other gases, and then explain exactly how that is affecting our climate? Why isn't the upper atmosphere warmer than the surface?
When I was a kid in public indoctrination institutions, I was told that by the time I was 30, the rain forrests would all be gone! Scary huh? Sat images show there are more today than there were 25 years ago. Still waiting for all the fish in the ocean to disappear as well LOL! Oh, don't forget the hole in the O-zone, and the polar ice caps which are melting, then re-forming, then melting, then re-forming, as they have done for thousands of years. Notice how the news isn't covering that anymore? Wonder why? LOL Can anyone explain the fact that Al's famous graph actually shows CO2 amounts in the atmosphere rising as a result of increase temps, as opposed to what he claims, that co2 increases and causes temps to increase? Hello? Just try it at home, boil some water on the stove, then get a pot of water and just exhale on it alot, see which one shows a temp increase in relation to a co2 increase! LMAO
People are so damn gullable, as long as someone wears a suit and tie, they will believe anything!
Like I said Jag, good luck, I have been there, done this, it just spiraled into a long ass thread that eventually led nowhere. At some point, no doubt some douche will come along and no matter how out of context, they will make the famous Bush/Hitler comparisson, I also predict you will be called multiple names for simply stating objective facts, simply because they do not jive w/ what so many have been told to believe.

[JaggedEdge]

Can anyone explain how man made co2 emissions are causing other planets in our solar system to warm? I assume that is what accounts for the global warming on Mars correct?

I had heard people mention that as well, I had assumed they were being sarcastic though. I figured no one could actually believe the warming of Mars could support man-made global warming on earth, but the more I think about it I can see how some people would view it as support.

It actually suggests that our climate change is in fact due do solar activity, rather than man made CO2.

In regards to the rain forest, I love the South Park episode about that issue, "Getting gay with kids is here, save the rain forest, spread some cheer..." The teacher and students get lost in the rain forest, attacked by indigenous species, and captured by a local tribe. By the end the hippie teacher was calling for the destruction of all rain forests.

The point is, people support environmental objectives without even knowing anything about what they are trying to protect.

[Garrett]

CO2 has gone off the charts with the temperature following the exact same path. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which helps create heat on our surface helping melt the polar ice caps. While the ice caps are getting smaller the amount of the ocean taking light and warmth is greater. Everything is working together to create "global warming". And yes the sun is playing a huge factor in the warming but everything added up just makes sense.

Global warming isnâ??t going to happen overnight ( I hear a lot of people in Oklahoma always saying " Itâ??s cold outside in March! global warming isnâ??t real or else it would be warm!" ) Global warming is happening over the span of a large scale.

Donâ??t just look at one scientist who doesnâ??t believe in global warming. I will take the majority and the hard evidence of everything playing in a key part

I respect peoples personal opinions, however I dislike it when they preach/bash on the things they donâ??t agree with...

[JaggedEdge]

CO2 has gone off the charts with the temperature following the exact same path. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which helps create heat on our surface helping melt the polar ice caps. While the ice caps are getting smaller the amount of the ocean taking light and warmth is greater. Everything is working together to create "global warming". And yes the sun is playing a huge factor in the warming but everything added up just makes sense.

Global warming isnâ??t going to happen overnight ( I hear a lot of people in Oklahoma always saying " Itâ??s cold outside in March! global warming isnâ??t real or else it would be warm!" ) Global warming is happening over the span of a large scale.

Donâ??t just look at one scientist who doesnâ??t believe in global warming. I will take the majority and the hard evidence of everything playing in a key part

I respect peoples personal opinions, however I dislike it when they preach/bash on the things they donâ??t agree with...

Yeah, you have made me so happy.

I'm sorry, was that not hard evidence? Or do you only look at evidence presented by certain people?

Also, most the of polar ice caps are getting thicker, only a small portion is melting. But by all means, I anxiously await your counter evidence...

By the way, it isn't one scientist. Did he create all those graphs? Did you even watch the video's or just skim through the post, get the gist, and decide nothing was going to change your mind?

By the way, I reposted the graph. Yup, clearly CO2 "is off the charts."

[JaggedEdge]

Here you go Garrett. Look over this site.

Taken from their "about us" page:


CAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

The site.
(http://icecap.us/index.php)
Oh, and a list of some of the experts who contribute to the site as well as their credentials. (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts)

What was that about a one scientist. I anxiously await your response Garrett.

[Garrett]

Yeah, you have made me so happy.

I'm sorry, was that not hard evidence? Or do you only look at evidence presented by certain people.

Also, most the of polar ice caps are getting thicker, only a small portion is melting. But by all means, I anxiously await your counter evidence...

Ice caps getting bigger, give me a break..... Why do you think all of sudden many nature shows are taking about polar bears having a hard time. Anyways parts of my paper i wrote my senior year of highschool.

Many people have considered global warming as a natural trend rather than manmade acceleration of the climate to unnatural temperatures. According to Dr. Crichton, "We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age" (Inhofe). Al Goreâ??s book, â??An Inconvenient Truthâ?� sights that over the past 650,000 years, carbon dioxide has stayed below 300 parts per million. However, today carbon dioxide has risen to 385 parts per million due to emissions from humans around the globe. In addition, as carbon dioxide levels rise, the temperature follows suit as Al Gore states, â??when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer because it traps more of the sun's heat insideâ?� (Gore). Although many people continue to believe that global warming is a natural trend, scientists have provided hard evidence confirming the fact that as carbon dioxide raises, so does the temperature, and thus, as carbon dioxide increase the temperature becomes more abnormal as well.

The biggest contributors to global warming are the greenhouse gases; as they thicken our Earthâ??s atmosphere, it warms our planet. The atmosphere is made from greenhouse gases, which captures some of the sunâ??s rays in the atmosphere and allows the Earth to have a habitable environment. However, today the Earthâ??s atmosphere is being thickened with toxic carbon dioxide as a direct result of the pollution from coal mines, power plants, cars, and the growing population of the world. As a consequence, the amount of carbon dioxide has surpassed the natural boundary of carbon dioxide from 300 parts per million to 385 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the Earthâ??s atmosphere (Gore). With higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Earthâ??s atmosphere, it becomes denser which leads to more of the sunâ??s rays being secured and detained in the air. As the Earthâ??s atmosphere becomes thickened by the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, the temperature raises parallel to the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earthâ??s environment. Carbon dioxide gas is the primary emission from the world and has a major impact on the Earthâ??s environment and human inhabitants.

Although carbon dioxide is the leading cause of global warming, the advanced countries are taking action to reduce the amount of abnormal and unregulated carbon dioxide introduced into the Earthâ??s air. Al Gore, the United States of America produces 5.60 tons of carbon emissions per person which is nearly double than any other country (Gore). However, many advanced countries are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions as agreed upon in the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty aims to lessen the carbon dioxide emissions for advanced world countries as BBC says, â??The Kyoto Treaty commits industrialized nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally Carbon Dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decadeâ?� (BBC). As the politicians seem to be ignore the crises, our country is blinded to the movement across the world on global warming according to Al Gore, â??There are only two advanced nations in the world that have not ratified Kyoto, and we are one of themâ?� (Gore). As more advanced countries become increasingly aware of the effect of carbon dioxide emissions, our nation should take the lead in helping to solve the problems that are caused by global warming.

