NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think global warming is occuring? If so is it man's fault or could it be natural (ie the sun is hotter now so we are too).

Eh...it gets colder and colder here every winter...so I dunno...

Difficult question to answer. I'm sure that if this thread progresses, there will be people with some very strong scientific data for both sides of the question and there will be those to flame the others' data.

I'm pretty sure that over the course of billions of years, the temperature of the planet fluctuates wildly. Ice ages and all that mess.

But, then, anyone with a stove and water can eaily prove that things heat up much, much faster than they freeze.

I'm sure mankind has done some awful damage to this planet, but I am equally sure that this planet will outlive mankind.

In short ... meh ... I'm not concerned. I am enjoying a surprisingly mild summer, though. It's only gotten to 100 degrees twice and has stayed in the 85-90 range for the most part.

Well, let me put it this way:

You think you can pump billions of tons of various gasses into the atmosphere and not have any effects whatsoever?

But, then, anyone with a stove and water can eaily prove that things heat up much, much faster than they freeze.
Heard of liquid nitrogen? Insta-freeze.

Heard of liquid nitrogen? Insta-freeze.

Well, yeah ... but there isn't too much of that laying around in big lakes around the earth ...

Jump in kids! The swimming's great!

(tee hee)

The problem with the term "global warming" is that it's misleading--lots of pundits made light of the fact that Al Gore gave a speech on global warming on what turned out to be the coldest day of the year in New York. The more accurate term is "climate change" and there's no doubt that we're experiencing that.

Parts of the world that have long been covered in ice are now seeing greater amounts of melt every year. Droughts are more common and storms are more violent. There are more and more extremes and violent swings in temperatures. Some variation is expected, but the amount of variation we've seen in just the last hundred years is unprecedented when we compare it to core samples.

Of coarse global warming is occuring. But something like 70% of the radiation that causes global warming is from the sun and there is no way that it canbe stopped.

A bit of good reading: Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement uses false science to scare us to death, by some person named Bailey...Ronald or something.

Here's a question - you think it's practical to set up an all comprehensive network of land thermometers to track a global climate? Hardly. And we certainly weren't capable of doing so in the 1800s and early 1900s. Much of the world - as is still the case now - was unmonitored. Even today, most land monitors are based around urban centers.

Take a peak. I'll put up a few quotes from the book...once I...uh...find it...but anyways, global warming is absolutely blown out of proportion. Temperatures chance; they always have and they always will; it would be freakishly unnatural if they didn't. We can easily cope with the small changes we're causing.

Not that we should use products that produce less waste - more efficiency, cleaner, etc...this is a good thing. But the majority of environmentalists are really using false science to scare us to death and into their extreme political agenda.

Meanwhile, two articles...

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7352&news_iv_ctrl=1084
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5408&news_iv_ctrl=1084

Well, yeah ... but there isn't too much of that laying around in big lakes around the earth ...

Jump in kids! The swimming's great!

(tee hee)
The point is, you offered something unnatural as proof that things warm up faster than cool down. I offered another something unnatural as counter-proof. The fact of the matter is...things don't really cool down or warm up faster one way or the other.

Difficult question to answer. I'm sure that if this thread progresses, there will be people with some very strong scientific data for both sides of the question and there will be those to flame the others' data.

This is probably the most truthful thing anyone can say :)

Anyway, I am not certain that it's occuring. If it is, I think it's natural.

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it take millions of years for it to really affect anything? I'm not up to date on this subject.

I, as a scientifically-minded person who has studied the subject, am pretty sure that climate change is occuring and that it is mostly the result of human activities. Not to say that there isn't a natural component, but humans are definitely contributing most of it. The basis of climate change is hard to dispute: greenhouse gasses (like CO2) do rise into the atmosphere, and they do trap infrared radiation, heating the atmosphere and the planet. Now, add in the fact that humans have released something on the order of 10 x 10^8 tons of CO2 each year for the past several decades...it's hard to dispute that this has an effect on the Earth's temperature and climate. (This being NS, I'm sure someone will dispute it).

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it take millions of years for it to really affect anything? I'm not up to date on this subject.
Actually, if current models hold, the global temperature could jump as much as 10 degrees in the next hundred years, with the change occuring more and more rapidly as time passes.

Well, let me put it this way:

You think you can pump billions of tons of various gasses into the atmosphere and not have any effects whatsoever?

When the atmosphere is as mind-bogglingly huge and complex as ours, the answer could very well be yes.

When the atmosphere is as mind-bogglingly huge and complex as ours, the answer could very well be yes.
...but it isn't. (the answer. not the atmosphere)

Well, take a look at the satellite pictures... I'd say that's proof enough.

Mainstream science is in consensus that the climate change is a real phenomenon and at least partly influenced by humans. In some countries, oil industries are making aggressive efforts at supplying "research" proving the opposite, but these projects are rife with outright pseudo-science. We're digging our own graves, but all of this can be stopped by taking action now.

A bit of good reading: Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement uses false science to scare us to death, by some person named Bailey...Ronald or something.


Sounds like a scientifically literate and unbiased piece of reading. Perhaps I'll have to check this one out.

As i understand it the weather goes in cycles? from one ice age to another there's a cycle of 20,000 years I think. Maybe the current weather patterns are jsut part of the cycle. That would explain why it varies over the years and decades.
an opinion

Of coarse global warming is occuring. But something like 70% of the radiation that causes global warming is from the sun and there is no way that it canbe stopped.
ROFLMAO!

Tha absurdity is killing me!

I, as a scientifically-minded person who has studied the subject, am pretty sure that climate change is occuring and that it is mostly the result of human activities. Not to say that there isn't a natural component, but humans are definitely contributing most of it. The basis of climate change is hard to dispute: greenhouse gasses (like CO2) do rise into the atmosphere, and they do trap infrared radiation, heating the atmosphere and the planet. Now, add in the fact that humans have released something on the order of 10 x 10^8 tons of CO2 each year for the past several decades...it's hard to dispute that this has an effect on the Earth's temperature and climate. (This being NS, I'm sure someone will dispute it).
Now compare that to the CO2 released by forest fires, volcanos and other natural phenomenon. Also consider the CO2 'absorbed' (for lack of better term) released by farming, gardens and others. and we have the beginning of a factual discussion, rather than an unbalanced half-fact.

Global warming happens, whether because of human activity or not, but the fact is, it exists. Human activity has played a factor, mainly way back during the Industrial Revolution, but also during the use of CFCs. No ozone=more UV More UV=accelerated ice cap melting AICM=mass flooding, which eventually leads to a brand new ice age.

I recently saw statistics that last summer was the most warm one around the world since the middle ages. hmmmm, makes me think, what made it so hot in the middle ages? natural climate change. the fact that global warming is occuring should not disturb people as it has clearly happened many times before. the earth adapts naturaly to this and other changes man made and not. the average temperates of now compared to 100 years ago are about a degree or so higher than they were. am i the only one who considers that pretty damn stable? one more thing, ozone has only been measured since 1956 ( ad my friends). so to say we know how much there should be naturaly is a bad thing. we simply do not know if the volcanic eruptions that put forth more co2 than the worlds automobiles do actualy have caused this most recent change. I think that a lot of money is to be made off of hysteria and dooms day predictions. the media knows this and environmentalist groups profit from it also. I am skeptical at best.

Of coarse global warming is occuring. But something like 70% of the radiation that causes global warming is from the sun and there is no way that it canbe stopped.
ROFLMAO!

Tha absurdity is killing me!

For those of you who missed that, all of the radiation (ie; heat) that causes global warming comes from the sun.

*Rolls eyes, being too lazy to look up a smilie for it*

Maybe man is contributing. If so let's continue. Still a bit too chilly for me!

Sounds like a scientifically literate and unbiased piece of reading. Perhaps I'll have to check this one out.

Sarcasm meter: -------------------------------------------------->

You don't have to make up your opinion before you read the book, you know.


what made it so hot in the middle ages


Who kept global temperature records in the middle ages?

Now compare that to the CO2 released by forest fires, volcanos and other natural phenomenon. Also consider the CO2 'absorbed' (for lack of better term) released by farming, gardens and others. and we have the beginning of a factual discussion, rather than an unbalanced half-fact.

Granted, there are sources of CO2 other than human activity, but you must also understand that natural CO2 sinks (the rainforests, for one) absorbed more or less all of the excess CO2. Until now. The point is that human activity is tipping the balance. We are adding GHGs (greenhouse gasses) to the atmosphere much faster than plant life and marine activity can sequester it. Also, it is important to realize that farms and gardens absorb far less CO2 than the rain forests that they are replacing.

This is just taking CO2 into consideration. There are other GHGs that trap much more heat, and most of those are human-produced (like CFCs, which are still used by lesser-developed nations around the world).

I'm not certain the global warming is our fault, but I think it probably is. And even if it isn't our fault, it is our problem and we have to do something about it.

But the majority of environmentalists are really using false science to scare us to death and into their extreme political agenda.
What political agenda could environmentalism possibly be trying to push?

In some countries, oil industries are making aggressive efforts at supplying "research" proving the opposite, but these projects are rife with outright pseudo-science.
Like Esso's (I think it was them) list of "17,000 scientists" (most of whom were characters from TV, movies and books) who stated that climate change had nothing to do with humans?

I have no scientific reply. Simply random things. If you're hardcore into this topic, don't read this.

But I have an observation. Every winter here, it gets colder. Every summer is hotter.

And global warming reminds me of this song, "sleeping in".

And then last night i had that strange dream
Where everything was exactly how it seemed
Where concerns about the world getting warmer
The people thought they were just being rewarded
For treating others as they like to be treated
For obeying stop signs and curing diseases
For mailing letters with the address of the sender
Now we can swim any day in november

Well, take a look at the satellite pictures... I'd say that's proof enough.

I haven't seen them, can you tell me what they showed -or- provide a link to where I can find out for myself?

I have no scientific reply. Simply random things. If you're hardcore into this topic, don't read this.

But I have an observation. Every winter here, it gets colder. Every summer is hotter.

And global warming reminds me of this song, "sleeping in".

And then last night i had that strange dream
Where everything was exactly how it seemed
Where concerns about the world getting warmer
The people thought they were just being rewarded
For treating others as they like to be treated
For obeying stop signs and curing diseases
For mailing letters with the address of the sender
Now we can swim any day in november

Good song, and maybe now I won't have to pay for the heating in the pool anyway...

I did some research on this topic as a response to my high school enviro. science teacher, who was a tree-hugger fanatic, and taught global warming as undisputed fact. After some looking, I came across information that charted estimated temperature ranges all the way back to the Jurassic period. By using the temperature ranges of related flora of today, scientists were able to estimate temp. ranges back then. As you can imagine, it looks like a bunch of waves, some small some big. Right now, we are coming out of a well, one that was deepened further by the Little Ice Age. How far we will go, I don't know, but I can imagine that it will level off in plenty of time. Earth always returns to a balance, that's what's so great about it.

