NationStates Jolt Archive

They didn't know, didn't care. Those big factory companies that belch smoke in the air, cars that do the same AND guzzle up gas, their creators didn't think, would we suffer from this?? YES! The smog in London, the traffic jams in big cities, but the worst is to come. All this is creating the "Greenhouse Effect" which may help terraform Mars, but on Earth, if we do not change our ways, we will suffer the under-the-weather effects of:


GLOBAL WARMING!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Post what you think about this in this thread.

:headbang: How will they solve this, before it's TOO LATE??????????????????????????????????

They didn't know, didn't care. Those big factory companies that belch smoke in the air, cars that do the same AND guzzle up gas, their creators didn't think, would we suffer from this?? YES! The smog in London, the traffic jams in big cities, but the worst is to come. All this is creating the "Greenhouse Effect" which may help terraform Mars, but on Earth, if we do not change our ways, we will suffer the under-the-weather effects of:


GLOBAL WARMING!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Post what you think about this in this thread.

:headbang: How will they solve this, before it's TOO LATE??????????????????????????????????

China and the third world countries contribute more polution to the atmospehere than any industrialized country.

Post what you think about this in this thread.


Honestly? Don't care. My time here is too short to give a shit.

Let it go to pot. It's my grandchildren's problem, not mine.

Ok ok ok ... I don't really think that ... but it's fun to say.

All I know is that I personally don't contribute to the problem.

Global warming is real. It is caused by humans adding excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some people say global warming doesn't exist. The evidence is definately against them. Some say global warming is natural and not caused by humans. There is no real evidence for this either. All they can say is can't be certain CO2 is responsible with one billion percent certainty. Basically we need to reduce the amount of CO2 we emmit. I suggest the following:

1. A tax on the purchase price of fuel inefficent vechiles and a subsidy on fuel efficent and electric vechiles.

2. A Carbon tax. 25% would probably be enough. 10% would be a lot better than nothing.

3. If we can't get a carbon tax for some reason then we will have to work the other way and give subsidies for wind, solar, nuclear, etc.

If all new thermal plants capture and sequester CO2 and all new cars are electric or very fuel efficent, then by 2030 CO2 level will be close to stabilizing. This will cost us all a little bit of money in electicity bills and so on, but we will more than save that money by avoiding environmental disaster. It is an investment in the future. And not just our children's future, ours! I don't want the world falling apart in my old age, I wanna screw robo prostitutes and play virtual reality strip poker.

China and the third world countries contribute more polution to the atmospehere than any industrialized country.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeealllllllllllllly?

Percent of world CO2 emission in 2002:

United States - 24.3%

China - 14.5%

India - 5.1%

You are wrong wrong wrong wrong!

China and the third world countries contribute more polution to the atmospehere than any industrialized country.



xD I dunno where you got that info from, but it's wrong....

AMERICA is the country that emits the most Carbon Dioxide, but does it affect them? No, wind takes it north. The only thing that affects them is "Oh no, the gas went up by a cent, now what will my 37 gallon a mile car do?!"

China's and India's emission are increasing, and their combined emissions will equal about 90% of the U.S. emissions by 2025, although the two countries together have about 8 times the popolation of the U.S.

Oh, and get this, America has 5% of the worlds population, yet it uses 35% of the worlds fossil fuels. :)

Global warming is real. It is caused by humans adding excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some people say global warming doesn't exist. The evidence is definately against them. Some say global warming is natural and not caused by humans. There is no real evidence for this either. All they can say is can't be certain CO2 is responsible with one billion percent certainty. Basically we need to reduce the amount of CO2 we emmit. I suggest the following:

1. A tax on the purchase price of fuel inefficent vechiles and a subsidy on fuel efficent and electric vechiles.

2. A Carbon tax. 25% would probably be enough. 10% would be a lot better than nothing.

3. If we can't get a carbon tax for some reason then we will have to work the other way and give subsidies for wind, solar, nuclear, etc.

If all new thermal plants capture and sequester CO2 and all new cars are electric or very fuel efficent, then by 2030 CO2 level will be close to stabilizing. This will cost us all a little bit of money in electicity bills and so on, but we will more than save that money by avoiding environmental disaster. It is an investment in the future. And not just our children's future, ours! I don't want the world falling apart in my old age, I wanna screw robo prostitutes and play virtual reality strip poker.

You are right! I'd rather make a list of all the people I miss at geezerhood, have grandchilderen, and use future technology designed for old people than die at 66 because of global warming!!!!:eek: :eek:



:upyours: :upyours: <GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My position is that global warming is real, but not really caused by humans. Climate change happened for billions of years before us, and continues with us. Besides, a one degree temperature change isn't much and I find it hard to believe we're all going to die because of it.