Global warming is impacted by the Earthâ??s atmosphere; however, the oceans of the world are also having a major role in global warming process. The majority of the earth is covered by the oceans. The oceans absorb a large amount of the sunâ??s energy. Although the slight temperature increase is hardly noticeable, the effect on Greenland and South Antarctica can be disastrous. As the temperature of the oceans rise, the melting of ice on these land bases could cause a worldwide catastrophe. The melting of South Antarctica is merely taking place right in the center of the continent; many people thought it would refreeze. However, the melting ice is collecting as lakes under the ice and tunneling streams, called Moulins into the bedrock. The Moulin lubricates the ice and bedrock below making it possible for the ice to slide off into the ocean. Al Gore, if Greenland or South Antarctica were to break up and melt, or melted half their mass of the land-based ice, the world sea level would raise twenty feet and put many cities of over millions of people underwater (Gore). Warmer temperatures in the oceans and ice melting from global warming in the future could prove to be catastrophic to millions of people around the world.



You make me laugh if you really think the ice caps are getting bigger...

Time for COD5

[8182KSKUSH]

I will take the majority and the hard evidence of everything playing in a key part

..

[attachment=o215393]


Could you just tell me who the "majority" is, SPECIFICALLY, and then tell me the "hard evidence". I am all for listening to anything really. But I can list specific numerous scientists that overwhelmingly disagree w/ man made global warming, and they aren't secretaries, at the u.n. that signed a paper, or scientists that study the nutritional value of Styrofoam peanuts, but REAL scientists that actually study the climate. You know, like the guy that founded the weather channel.:thumbsup:
I know one of the scientists that was part of the u.n. deal, was also an advocate in the 70's of "The Coming Global Ice Age Myth", now he's saying it's "Man Made Global Warming". Neat huh, someone should ask him where the hell that ice age went! LOL

Here's some reading for you.

Notice the similarities between the this immanent Armageddon and our current one. Then laugh out loud.

TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974(ENVIRONMENTALISM BARF!!!) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts)
TIME MAGAZINE ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html) | June 24, 1974/2006 | Time Magazine
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:47:34 AM by paltz (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Epaltz/)
TIME MAGAZINE -1974
LINK TO 1974 ARTICLE (http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html)
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere â??from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds â??the so-called circumpolar vortexâ??that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent stormsâ??the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphereâ??thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countriesâ??the U.S., Canada and Australia â??global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."


Note the highlighted parts, LMFAO! Any of that sound familar!:D



TIME MAGAZINE -2006

to 2006 Time Global Warming Article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html)


(Time.comexternal link) -- No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth
Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.
From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.
The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.
It's at the north and south poles -- where ice cover is crumbling to slush -- that the crisis is being felt the most acutely.
Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.
One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.
This is what scientists call a feedback loop, and a similar one is also melting the frozen land called permafrost, much of which has been frozen -- since the end of last ice age in fact, or at least 8,000 years ago.
Sealed inside that cryonic time capsule are layers of decaying organic matter, thick with carbon, which itself can transform into CO2. In places like the southern boundary of Alaska the soil is now melting and softening.
As fast as global warming is changing the oceans and ice caps, it's having an even more immediate effect on land. Droughts are increasingly common as higher temperatures also bake moisture out of soil faster, causing dry regions that live at the margins to tip into full-blown crisis.
Wildfires in such sensitive regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and even inland Alaska have been occurring with increased frequency as timberlands grow more parched. Those forests that don't succumb to fire can simply die from thirst.
With habitats crashing, the animals that call them home are succumbing too. In Alaska, salmon populations are faltering as melting permafrost pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning. Small animals such as bushy tailed rats, chipmunks and pinion mice are being chased upslope by rising temperatures, until they at last have no place to run.
And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears are starting to turn up drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that path, the polar bear drops out."
So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging.
Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have twice been unable to get even mild measures to limit carbon emissions through a recalcitrant Senate.
A 10-member House delegation did recently travel to Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand to meet with scientists studying climate change. "Of the 10 of us, only three were believers to begin with," says Rep. Sherman Boehlert of New York. "Every one of the others said this opened their eyes."
But lawmakers who still applaud themselves for recognizing global warming are hardly the same as lawmakers with the courage to reverse it, and increasingly, state and local governments are stepping forward.
The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in their own cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine northeastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a program to cap greenhouse gasses.


They aren't even original, they just think that people are stupid, and they recycle the bullshit every thirty or so years apparently. None of this is new. Just the people that are getting suckered now, they are new to it I guess.:jointsmile:

Notice in the first article, it was all but certain doom! Very scary! Many scientists all agreed, they had a "consensus", well as much as they do now I guess. BOOOO!
It's the BOOGY MAN RUN! TAKE COVER, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! AGHHHH!
I have no doubt, my son will be 30, and trying to convince the true believers that "No NO nO! We are not headed for an ice age! They said that man made global warming was going to wipe us all out 30 years ago remember!"
Or by then, maybe it'll be, the moon is going to fall out of the sky and land on the U.S., and it's all because of fossil fuels! LOL But I suspect the current bullshit pattern will continue to repeat itself.



I have no doubt.:thumbsup:

[JaggedEdge]

You argued that I was wrong because I was looking at one scientist, yet in that paper, the only quotes you provide are from a politician. How exactly does that support your claims?

By the way, directly above this your last post I gave a very good site with a list of a lot of "scientists" who disagree with yourself and Al Gore. His Generation Investment Management private equity fund took a 9.5% stake in a company that has a one of the largest carbon credit portfolios in the world. Can you honestly believe he is an unbiased and credible source on the subject?

He is also the founder and chairmen of Generation Investment Management. Several sources claim they have major influence in carbon credit trading firms.

His companies site. (http://boards.cannabis.com/www.generationim.com)

In regards to glaciers: from the icecap.us


Glaciers all over the world are shrinking because of global warming.

Braithwaite (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N23/C1.php)in 2002 in a paper â??Glacier mass balanceâ?� in the Journal Progress in Physical Geography reveals â??there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of â??the glaciers are melting,â?? but there are also regions with positive balances.â?� Within Europe, for example, he notes that â??Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95.â?� And when results for the whole world are combined for this most recent period of time, Braithwaite notes â??there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.â?�
Dr. Tim Patterson (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/GLACIERS%20IN%20CANADA.pdf)writes about Canadian glaciers that researchers from the University of Calgary and the University of Western Ontario have shown that glaciers in the Lake Louise area and at the Athabaska Icefields have receded far above their present limits in the past. We should consider the conditions that cause glaciers to advance and retreat. Obviously, climate warming will cause melt-back of the toe of a glacier (retreat). The cause for advance is primarily increased snowfall at the top of a glacier (the accretion zone). The pressure of the new glacial ice at the top of the glacier will cause the glacier to start flowing downhill more rapidly than the toe is melting; hence, the advance. Cooler temperatures without the increase in snowfall will probably not halt the retreat. It is possible to have a retreat with cool temperatures and low precipitation, and it is possible to have an advance with warm temperatures and heavy snowfall. It has been recorded in the literature that waxing and waning of glaciers all over the world is a common occurrence and that any reference to this being an abnormal thing, due to Global Warming depends on selectively gathered â??evidenceâ?�. This has been remarkably well illustrated in New Zealand in 2004 with the rapid advance of glaciers in the South Island with the only climatic change being very heavy precipitation.