Two more facts you should keep in mind while discussing global warming:

1. Environmentalists will tell you that over 70 scientists signed a paper that was circulated among the scientific community saying they thought global warming was real. What they failed to tell you was that over 700 scientists refused to sign the paper, because they either said they didn't believe it, or that they thought it too early to be sure.

2. 50 years ago, scientists were warning us that global COOLING was imminent. Why should we believe you now?

Ha, my dad always jokes that we're going under Global Cooling right now.. yeah

Learn to swim

What political agenda could environmentalism possibly be trying to push?

Many, particulary the more rabid, environmentalists are fringe communist/socialist organizations. Their agenda is to create as many barriers as possible for free enterprise to operate. They would risk unemployment for thousands for the chance to hit 'the rich' in the pocket book - all under the piety of environemtalism based on questionable data.

Global warming is definately real. It's an established scientific fact. Even if you don't normally take science seriously, it is something that has been clearly shown. Nonetheless, the agents of Leviathan want us to believe that it is natural.

The truth is that civilization, at least the kind based on advanced technology and social hierarchy, is in the process of destroying us. As long as greed and power hunger are taken more seriously than compassion and thinking ahead, we will continue to rush toward our deaths.

Depending on the data you look at a case could be made either way... I think that it is happening, extremely slowly (almost completely naturally) and that environmentalists and others are blowing it out of proportion.

Global warming is for sure happening. There is definite scientific proof and research out there that is not out of proportion. For example, humans raise hundreds of heads of cattle. Thousands, in fact, probably hundreds of thousands. Cows stand in the fields, eating and farting. And what gas do they emit? Methane. With all this excess methane (and that from the other animal wastes, rice patties, trash dumps and such) going into the atmosphere without much of a barrier, there becomes lots of methane in the atmosphere, to put it lightly. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It holds heat. Lots of heat. Which then heats up the atmosphere (from absorbing the sun's radiation), which causes global temperature to rise, ice caps to melt at an alarming rate. Some effects of global warming are that large cities that are below sea level, such as New Orleans, will soon be submerged, causing trillions in damage, and some creatures live in certain areas that have constant temperatures and even a 3 degree change could offset the balance so much that that species becomes extinct. Also, cave temperature is determined by an area's ambient (average) temperature. Let's say that the ambient temperature of say, Tennessee (the cave state), rises, maybe, 10 degrees in the next several decades. Currently, the cave temperature is between 55 and 60 degrees. So, the ambient temperature of the area could rise as high as 70 degrees. Which would be fatal for the many endangered species of animals therein. Specifically the bats. Some species of bats have to be in a cave a certain temperature to be able to mate. Or the cave has to be cold enough so that they can slow their metabolism down enough to last through the winter months. Humans are on the track to destroying the whole planet. Ever heard of holding capacity? No one knows what will happen when the Earth reaches its. Many countries already have reached theirs. Starvation. Disease finds its way easily through overpopulated areas. A completely different topic worthy of discussion.

Anyways, my conclusion. While global warming is a natural process, due to human activities, its effects have been greatly enhanced and the process has been greatly increased in speed.

What political agenda could environmentalism possibly be trying to push?

Many, particulary the more rabid, environmentalists are fringe communist/socialist organizations. Their agenda is to create as many barriers as possible for free enterprise to operate. They would risk unemployment for thousands for the chance to hit 'the rich' in the pocket book - all under the piety of environemtalism based on questionable data.
Oh I see, our climate change is a political thing and has nothing to do with scientific observations? How absurd!!

Everyone can breath easy now....Bozzy has the answer. :rolleyes:

Granted, there are sources of CO2 other than human activity, but you must also understand that natural CO2 sinks (the rainforests, for one) absorbed more or less all of the excess CO2. Until now. The point is that human activity is tipping the balance. We are adding GHGs (greenhouse gasses) to the atmosphere much faster than plant life and marine activity can sequester it. Also, it is important to realize that farms and gardens absorb far less CO2 than the rain forests that they are replacing.

This is just taking CO2 into consideration. There are other GHGs that trap much more heat, and most of those are human-produced (like CFCs, which are still used by lesser-developed nations around the world).

My big issue with the CO2 sinks is that much of the global efforts to "curb" global warming is hitting the US in particular and indrustral nations in general. The nations where the CO2 sinks are disappearing from are not affected by the Kyoto treaty or any other efforts. The US currently has more forested areas now then when we were colonized. Foresters and loggers and others for whom trees provide their living are costantly replanting and even expanding the area in which they grow trees. Who making the countries with rain forests replant them?

What political agenda could environmentalism possibly be trying to push?

Anti-Capitolism

Many, particulary the more rabid, environmentalists are fringe communist/socialist organizations. Their agenda is to create as many barriers as possible for free enterprise to operate. They would risk unemployment for thousands for the chance to hit 'the rich' in the pocket book - all under the piety of environemtalism based on questionable data.

It is this that differentiates the Enviromentalist Wackos from the real Enviromentalists.

Here are the notes, complete with referances, for a speech I did earlier in the year. I'll allow it to make my other points.

********************************

I. First Main point: The Media reports that nearly all of the world’s scientists agree that Global warming is real, when in fact this is false.


A. supporting material:
CNN reported that a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report represented “a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man.” However, Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of 11 who prepared the report: “…that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long term climate trends and what causes them.”


B. supporting material:
A Gallup poll of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geographical Society showed that only 17% believed that global warming was the result of Greenhouse gas emissions

C. supporting material:
A petition started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, in opposition to the Kyoto Protocols has resulted in over 17,000 scientists signing it, debunking Former Vice President Al Gore’s claim that such skeptics are “a tiny minority outside the main stream.”

(Transition into second main point)
Now let’s look at the potential for the polar caps to melt.


II. Second Main point: Despite the Media’s warnings to the contrary, the polar caps will not melt even at the maximum rate ever predicted.


A. Subpoint
1) The current warming rate predictions are insufficient to rate any kind of immediate concern. (Second slide)
Supporting material:
a) 1988 - .8°C (1.44°F) per decade
b) 1990 - .3°C (.54°F) per decade
c) 1995 - .2°C (.36°F) per decade
note: these are the predictions that the commettee that drafted the Kyoto Treaty determined and then keep lowering
d) To date, neither satellite nor surface temperature readings have met or surpassed this warming forecast.
2) Antarctic high average temperature is just -56°F The latest GCMs predict warming of just 1-3°F by 2100


B. supporting material:
1) Warmer air holds more moisture. This allows for more precipitation to be available to the Ice sheets, thus increasing the potential for growth of the polar caps.

C. supporting material (Third Slide)
According to Rice University’s GLACIER Web Site, a large ice body responds more slowly to an environmental change than does a smaller one. Ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica are so large that they may take tens of thousands of years to be affected.


(Transition into third main point)
Next we will compare the prediction models to the actual satellite data

III. Third Main point: The use of weather satellites and weather balloons show that Global Warming isn’t even occurring at all.


A. Subpoint:
Satellites and balloons have significant advantages over ground based measurements.

Supporting material:
1) They measure global temperature 3 dimensionally at a frequency of up to 40,000 readings a day

2) (fourth slide) They are also immune to Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) The UHIE is an artificially high temperature reading linked to urban development. As the number of roads, cars, airports, airplanes and buildings grow in an urban areas, so too does the local temperature. Since most ground-based temperature gages are located in urban areas, most are vulnerable to UHIE

3) (fifth slide) When compared the satellite data shows no warming trend as compared to the relatively steep warming of the ground based measurements, which are subject to UHIE.



B. Subpoint:
Comparing the projections and actual ground based readings with those of the satellites and balloons show high inaccuracies.
1) (sixth slide) The predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes are excessively high when compared to the actual trends.
2) (seventh slide) Looking at the actual changes in global temperature since 1979 also shows a marked difference in the ground based reading when compared to the satellite data

(Transition into fourth main point)
And just how accurate are those models anyway?

IV. Fourth main point
Not only are the models inaccurate as previously show, but they are not even consistent amongst themselves

A. supporting material
Two models used by the National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC), one British, the other Canadian, failed to track actual temperature changes.

B. supporting material (eighth slide)
The predictions between the two were in several cases directly conflicting. One model showed the Dakotas would lose 85% of their current average rainfall by 2100, while the other shows a 75% gain for the same region in the same time period. This held true for half of the regions studied with the remainder showing huge differences

WORKS CONSULTED:
<http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.htm>

<http://www.globalwarming.org/brochure.html>

<http://www.glacier.rice.edu/land/5_glaciersandtheir2.html>

<http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html>

<http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0774.html>
Subsource: E.W. Domack, A.J.T. Jull and S. Nakao, "Advance of East Antarctic outlet glaciers during the hypsithermal: implications for the volume set of the Antarctic ice sheet under global warming," Geology , v. 1033, 1059_1062, 1991

<http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/previous_issues/vol3/v3n7/feature.htm>

<http://www.nationalcenter.org/GWFactSheet.html>

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer on July 18, 2000 in a Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty, The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001

*******************************

I will state in advance, before there is much quibbling, that the globalwarming.org and the nationalcenter.org can be considered questionable sources as they will have more political agendas. However they in turn referance other sources that are less questionable. If anyone would like to see the specific raw data I gathered, including the referanced graphics, let me know and I will send you the MS Word document I saved it on.

Do you think global warming is occuring? If so is it man's fault or could it be natural (ie the sun is hotter now so we are too).

The scientific establishment tells us that global warming is a fact. The same scientific establishment told us in the 1970's that a new ice age was just around the corner.

The reality is that climate change happens over hundreds of years. But scientists need public and/or private funding to continue their studies, so they tend to accentuate the negative and ignore the positive. Bad news makes the news and it ensures more funding. Climate change is a long-term thing, but scientists need to be funded, and to feel important, right now.

One other thing: Global warming is accepted by the liberal left as an article of faith, because it offers the opportunity of more government control over industry (the big, bad capitalist corporations must be controlled for the sake of the environment, etc.), no matter if that costs the US billions of dollars every year. But what can you expect from liberals? They feel no loyalty to the country they are born in, but only to some transient, mythical "international community" and its suspect science.

The scientific establishment tells us that global warming is a fact. The same scientific establishment told us in the 1970's that a new ice age was just around the corner.

The reality is that climate change happens over hundreds of years. But scientists need public and/or private funding to continue their studies, so they tend to accentuate the negative and ignore the positive. Bad news makes the news and it ensures more funding. Climate change is a long-term thing, but scientists need to be funded, and to feel important, right now.