Conversely, I still think we should lower CO2 emissions because pollution causes plenty of health problems.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeealllllllllllllly?

Percent of world CO2 emission in 2002:

United States - 24.3%

China - 14.5%

India - 5.1%

You are wrong wrong wrong wrong!

Don't forget other greenhouse gases, methane is 34 times more effective a greenhouse gas than Carbon dioxide. The only real solution is to kill all cows!:p

My position is that global warming is real, but not really caused by humans. Climate change happened for billions of years before us, and continues with us. Besides, a one degree temperature change isn't much and I find it hard to believe we're all going to die because of it.

Conversely, I still think we should lower CO2 emissions because pollution causes plenty of health problems.
And humans are speeding up the process...right?

My position is that global warming is real, but not really caused by humans. Climate change happened for billions of years before us, and continues with us. Besides, a one degree temperature change isn't much...
QUOTE]

There certainly has been climate change in the past, but it was much slower. The inland sea that used to exist in North America aparently grew at the rate of about an inch a year. That's not the sea level rising an inch a year, that's the ocean spreading inland at the rate of an inch a year. Natural warming appears to occur very slowly. The warming over the past 100 years has been phenomenal. Just look at the glaciers on Mt Kilimanjaro. What glaciers, you say? Exactly.

[QUOTE]and I find it hard to believe we're all going to die because of it.
No I don't think we're going to die. But our economies will definately be protected and people in the developing world are dying right now due to difficult climatic conditions.

Don't forget other greenhouse gases, methane is 34 times more effective a greenhouse gas than Carbon dioxide. The only real solution is to kill all cows!
This is what I tell my vegetarian friends.

And humans are speeding up the process...right?

I'm afraid to say so, but, y-ye-e-es-s-s.*




AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly, we can already screw with the environment unbelievably already. Maybe we should reverse the process. :)

Besides, a one degree temperature change isn't much and I find it hard to believe we're all going to die because of it.

Even a one degree temperature rise will flood huge tracts of arable land, potentially leading to widespread famine.

I'm afraid to say so, but, y-ye-e-es-s-s.*




AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know....I am actually thinking we can STILL REPAIR it. By ripping CO2 from the air along with other materials and building a massive space elevator or another means to shoot O3 into the atmosphere.

You know....I am actually thinking we can STILL REPAIR it. By ripping CO2 from the air along with other materials and building a massive space elevator or another means to shoot O3 into the atmosphere.

Or if we wanted to do something really crazy we could, like, plant trees.

I'm afraid to say so, but, y-ye-e-es-s-s.*




AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please stop doing this. :(

Even a one degree temperature rise will flood huge tracts of arable land, potentially leading to widespread famine.

Actually a major complaint is that the temperature rise will kill the sensitive fish and animals already on the the verge of death in these climates now. The system is fragile, so it needs to be protected.

Please stop doing this. :(

Okay, i'm sorry.:( ;)

Apart from big ice-cubes melting, the oceans heating up and expanding is thought be contribute more to rising sea levels.

Actually a major complaint is that the temperature rise will kill the sensitive fish and animals already on the the verge of death in these climates now. The system is fragile, so it needs to be protected.

And if waters rise even below 4ft; All these towns in Florida will become swamped:

Miami

Key West
and
Cape Canaveral.
Plus lots of low-lying islands that are major tourist attractions are at risk.:eek:

Apart from big ice-cubes melting, the oceans heating up and expanding is thought be contribute more to rising sea levels.

If that happens, then big coastal cities like New York City, and San Francisco will be flooded! And that could mean if all this water freezes, people would be ice-skating all around NYC! LOL!!:cool:

If that happens, then big coastal cities like New York City, and San Francisco will be flooded! And that could mean if all this water freezes, people would be ice-skating all around NYC! LOL!!:cool:

Would certainly solve the traffic problems :D

Would certainly solve the traffic problems :D

Yeah, as I said in the first post in this thread. It would also bring a laugh.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say!
I figure most of the human race lives along coastlines. Water comes up, human population goes down. Vive la fish! :p

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeealllllllllllllly?

Percent of world CO2 emission in 2002:

United States - 24.3%

China - 14.5%

India - 5.1%

You are wrong wrong wrong wrong!

Reading skills said China AND third-world countries...

I'm not entirely convinced that "global warming" even exists. Currently I am leaning towards thinking that it does not. Even if it does and even if the (wildly inaccurate) computer models predicting massive rises in global temperature are true, it will make little difference. The earth's temperature right now is way below the average it has been over the course of life on earth.

I dont have an opinio on Global Warming , only a statement:

I want to live you bastards!!!

But will lowering these emissions that are/nt causing global warming stop global dimming?