By the way, you see the title "Dr." before their names, that means they are generally a credible source. Granted there are exceptions, however anyone is better than quoting a politician on scientific matters.

[8182KSKUSH]

You argued that I was wrong because I was looking at one scientist, yet in that paper, the only quotes you provide are from a politician. How exactly does that support your claims?

By the way, directly above this your last post I gave a very good site with a list of a lot of "scientists" who disagree with yourself and Al Gore. His Generation Investment Management private equity fund took a 9.5% stake in a company that has a one of the largest carbon credit portfolios in the world. Can you honestly believe he is an unbiased and credible source on the subject?

He is also the founder and chairmen of Generation Investment Management. Several sources claim they have major influence in carbon credit trading firms.

His companies site. (http://boards.cannabis.com/www.generationim.com)

In regards to glaciers: from the icecap.us

[B]


By the way, you see the title "Dr." before their names, that means they are generally a credible source. Granted there are exceptions, however anyone is better than quoting a politician on scientific matters.

E-Gore is pretty much a scientest! LOL I mean, he invented the internet, and did you not see those really big line graphs and everything! LMFAO!:D

[JaggedEdge]

E-Gore is pretty much a scientest! LOL I mean, he invented the internet, and did you not see those really big line graphs and everything! LMFAO!:D

Haha, or he simply play's one at the pulpit. I will admit he is skilled at propaganda though. He can take those graphs that prove one thing, tweak them slightly, and get people to believe the opposite.

[8182KSKUSH]

I still want to know Garret, if it is CO2 in the atmosphere, why is the upper atmosphere not showing a corresponding warming trend?
And jagged, "tweak" is pretty generous, more like bastardized the information to make it fit. The truth that Garret does not want to acknowledge, is that temp increase results in more CO2, not the other way around. But once you acknowledge that, it throws the entire premise of "Global Warming" under the bus, therefore this is often glazed over by many true believers.

[Coelho]

I still want to know Garret, if it is CO2 in the atmosphere, why is the upper atmosphere not showing a corresponding warming trend?

Probably because CO2 is much heavier than air so it is more abundant in the lower layers of the atmosphere, and more rare in the higher layers...

To the OP: The problem with this question is that it is very much ideologically charged (probably as much as the MMJ debate) and so both sides simply ignore the facts the other side shows and cling to their positions. So i wont waste my time getting "facts" (or rather sites/videos/whatever on the internet), cause i know no amount of "facts" can change your (or anybody elses) mind if you dont want to. Also, nowadays its possible to back up almost anything with internet "facts", as the MMJ debate shows very well. Anyway, if you want internets "facts", look at Al Gores site, for example.

But, lets suppose for a moment that you are right, and the climate changes caused by humans are still too small. If the worlds industrialization keep its pace, how long it will take until all the things that the environmentalists claim now became actually true? How it will be when every inhabitant of the 3rd world were able to drive its car? How it will be when all the forests were turned into farms/fields/whatever? If the world still wasnt messed up enough by society, is it an excuse to keep messing it up?

If you want to know, i actually think the environmentalists are a bit exagerate (much like the defenders of MMJ that says its a completly harmless thing), but i think its needed. Maybe mankind still can revert (or at least diminish) the impacts of its society on the environment, but for do this it must start to act NOW. This things takes a very long time to change. If we keep living as if there werent tomorrow and wait until the problems knock on our doors to think about them, then surely it will be too late to do anything.

[yokinazu]

wehter or not you think global warming is bullshit or not, or if its man made or just the natural course of the planet i for one dont mind living in a cleaner enviroment. so wether or not your a left winger, right winger, gore-ist, marxist, or a what everist the same holds true fro everyone: we canot breathe CO2 in large quantitys and live. clean air and water is a must and we should all act to clean up the enviroment immedietly surrounding us.

and if thats tree huggin hippie crap, well so i guess im a tree hugger.

[gypski]

One thing is for certain, based upon valid scientific evidence, even if man is aiding and abetting by burning fossil fuels, and acting as a proxy for natural events such as vulcanism, etcetera, that have caused the same type warming events in our planet's past, don't invest in oceanfront property. Unless you bet on it being further inland. :D

Now that's a fact Jack. :jointsmile:

[JaggedEdge]

wehter or not you think global warming is bullshit or not, or if its man made or just the natural course of the planet i for one dont mind living in a cleaner enviroment. so wether or not your a left winger, right winger, gore-ist, marxist, or a what everist the same holds true fro everyone: we canot breathe CO2 in large quantitys and live. clean air and water is a must and we should all act to clean up the enviroment immedietly surrounding us.

and if thats tree huggin hippie crap, well so i guess im a tree hugger.

It is not the CO2 that is a problem! If you would have actually looked at any of those sources you would realize that. CO2 is extremely important to the environment, it is what our vegetation needs to survive, and in turn the vegetation releases oxygen.

For the 10,000th time, I agree with cleaning up our environment, but people are to stupid to even realize what is harmful to us and needs to be changed. Instead of focusing on actual pollutants people keep talking about CO2. The sheer level of ignorance on this subject, along with how deeply seeded it is, is astounding and quit scary.

[JaggedEdge]

To the OP: The problem with this question is that it is very much ideologically charged (probably as much as the MMJ debate) and so both sides simply ignore the facts the other side shows and cling to their positions.

No, the argument is ideologically charged on the side of those who believe and support the pseudo-science, however, the other side is actually looking at the facts and statistics.

You are correct though in comparing it to MMJ. Those like us, who are supporting MMJ have looked at the evidence and realized their is no scientific data to actually support the opposition's views. So, yes, just like with global warming, one side looks at actual evidence while the other is simply motivated by ideology.


So i wont waste my time getting "facts" (or rather sites/videos/whatever on the internet), cause i know no amount of "facts" can change your (or anybody elses) mind if you dont want to. Also, nowadays its possible to back up almost anything with internet "facts", as the MMJ debate shows very well. Anyway, if you want internets "facts", look at Al Gores site, for example.

Go read a book by a scientist than. That's where I initially got my information. You can't simply claim their aren't any credible internet sites. The sites I have posted are valid, in particular, icecap.us

I have done the leg work to present honest and legitimate sources, if you are unable to do the same I will continue to believe you have no evidence to support that crap you say. I have looked at Gores facts before and for the last time, he isn't credible. If you don't know why, read higher in this post.


But, lets suppose for a moment that you are right, and the climate changes caused by humans are still too small. If the worlds industrialization keep its pace, how long it will take until all the things that the environmentalists claim now became actually true? How it will be when every inhabitant of the 3rd world were able to drive its car? How it will be when all the forests were turned into farms/fields/whatever? If the world still wasnt messed up enough by society, is it an excuse to keep messing it up?

I am right, so assumptions aren't needed. Seeing as we are likely heading into a mini ice age, global industrialization would likely be beneficial. You argument is severely flawed in that it accepts that these environmentalists have identified the right cause. CAUSE AND EFFECT! You can't accurately predict an effect when you can't accurately pinpoint the cause. Which clearly they have failed to do.