One other thing: Global warming is accepted by the liberal left as an article of faith, because it offers the opportunity of more government control over industry (the big, bad capitalist corporations must be controlled for the sake of the environment, etc.), no matter if that costs the US billions of dollars every year. But what can you expect from liberals? They feel no loyalty to the country they are born in, but only to some transient, mythical "international community" and its suspect science.

Actually, global warming can cause an Ice Age, and here's why:

The polar regions of our planet are generally very very arid. They receive almost no precipitation. When global temperatures rise, the air contains more water vapor. More water vapor = more precipitation. In the polar regions, the temperature will still be mostly below freezing, but there will be more precipitation. More precipitation = development of greater amounts of ice (it forms faster than it melts.) More Ice = greater albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth.) More ice + more solar energy reflected back into space = Ice Age.

Eventully it will restabilize, but mankind will have to go through some pretty shitty times. A little preventative medicine could avert this. Makes sense to me to be better safe than sorry, correct? Seems somewhat hypocritical of Republicans to suggest we shouldn't pre-emptively tackle a problem, even if that problem could be confused by, sometimes, hazy information.

Also, to the person who states that there is more forestland now than in times past, could you please cite your source? Also, could I gently suggest that young, single species trees grown in a man-made treefarm aren't as productive in photosynthesis as a highly complex, old-growth forest is? Also, how much greenery does concrete, asphault, and other inorganic surfaces eliminate? Also, silting action and industrial waste kill off massive amounts of aquatic greenery, an often unaccounted for source of oxygen and CO2 cleansing.

Aside from catastrophic acts of nature, man remakes his environment more than anything else known to the history of the planet. We have an effect, the extent of which has to be explored with as much intellectual honesty as possible.

I read somewhere that it only raises in temperature like one degree every thousand years. Like yes it does happen but its not really a problem its more the fact that were destrying the rainforest and polluting horribly.

I read somewhere that it only raises in temperature like one degree every thousand years. Like yes it does happen but its not really a problem its more the fact that were destrying the rainforest and polluting horribly.

Temperature change rates can move much faster or slower than that. Also, remember that it is an average change in temperature. Some regions could receive much greater tempertures, while other regions might actually cool. The problem comes when the overal average temperature of the earth over the course of a year rises...even by a little.

Whether it is primarily caused by man or nature, it is in man's best interest to try to keep things stable and unpolluted. Even pre-industrial man may very well have caused, directly or indirectly, many climactic/environmental changes. The silting up of harbors and rivers. Increased erosion. Unprecedented static (i.e. non-nomadic) populations of man and their beasts. Non-native animal introduction. The exhaustion of a region's natural resources.

And these were all things we had a hand in before we had large-scale factories and other industrial operations.

Hey canuck, did you used to be on albinoblacksheep?? if so do you remember sirpw?? that would be me I think i might have hated you... or maybe it was the opposite... I dont remember

bump

What political agenda could environmentalism possibly be trying to push?

Many, particulary the more rabid, environmentalists are fringe communist/socialist organizations. Their agenda is to create as many barriers as possible for free enterprise to operate. They would risk unemployment for thousands for the chance to hit 'the rich' in the pocket book - all under the piety of environemtalism based on questionable data.


The truth is that civilization, at least the kind based on advanced technology and social hierarchy, is in the process of destroying us. As long as greed and power hunger are taken more seriously than compassion and thinking ahead, we will continue to rush toward our deaths.

Oh I see, our climate change is a political thing and has nothing to do with scientific observations? How absurd!!

Everyone can breath easy now....Bozzy has the answer. :rolleyes:

And there is my evidence. Canuck Heathen ignores that environmental whackos insist on absurd beurocratic restrictions that have no effect other than to cost business money, then act all pious if anyone calls them on it ("Oh, but the environment!")

And Letilia just skips fact all together to spew sarcasm rather than try to offer anything of substance. Who needs facts when you got that!

Both of whom have demonstrated themselves to have a socialist/communist agenda.

Thanks you two for demonstrating my point.

Fossil fuels are principally carbon -- mostly from carbon dioxide -- that has been taken out of circulation in the atmosphere by plant life and locked away underground over many millions of years as coal or oil. Human activity has meant that vast quantities of this buried carbon has been injected back into the system in the last 200 years, and most of it in the last 50. At the same time, deforestation and desertification -- again the results of human activity -- have removed many of the planet's carbon sinks. It is frankly idiotic to believe that all this activity, carried out on an unprecedented global scale, will have no effect.

Sure, volcanoes and forest fires are natural processes which inject huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the system. Sure, temperatures -- and sea levels -- vary; it was possible to grow grapes in northern England in the early medieval period, and sea levels were correspondingly higher. This suggests that there is no rigid natural equilibrium, but rather that the system fluctuates from year to year in accordance with natural events.

However, since volcanoes have not ceased to erupt, and forests have not ceased to burn, it is obvious that human activity is additional to this natural fluctuation and will have additional effects. Therefore, the fluctuations will become larger and more significant, and will have correspondingly significant impacts on our environments: alterations to oceanic currents, ice caps, sea levels, and weather patterns. Paranoid squealing about communist plots and burying one's head in the sand will not change this basic logic.

Combine these unpredictable changes with the largest human population the earth has ever seen -- mostly dependent on subsistence agriculture for their existence -- and we have all the makings for, at the very, very least, a humanitarian disaster on a massive scale.

And there is my evidence. Canuck Heathen ignores that environmental whackos insist on absurd beurocratic restrictions that have no effect other than to cost business money, then act all pious if anyone calls them on it ("Oh, but the environment!")

And Letilia just skips fact all together to spew sarcasm rather than try to offer anything of substance. Who needs facts when you got that!

Both of whom have demonstrated themselves to have a socialist/communist agenda.

Thanks you two for demonstrating my point.

So the fact that 2 people didn't list fact (just as you are doing) invalidates their entire argument? Did you read my posts at all?

There is a lot of scientific evidence for global warming and man's part in it. There is also evidence against the same. In my experience, the weight of the evidence rests with the global warming theory, but we'll give the other side the benefit of the doubt.

Let us pretend that only 10% of the World's environmental/geological/climatological/biological scientists believe the facts support global warming and man's part in it. That's still a lot of learned people. Would you take a bet on your life, even if it was a 90% chance of survival? Or is it better to be safe rather than sorry? Now what if we make the numbers more realistic to reflect the very divided scientific community. Say there's a 50% chance we're destroying the chances for our long-term survival on this planet. Are you going to ignore this, just because of politics?

Money? Aren't the long term and continuing savings in energy, raw materials, cleanup, damage control and quality of life worth the short term investment in environmental research and retrofitting? Aren't the costs of fixing the problem more likely to be astronomical as compared to preventing the problem?

What kind of odds are acceptible when you're betting the planet (or at least our comfortable existence on it)?

A few thoughts...

Democratic Nationality - "The scientific establishment tells us that global warming is a fact. The same scientific establishment told us in the 1970's that a new ice age was just around the corner."

Global warming is occurring. This is pretty much indisputable, the data is solid. However, scientists reporting on the possibility of a new ice age are also correct. Y'see, climate changes don't occur in isolation. We are due a new ice age; however, our science is only at the position where we can postulate the timing of such an event on a geological timescale. This means that we could have the ice age kicking in this century or something like 5,000 years from now (I don't have the figures at hand, I'm afraid).

The upshot of this is that we could really do with curbing the undoubted global warming we have at hand as it will prove detrimental to us as a species (and to other species, but I'll stick to anthropocentric arguments to keep this simple and possibly less controversial). Global cooling would also be detrimental; however, we don't have a precise enough idea when it's on the way. Now, you might think the two could balance out and leave things hunky dory. However, the climate is an infinitely complicated collection of interconnected systems based on feedback mechanisms. Temperature is not the only consideration; we also have albedo, aridity, atmospheric contribution, the biosphere...

So, putting aside the possibility of global cooling, what's causing global warming. I believe the main problem with discussion on this issue is that we aren't listening to the right people. The politicians don't know, The business leaders don't know. Neither do the oil barons or environmental lobbyists. The people who know, or rather have a good idea, are the scientists. Simple, really, yet we appear to pay more attention to the other groups for some reason.

What are the scientists saying? The majority believe that humans are having a substantial, indeed critical effect on the Earth's climate. There are dissenters, but they are in a minority. We have to trust the majority on this, I believe, though clearly we should pay attention to the objections of the minority.

Democratic Nationality - "Global warming is accepted by the liberal left as an article of faith, because it offers the opportunity of more government control over industry (the big, bad capitalist corporations must be controlled for the sake of the environment, etc.)"

Well, here's the point: given that the evidence suggests that humans are having a critical and damaging effect on the Earth's climate, we need to do something. Who's going to sort it out? Scientists need to make the recommendations for policy adjustments that governments, businesses, etc need to adopt. Who enforces this? It's obvious that if we leave business and industry to sort themselves out then they won't act, not on the appropriate scale and not with the necessary speed. So we need global agencies to regulate and enforce.

Look, I have strong (left) libertarian leanings so I also dislike overbearing government. However, this is not an issue that should be hijacked by political and economic ideology. After all, politics and economics are not sciences. If conditions were better, fine, leave the corporations unregulated. Conditions aren't fine though not though and the free market is not responsive enough to deal with this issue. There's no need for us to adopt an anti-capitalist position (much as I'd like to) in order to solve this, we just need to be intelligent and face up to the fact that this is a problem that potentially demands difficult measures. It's not alarmist to say that our species depends on the way we react to the environmental crisis in this century. The Earth will recover in the long term. We may not.

AYNRAND??!!! Ahahahah.

And if current modles hold is a big if. They wont. Much refining is needed.
Give me an unbiased Global warming article. But alas no negative exist.

Hey canuck, did you used to be on albinoblacksheep??
Nope
if so do you remember sirpw??
Nope

that would be me I think i might have hated you...
You really shouldn't hate anyone?

or maybe it was the opposite
I certainly don't hate anyone.

... I dont remember
Neither do I.

Peace

Actually, if current models hold, the global temperature could jump as much as 10 degrees in the next hundred years, with the change occuring more and more rapidly as time passes.

The current models do NOT hold. They were never valid. Global warming is a political issue, first brought into the spotlight by Margaret Thatcher.

Here is a lot of data contraindicating the most popular recent "model":
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Global warming is definately real. It's an established scientific fact. Even if you don't normally take science seriously, it is something that has been clearly shown. Nonetheless, the agents of Leviathan want us to believe that it is natural.

The truth is that civilization, at least the kind based on advanced technology and social hierarchy, is in the process of destroying us. As long as greed and power hunger are taken more seriously than compassion and thinking ahead, we will continue to rush toward our deaths.