As I have said before, it is pretty much established that global; warming is happening. If it is caused by human actions, as most experts seem to think, then we are too late. Any attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would stop or reverse global temperature change would be economically disastrous to both developed and third world nations. It would simply be trading one disaster for another. And, if humans aren’t causing is, and it is a natural process, well we’re screwed. Nothing we can do about it then.

As I have also said before, the combination of global warming and peak oil will completely collapse society. Life will not be worth living ten to fifteen years from now.

I'm not entirely convinced that "global warming" even exists. Currently I am leaning towards thinking that it does not. Even if it does and even if the (wildly inaccurate) computer models predicting massive rises in global temperature are true, it will make little difference. The earth's temperature right now is way below the average it has been over the course of life on earth.

Are you including the billion or so years that it was a hot lump of molten rock?

I'm not entirely convinced that "global warming" even exists. Currently I am leaning towards thinking that it does not. Even if it does and even if the (wildly inaccurate) computer models predicting massive rises in global temperature are true, it will make little difference. The earth's temperature right now is way below the average it has been over the course of life on earth.
Computer modelling is getting more and more accurate every year. I assume your referring to computer modelling of the 1980's.

As I have also said before, the combination of global warming and peak oil will completely collapse society. Life will not be worth living ten to fifteen years from now.

You mean, we're gonna die sooner?? And my predictions WERE true!!:eek:

Reading skills said China AND third-world countries...

My God, maybe you're right! I think China and India and Mali and every third world country in the entire world added together may emit more CO2 than say the United States. I can't do the maths right now because I'm not sure what counts as a third world country, but you could definately have something here. We must get these three or four billion people to do something about the amount of CO2 they produce. Perhaps we could refuse to trade with them until they reduce their number of SUVs and air conditioner units?

As I have said before, it is pretty much established that global; warming is happening. If it is caused by human actions, as most experts seem to think, then we are too late. Any attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would stop or reverse global temperature change would be economically disastrous to both developed and third world nations. It would simply be trading one disaster for another. And, if humans aren’t causing is, and it is a natural process, well we’re screwed. Nothing we can do about it then.
No. This is a graph showing the temperature in England over the past 400 years or so:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CET1659-2003.GIF

Now, given the shaded section to the right on its own (as is generally done in media reports and the like), especially when stretched out to cover the entire width of the graph above, you could be forgiven for thinking that temperatures were rising extremely quickly and that the rate of increase was getting faster and also that this is an unprecedented phenomenon. In fact, this is not the case.

The graph above shows that in the latter half of this millennium, the temperature rose by some 3.5 degrees during just four decades. If this happened today, there would be pandemonium. This was at a time, you must remember, when there was almost no burning of fossil fuels, a tiny population, far less livestock and rainforests, jungles, Etc. completely intact. The next such rise in temperature (which we are experiencing now) has happened a full three times slower, despite massive population and economic growth, the industrial revolution and subsequent year on year increases in the amount of greenhouse gasses being pumped into the air. Surely this indicates that conclusions drawn based on corralations between greenhouse gasses and world temperature changes (the only empirical evidence for global warming) are inconclusive? I would think so.

But surely world temperatures are higher than they have ever been? Surely, also, greenhouse gasses have played a role in the past? Even if these two are wrong, surely with our industrialisation greenhouse gasses are at their highest ever levels? Sadly, no. None of these things are true. Let us turn our attention to another graph, this time comparing CO2 levels to global temperature:

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Clearly, we can see that there is almost no corrolation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature whatsoever. Furthermore, we can see that in the past both CO2 levels and temperatures have been far higher than they are today. So what does this evidence show us? Well, it shows us that conclusions reached based on tracking past world temperatures and past CO2 levels are inconclusive. Furthermore, it shows us that predictions for future temperatures (which are what lead people, such as yourself, to believe that we are doomed) are almost certainly flawed and probably just plain wrong. The difference between global warming being natural and it being 'unnatural' is vital - if it is natural, the chances are that it will not fluctuate an awful lot, and we have little to worry about, even if we could do anything about it. Only if it is 'unnatural' do these computer models (which so far have proved highly inaccuate) come into play. As far as I can see, the evidence for global warming being 'unnatural' is minimal and that that exists is pretty inconclusive.

So what could potentially be causing it? Well, this is a graph comparing temperature and the length of solar cycles:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/danetemp.gif

The correlation is startlingly close and, as the length of solar magnetic cycles determines the number and intensity of sunspots (and hence luminesence), it has equally valid theoretical backing as global warming does. On balance, I don't think that there is enough evidence for either for us to be sure (especially as we know relatively little about solar cycles and there is little current research into them, mostly as it takes a long time and is very expensive to investigate the sun using probes), but I also think that on balance global warming looks like a very spurious theory which fits the evidence only very erratically and then very loosely. Solar cycles, on the other hand, show a near-perfect correlation.