If you want to know, i actually think the environmentalists are a bit exagerate (much like the defenders of MMJ that says its a completly harmless thing), but i think its needed. Maybe mankind still can revert (or at least diminish) the impacts of its society on the environment, but for do this it must start to act NOW.

You claim it may not be factual, yet you have completely bought into the fear mongers. If it isn't occurring, why do we have to risk actual harm to prevent something that isn't inevitable? We don't need to loose our rights, freedom, and wealth because something "might happen." If you base your life on that philosophy you might as well lock yourself in a cell for the rest of your life. We can take moderate steps to protect our environment, but drastic actions are not needed. Especially not at our lose of liberties and wealth as a nation.


This things takes a very long time to change. If we keep living as if there werent tomorrow and wait until the problems knock on our doors to think about them, then surely it will be too late to do anything.

You act as though you know what the problem is specifically, which you don't. To even try and drastically change something we don't understand is simply dumb. And yes, our environment is something we don't truly understand.

[8182KSKUSH]

wehter or not you think global warming is bullshit or not, or if its man made or just the natural course of the planet i for one dont mind living in a cleaner enviroment. so wether or not your a left winger, right winger, gore-ist, marxist, or a what everist the same holds true fro everyone: we canot breathe CO2 in large quantitys and live. clean air and water is a must and we should all act to clean up the enviroment immedietly surrounding us.

and if thats tree huggin hippie crap, well so i guess im a tree hugger.

I agree, I love nature. I have grown up in the midwest, and am an avid angler and outdoors man. I don't believe that not buying the bullshit, and being a good steward of the environment, are mutually exclusive. It's funny though, I have an aunt that worships at the pulpit of Gore, and anything that is ideologically based in liberal dogma for that matter, and she hates the outdoors. You will never catch her upity ass camping or fishing anywhere, ever. But she drives a hybrid, and loathes the fact I drive a suburban, and use it to pull a bass boat to tool around on the lake and fish out of. But she drives a hybrid LOL! Whoopty doo! Never mind the fact that it runs on giant batteries, that last time I checked are very toxic to dispose of, or the fact that it's mostly plastic, (which is a petroleum product LOL).:thumbsup:
I also agree we cannot survive in a super saturated CO2 environment, however, last I checked, CO2, makes up LESS THAN HALF OF 1% OF THE TOTAL GREEN HOUSE GASSES IN OUR ATMOSPHERE! So I have a hard time buying that is in fact the cause of our impending doom.
Oh, and of the LESS THAN 1 HALF OF 1%, how much is contributed by man? Yeah. Exactly my point, don't believe the hype. It's all about money, always has been. That, and giving people a scare, or something that they can "feel" good about. :jointsmile:

[BigLeagueJew]

I didn't think there were any people left besides the scientists George Bush hired that still believe man doesn't play a part in global warming.:(

[8182KSKUSH]

I didn't think there were any people left besides the scientists George Bush hired that still believe man doesn't play a part in global warming.:(

Actually, Bush bought into the bullshit as well, as best as I can recall. He refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, but I am sure that he supported the myth just as any other politician, i.e. John McCain.
Look out! Fly ball, waaaaay out in left field! So if you could, I would love to hear how Bush is in any way related to debunking the man-made global warming myth. (Since this is the insinuation?)
Or is that just some left over Bush hate that you can't find a place for LOL. I can see it, 20 years from now, no matter what the topic, "blah blah, Bush BAD!":wtf:
LMFAO. You forgot to mention how he was just like Hitler, how he hates black people, how hurricane Katrina was his fault, how we lost the war in Iraq, and it was all his fault, not to mention how he made the earth un-inhabitable because he single handily spiked the use of fossil fuels which will lead to our demise. OH and don't forget he was responsible for 9/11, lets polar bears drown, and eats babies, as well as any other bad evil in this world. :thumbsup:
There, now that's covered for any other future posters that feel the urge to bring up the former President.:jointsmile:

[8182KSKUSH]

^^
Point being, Bush has nothing, zip, zero, nada to do w/ this debate. This has been a debate loong, before he was president, before he was a candidate, before anyone even thought of bringing up his name in any form of debate as a substitute for original ideas. Thank you, I must be a psychic, check the first post I made in this thread, telling Jag that it would not be long until someone brought up Bush for no apparent reason. Now if I could just predict the time and day it would happen LOL!:jointsmile:

[BigLeagueJew]

Okay kush, you got a little carried away with that one. All i'm saying is that i'm surprised people still think man does not play a part in global warming much like the ideas of Bush. For example Is Bush Changing His Global Warming Views? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=2858141&page=1)

[JaggedEdge]

Okay kush, you got a little carried away with that one. All i'm saying is that i'm surprised people still think man does not play a part in global warming much like the ideas of Bush. For example Is Bush Changing His Global Warming Views? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=2858141&page=1)

We don't play a part. We pollute our environment without question and I believe we need do things to prevent pollution. However, their is no evidence that we are causing or exasperating the warming of our planet.

Read the sources.

[8182KSKUSH]

Okay kush, you got a little carried away with that one. All i'm saying is that i'm surprised people still think man does not play a part in global warming much like the ideas of Bush. For example Is Bush Changing His Global Warming Views? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=2858141&page=1)


The article clearly states that prior to his election Bush called global warming a serious problem and proposed mandatory cuts in harmful emissions from power plants.
Last I checked, I believe power plants would be considered "man made contributors" that are often demonized by the religious zealots of the global warming dogma. HE CAMPAIGNED ON IT!!!

White House spokesman Tony Snow said today. "So the idea that somehow we don't understand the arguments, or we're not contemplating or taking serious the arguments about carbon caps of course, we are."

That's pretty fucking far from what I am saying about it, honestly, the evil "Bush" appeared to be much more open minded than I or others here are. His position is closer to yours than mine. Which of course supports my earlier statement. Here's the whole article that you claim supports your statement that "Bush did not believe man was causing global warming". Explain to me exactly how you get that? Like I said, I get that he is closer to what you believe than I. He was stupid to even give it the time of day or lip service in my opinion, it deserves neither.

Is President Bush changing his views on global warming?

President Bush talks with ABC's Betsy Stark about global warming policy.


ABC's Betsy Stark recently traveled with the president on Air Force One to a Caterpillar plant in Peoria, where he talked about his economic agenda and promoted his trade policies following his State of the Union address.
In her exclusive interview, she asked the president about his views on global warming and the recent call by CEO's of 10 major companies to place mandatory emission caps on greenhouse gasses that are heating the planet. Caterpillar (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2814233) is one of 10 corporations that have joined this "Climate Action Partnership," urging President Bush and Congress to limit the emissions generated from burning fossil fuels.
In the past, Bush has maintained there is "fundamental debate" over the cause of global warming, which puts him at odds with the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.
"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," he said in remarks to reporters at the White House in June 2006.
As a candidate for president in 2000, Bush called global warming a serious problem and proposed mandatory cuts in harmful emissions from power plants. He moved away from that promise once in office, maintaining the reversal was due to an energy crisis.
The White House praised a long-awaited U.N. report issued Feb. 2 in which scientists said they were "more than 90 percent" sure that the dramatic global warming now under way is "unequivocal" and spurred by human activity, but the administration disagrees with calls for mandatory caps on CO2 emissions, which the report didn't address. The president himself has not yet spoken about the findings of the report.
"We have spent more money on technology and also research than anybody else -- $9 billion on basic scientific research strictly into global warming, which very likely is more than the rest of the world combined," White House spokesman Tony Snow said today. "So the idea that somehow we don't understand the arguments, or we're not contemplating or taking serious the arguments about carbon caps of course, we are."