No, it's a politically motivated scare tactic.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Where I come from the summer this year has never topped 100 and its usually in the 120's :eek:

Al Gore gave a speech on global warming on the coldest day in 100 years in new York...LOL

http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200401/POL20040115e.html

And there is my evidence. Canuck Heathen ignores that environmental whackos insist on absurd beurocratic restrictions that have no effect other than to cost business money, then act all pious if anyone calls them on it ("Oh, but the environment!")

And Letilia just skips fact all together to spew sarcasm rather than try to offer anything of substance. Who needs facts when you got that!

Both of whom have demonstrated themselves to have a socialist/communist agenda.

Thanks you two for demonstrating my point.
Firstly, what evidence have you produced? You have produced nothing to counter the claims of global warming.

Secondly, I am not a heathen as you would like to insinuate, and besides, this topic has nothing to do with religion?

Thirdly, how does my concern for the environment demonstrate that I have a socialist/communist agenda?

Fourthly, are you not concerned about the environment?

Fifthly, WHAT is your agenda?

Finally, Letilia and I have done nothing to demonstrate YOUR point.

So if you can bring forward some incontrovertible evidence to demonstrate YOUR point, I would gladly give it my utmost serious consideration. Until then, you are just blowing smoke, which by the way is not good for the environment.

The current models do NOT hold. They were never valid. Global warming is a political issue, first brought into the spotlight by Margaret Thatcher.

Here is a lot of data contraindicating the most popular recent "model":
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Sorry, your data does not disprove human-sourced climate change. I'm well aware of the influence of, for example, the solar cycle on climate change. it is possibly the single largest influence. It is also a fairly predictable influence. However, current climate trends are not predictable on the basis of natural influences.

Our influence is small, undoubtedly. However, it is not indistinct. The climate is a set of balances, a series of interconnected feedback mechanisms. The increase in CO2, for examplem is destabilising certain of these mechanisms. The input may be small, but the nature of the climate systems provides whacking great levers to amplify the effects.

Additionally, what the hell would Maggie Thatcher know about climate change?

Biff Pileon - "Al Gore gave a speech on global warming on the coldest day in 100 years in new York...LOL"

Localised cooling globalised warming. Ignorance and misunderstanding of science (and, in fairness, poor terminology in the first place) are very dangerous.

No, (global warming is) a politically motivated scare tactic.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Congratulations, you've found a website. Tell me, do you think it's impossible that the dwindling numbers of people who still maintain that climate change is a myth might themselves be politically motivated? I mean, what with all the money it might cost them? No?

Anyone wanting a more representative and, no offence to the late Mr Daly, vastly more qualified overview of the issues could do worse than look at the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/)'s compilation of material. Unless, of course, you think that the New Scientist is merely a tool of the all-powerful International Communist Conspiracy -- in which case maybe this site (http://www.baco.co.uk/) is more to your taste.

Additionally, what the hell would Maggie Thatcher know about climate change?

Well, to give the mad bitch her due -- much though it pains me to do so -- she remains one of a tiny minority of world leaders anywhere, ever, to have even the vaguest knowledge of science. She did have a degree in chemistry, and it did let her see the dangers inherent in widespread CFC use, for example. Most other world leaders, past and present, think science is some sort of witchcraft carried out with wiggly glass tubes and coloured liquid.

Man, that was painful. I said a good word about Thatcher. I feel dirty -- and not in a good way.

Additionally, what the hell would Maggie Thatcher know about climate change?



Exactly. She needed a political issue, preferably one involving science that other world leaders also knew nothing about, so they could not challenge her on it.

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Well, to give the mad bitch her due -- much though it pains me to do so -- she remains one of a tiny minority of world leaders anywhere, ever, to have even the vaguest knowledge of science. She did have a degree in chemistry, and it did let her see the dangers inherent in widespread CFC use, for example. Most other world leaders, past and present, think science is some sort of witchcraft carried out with wiggly glass tubes and coloured liquid.

Man, that was painful. I said a good word about Thatcher. I feel dirty -- and not in a good way.
I stand corrected. And feel not a little soiled myself.

Well, to give the mad bitch her due -- much though it pains me to do so -- she remains one of a tiny minority of world leaders anywhere, ever, to have even the vaguest knowledge of science. She did have a degree in chemistry, and it did let her see the dangers inherent in widespread CFC use, for example. Most other world leaders, past and present, think science is some sort of witchcraft carried out with wiggly glass tubes and coloured liquid.

Man, that was painful. I said a good word about Thatcher. I feel dirty -- and not in a good way.

Well, to assuage your bad feelings a little: Maggie didn't understand climate change either. She used it to bust up the miners' union in Britain. She also thought, because of her degree and the ignorance of other world leaders, that they would not be able to challenge her on it. She wasn't far-sighted about it, it was just politically expedient.

All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility

The above is the first line of the latest link you've posted for John Daly. This sentence in itself pretty much discredits him. How can I take someone seriously when they introduce their theme with such a wantonly inaccurate stetement?

Even if you feel that the overall evidence does not support the existence of human-sourced climate change, there is no justification for such a statement. Only the most fuzzy-minded of extremists would make such a claim.

The above is the first line of the latest link you've posted for John Daly. This sentence in itself pretty much discredits him. How can I take someone seriously when they introduce their theme with such a wantonly inaccurate stetement?

Even if you feel that the overall evidence does not support the existence of human-sourced climate change, there is no justification for such a statement. Only the most fuzzy-minded of extremists would make such a claim.

Ad hominem smear attacks do not an opposing argument make.

Care to address the data and scientific reasoning he puts forth? Or did you not bother to read beyond the first line?

Well, to assuage your bad feelings a little: Maggie didn't understand climate change either. She used it to bust up the miners' union in Britain. She also thought, because of her degree and the ignorance of other world leaders, that they would not be able to challenge her on it. She wasn't far-sighted about it, it was just politically expedient.

Hmmm... yes. Except that this is where your -- and the late Mr Daly's -- particular conspiracy theory falls down. Thatcher was never prominent on the debate on global warming. As I said earlier, her main contribution was to the ban on the use of CFCs, which deplete the ozone layer. This is of course linked to the larger debate, but I'm afraid that Mr Daly is quite wrong to attribute the changing international scientific attitude towards climate change to Margaret Thatcher. Just because he has diagrams with arrows on them doesn't mean he's right.

Look at it this way: Daly is claiming that Thatcher chose a scientific issue to "prove her credibility", because she would understand it and other world leaders wouldn't. World leaders do tend to have advisers, though, and if Thatcher had been spouting bullshit science she would have been shot down. (*pauses to imagine Margaret Thatcher being shot down... ahhh*) As it was, Thatcher could quite easily understand the simple chemistry involved in CFC interaction with ozone, and the important role the ozone layer plays in shielding the earth from UV radiation. She lent her political weight to a valid scientific argument. End of story. The guff about a desire to crush the miners' union by inventing the threat of global warming is a fantasy -- especially since it would have severely pissed off other important Tory backers in the petrochemical and automotive industries. Nuclear power received no boost from the Thatcher government: the best she did for them was allow the Magnox reactors to continue operating beyond their originally planned lifespans. It's too late now for Mr Daly to check his facts, but it's not too late for you.

Ad hominem smear attacks do not an opposing argument make.

Care to address the data and scientific reasoning he puts forth? Or did you not bother to read beyond the first line?
First, an apology. I wrongly attributed the quote to Daly when I should have acknowledged that it was by Richard Courtney.

The article I referred to has virtually no data or scientific reasoning and thus there is virtually nothing to refute. I highlighted his comment with regards to the impossibility of human-sourced climate change. The Review section includes comments from others also taking issue with this assertion. His response...

Both Peter Dietze and Onar Am dispute my statement that "man-made global warming is a physical impossibility", but Peter Dietze indicates that he recognises my meaning. I am pleased to clarify the matter. I did mean that man-made global warming would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature and, therefore, it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming. Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas. Similarly, the global warming from man's emissions of greenhouse gases would be too small to be detected. Indeed, for reasons I have repeatedly reported, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a real existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection). Perhaps I should have been pedantic and said "Real man-made global warming is a physical impossibility".
Sorry, Mr Courtney, science requires pedantry. I disagree with the conclusions he has drawn but even if I didn't I would still be scornful of his (no doubt carefully couched) language. This is not an objective piece of work, after all.

That said, his assessment of the political motivations of Thatcher in bringing global warming to public attention may well be accurate. This doesn't make human-sourced climate change a fallacy.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation.

Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming.

Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling.

There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike.

These are the positions of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.htm

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation.

Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming.

Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling.

There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike.

These are the positions of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.htm

And, of course, this Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is free from all exterior influences and biases, yes? Or maybe no... here's a page (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html), archived from ExxonMobil's public data, showing a donation of $10,000 to the said Center in 1998. Numerous further links exist between the Center, the Idso family who run the organisation, and the oil industry. This doesn't make them wrong, but consider: do you automatically trust the science on tobacco pumped out by the tobacco industry?

Qui bono, hmm?

And, of course, this Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is free for all exterior influences and biases, yes? or maybe no... here's a page (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html), archived from ExxonMobil's public data, showing a donation of $10,000 to the said Center in 1998. Numerous further links exist between the Center, the Idso family who run the organisation, and the oil industry. This doesn't make them wrong, but consider: do you automatically trust the science on tobacco pumped out by the tobacco industry?

Qui bono, hmm?
An excellent bit of research Jelred. ;)

Personally speaking, there is a very direct influence between CO2 emissions and the environment. It is all around us, each and everyday, and it is getting worse not better.

So the fact that 2 people didn't list fact (just as you are doing) invalidates their entire argument? Did you read my posts at all?

There is a lot of scientific evidence for global warming and man's part in it. There is also evidence against the same. In my experience, the weight of the evidence rests with the global warming theory, but we'll give the other side the benefit of the doubt.

Let us pretend that only 10% of the World's environmental/geological/climatological/biological scientists believe the facts support global warming and man's part in it. That's still a lot of learned people. Would you take a bet on your life, even if it was a 90% chance of survival? Or is it better to be safe rather than sorry? Now what if we make the numbers more realistic to reflect the very divided scientific community. Say there's a 50% chance we're destroying the chances for our long-term survival on this planet. Are you going to ignore this, just because of politics?

Money? Aren't the long term and continuing savings in energy, raw materials, cleanup, damage control and quality of life worth the short term investment in environmental research and retrofitting? Aren't the costs of fixing the problem more likely to be astronomical as compared to preventing the problem?

What kind of odds are acceptible when you're betting the planet (or at least our comfortable existence on it)?

How come no one on the side that does not believe in global warming has responded to this post?

It makes sense. To discount 100% of the information from a side you do not agree with is a sure sign of politically or ideologically induced blindness.