Really, I don't think there's any reason to be worried, nor do I think that we should be spending vast sums ineffectively tackling a potentially non-existant global warming 'threat', and I certainly don't think the media (at least in the UK) should be reporting global warming as given fact.

Are you including the billion or so years that it was a hot lump of molten rock?
No. There was no "life on earth" whilst that was the case, and it was therefore ruled out by my original statement. *mutters about reading comprehension*

Computer modelling is getting more and more accurate every year. I assume your referring to computer modelling of the 1980's.
More accurate, yes, but I would not describe them as accurate. The same technology is used for weather reporting which can barely get beyond a week with any useful accuracy. Sadly in addition only models that have been running for a while can be assessed as to their accuracy by comparing their projections with observations, by their very nature.

No. This is a graph showing the temperature in England over the past 400 years or so:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CET1659-2003.GIF

Now, given the shaded section to the right on its own (as is generally done in media reports and the like), especially when stretched out to cover the entire width of the graph above, you could be forgiven for thinking that temperatures were rising extremely quickly and that the rate of increase was getting faster and also that this is an unprecedented phenomenon. In fact, this is not the case.

The graph above shows that in the latter half of this millennium, the temperature rose by some 3.5 degrees during just four decades. If this happened today, there would be pandemonium. This was at a time, you must remember, when there was almost no burning of fossil fuels, a tiny population, far less livestock and rainforests, jungles, Etc. completely intact. The next such rise in temperature (which we are experiencing now) has happened a full three times slower, despite massive population and economic growth, the industrial revolution and subsequent year on year increases in the amount of greenhouse gasses being pumped into the air. Surely this indicates that conclusions drawn based on corralations between greenhouse gasses and world temperature changes (the only empirical evidence for global warming) are inconclusive? I would think so.

But surely world temperatures are higher than they have ever been? Surely, also, greenhouse gasses have played a role in the past? Even if these two are wrong, surely with our industrialisation greenhouse gasses are at their highest ever levels? Sadly, no. None of these things are true. Let us turn our attention to another graph, this time comparing CO2 levels to global temperature:

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Clearly, we can see that there is almost no corrolation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature whatsoever. Furthermore, we can see that in the past both CO2 levels and temperatures have been far higher than they are today. So what does this evidence show us? Well, it shows us that conclusions reached based on tracking past world temperatures and past CO2 levels are inconclusive. Furthermore, it shows us that predictions for future temperatures (which are what lead people, such as yourself, to believe that we are doomed) are almost certainly flawed and probably just plain wrong. The difference between global warming being natural and it being 'unnatural' is vital - if it is natural, the chances are that it will not fluctuate an awful lot, and we have little to worry about, even if we could do anything about it. Only if it is 'unnatural' do these computer models (which so far have proved highly inaccuate) come into play. As far as I can see, the evidence for global warming being 'unnatural' is minimal and that that exists is pretty inconclusive.

So what could potentially be causing it? Well, this is a graph comparing temperature and the length of solar cycles:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/danetemp.gif

The correlation is startlingly close and, as the length of solar magnetic cycles determines the number and intensity of sunspots (and hence luminesence), it has equally valid theoretical backing as global warming does. On balance, I don't think that there is enough evidence for either for us to be sure (especially as we know relatively little about solar cycles and there is little current research into them, mostly as it takes a long time and is very expensive to investigate the sun using probes), but I also think that on balance global warming looks like a very spurious theory which fits the evidence only very erratically and then very loosely. Solar cycles, on the other hand, show a near-perfect correlation.

Really, I don't think there's any reason to be worried, nor do I think that we should be spending vast sums ineffectively tackling a potentially non-existant global warming 'threat', and I certainly don't think the media (at least in the UK) should be reporting global warming as given fact.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
Some of the important parts:

"The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment. Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science.

...

Much of what he calls junk science isn't science at all, however. For example, individuals who blame their illnesses on their cell phones or the power lines in their neighborhood are not doing bad science; they are not doing science at all. They are simply using bad logic (committing the post hoc fallacy). Scientists who conclude that global warming may be significantly enhanced by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, may be wrong—currently the scientific consensus in on their side—but that does not make their work junk science. Politicians who advocate taking actions based on what might be happening rather than on what is generally agreed to be happening may be too cautious or opportunistic, but they are not junk scientists. They're not scientists at all. Lawyers who defend people who blame their illnesses on their cell phones, the local power company's nearby transformer or the silicon implant their client voluntarily sought out, are not doing junk science; they're not doing science at all. They too are hoping that the jury will use bad logic and reason that if one thing happened after another, then the former caused the latter. (On the other hand, there is no mention on Milloy's pages of so-called scientific expert Michael West, a quack dentist who claims he is an expert in identifying bite marks and whose testimony has sent at least a dozen people to prison. West is one of the most egregious examples of junk science in the courtroom imaginable. His testimony put two people on death row.)