Did you even read this before siting it as support for your earlier point?





You are a good sport I guess, nice try. LOL Read the article next time. LOL:thumbsup:

[yokinazu]

i do know that CO2 is an important gas in our atmosphere and that it is only in small quantitys. i was using it as an example. i could have just as easilty said nitrogen, helium, neon, etc etc. the only gas we can live on in a pure enviroment of is oxygen.

i myself am not a hunter or fisher the only time ive really shot at something is with a camera. i do however love the out doors and nature. so that makes me an envirmentalist. i dont want to destroy that wich i love so much.

also i heard long ago that it wasnt the CO2 levels but water vapor causing global warming. ive also heard ancient CO2 deposits, methane gas, aliens, and dont forget cow farts all are causing global warming.

i dont know if we did it or if its a natural cycle of things, there seems to be no absolute conclusive evidense either way. i dont think there ever will be. we can only look at fossils, rocks, ice etc. etc. and get a really good idea of whet happened and make superb educated guesses and show very convincing evidence. i can show you all day long that the earth warmed up once if not many times before i can show you the cause but i cant show you the why. i do like to beleive that its just natural

anyway this subject has always made my brain hurt

[8182KSKUSH]

^
Personally, I have always thought it was, "alien cow farts". Most of the supporting evidence for this was left out of the E-Gore movie, but I assure you that their is just as much "hard evidence" that supports this as their is for the "man-made" theory. LOL Look here is the hard evidence........................
There.:D

[delusionsofNORMALity]

we must strike a decisive blow against these alien cows that are endangering our environment. everyone should immediately start pressuring their congressmen to start passing legislation to eliminate this deadly threat. maybe that will keep them off our backs for a while.

[8182KSKUSH]

Right HEre!

[attachment=o215615]

[attachment=o215616]

[JaggedEdge]

we must strike a decisive blow against these alien cows that are endangering our environment. everyone should immediately start pressuring their congressmen to start passing legislation to eliminate this deadly threat. maybe that will keep them off our backs for a while.

Vegetarians are hypocrites. Most vegetarians tend to abstain from meat due to ideological reasons. Unfortunately they are unable to see the error of their ways. All cows must be butchered and consumed immediately, the future of our planet depends on it. WE MUST ACT NOW!

[delusionsofNORMALity]

see - i knew i was doing my part for the environment when i ate that steak last night.

[JaggedEdge]

see - i knew i was doing my part for the environment when i ate that steak last night.

Unfortunately, steak is a bit to expensive for me... The government should do it's part and enable me to save our poor environment by buying me a nice juicy steak. ;)

[yokinazu]

does beef jerky count? mmmmmmm beef jerky

[FreshNugz]

'Global Warming' is a bullshit term...the earth has been naturally cooling and heating for millions of years...

Climate Change, on the other hand, might make a small amount of sense. Even here in Canada..we don't even have fall or spring it seems anymore, just 8 months of winter and 6 months of summer...the "seasons" we all grew up learning about have gone from four to two. So the way our climate operates may be differing..places usually defined as "arctic" and "tropical" are displaying characteristics that don't correspond with their climate...its not a big deal as some would make it out to be. Not enough fear inducement to get people to buy in to it...so we have to go with 'global warming'...the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
I'm not sure as to my responsibility for it, but I'm sure as hell not prepared to let the government tell me that I'm responsible for it.

The atomic bombs, nuclear tests, etc. are a more likely culprit than me taking home groceries in a plastic bag...gimme a break. Not saying we should disrespect the planet, but i do think its ridiculous for the government to blame it on the people. Oh wait, they have to or we won't buy these carbon credit things!
Anyone who is foolish enough to listen to Al Gore should read a bit of info...and maybe discover that he owns the largest carbon credit company in the world...just waiting to cash in...
He uses more junk than the average person, but oh it's okay because he offsets it with carbon credits....
Silly!

So, we see that the problem isn't even defined, and the proposed remedy won't do shit all to help the environment...how are "carbon credits" going to make the grass greener and water cleaner?
Anyone else smell bullshit?

Oh and props to Jagged Edge for trying to be a minority voice. Its hard to say anything not mainstream, and people should be commended for trying. I for one agree with you man!

[overgrowthegovt]

JaggedEdge, opening up debate is one thing....saying that you are right and factually enlightened and that everybody who disagrees is WRONG, end of story, is just plain arrogant and irritating. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to know the truth about this one way or the other, but I do know that there are enough major scientists who DO maintain its existence for it to be just dismissed as ideological bullshit.

Both sides have valid points, and you can't just ignore the scientific minds who are concerned with the impact mankind is having on the earth. You accuse everybody else of close-mindedness and ideological filtering, and yet every issue is adjusted for your hardcore libertarian stance. I'm a libertarian myself in many ways, but I'd like to think that exercising a little pragmatism might be healthy every now and then.

You can find many distinguished scientists claiming it to be nothing but horseshit, and you can find many claiming the contrary. The issue is not simply a political fabrication, though I concede it has been exploited to a degree for political ends. Way I see it, if we go with the people who claim it's true, the worst-case scenario is we have a cleaner world and less money in the short term. If we bury our heads in the sand and it turns out to be true, the worst-case scenario is we have a shattered earth and a global populace that slowly descends into food rioting and massive turf wars where water and bullets are the only currency. That may sound dramatic, but it's not.

"No evidence"....what? By that you mean no evidence that you can accept, which differs from there in fact being no evidence. But nevermind, you're right....everything's fine. The biggest mass extinction of species also has nothing to do with us--it's been going on forever, right? If there's an apparent link between our explosion in population and deforestation and the deprecation of species, it's just political bullshit. Even if you're right and it is in fact a fabrication, come on....you must realize that sooner or later this will all catch up to us, even if it hasn't already. A pre-emptive detox doesn't sound so evil to me.

[JaggedEdge]

JaggedEdge, opening up debate is one thing....saying that you are right and factually enlightened and that everybody who disagrees is WRONG, end of story, is just plain arrogant and irritating. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to know the truth about this one way or the other, but I do know that there are enough major scientists who DO maintain its existence for it to be just dismissed as ideological bullshit.

I asked specifically for them to provide specific sources. I have yet to see any. Why should I not dismiss it as pure bullshit when the supporters can't even bother to find facts that aren't easily repudiated?


Both sides have valid points, and you can't just ignore the scientific minds who are concerned with the impact mankind is having on the earth.
Simply because some scientists conclude Al Gore isn't a loon doesn't make it true. Scientists have stated many things that simply aren't true and never came to be true. I'm not ignoring them, I looked at their "facts," looked at the oppositions "facts," and ultimately concluded there is NO empirical evidence to support global warming, much less man made global warming.