For example, if 1 doctor you went to said you had a condition you were going to die from unless you changed you behavior and spent some money on medicine, and another doctor said you were fine, in the absense of any other doctors, wouldn't it be better to follow the first doctor's advice, just in case?

Do you think global warming is occuring? If so is it man's fault or could it be natural (ie the sun is hotter now so we are too).

Although I respect the beliefs of those who think otherwise, I personally believe 'global warming' is a fallacy.

The above is the first line of the latest link you've posted for John Daly. This sentence in itself pretty much discredits him. How can I take someone seriously when they introduce their theme with such a wantonly inaccurate stetement?

Here's another similar quote (admitedly fabricated but the point stands):

The available evidence would indicate that a flat earth is a physical impossibility.

You could easily substitute Columbus in there, but I believe that Magellian was the first to actually go all the way around in any manner and the there was still much belief in his day about the earth ebing flat. If I am wrong then default to Columbus. The point still stands.

Just because current scienctific knowledge might show global warming to be factual, doesn't mean it is and doesn't mean that we won't have the ability to prove it later. Last I heard it was still called the Global Warming Theroy.

For example, if 1 doctor you went to said you had a condition you were going to die from unless you changed you behavior and spent some money on medicine, and another doctor said you were fine, in the absense of any other doctors, wouldn't it be better to follow the first doctor's advice, just in case?

Not necessarily. There are medicines out there that if you take them when you are not sick can cause detriment to you health. Just looking at anti-biotics; if you take too much of them it increases the chances of viruses mutaing to the point that no anti-biotics will work on them. Prevention is a good thing....too much of anything, even prevention is bad

one of the things we have to look at is seperating "Global Warming:the enviromental issue" away from "Global Warming:the political issue".

the enviromentalist wackos are a lot louder than the true enviromentalist right now. They are the ones that dispite the US being one of the cleaner enviroments in the world (Go ahead drink the water in Mexico or Africa, or parts of India for that matter.) they want the most restrictions on it. The developing countries are the ones using the older tech that is spewing forth way more toxins than we are.

Kyoto hits the US the hardest, industialized nations immediately afterwards and then leaves some countries alone. They want to criple capitolism.

This is not to discredit true enviromentalists who are actually concerned for the enviroment and are trying to get these restrictions across the board. After all if an auto adding 10 ppm in the US is bad it is just as bad in the Austrailan Outback, or on the Sahara, or in Siberia. (The number and unit is to illistrate the point and is not intended to be any accurate figures)

As to my earlier referance to the increase in the tree population, I will have to back down on it only because I can't find the original path I took to it. However, you should be able to find the book in the libarery. One of the gov't agencies puts it out and it has all the data on all kinds of itmes that have been tracked since the inception of the country. I'm going to try to find some time to hunt it down and then referance it.

Not necessarily. There are medicines out there that if you take them when you are not sick can cause detriment to you health. Just looking at anti-biotics; if you take too much of them it increases the chances of viruses mutaing to the point that no anti-biotics will work on them. Prevention is a good thing....too much of anything, even prevention is bad

You're right, but that still doesn't mean you should ignore the doctor who says you are in danger!

Also, in the case of global warming, the vast majority of the accredited scietific society warns about the dangers of global warming, while a much smaller group, primarily connected to and funded by industrial concerns, argues against it.

Common sense would lead one to think that we need to do something about it. The dangers of ignoring it are too great. Anything else is a clear sign of denial or short-term self-interest (who cares if the world goes to hell, I'll be dead long before it happens, and I'm making money NOW!)

If anyone can cite evidence against global warming where said evidence is not connected to those who are directly responsible for CO2 emissions and pollution, I would love to see it. If no such info is available, then I would have to seriously question the scientific validity of that stance.

Well I live in the UK,so I can only say-
Global Warming?
GLOBAL WARMING?
ABOUT FUCKIN' TIME!!!

You're right, but that still doesn't mean you should ignore the doctor who says you are in danger!

Also, in the case of global warming, the vast majority of the accredited scietific society warns about the dangers of global warming, while a much smaller group, primarily connected to and funded by industrial concerns, argues against it.



Well, (Professor) Fred Singer and The Science & Environmental Policy Project might be able to help...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change."

a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.

b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].

c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.

d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.

Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years.


Edit : It seems like post #40 has already had a huge amount of data to help you...

My big issue with the CO2 sinks is that much of the global efforts to "curb" global warming is hitting the US in particular and indrustral nations in general. The nations where the CO2 sinks are disappearing from are not affected by the Kyoto treaty or any other efforts. The US currently has more forested areas now then when we were colonized. Foresters and loggers and others for whom trees provide their living are costantly replanting and even expanding the area in which they grow trees. Who making the countries with rain forests replant them?



Anti-Capitolism



It is this that differentiates the Enviromentalist Wackos from the real Enviromentalists.

Here are the notes, complete with referances, for a speech I did earlier in the year. I'll allow it to make my other points.

********************************

I. First Main point: The Media reports that nearly all of the world’s scientists agree that Global warming is real, when in fact this is false.


A. supporting material:
CNN reported that a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report represented “a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man.” However, Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of 11 who prepared the report: “…that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long term climate trends and what causes them.”


B. supporting material:
A Gallup poll of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geographical Society showed that only 17% believed that global warming was the result of Greenhouse gas emissions

C. supporting material:
A petition started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, in opposition to the Kyoto Protocols has resulted in over 17,000 scientists signing it, debunking Former Vice President Al Gore’s claim that such skeptics are “a tiny minority outside the main stream.”

(Transition into second main point)
Now let’s look at the potential for the polar caps to melt.


II. Second Main point: Despite the Media’s warnings to the contrary, the polar caps will not melt even at the maximum rate ever predicted.


A. Subpoint
1) The current warming rate predictions are insufficient to rate any kind of immediate concern. (Second slide)
Supporting material:
a) 1988 - .8°C (1.44°F) per decade
b) 1990 - .3°C (.54°F) per decade
c) 1995 - .2°C (.36°F) per decade

d) To date, neither satellite nor surface temperature readings have met or surpassed this warming forecast.
2) Antarctic high average temperature is just -56°F The latest GCMs predict warming of just 1-3°F by 2100


B. supporting material:
1) Warmer air holds more moisture. This allows for more precipitation to be available to the Ice sheets, thus increasing the potential for growth of the polar caps.

C. supporting material (Third Slide)
According to Rice University’s GLACIER Web Site, a large ice body responds more slowly to an environmental change than does a smaller one. Ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica are so large that they may take tens of thousands of years to be affected.


(Transition into third main point)
Next we will compare the prediction models to the actual satellite data

III. Third Main point: The use of weather satellites and weather balloons show that Global Warming isn’t even occurring at all.


A. Subpoint:
Satellites and balloons have significant advantages over ground based measurements.

Supporting material:
1) They measure global temperature 3 dimensionally at a frequency of up to 40,000 readings a day

2) (fourth slide) They are also immune to Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) The UHIE is an artificially high temperature reading linked to urban development. As the number of roads, cars, airports, airplanes and buildings grow in an urban areas, so too does the local temperature. Since most ground-based temperature gages are located in urban areas, most are vulnerable to UHIE

3) (fifth slide) When compared the satellite data shows no warming trend as compared to the relatively steep warming of the ground based measurements, which are subject to UHIE.



B. Subpoint:
Comparing the projections and actual ground based readings with those of the satellites and balloons show high inaccuracies.
1) (sixth slide) The predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes are excessively high when compared to the actual trends.
2) (seventh slide) Looking at the actual changes in global temperature since 1979 also shows a marked difference in the ground based reading when compared to the satellite data

(Transition into fourth main point)
And just how accurate are those models anyway?

IV. Fourth main point
Not only are the models inaccurate as previously show, but they are not even consistent amongst themselves

A. supporting material
Two models used by the National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC), one British, the other Canadian, failed to track actual temperature changes.

B. supporting material (eighth slide)
The predictions between the two were in several cases directly conflicting. One model showed the Dakotas would lose 85% of their current average rainfall by 2100, while the other shows a 75% gain for the same region in the same time period. This held true for half of the regions studied with the remainder showing huge differences

WORKS CONSULTED:
<http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.htm>

<http://www.globalwarming.org/brochure.html>

<http://www.glacier.rice.edu/land/5_glaciersandtheir2.html>

<http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html>

<http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0774.html>
Subsource: E.W. Domack, A.J.T. Jull and S. Nakao, "Advance of East Antarctic outlet glaciers during the hypsithermal: implications for the volume set of the Antarctic ice sheet under global warming," Geology , v. 1033, 1059_1062, 1991

<http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/previous_issues/vol3/v3n7/feature.htm>

<http://www.nationalcenter.org/GWFactSheet.html>

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer on July 18, 2000 in a Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty, The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001

*******************************

I will state in advance, before there is much quibbling, that the globalwarming.org and the nationalcenter.org can be considered questionable sources as they will have more political agendas. However they in turn referance other sources that are less questionable. If anyone would like to see the specific raw data I gathered, including the referanced graphics, let me know and I will send you the MS Word document I saved it on.
I presume that the above was a school project and was built on collecting data from the Internet? I do give you an "E" for effort, although you need to check your spelling when trying to present an "official" looking document.

BTW, environmentalist is spelt with an "n". And I am not an "Enviromentalist wacko", just because I believe that global warming exists, nor do I believe that environmentalists are "Anti-Capitolism".

I did check out most of the sites that you listed, and yes it appears there is much bias amongst them to be certain.

There are certainly many sources that would refute all that you have posted.

The following site, has a clickable world map that details the effects of global warming. It is extremely helpful in gaining a broader picture of the problems that are occurring:

http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html

Scientific Integrity in Policy Making:

On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320).

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

List of prominent signatories to this above document RSI, includes:

48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1335).

See the entire list of signers, here (http://www.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php).

Fifteen Countries with Highest Carbon Emissions: 1997

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tables/co2em2.htm

KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

189 countries have committed themselves to Kyoto, out of 194. The USA, although they have signed the Protocol, they have yet to ratify it.

I am sure that 189 countries, including the USA, would NEVER :rolleyes: have signed this Protocol, if it was indeed on advice from "environmental wackos".

Well, (Professor) Fred Singer and The Science & Environmental Policy Project might be able to help...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html
I will see your professor and bump you 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1335


Edit : It seems like post #40 has already had a huge amount of data to help you...
I posted a reply to post # 40 above ^

Just because current scienctific knowledge might show global warming to be factual, doesn't mean it is and doesn't mean that we won't have the ability to prove it later. Last I heard it was still called the Global Warming Theroy.
That's not my point though. The author stated that all available evidence demonstrates human-sourced global warming to be a physical impossibility. In the later quote I posted from his site he clarifies his position and acknowledges that the original quote was potentially misleading.