And more:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

"Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute."

And this:
http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei/srhr/links/milloy-1.htm

"Until a few years ago Milloy was the director of science policy studies at NEPI, the National Environmental Policy Institute (a part of The Center for Strategic and International Studies).

This is supposedly, a public policy research institution "dedicated to analysis and policy impact"), but actually it is just another anti-science organisation funded by both the oil industry and Phillip Morris (a so-called "coalition" of companies with a common interest).

...

Steve Milloy also runs an organisation called Citizens For The Integrity of Science, which he claims on his junkscience.com web site to be the funder and copyright owner of the site. Its registered address is at his home: 12309 Briarbush Lane, Potomac, MD 20854 -- which is also the location of his software company, Simusoft Inc."

So, you like Oil companies telling you what your environmental policies should be?

I wonder how junk science knows what the tempreture of the worlds was thousands of years ago? If I asked them would they reply that scientists have found this out? Would these be the same scientists whom the majority of now say we should be concerned about global warming? Just wondering.

How about more on Milloy? Lets focus on the work he's done for cigarettes:

http://www.junkscience.com/news2/wtedets.htm

"Unfortunately for the agency, even if one is somehow able to overlook all of the errors in the study, second-hand smoke still doesn't amount to much of a risk."

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html

"Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.

...

Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

...

The tone of the Junk Science Home Page appears calculated to lower rather than elevate scientific discourse. That tone is particularly notable in its extended attack on Our Stolen Future, the book about endocrine-disrupting chemicals by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and Peter Myers. Milloy's on-line parody, titled "Our Swollen Future," includes a cartoon depiction of Colborn hauling a wheelbarrow of money to the bank (her implied motive for writing the book), and refers to Dianne Dumanoski as "Dianne Dumb-as-an-oxski."

Casual visitors to Milloy's Junk Science Home Page might be tempted to dismiss him as merely an obnoxious adolescent with a website. They would be surprised to discover that he is a well-connected fixture in conservative Washington policy circles. He currently holds the title of "adjunct scholar" at the libertarian Cato Institute, which was rated the fourth most influential think tank in Washington, DC in a 1999 survey of congressional staffers and journalists."

And by his own admission, apparently pregnant women may smoke all they want.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/317/7163/903/a#914

What complete utter crap.

xD I dunno where you got that info from, but it's wrong....

AMERICA is the country that emits the most Carbon Dioxide, but does it affect them? No, wind takes it north. The only thing that affects them is "Oh no, the gas went up by a cent, now what will my 37 gallon a mile car do?!"

China's and India's emission are increasing, and their combined emissions will equal about 90% of the U.S. emissions by 2025, although the two countries together have about 8 times the popolation of the U.S.

Oh, and get this, America has 5% of the worlds population, yet it uses 35% of the worlds fossil fuels. :)

You're right. As a pedestrian, i often feel like fucking shooting the hell out of all these perfect little Christians with their huge SUVs not giving a shit about the rest of the world.

Whilst the three graphs I presented came from the junk science page, none of my analysis of the graphs did, and so your ad hominems against the person who runs the junk science page (as well as completely irrelevent to this and any scientific or logical debate, which does not concern itself with smearing or attacking individuals, but evidence and analysis) are completely irrelevent, as all of the evidence I have presented has come from other scientists' work (the first has an atrributation, I can get attributions for the second two if you would prefer). Nothing any of you have posted has related at all to anything I have posted.

I'm not entirely convinced that "global warming" even exists. Currently I am leaning towards thinking that it does not. Even if it does and even if the (wildly inaccurate) computer models predicting massive rises in global temperature are true, it will make little difference. The earth's temperature right now is way below the average it has been over the course of life on earth.

So we should heat it up as quickly as possible then! Maybe we will even cause another Younger-Dryas event, where the earth warms fast enough to disrupt the ocean currents that regulate the climate, thereby triggering another ice age. That would be awesome!

So we should heat it up as quickly as possible then! Maybe we will even cause another Younger-Dryas event, where the earth warms fast enough to disrupt the ocean currents that regulate the climate, thereby triggering another ice age. That would be awesome!
Errr... I don't think that would be a very good idea. You see, what I actually said was that temperature rises may not be attributable to human action, not that we should deliberately induce temperature rises. I think you may simply have gotten a little carried away.