Hell, if they can find scientists to back penis enlargement pills and techniques, why can't they find ones to back global warming. Penis enhancement, aside from out-patient surgery isn't currently available, yet there have been those who claim some bullshit product or another will increase your dick size by an inch.


You accuse everybody else of close-mindedness and ideological filtering, and yet every issue is adjusted for your hardcore libertarian stance. I'm a libertarian myself in many ways, but I'd like to think that exercising a little pragmatism might be healthy every now and then.

Wrong. How many issues have I discussed on this board? Yes, I agree with Libertarian views on a majority of issues, hence classifying myself as a libertarian. My views are the reason I consider myself that, not the other way around.

As I have said before, I have looked at both sides, and it is clear I AM RIGHT. If new "evidence" were to be presented to me I would view it with an open mind, however, seeing as their is no new evidence, I'm still right.



The issue is not simply a political fabrication, though I concede it has been exploited to a degree for political ends.
Isn't it? We have Al Gore as a figurehead. They use it as a means to make money through taxes as well as (in Gores case) their own Carbon Offset Companies, not to mention personal investments in other "green" companies. Read previous posts in this topic for the specifics on this.


Way I see it, if we go with the people who claim it's true, the worst-case scenario is we have a cleaner world and less money in the short term.
Wrong. Worst case scenario is we run companies into the ground with this Cap and Trade bullshit while making non-industrial nations rich in the process, resulting in the prices of our goods going up.

For something I might add (carbon) that isn't actually a problem!


If we bury our heads in the sand and it turns out to be true, the worst-case scenario is we have a shattered earth and a global populace that slowly descends into food rioting and massive turf wars where water and bullets are the only currency. That may sound dramatic, but it's not.

Again, you are completely wrong. Your scenario is plausible for global cooling, unfortunately your logic is extremely flawed. Vegetation loves warm temperatures and survives off of carbon! How would increased temperatures cause food riots? As for water, if the ice caps were truly melting, wouldn't water be in more abundance? I love how water is suddenly this rare thing... 70% of our planet is water.


"No evidence"....what? By that you mean no evidence that you can accept, which differs from there in fact being no evidence.
No, it is virtually the same evidence for both sides. The global warming side however takes a portion of a graph to prove it's point. All evidence is not equal. Some is manipulated for a purpose, which is easily proven in this case.


The biggest mass extinction of species also has nothing to do with us--it's been going on forever, right?
Again, I'm going to ask for sources, but don't expect to receive any. Considering we are continuously discovering new species and have been for years, is it not logical to assume we simply are more accurate in recognizing species going extinct? Species have been, and will continue to go extinct, the only reason it appears it's happening at a more rapid pace is because we have discovered far more of them. Someone else could articulate this point far better than I can, so please do.


If there's an apparent link between our explosion in population and deforestation and the deprecation of species, it's just political bullshit.
Yup, your right, it's bullshit. The Native Americans saw the benefits in deforestation long before the white man began eradicating entire forests. The trees, in many places in North America are not native to the states in which they are found. The Native Americans burned forests in order to improve their grasslands as well as the hunting of game. Forests grow back. As to deforestation for construction, there are still vast parts of the earth that haven't been massively colonized, including a vast majority of the U.S.


if you're right and it is in fact a fabrication, come on....you must realize that sooner or later this will all catch up to us, even if it hasn't already. A pre-emptive detox doesn't sound so evil to me.
Again, I don't understand this argument in the least. If their assumptions were wrong and their evidence is illogical and/or manipulated, what reason is there to suggest the outcome they predict will ever occur? It is basic cause and effect, if you can't identify the correct cause, what credibility do you have to predict the effect?

[OldeSkule]

Oh no!

The greenies have hacked NASA's Satellite imagery!!!

The following can't be true!!!

NASA - Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html)

:thumbsup:

[8182KSKUSH]

Oh no!

The greenies have hacked NASA's Satellite imagery!!!

The following can't be true!!!

NASA - Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html)

:thumbsup:


Wow.
So....I guess this is conclusive proof, ice melts. Pat yourself on the back.:thumbsup: Explain how this in any way supports man made global warming?
I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer LOL, or one that makes sense. The arctic ice melts, every year. It says that in the article. The new ice is "thin", no shit! Do you realize their have been periods in earths history that there has been 0 arctic ice? This was prior to the combustion engines existence. I suppose that even then, it was due to man made global warming though LOL. OR, just maybe, it's part of natural cycles that our climate would be going through, whether we inhabited this planet, or there were millons of herds of alien cattle roaming the plains. It's funny how human nature tells us that we MUST have controll over our environment, it's all because of us.
Like I said, love to hear how that proves anything other than, yes, ice melts.:wtf:

[bigtopsfinn]

Oh no!

The greenies have hacked NASA's Satellite imagery!!!

The following can't be true!!!

NASA - Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html)

:thumbsup:

Didn't NASA spend $38 million on a moon rover that had less parts than a Jeep... not a reliable source of information IMO :jointsmile:

But this is interesting... spraying the atmosphere to reduce global warming :thumbsup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

[JaggedEdge]

Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).

Again they are looking at satellites for the last 30 years, that isn't a large enough period of time to say what it means. If you can't look at 30 years of data and conclude we are causing it.

Taken from icecap.us (http://boards.cannabis.com/icecap.us)


Braithwaite in 2002 in a paper â??Glacier mass balanceâ?� in the Journal Progress in Physical Geography reveals â??there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of â??the glaciers are melting,â?? but there are also regions with positive balances.â?� Within Europe, for example, he notes that â??Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95.â?� And when results for the whole world are combined for this most recent period of time, Braithwaite notes â??there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.â?�

I don't think anyone is arguing ice caps in some regions are melting, we are simply saying it isn't the end of the world. It also isn't this global trend they want you to believe. Climate fluctuates differently throughout the planet.

[JaggedEdge]

Didn't NASA spend $38 million on a moon rover that had less parts than a Jeep... not a reliable source of information IMO :jointsmile:

But this is interesting... spraying the atmosphere to reduce global warming :thumbsup:



That's scary, although I missed where they implied it was being used to reverse global warming. What ever the reason, I don't like the idea of the government testing chemicals on an unknowing populace.

As to NASA, they are a huge waste of money. I'm not going to say they haven't come up with some very helpful inventions, but the amount of money they spend vs. the amount of success they have had is greatly disproportionate. These are the same people who made it to the moon, pated themselves on the back, and basically said, "thats enough for a half century."

Hell, we now have private companies entering into the space travel and exploration business. I'm anxious to see the things that come from the private sector, it is about time NASA had some competition.

[bigtopsfinn]

Yeah sorry... maybe more appropriate for the Conspiracy forum, but since it's somewhat related I thought I'd share it anyways :jointsmile:

Here's the article connecting it: AP Newsbreak: Obama looks at climate engineering (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97ECHLG1&show_article=1)


WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the airâ??making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggestedâ??could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxideâ??the chief human-caused greenhouse gasâ??out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[JaggedEdge]

Yeah sorry... maybe more appropriate for the Conspiracy forum, but since it's somewhat related I thought I'd share it anyways :jointsmile:


Interesting read. Yes that is terrifying stuff, and it is why so many of us are so extreme in trying to enlighten people to the lies being fed to them. :(

I doubt it would be hard to sell this to a good portion of the population. This is what fear mongering does, it makes people so afraid of something that they are likely to go along with something else that could potentially be more harmful in order to end their fears.