Well, (Professor) Fred Singer and The Science & Environmental Policy Project might be able to help...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

I don't deny that the issue is contentious. The minority of scientists who contest the global warming consensus are not all rogues and need to be listened to. However, we are faced with an issue where, if the consensus is correct, we cannot afford to screw up.

I don't deny that the issue is contentious. The minority of scientists who contest the global warming consensus are not all rogues and need to be listened to. However, we are faced with an issue where, if the consensus is correct, we cannot afford to screw up.


exactly my point. If The majority of scientists are wrong and global warming is a faulty theory, then the only thing we risk by following environmental suggestions is that ultra-rich industries may have to spend a bit more money, more land is preserved. Air and water is cleaner. People are somewhat inconvenienced, and everyone moves away from fossil fuels towards sustainable energy sources (a good idea politically to...I for one don't like being beholden to a region as temperamental and explosive as the middle east.)

What do we risk if the scientists are right and we do nothing......? Why can't you get it through your heads that this is too damn important to shrug off? I'm willing to concede that maybe the scietific information is wrong or faulty, but we can in no sane way ignore what the consequences will be if the info is right. I don't know how else to state it.
Really, if you completely discount global warming, unless you yourself are a scientist in the applicable fields and you have ammassed enough information for yourself to convince yourself beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming does not exist, you are a complete idiot and a suicidal fool.

How many times do I have to say that the stakes are too damn high? This isn't just your life, but the life of your children, your children's children. This is about the lives of everyone, everywhere--or at least the quality of life. It could change things forever.

Also, for you people who believe that environmentalists are anti-capitalists, think about this: What costs more, preventing an environmental emergency, or cleaning it up after the fact? Anyone? What costs more, reducing harmful emissions, or removing them from the air after the fact (a technology we don't even have for the scale we're talking about)?

Oh, and for those who say, "hey, but it's not warming up here!" I have to remind you that global warming is a warming of the average global temperature. With a rising global temperature, weather will tend to get more energetic, so therefore it is entirely logical that some areas will experience a temporary chilling of the environment (consider the effects of El Nino, for example.)

This is all common freaking sense people. Grow the hell up if you can't see the sense of it.

Thankls to Jeldred for bringing this to my attention:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1279603,00.html

"Writing in the Daily Mail, Bellamy asserted that "the link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth". Like almost all the climate change deniers, he based his claim on a petition produced in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and "signed by over 18,000 scientists". Had Bellamy studied the signatories, he would have discovered that the "scientists" included Ginger Spice and the cast of MASH. The Oregon Institute is run by a fundamentalist Christian called Arthur Robinson. Its petition was attached to what purported to be a scientific paper, printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, the paper had not been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal. Anyone could sign the petition, and anyone did: only a handful of the signatories are experts in climatology, and quite a few of them appear to have believed that they were signing a genuine paper. And yet, six years later, this petition is still being wheeled out to suggest that climatologists say global warming isn't happening."

Do you think global warming is occuring? If so is it man's fault or could it be natural (ie the sun is hotter now so we are too).

Is this how misinformed Americans really are?

Global Warming is basically fact - and we are contributing to most of it. Despite what Prof. Fawsell Fuelle from The New Conglomerate of Energy Wasters may say, it has been proven in dozens of Government Reports and hundreds of Independant Studies. And as Osama says, your nation contributes the most towards it and refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement simply so your Corporations CEO's can wedge a bit more money between the sleeves of thier wallet. Can't wait to hear a Right Wing Explanation of how Global warming is beneficial, Acid Rain is the next best thing since sliced bread and The Dropping of Nuclear Weapons helps the environment..... Believe what they say people... Because its unpatriotic to believe that Global Warming exists!!!!

I to uphold the view, that forward develop industry of sultanate, but warming problem us interest. we can collaborate

the enviromentalist wackos are a lot louder than the true enviromentalist right now. They are the ones that dispite the US being one of the cleaner enviroments in the world (Go ahead drink the water in Mexico or Africa, or parts of India for that matter.) they want the most restrictions on it. The developing countries are the ones using the older tech that is spewing forth way more toxins than we are.
The problem here is that the above comment truly demonstrates your lack of knowledge in regards to the world's largest polluter, which just happens to be the USA.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tables/co2em2.htm

As a matter of fact, the USA with a population of 290,000,000 people, spews out more CO2 emissions than the next two highest countries combined (China with 1,286,975,468 people and Russia with 144,526,278 people).

Most threatened species? Yup...USA (854), almost twice as many as 2nd highest Australia (483).

How does US rank for water availability? Try 47th, and yes lower than many African countries.

In freshwater pollution the US ranks 30th, India 32, Mexico 45th, and Canada 60th.

Which country ranks #1 for Abnormalities of breathing. If you said US, you would be right again.

And Americans (61.68 deaths per 1 million people) are more than twice as likely to die of cardiac arrest than Canadians (26.26 deaths per 1 million people).

Kyoto hits the US the hardest, industialized nations immediately afterwards and then leaves some countries alone. They want to criple capitolism.
The intent of Kyoto is not to cripple the US. The intent of Kyoto is to save the environment and lives, and since the US is the #1 offender, it makes sense that the US should be on board? The US is the 2nd richest country in the world, yet it appears that many Americans are reluctant to spend money to preserve the most precious thing they possess....their health, and protect the future for their loved ones.

Never mind this deadly "environmentalist wacko" jargon....just do it??

its happening and its natural right now it goes up a degree or two etc. next it goes down

its happening and its natural right now it goes up a degree or two etc. next it goes down

It seems like we have George W himself on this thread. Hail to the Thief!

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind a little global warming right now. it's been a tad chilly lately.

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind a little global warming right now. it's been a tad chilly lately.
Not funny, not clever. We're talking about GLOBAL warming, not REGIONAL warming.

Not funny, not clever. We're talking about GLOBAL warming, not REGIONAL warming.
I think this is one of the saddest comments going. People really do not take this topic too seriously, and act as if everything will just go away, or magically fix itself. :rolleyes:

I still have reason to doubt it. I feel too lazy to dig up the article, but I read that two recent studies suggest that global warming may not be as dramatic as some predict. It was the first study to take into account upper atmospheric temperature with global warming. Long story short, these temperatures haven't had any corresponding rise to surface temperatures, meaning that what's happening in the trophosphere can sustain itself only for a few decades.

Here it is.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/08025453H28_news.shtml
I noticed it because it was in my local paper, unlike quite a few current events. I wanted to grin when I read this.

Here it is.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/08025453H28_news.shtml
I noticed it because it was in my local paper, unlike quite a few current events. I wanted to grin when I read this.
Thanks, I read the article but there doesn't seem to be any earth shattering new ground broken, just providing food for thought. I am sure that the scientists that worked together to enlighten the world regarding this serious subject should be the ones to offer any counter evidence to this?

I presume that the above was a school project and was built on collecting data from the Internet? I do give you an "E" for effort, although you need to check your spelling when trying to present an "official" looking document.

Is this an "E" for "Excellant" or for "Failure on the A-E scale? Where you come from would make the diffrence.. I personally am used to the top grade being "A". I had stated that what I posted were from my notes. I don't normally bother to spell check my notes. Only the final draft.

[QUOTE}BTW, environmentalist is spelt with an "n". And I am not an "Enviromentalist wacko", just because I believe that global warming exists, nor do I believe that environmentalists are "Anti-Capitolism".[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand me. The Environmentalist Wackos are the Anti-Capitolists. They are useing the Global Warming issue to further their true cause. This is opposed to the Environmentalists who while concerned about Global Warming, are not necessarily so gun-ho to see legislation(sp) that would serious hurt or criple businesses, especially in the US and other industrialized nations.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]I will see your professor and bump you 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.[QUOTE]

You know what I find amazing is that both sides always seem to have more experts than the other.

I truely give up trying to determine how qualified anyone is any more

I still have reason to doubt it. I feel too lazy to dig up the article, but I read that two recent studies suggest that global warming may not be as dramatic as some predict. It was the first study to take into account upper atmospheric temperature with global warming. Long story short, these temperatures haven't had any corresponding rise to surface temperatures, meaning that what's happening in the trophosphere can sustain itself only for a few decades.

Thank you. This was the point in my notes that regarded Urban Heat Island Effect and the use of Sattelites andweather ballons to get a fuller picture on what is happening in the atmosphere.

Add to that that the groups that ran the Kyoto summit and developed the Kyoto Treaty (Accords? What is the actual title? Too bloody early in the AM for me) have lowered there predicted rates of increase at least twice and even then we have yet to excede those rates. Even if it is occuring, it is not occuring at a rate that is outstripping our technological advancement.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]I will see your professor and bump you 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.[QUOTE]

You know what I find amazing is that both sides always seem to have more experts than the other.

I truely give up trying to determine how qualified anyone is any more
Perhaps one should leave these determinations to the so called "experts"? There seems to be a plethora of information on this critical topic and most of it appears to have been accepted by the scientific community that supports the Kyoto Protocol.

Most of the countries on this dirty old planet have agreed to find a better way to nurse Mother Nature back to health and I think it is important for all humans to support this worthwhile endeavour. It is not only going to clean up our planet, and save us money in the long run, but it is most wothwhile for the health of us all and the generations to come.

My vote goes to those who make a concerted effort to improve the quality of the air, land, and water.

Hmmm, environmentalism is anti-capitalist? I guess those who crusaded against child labor were anti-capitalist too? How about those who fought for the 40 hour work week? Those who made a political issue of job safety regulations must be anti-capitalist too. Those who decided that leave for pregnant women must be fuzzy-headed anti-capitalists too, right? Everything that causes big business to have to act in a responsible manner is a bad thing I guess. Shame on us people who believe that business doesn't always have our best interests at heart. We should never have investigated Love Canal, because that could hurt business. Gee, investigating Enron and Worldcom and Tyco could hurt business too, we better let them slide. How about insider trading? We should legalize that, because it's bad for business not to.

Completely unfettered capitalism is our friend. They will always look out for our best interests, out of the goodness of their hearts. Their profits will always trickle down to the less fortunate, right? The more money, power, and legal immunity we can concentrate in the ultra-rich, the better, right?

Yeah, money is the only important thing I guess. Everything else is illusion. Come on my fellow liberals, progressives, and those skeptical about the good intentions of those who hold the gross majority of the money in the world. We've been wasting our energy questioning them and being worried about anyone in whom too much power is concentrated. It's not like philosophers have said anything like, "power corrupts," and, "money is the root of all evil." We're just being childish. It's not like the rich have any more political influence than us. That's just silly.

I'm sure everything will be alright if we just stop worrying and trust that everything will turn out okay. Otherwise we're anti-capitalists, and anti-capitalists are unamerican, unpatriotic and probably communist-pinko-terrorists.