So we should heat it up as quickly as possible then! Maybe we will even cause another Younger-Dryas event, where the earth warms fast enough to disrupt the ocean currents that regulate the climate, thereby triggering another ice age. That would be awesome!

Totally!111111111111111111111111111111111 Honestly, how can people be so arrogant to say global warming doesn't exist. I'm not sure where Praetonia lives, but if you have the history channel, discovery, or hell even the news, turn it on once in a while.

Whilst the three graphs I presented came from the junk science page, none of my analysis of the graphs did, and so your ad hominems against the person who runs the junk science page (as well as completely irrelevent to this and any scientific or logical debate, which does not concern itself with smearing or attacking individuals, but evidence and analysis) are completely irrelevent, as all of the evidence I have presented has come from other scientists' work (the first has an atrributation, I can get attributions for the second two if you would prefer). Nothing any of you have posted has related at all to anything I have posted.
Find some graphs on a website that isn't complete crap and I'll do my best to answer the argument.

"Change over time
Over the twentieth century the annual-mean Central England Temperature warmed by about 0.67°C (mean linear trend). The warmest years in the entire 340-year record occurred in 1990 and 1999, and five of the ten warmest years occurred in the last decade. This has made the 10-year period 1993-2002 the warmest such period in the record, 0.7°C above the 1961-90 mean."
http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/iccuk/indicators/1.htm

Totally!111111111111111111111111111111111 Honestly, how can people be so arrogant to say global warming doesn't exist. I'm not sure where Praetonia lives, but if you have the history channel, discovery, or hell even the news, turn it on once in a while.
If global warming is such an infallible theory then why do people like you feel the need to come up with pointless trolling and spam posts that add nothing to a debate rather than actually attacking my evidence and analysis which is oh-so-obviously wrong? Incidently, if global warming is an axiom as you claim, please explain these:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wkyoto09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
http://www.sepp.org/reality/bostglob.html
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/11/two_sides_to_gl.html

Etc.

Find some graphs on a website that isn't complete crap and I'll do my best to answer the argument.

"Change over time
Over the twentieth century the annual-mean Central England Temperature warmed by about 0.67°C (mean linear trend). The warmest years in the entire 340-year record occurred in 1990 and 1999, and five of the ten warmest years occurred in the last decade. This has made the 10-year period 1993-2002 the warmest such period in the record, 0.7°C above the 1961-90 mean."
http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/iccuk/indicators/1.htm
None of that contradicts anything I have said, or the graphs, if you care to read them. I didn't realise that this junk-science person inspired such hatred, but please do try to be rational. The first graph is from the UK's national temperature records, the third from an actual scientific paper published in Science. The second comes from this (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html) website originally. I don't see what your problem is.

None of that contradicts anything I have said, or the graphs, if you care to read them. I didn't realise that this junk-science person inspired such hatred, but please do try to be rational. The first graph is from the UK's national temperature records, the third from an actual scientific paper published in Science. The second comes from this (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html) website originally. I don't see what your problem is.
MYTH: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide emissions, an amount too small to have a significant effect on climate, particularly since the oceans absorb most of the extra carbon dioxide emissions.

FACT: Before human activities began to dramatically increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources closely matched the amount that was stored or absorbed through natural processes. For example, as forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis; this carbon is then sequestered in wood, leaves, roots and soil. Some carbon is later released back to the atmosphere when leaves, roots and wood die and decay. Carbon dioxide also cycles through the ocean. Plankton living at the ocean's surface absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The plankton and animals that eat the plankton then die and fall to the bottom of the ocean. As they decay, carbon dioxide is released into the water and returns to the surface via ocean currents. As a result of these natural cycles, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air had changed very little for 10,000 years. But that balance has been upset by man.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil has put about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is naturally removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere. Today, carbon dioxide levels are 30% higher than pre-industrial levels, higher than they have been in the last 420,000 years and are probably at the highest levels in the past 20 million years. Studies of the Earth's climate history have shown that even small, natural changes in carbon dioxide levels were generally accompanied by significant shifts in the global average temperature. We have already experienced a 1°F increase in global temperature in the past century, and we can expect significant warming in the next century if we fail to act to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

[IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, p. 39.]

Also:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF

There are cycles of warming and cooling but this only confuses the issue of how much man has added to this natural process. It's not a matter of it is this and not that. It is the matter of both being true.

And showing conflict of interests is not a poor argument.

http://zfacts.com/p/225.html
"The nay-sayers admit the globe has warmed but deny it is the result of human activity. They say it is caused by the sun getting warmer. In fact it is quite likely that changes in the sun's temperature do cause changes in the the Earth's temperature. But that does not prove the current temperature increase is caused by the sun.