I would not want to risk them fucking up our climate in the long run while trying to fix a mythical problem. When something isn't actually broken, don't try and fix it. I don't think these people are knowledgeable to predict the long term effects of these practices, or the potentially harmful side effects from the chemicals. It sounds like a drastic action for a problem that doesn't need fixing.

Not to mention, doesn't this go against what the "greenies" believe. If man actually got us into this mess, why would we trust him to release things into our atmosphere to fix it?

[overgrowthegovt]

JaggedEdge, how do you account for atmospheric methane having risen 145% in the last century? Fossil fuel production is a documented cause of this, and the past century has seen a steady explosion in human fussil fuel consumption, but there couldn't be any kind of link, right?

There's plenty of evidence, if you didn't immediately begin thinking of how to contradict it and instead considered it for thirty seconds. Anything's "easily refutable" if you have the right bias

May I ask what motive institutions would have for fabricating such an uncomfortable problem that will be so expensive to remedy? The corporate giants don't exactly benefit from the idea that their practices are doing the earth great harm. The conservative/Republican strategy is to pretend that there is no problem, and the libertarians tend to side with them on this one. Typically I'm for the libertarian view, but this is probably the lamest and most irrational conspiracy theory ever devised.

JaggedEdge, you can scream "I AM RIGHT" to the rafters; doesn't make it so. This is far too complex an issue to simply be dismised...I also have perused the evidence and have found at least significant portions of it to be solid.

My point about a pre-emptive cleanse was that unless I grossly overestimate your cognitive faculties, you can't possibly believe that humans can continue their vicious rape of the earth and its natural resources without consequences cropping up sooner or later, even if they haven't already. The Native Americans analogy is a seriously patchy one, because there is very little similarity between strategic, partial pre-colonial deforestation by peoples who had at least a vestige of respect for the earth, and the debacle we see now by profit-hungry industries who don't give a fuck if the earth goes up in flames so long as they can get some kind of monopoly on the fire-hoses.

[JaggedEdge]

JaggedEdge, how do you account for atmospheric methane having risen 145% in the last century? Fossil fuel production is a documented cause of this, and the past century has seen a steady explosion in human fussil fuel consumption, but there couldn't be any kind of link, right?

I have never argued we are not the reason for the increase in CO2, methane, and other pollutants and compounds into our atmosphere. There simply is no evidence it affects our climate.


May I ask what motive institutions would have for fabricating such an uncomfortable problem that will be so expensive to remedy? The corporate giants don't exactly benefit from the idea that their practices are doing the earth great harm.
See above for Gores motivations. Others are in clean energy fields or own their own carbon credit companies. There are certainly people who want to benefit from the promotion of this pseudo-science. Most of these clean energy companies get government subsidies. They can actually loose money but continue to get paid.


JaggedEdge, you can scream "I AM RIGHT" to the rafters; doesn't make it so. This is far too complex an issue to simply be dismised...I also have perused the evidence and have found at least significant portions of it to be solid.
I have been begging for y'all to produce this evidence, until one of you actually does I will continue to assume it is nonexistent.


My point about a pre-emptive cleanse was that unless I grossly overestimate your cognitive faculties, you can't possibly believe that humans can continue their vicious rape of the earth and its natural resources without consequences cropping up sooner or later, even if they haven't already.

That is the strangest logic. If we have natural resources, why should we not take advantage of them? Yes, eventually oil will run out and we will adapt and switch to an alternative source.

I love "vicious rape of the earth" though. I love the graphic imagery you use to describe our mining and extracting natural resources.

The problem with your solution is that this debate isn't about mining minerals and deforestation. It is about global warming, and in particular CO2's effect on our climate. What we are talking about with your "cleanse" is the destruction of our modern way of earth in a drastic effort to prevent what could someday happen. Completely force people to unwillingly change because our climate fluctuates and isn't very stable. It is however reliable.



The Native Americans analogy is a seriously patchy one...

Fair enough, you didn't like that analogy. Let's try another one, this time in regards to our thinking we can help the environment.

"ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES."
Most people felt Smokey Bear was a positive thing. He promoted responsibility,being respectful to the environment and not starting so many forest fires. Surely our intervention in this matter could not have any negative effects. We're saving millions of animals; their homes and lives. Unfortunately, as it turns out, fires are essential to the natural balance. Since people started putting out their fires and saving the forest, the forest has been becoming overly dense with growth, a lot of which is dead. This dead growth is highly flammable. Now, unlike in the past, when forest fires do occur, they tend to be far more intense. They now spread more easily from one tree to the next due to them being closer to each other. Where small fires would break out and only burn small portions of the forest, we now have major fires that last for weeks, if not months.

Turns out, forest fires were good. It was the natural order in which Mother Nature controls her minions in the forests. Where once they would be burned and later repopulated with new growth in small sections. We now have mass genocide of these trees.

I have to admit, it's actually kind of fun to use human violence to describe our treatment of nature...

The point is, we can't fully understand what all our actions will have on our environment. If their isn't solid evidence to support action, no action should be taken. This global warming fear mongering is causing stupid and potentially harmful solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.





because there is very little similarity between strategic, partial pre-colonial deforestation by peoples who had at least a vestige of respect for the earth, and the debacle we see now by profit-hungry industries who don't give a fuck if the earth goes up in flames so long as they can get some kind of monopoly on the fire-hoses.

You act like we are vicious creatures who want nothing more than to destroy everything beautiful nature has to offer. You couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of us love nature and it's creatures as much as anybody. We simply want to harness everything natures has to offer in a peaceful and responsible way. Our making our mark on this planet is not exactly destroying it as you would like us to believe. Sure there are things we should fix, but global warming crazies are taking the focus away from actual problems. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

[JaggedEdge]

double post

[Bombdig]

To OP
Dude u said it urself, its too early to tell if we are having an impact, and odds are the byproducts hydrocarbons we burn and spew into the enviroment is going to fuck with it, and is in no way natural. Would you pipe car exause into your garden?... Perhaps they chose the least of the culprits in the whole mix, but more often then not CO2 is accompanied by shit loads of other bad stuff. Your belief that since we have natural resourses we should use them for unnatural things if fucking retarded, ignorant, and over looks the possible future concequences that you yourself have said is too early to tell. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Oh and as for proof CO2 and Temp are related, how about the fact plants are able to absorb higher amounts of CO2 at higher temps, and only at higher temps. Bam proven! CO2 lvls are related to temp levels.

Agreed that there are alternate motives behind the whole thing, Gore himself is invested in carbon credit companys and is going to be making mad coin from this.

Its a good idea in the sense that it will help nature, but its only going to line the pockets of the already rich.

And dude that shit about smokey the bear.. like come on... its about having a fire responsibly, common sense shit man. the fires still get started just as they have been for thousands of years, natural lightning.

[overgrowthegovt]

JaggedEdge....Bombdig said it well--lightning has been causing forest fires for millenia and will continue to do so, providing, as you say, a healthy balance. Some dumbshit tossing his cigarette into dry leaves may be a little less natural and a little more harmful. I see the point you're trying to make, that deforestation and natural disasters are healthy and natural....true, when they are indeed natural or with, as in the native American example, the best interests of the forests at heart, or in moderation. The body needs fat, but I wouldn't recommend eating a stick of butter daily.