I know there's some Kool Aide around here somewhere...

Hmmm, environmentalism is anti-capitalist? I guess those who crusaded against child labor were anti-capitalist too? How about those who fought for the 40 hour work week? Those who made a political issue of job safety regulations must be anti-capitalist too.

well, to get technical, yes. all of that was mostly the work of anarchists and other socialists. the capitalists were forced to give up a little ground in those instances on pain of revolution.

Darnit, you steal my thunder when you respond rationally like that. I was hoping for an offended response from those who seem to support unfettered capitalism.

Though, I do have to point out, since many of those things I mentioned involved government regulations, they're not actually anarchistic in nature. Socialism and Anarchy can, to an extent, go hand in hand, but they are two very seperate concepts.

I for one, believe in a balance. Checks and balances. Since people insist on being primarily motivated by self interest, I prefer the idea of using that self-interest constructively for the good of all. If we can get enough competing forces all clamoring for their ideas that no one group gains the upper hand, then we have reached about the best we can expect from a government and society made up of naked apes. Call it Zero Sum Anarchy. Since an absence of government is a vacuum that will inevitably be filled by someone either ambitious enough or unscrupulous enough, what we need is a government whose only purpose is to make sure that no one can get an unfair advantage.

That's why I hate a two party system. A two party system is just one party away from being fascist. I'd like a bigger buffer.

Sorry for the tangent.

In california, along the bay area, the weather for the summer reached a record-low. It was really cold. Perhaps another ice-age is rising?

In california, along the bay area, the weather for the summer reached a record-low. It was really cold. Perhaps another ice-age is rising?

This is local change, not global change. If the planet as a whole heats up, it doesn't mean that everywhere is going to get a bit hotter. For example, one of the concerns about global warming is that an increase in cold fresh water in the north atlantic, caused by melting polar ice, could disrupt the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf Stream went, then Europe would get a whole lot colder.

Probably the best starting point for any serious look at the science involved in this issue is the New Scientist's Climate Change (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/) section. No pop-eyed ranting about communist plots, no tree-hugging hippy crap -- just straightforward reporting of the latest data and theories.

In california, along the bay area, the weather for the summer reached a record-low. It was really cold. Perhaps another ice-age is rising?

I live in the Bay Area, and I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. Record low?? When? Where?

Even if this were true, that would be a case of regional cooling, which will happen as a part of normal weather variations, global warming or no. Likewise a heat wave isn't evidence of global warming. Global warming deals with the average temperature of the planet as a whole.

Let's see if this analogy makes sense to people who don't know the difference. Take a deck of cards. Now suppose someone added an extra ace into the deck. The average value of the deck just went up. Does that mean that you aren't going to get a two dealed to you? No. Likewise, global warming doesn't mean that there aren't going to be cold days, or even cold weather patterns.

Does everyone get it now?

Hmmm, environmentalism is anti-capitalist? I guess those who crusaded against child labor were anti-capitalist too? How about those who fought for the 40 hour work week? Those who made a political issue of job safety regulations must be anti-capitalist too. Those who decided that leave for pregnant women must be fuzzy-headed anti-capitalists too, right? Everything that causes big business to have to act in a responsible manner is a bad thing I guess. Shame on us people who believe that business doesn't always have our best interests at heart. We should never have investigated Love Canal, because that could hurt business. Gee, investigating Enron and Worldcom and Tyco could hurt business too, we better let them slide. How about insider trading? We should legalize that, because it's bad for business not to.

Completely unfettered capitalism is our friend. They will always look out for our best interests, out of the goodness of their hearts. Their profits will always trickle down to the less fortunate, right? The more money, power, and legal immunity we can concentrate in the ultra-rich, the better, right?

Yeah, money is the only important thing I guess. Everything else is illusion. Come on my fellow liberals, progressives, and those skeptical about the good intentions of those who hold the gross majority of the money in the world. We've been wasting our energy questioning them and being worried about anyone in whom too much power is concentrated. It's not like philosophers have said anything like, "power corrupts," and, "money is the root of all evil." We're just being childish. It's not like the rich have any more political influence than us. That's just silly.

I'm sure everything will be alright if we just stop worrying and trust that everything will turn out okay. Otherwise we're anti-capitalists, and anti-capitalists are unamerican, unpatriotic and probably communist-pinko-terrorists.

I know there's some Kool Aide around here somewhere...
Excellent post. There is no reason that capital interests cannot work within the bounds of common sense. If capitalism is strictly for the few to race to the gates of hell with a wheelbarrow full of cash and to hell with everyone, and everything else, then the system is flawed, and will ultimately fail.

Businesses can even make money from protecting the environment. For example, if a consumer is able to purchase a hybrid vehicle that gets say 60 miles per gallon of gas/hydrogen, then that consumer will have more money to buy other goods. The more efficient vehicle also helps perserve non renewable resources, making them available for longer. Less demand for oil and gas, will also lower the prices? The oil industry, while making less profits, will enjoy a longer period of business. Just a thought.

I live in the Bay Area, and I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. Record low?? When? Where?


It was on CBS 5 Eye Witness news at 11. You didn't catch it? ;)


But you guys are all right, it is only a local weather change, as the high/low pressure boundry is being push northwards, thus we become the valley of low pressure.

The Kyoto Protocol is ridiculous...it isn't about whether or not global warming is/will occur, it is about the consequences of agreeing to such a document...

Since most people don't like to read links, I'll give a summary -

"Averaging the so called “general circulation climate models” used in the upcoming U.N. compendium on climate gives a 2.2ºC (4 degrees Fahrenheit) warming for the next 100 years.

How much does it cost? Estimates range from 1 percent to 3.5 percent of GDP per year."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-30-01.html

Funny - I watched a video in college about the upcoming ice age

hey, what's one-three degrees in a hundred years? Nothing to worry about...unless you live on the coast, or in regions where hurricanes touch down, or regions prone to drought. Really, nothing to worry about. Carry on.

Ooooo, so it costs 1-3% of our GDP...that money just disappears right? No, it goes back into the economy, creating jobs and technological advancement.
Also, assuming the numbers on that article are right, and that's a big assumption, it only addressed a tiny bit of Kyoto. What about clean air? Global darkening, because less sunlight passes through airborn particulate matter. Less sunlight = less agriculture. But wait, wouldn't less sunlight = less heat. No, because more heat is still trapped by greenhouse gasses than is blocked by the particulate matter in the air. How about clean water? How about emissions of poisonous materials into the environment?
Also, read the whole thread to see how global warming can actually cause an Ice age.
Arguing against Kyoto based on this one biased and very incomplete article is asinine.

Ooooo, so it costs 1-3% of our GDP...that money just disappears right? No, it goes back into the economy, creating jobs and technological advancement.
Also, assuming the numbers on that article are right, and that's a big assumption, it only addressed a tiny bit of Kyoto. What about clean air? Global darkening, because less sunlight passes through airborn particulate matter. Less sunlight = less agriculture. But wait, wouldn't less sunlight = less heat. No, because more heat is still trapped by greenhouse gasses than is blocked by the particulate matter in the air. How about clean water? How about emissions of poisonous materials into the environment?
Also, read the whole thread to see how global warming can actually cause an Ice age.
Arguing against Kyoto based on this one biased and very incomplete article is asinine.
By George I think you've got it!! :)

Ooooo, so it costs 1-3% of our GDP...that money just disappears right? No, it goes back into the economy, creating jobs and technological advancement.


Ok, let's force all companies to spend money on new fax machines. Hell, why not? It will just create more jobs, right? No. The companies will have to cut jobs to make up for the increased costs. Plus, it will create an inefficient allocation of resources. Jesus Christ...


Also, assuming the numbers on that article are right, and that's a big assumption, it only addressed a tiny bit of Kyoto. What about clean air? Global darkening, because less sunlight passes through airborn particulate matter. Less sunlight = less agriculture. But wait, wouldn't less sunlight = less heat. No, because more heat is still trapped by greenhouse gasses than is blocked by the particulate matter in the air. How about clean water? How about emissions of poisonous materials into the environment?
Also, read the whole thread to see how global warming can actually cause an Ice age.
Arguing against Kyoto based on this one biased and very incomplete article is asinine.

Most of the warming will/is taking place over the poles - do we do much farming there?

Um, yeah - I am aware of the global cooling scenario...thanks all the same

Most of the warming will/is taking place over the poles - do we do much farming there?
Well, the effects are already being seen in quite spectacular fashion in Alaska. Anyway, the poles make a major contribution to the planet's albedo.

Ok, let's force all companies to spend money on new fax machines. Hell, why not? It will just create more jobs, right? No. The companies will have to cut jobs to make up for the increased costs. Plus, it will create an inefficient allocation of resources. Jesus Christ...



Most of the warming will/is taking place over the poles - do we do much farming there?

Um, yeah - I am aware of the global cooling scenario...thanks all the same

So, you just stated that you already agree that there is global warming, since you admit that it's taking place over the poles. So I'm assuming that you don't care if coastal cities are flooded? Or that if enormous chunks of ice fall into the ocean, it has the potential to cause tsunamis?
As for the global darkening, that is happening globally. Gee is there much agriculture on the entire globe?
And let me get this right. As long as businesses make money, they can do whatever they please, even if it has disastrous consequences? This is your position?

What political agenda could environmentalism possibly be trying to push?

Many, particulary the more rabid, environmentalists are fringe communist/socialist organizations. Their agenda is to create as many barriers as possible for free enterprise to operate. They would risk unemployment for thousands for the chance to hit 'the rich' in the pocket book - all under the piety of environemtalism based on questionable data.
Arrr its all a commie conspiricy get the nucks every one, left wing scientist are plotting against the free world they must be punnished.
*regains composure*
seriously, i believe in CLIMATE CHANGE the evidence is right outside the window where i live (manchester uk) we seem to be getting torrential rain every day, being mancunian we are used to rain but not on this scale, its similar to the sort of rain you'd expect in the amazon rain forrest not the north west of england and this is the first summer we've had it. the problem that most people have with believing in 'global warming' is the name it surgest that the whole worlds gonna get warmer when thats not the case the worst case sernario(sp) is the ice caps will begin to melt, sea levels will begin to rise (thats holland gone) and conditions around the world will get more servere so in places like siberia it will get even colder than it already is and other places like the sahara will get even hotter thats a lot of the world becomming completely inhospitable but its not to say that every where will get nice and warm its that silly name which is causing all the confusion

You're exactly right, Moose, that Global Warming does not mean that every spot on the planet will automatically get warmer, especially if fresh water melt causes the Oceanic Conveyor (I suggest everyone do a Google on this very interesting phenomenon) shuts down...colder climes will get colder and warmer ones will get hotter. However. theaverage temperature of the planet will go up.