Starting in late 1978, NASA began monitoring the sun's power output from space. This increased the accuracy of such measurement by more than 10 times and produce the first accurate record of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which is astro-speak for total solar power reaching the earth.

Sun spots, though cool, are indicators of solar storms which have hot spots, so when there are more sun spots the sun is hotter than usual. Sunspots go in 11 year cycle and so does the sun's heat as can be seen above. But since the record began there appears to be no connection between solar heat and global temperature. The swings in solar heat at first appear to keep step with temperature, but the earth's temperature gets ahead of the sun to the point where in 2000, the earth's temperature hits a valley exactly when the sun's temperature reaches a peak. Moreover, the solar ups and downs are huge compared with any possible trend, while the earth's ups and downs are minor compared with its trend.

The consensus among astrophysicists studying this connection is that, while some (but not all) historical climate changes were probably significantly influenced by the sun, the present upswing is due mainly to human activity."

This is what I tell my vegetarian friends.

Nonsense.

How about NOT raising the cows purely for meat purposes..and adding to greenhouse gases in that process..

How about NOT raising the cows purely for meat purposes..and adding to greenhouse gases in that process..

I don't raise them just for meat purposes. They also provide... companionship.

You know the movie The Day After Tomorrow? It shows what COULD happen if we keep junking up Earth. And it can be CRA-Z!!!!:eek: NOW, it also can probably change the weather like the smilie next to these words: :gundge:

[QUOTE=The Remote Islands]Post what you think about this in this thread.[QUOTE]

global climate change is certainly happening. to think that all the stuff we churn out through industry, intensive cattle farming and vehicle emissions would not have an effect on global climate is to be seriously blinkered. the changes in global climate we are now experiencing are completely unprecedented in the earths history. it is true that global temperatures fluctuate considerably over time due to extreme natural phenomena such as vulcanism and meteorite impacts but nothing like as rapid, extreme and exponential as the changes that are occuring now. people who deny that the global climate changes we are experiencing now are the result of human activity either have a vested interest in the causes of climate change or are politically aligned with these people and so accept their view without reasoned consideration of the evidence.

p.s. why is this thread bigger than my screen?

I don't raise them just for meat purposes. They also provide... companionship.
:p careful...I happen to know of one such "companionship" which ended disasterous for.........not the cow...but the other companion.:p

Honestly? Don't care. My time here is too short to give a shit.

Let it go to pot. It's my grandchildren's problem, not mine.

Ok ok ok ... I don't really think that ... but it's fun to say.


I do really think that.

If pumping crud into the atmosphere gives us fast cars and cheap plastics, and the side effects do not occur until my life is over, I'm all for it.

I do really think that.

If pumping crud into the atmosphere gives us fast cars and cheap plastics, and the side effects do not occur until my life is over, I'm all for it.
That’s my opinion as well. Unfortunately, in all likelihood, the effects will be in my lifetime. Whatever. If life gets unbearable, there’s always suicide.

I do really think that.

If pumping crud into the atmosphere gives us fast cars and cheap plastics, and the side effects do not occur until my life is over, I'm all for it.

That is actually a very stupid thing to say. BUT, I laughed 'cause it was like that. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p But still, a little stupid. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!):)

I am not trolling. REALLY!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

We can't even predict the weather 2 weeks from now an we want to control it a century from now?

Do I doubt Global Warming? Yes. I have NO faith in scientists' ability to predict future climate base on a mere 100 years of accurate(semi-accurate) climatolotical data. They can't even predict next week's weather with a reasonable accuracy. But not only am I expected to accept these climate predictions as gospel, but I'm actually expected to believe that scientists have a PLAN to FIX it without screwing things up worse?

Color me skeptical. :p

That is actually a very stupid thing to say. BUT, I laughed 'cause it was like that. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p But still, a little stupid. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!):)

I am not trolling. REALLY!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

I wasn't kidding. That is my sincere conviction.

I wasn't kidding. That is my sincere conviction.

I wasn't saying you were kidding, I was saying I thought your post was funny.

Do I doubt Global Warming? Yes. I have NO faith in scientists' ability to predict future climate base on a mere 100 years of accurate(semi-accurate) climatolotical data. They can't even predict next week's weather with a reasonable accuracy.

I can't predict whether or not you'll steal a car tomorrow, but I can predict how many cars will be stolen next month. So yes, we can't predict the day to day weather, or individual car stealing, but we can analyse trends.

Personally I think of the best pieces of evidence that elevated CO2 levels are responsible for global warming are higher night time minimum tempretures. Something you would expect if the atmosphere was preventing less heat from escaping.

But not only am I expected to accept these climate predictions as gospel, but I'm actually expected to believe that scientists have a PLAN to FIX it without screwing things up worse?