Your assertion that most people love and care about nature is both true and untrue. It is true in the sense that if you asked most people about nature they'd get a wistful look in their eye. If given the choice between the rabid consumption of cheap goods that hurt the environment, and something more costly or more inconvenient that is green, your average philistine will choose the former. And I very much doubt CEOs ponder the environmental consequences when they make a lucrative decision.

To be honest, I really do not care one way or the other whether our current activities are causing massive climate change. Either way, we could do to treat the earth with more respect, and the whole argument is basically irrelevent. Let's say it is, as you say, a political lie....so? Does that mean have fun, pollute? Common sense (which, as Voltaire tells us, is not so common) tells me that being nice to the earth is a good idea. Even if climate change isn't an issue (though I still believe it is--I don't have the evidence on hand, but I have read it), our current practices bode ill for the future, considering how we have limited resources and habitats for our species. Your argument on human-caused climate change may indeed have some merit to it, but your argument that we are not harming the planet is ridiculous. If you're all about the evidence, I'm sure a little research (and not from everything'sfineit'sallaconspiracy.org), will yield some disturbing results. So, this is a non-issue.

[JaggedEdge]

JaggedEdge....Bombdig said it well--lightning has been causing forest fires for millenia and will continue to do so, providing, as you say, a healthy balance. Some dumbshit tossing his cigarette into dry leaves may be a little less natural and a little more harmful.

No, the point is man made forest fires have become an intricate part of the natural order as well. The forest are so thick that when lightning does cause a forest fire, it spreads more easily from one tree to the next destroying larger portions of forest and homes in the process. Now they are having to do control burns in the west in order to try and thin the forests out, sometimes they get out of control though, again due to the vast numbers of dry trees and brush, reeking havoc on the countryside.

They failed to see that simply preventing fires wasn't good enough. If they wanted to actually prevent fires, they should have had the foresight to do control burns in strategic areas. Instead they adopted an overly simplistic view that fire was harmful to nature. Instead of managing fires, they tried to reduce the number of fires started, which they succeeded in doing, only to cause more problems now!

As for the rest of what you have said, I'm done discussing it. I have asked for statistics, evidence, and support from several different members and every single one of you have failed to provide it.

Simply saying they may be right and it won't cause any harm to go green is not a valid argument. Of course people oppose paying higher prices for inferior products due to this irrational fear we are destroying our planet.

Take those new light bulbs for instance:
They aren't nearly bright enough, do not last as long as advertised, and the warning label says to evacuate the house if the fucking thing breaks. So, no, people don't want to substitute good products for crappy ones simply because of fear mongering!

[JaggedEdge]

To OP
Oh and as for proof CO2 and Temp are related, how about the fact plants are able to absorb higher amounts of CO2 at higher temps, and only at higher temps. Bam proven! CO2 lvls are related to temp levels.

Wouldn't that suggest our planet is self-regulating and self-healing? If higher temperatures are caused by increased CO2 and plants absorb more CO2 at higher temperatures, wouldn't that mean better ecological growth and a balancing act being preformed by mother nature. If they are absorbing more CO2, that means they are releasing more oxygen, and last I checked, oxygen was good for us. Also, if they were absorbing the excess CO2 would that not in itself stabilize the temperature?

So basically you are saying. "Perhaps the global warming nuts are right and we are causing it, but we don't need to change anything because nature is handling it for us."

I can live with that.

[JaggedEdge]

To OP
Perhaps they chose the least of the culprits in the whole mix, but more often then not CO2 is accompanied by shit loads of other bad stuff. Your belief that since we have natural resourses we should use them for unnatural things if fucking retarded, ignorant, and over looks the possible future concequences that you yourself have said is too early to tell. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

One more thing. If they couldn't finger the correct culprit, doesn't that completely undermine their entire argument? I love how easy people are. Well maybe CO2 isn't the cause even though that is all they talk about, but we should still listen to them.


And dude that shit about smokey the bear.. like come on... its about having a fire responsibly, common sense shit man. the fires still get started just as they have been for thousands of years, natural lightning.

See above. We are natural. Our accidently causing fires was part of the natural order! That's the entire point. Now when a "natural" fire starts from a lightning strike, it tends to burn more uncontrollably, because we failed to keep up our end of the bargain for the last 60 years.

[yokinazu]

ok well correct me if im wrong here but i remember learning a few years ago that before the last ice age there was a period of global warming that was caused by increased volcanic activity that raised CO2 levels in our atmosphere. so it seems that we call these green house gases for the reason that they act like a green house over our planet thereby warming it.

also as i said before who gives a shit whether or not its man made. i care about the air i breathe the water i drink and the food i eat. CO2 may be impotant for plant but they to cannot live suckin exhaust fumes from cars and trucks. i myself dont want to live in a stinky shit hole.

it not that we shouldnt use our natural resources but we should definatly be more responsible in theyre collecting and usage. look at strip mining today compared to 100 trys ago. its 1000 times claener and bettre for the enviroment.

[Delta9 UK]

Ignoring climate change for just a moment....

I live in the UK but, don't you think that reducing the U.S dependance on Fossil fuels and foreign imported oil has huge benefits?

Fossil fuels like Coal and Oil have a great many uses other than setting fire to them! From plastics to medicines this is a finite resource and we are utterly squandering it. This resource is finite and when its gone its gone - you don't even need to understand the carbon cycle fully to see we are upsetting the balance.

The U.S would benefit hugely by being independant of foreign imported oil - oil which comes from countries which are unstable and not exactly 'U.S' friendly. In the UK for example we are dependant now on imported Gas - and the Russians are cornering the market - not good imho.

Developing renewables is good for energy security - something the U.S and the U.K would definately benefit from.

I strongly suggest all of you read this book (it's a free online PDF) which covers the options we have with regard to Sustainable Energy - it makes sobering reading - but is very accessible:

David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Download (http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html)

[jamesia]

Temperatures have been rising, for whatever reason you personally believe. This is a documented fact. As temperatures rise, permafrost melts and will release tons (speaking quantitatively here) of methane will be released. This is on top of the tons released because of feeding livestock corn rather than grass. Methane causes the greenhouse effect at a much higher magnitude than CO2, so as things get hotter, there will be feedback from many different sources that will increase the temperature. Another such one is carbonic acid created from rain + CO2 which will weather mountains around the world that are largely calcium carbonate... creating more CO2 in the environment. This type of acid is highly unstable, and will react quickly with rocks rather than just flowing off into pools or streams. The more CO2 in the air, the more rock weathering... leading to even more CO2 in the air. These are facts. I know this because my job, and my projects revolve around this subject. It's not a matter of the Earth's ability to self-regulate. If you're inputting to a system quicker than the system can output products, then you'll have a problem...

Despite the environmental reasons, there are several other reasons to transition from oil, like Delta9 says. We do a hell of a lot more with oil than transportation and energy. All plastics are made from oil, some cosmetics, skin care products, the list is fairly long. Are you prepared to give all that up? And should we really keep sending money to the Middle East, where part will just end up in jihadists hands? Personally, I find these reasons more compelling than the environmental side, but there ya have it.