A bit of good reading: Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement uses false science to scare us to death, by some person named Bailey...Ronald or something.

Here's a question - you think it's practical to set up an all comprehensive network of land thermometers to track a global climate? Hardly. And we certainly weren't capable of doing so in the 1800s and early 1900s. Much of the world - as is still the case now - was unmonitored. Even today, most land monitors are based around urban centers.

Take a peak. I'll put up a few quotes from the book...once I...uh...find it...but anyways, global warming is absolutely blown out of proportion. Temperatures chance; they always have and they always will; it would be freakishly unnatural if they didn't. We can easily cope with the small changes we're causing.

Not that we should use products that produce less waste - more efficiency, cleaner, etc...this is a good thing. But the majority of environmentalists are really using false science to scare us to death and into their extreme political agenda.

Meanwhile, two articles...

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7352&news_iv_ctrl=1084
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5408&news_iv_ctrl=1084

Now the problem I have in taking information from the Ayn Rand institute is that it has an extreme right-wing bias (well, duh...obviously). So of course any article they publish has as it's core the continuation of Business status quo, which generally doesn't want to admit a possible problem as it would mean making drastic and costly changes to the way they do business (esp. manufacturing).
I prefer to take my info from more non-polictical sources, such as Scientific American which published a 32 page article by leading experts (to wit: Professors from Stanford, Harvard, & an advisor to the World Bank), in the field (global warming, energy, population and biodiversity) a couple of years ago critiquing and ultimately rejecting claims from anti-warming books such as 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'. They concluded that Global-warming is real and is occuring.
Since Scientific American has no political barrow to push I feel more comfortable can making up my mind using their sources, not ultra-right wing think-tanks. Or Ultra-any political agenda for that matter.

So, you just stated that you already agree that there is global warming, since you admit that it's taking place over the poles.


I said "is/will"

And I was not debating global warming, I was arguing against Kyoto...


So I'm assuming that you don't care if coastal cities are flooded?

One - the "benefits" of Kyoto are not going to make a difference...

Two - Compare the amount of ice to the volume of the ocean. Now think about icebergs...If you have a glass full of water and ice, and the ice melts - does the glass overflow? (hint - ice is less dense than water)

Three - waterworld is a ridiculous movie

Or that if enormous chunks of ice fall into the ocean, it has the potential to cause tsunamis?

Wow - how big is this chunk of ice? Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes (the ones that are of significance).



As for the global darkening, that is happening globally. Gee is there much agriculture on the entire globe?
And let me get this right. As long as businesses make money, they can do whatever they please, even if it has disastrous consequences? This is your position?

It does not make economic sense to spend this amount to lower the temp by a few degrees...

Since Scientific American has no political barrow to push I feel more comfortable can making up my mind using their sources, not ultra-right wing think-tanks. Or Ultra-any political agenda for that matter.

Sci American is certainly left leaning...

Here's an interesting paper by an MIT professor...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Two - Compare the amount of ice to the volume of the ocean. Now think about icebergs...If you have a glass full of water and ice, and the ice melts - does the glass overflow? (hint - ice is less dense than water)

Yes, but Antarctica is Ice piled on top of land.



Three - waterworld is a ridiculous movie
agreed


Wow - how big is this chunk of ice? Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes (the ones that are of significance).

Tsunamis are also caused by large objects dropping into the ocean, such as Ice Sheets, Meteors, or large scale landslides, and are actually larger than tsunamis caused by earthquakes


It does not make economic sense to spend this amount to lower the temp by a few degrees...

See the report on yahoo about glabal warming causing the end of winter in Europe over the next several decades. It includes statistics about loss of life and property damage. Again, I say that the cost of preventing ecological disaster is less than fixing it. To use your argument (on a much smaller scale) it makes more economic sense to buy a new car rather than keeping it maintained. The cost of maintaining the environment would fall on the corporations. The cost in property damage, health risks, government cleanup efforts, etc. would fall on those who have been hurt, not on the businesses who caused it in the first place. Yeah, that sounds like wonderful economic sense.

Here's the article from Reuters about European warming

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=585&e=2&u=/nm/20040818/sc_nm/environment_europe_warming_dc

here's an important excerpt:


The average number of climate-related disasters per year doubled over the 1990s compared to the previous decade, costing economies around $11 billion a year, said the report, the first by the European Union (news - web sites) body on the impact of global warming on Europe.

Gee, $11 billion a year? That makes a lot of economic sense to me

Yes, but Antarctica is Ice piled on top of land.

From Science magazine -

they "estimate the net contribution to eustatic sea level to be 6 mm."

Oh God! I'm moving to Colorado

http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n9c2.htm


Tsunamis are also caused by large objects dropping into the ocean, such as Ice Sheets, Meteors, or large scale landslides, and are actually larger than tsunamis caused by earthquakes

Prove it. Earthquakes unleash a far greater amount of energy...


See the report on yahoo about glabal warming causing the end of winter in Europe over the next several decades. It includes statistics about loss of life and property damage. Again, I say that the cost of preventing ecological disaster is less than fixing it. To use your argument (on a much smaller scale) it makes more economic sense to buy a new car rather than keeping it maintained. The cost of maintaining the environment would fall on the corporations. The cost in property damage, health risks, government cleanup efforts, etc. would fall on those who have been hurt, not on the businesses who caused it in the first place. Yeah, that sounds like wonderful economic sense.

I'll take a look at it...

Once again - I am questioning Kyoto here, keep that in mind

Here's the article from Reuters about European warming

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=585&e=2&u=/nm/20040818/sc_nm/environment_europe_warming_dc

here's an important excerpt:



Gee, $11 billion a year? That makes a lot of economic sense to me

Quote from a link on that site -

"Even if society substantially reduces its emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades, the climate system would continue to change over the coming centuries."

Looks like we are screwed no matter what

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3570602.stm

Global Warming is real, and I can't wait! :)

Swimming in January! Woohoo!

Quote from a link on that site -

"Even if society substantially reduces its emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades, the climate system would continue to change over the coming centuries."

Looks like we are screwed no matter what

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3570602.stm

No reason to continue to make things worse then.

Also, here's a report on Mega-Tsunamis regarding landslides. I see no reason why a piece of ice shelf breaking off would be any different (and the Antarctic ice shelves are huge.

or you can just google for mega tsunamis

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_dayafter.html

No reason to continue to make things worse then.

Also, here's a report on Mega-Tsunamis regarding landslides. I see no reason why a piece of ice shelf breaking off would be any different (and the Antarctic ice shelves are huge.

or you can just google for mega tsunamis

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_dayafter.html

From the link you posted -

"The likelihood of a tsunami from a collapse of Antarctic ice reaching New York is extremely remote. Many landmasses in the southern hemisphere would likely block any tsunami originating in Antarctica from reaching New York. Ice shelves (in contrast to ice sheets) are already floating in the ocean, so when they break off—as did a chunk of Antarctica’s Larsen B ice shelf the size of Rhode Island in 2002—they do not cause tsunamis or any increase in sea level."

I can't find much/any info from US sources such as the USGS. Have they made any statements about this?

From the link you posted -

"The likelihood of a tsunami from a collapse of Antarctic ice reaching New York is extremely remote. Many landmasses in the southern hemisphere would likely block any tsunami originating in Antarctica from reaching New York. Ice shelves (in contrast to ice sheets) are already floating in the ocean, so when they break off—as did a chunk of Antarctica’s Larsen B ice shelf the size of Rhode Island in 2002—they do not cause tsunamis or any increase in sea level."

I can't find much/any info from US sources such as the USGS. Have they made any statements about this?

So if they do not cause tsunamis, then why does it specify that they can't reach new york because of the land masses in the way? That's what caught my eye about it when I posted it.

So if they do not cause tsunamis, then why does it specify that they can't reach new york because of the land masses in the way? That's what caught my eye about it when I posted it.

I think the point is that even if one were created in this method, it would not reach, due to the geographical configurations between Anartica and NYC

I think the point is that even if one were created in this method, it would not reach, due to the geographical configurations between Anartica and NYC


So, only NYC is important?

Heard of liquid nitrogen? Insta-freeze.

Yea, unless you pour liquid nitrogen on the ground, in which case it evaporates the INSTANT it touches the ground. It still take a little time for an object of the same mass as the liquid nitrogen to freeze completely.

So, only NYC is important?

They were just using that as an example...so many people think that NY is the only city on the planet - even though it is miserable - go DC!

I, as a scientifically-minded person who has studied the subject, am pretty sure that climate change is occuring and that it is mostly the result of human activities. Not to say that there isn't a natural component, but humans are definitely contributing most of it. The basis of climate change is hard to dispute: greenhouse gasses (like CO2) do rise into the atmosphere, and they do trap infrared radiation, heating the atmosphere and the planet. Now, add in the fact that humans have released something on the order of 10 x 10^8 tons of CO2 each year for the past several decades...it's hard to dispute that this has an effect on the Earth's temperature and climate. (This being NS, I'm sure someone will dispute it).

I completely agree.
The vast majority of scientific reports and studies have concluded that the level of climate change currently being experienced is due to human activities.
The reports (generally published in USA) that suggest its completely a natural occurance are largely funded by petrochemical companies, and are thus very biased. Unfortunately, as both main American political parties (but more especially Republican) receive a lot of funding from such companies, it is in their interest to at the very least dismiss climate change or in many cases insist it doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, too many people see short-term capital as the end-all be-all of existence. They don't realize that global warming will cost us, the taxpayers, exhorbitant sums to clean up the mess after the corporations have left it.
This strikes right at the crux of the anti-warmists (is that a word? It is now!) argument. They say it will cause economic havoc for the corporations to institute preventative measures, without realizing the greater burden that will be placed on the average joe.
It's the same with tax cuts. When the average tax-payer receives a $300 rebate, it doesn't help much when the average worker makes $9000 less if they are laid off and have to find a new job. That $300 doesn't help much when the cost of living has escalated much more than that due to unsound and short-term economic thinking. That $300 doesn't help much when eventually you will be asked to pay much more to pay for the record-setting deficit. Does charging $300 to a credit card "save" you $300? No, it puts you in debt, and you pay more than $300 eventually.
But I digress. There are other people who disagree with global warming. Some are misinformed. Some put too much faith in scientific reports funded by the very industries that are possibly the most to blame. Some simply refuse to see it as a real problem, because it isn't tangible in the here-and-now, but that $300 tax rebate is.
We are being scammed, and scams wouldn't be profitable if the gross majority of people didn't fall for them.
Similarly, if we buy eco-friendly products, they may cost more in the short-term, but the long-term benefits are great. Also, the more we insist on, and only buy from, ecologically-friendly industry, the more they have to comply. We will be hitting them in the only place they understand...the wallet.

bump