No, we don't really have a plan to fix things. Basically the plan consists of slowing down the rate at which things get worse and collecting more data. We're not certain what effects global warming will have, but it seems a bad idea not to be cautious.

I can't predict whether or not you'll steal a car tomorrow, but I can predict how many cars will be stolen next month. So yes, we can't predict the day to day weather, or individual car stealing, but we can analyse trends.

Personally I think of the best pieces of evidence that elevated CO2 levels are responsible for global warming are higher night time minimum tempretures. Something you would expect if the atmosphere was preventing less heat from escaping.



No, we don't really have a plan to fix things. Basically the plan consists of slowing down the rate at which things get worse and collecting more data. We're not certain what effects global warming will have, but it seems a bad idea not to be cautious.

They always get worse:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

This is actually a relatively cool Holocene period compared to previous ones. I'm not entirely convinced that mankind can unintentionally manipulate this. I have no faith in scientists' claims that they can deliberately manipulate climactic trends.

The link to the ice age data definately shows that the earths climate can change without any interferance from humanity. But we know that. The question is what effect is humanity having now. What effect is humanity haveing over and above natural climate change?

I'm not entirely convinced that mankind can unintentionally manipulate this. I have no faith in scientists' claims that they can deliberately manipulate climactic trends.

I wouldn't say people are advocating deliberate climate change. I think many people are suggesting we are inadvertently changing the climate and we should take steps to reduce this inadvertent change.

The link to the ice age data definately shows that the earths climate can change without any interferance from humanity. But we know that. The question is what effect is humanity having now. What effect is humanity haveing over and above natural climate change?



I wouldn't say people are advocating deliberate climate change. I think many people are suggesting we are inadvertently changing the climate and we should take steps to reduce this inadvertent change.

And I think inadvertent changes in the cycle are unavoidable and temporary. We're part of the cycle. We're not an outside factor. We're not a new factor. We didn't land on Earth from somewhere else. We're part of the total package. Climactic cycles will happen. Whether or not we're affecting those cycles is a moot point since something always does. I think it's the height of scientific arrogance to think we have any control over it.

And I think inadvertent changes in the cycle are unavoidable and temporary. We're part of the cycle. We're not an outside factor. We're not a new factor. We didn't land on Earth from somewhere else. We're part of the total package. Climactic cycles will happen. Whether or not we're affecting those cycles is a moot point since something always does. I think it's the height of scientific arrogance to think we have any control over it.

I don't quite get it. If we discover the numbers of fish in a lake are dropping to low levels, we might stop catching so many and allow their numbers to recover. We might carefully observe the number of fish and work out what's the maximum number of fish we can take without hurting long term production. Sure the numbers of fish will vary due to natural causes outside of our control. But I don't see it as scientific arrogance to take our own effect on the fish into account, I see it as just being common sense if we want to catch the maximum number of fish possible over time.

I don't quite get it. If we discover the numbers of fish in a lake are dropping to low levels, we might stop catching so many and allow their numbers to recover. We might carefully observe the number of fish and work out what's the maximum number of fish we can take without hurting long term production. Sure the numbers of fish will vary due to natural causes outside of our control. But I don't see it as scientific arrogance to take our own effect on the fish into account, I see it as just being common sense if we want to catch the maximum number of fish possible over time.

And the numbers of fish the lake can support dwindle anyway because fish are being caught in maturity rather than dying in the lake and providing decomposing organic material for the continuing life cycle of the lake.

I've read case history after case history of attempts by scientists to regulate environment. and not a single one...NOT ONE regulated environment worked out as intended. Some environments altered in unexpected ways. Most failed disastrously. I'm not going to go so far as to say that environmental manipulation is impossible(though chaos theory would support that conclusion). But we definitely don't know enough to put stock in the idea.

I've read case history after case history of attempts by scientists to regulate environment. and not a single one...NOT ONE regulated environment worked out as intended. Some environments altered in unexpected ways. Most failed disastrously. I'm not going to go so far as to say that environmental manipulation is impossible(though chaos theory would support that conclusion). But we definitely don't know enough to put stock in the idea.

Umm, we regulate the environment all the time here in Australia. The main example is farming. Others include dams, irrigation, salinity control, hunting permits, fishing quotas, etc. The effects aren't always what's intended, but people must have some success at it otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it. Indeed, Australians have been deliberately regulating the environment for thousands of years through controlled burn offs.

I think Global Warming is a phenomenon caused by both natural and human causes. Many of the human causes can be largely reduced. Global warming is an AVERAGE increase of temperatures. Some places may be warmer while others may be cooler. Some organisms are VERY sensitive to temperature change. I think everyone needs to collectively do at least a little bit to reduce global warming. (However, the sort of social trap is a lot of people collectively are thinking "doing this one little thing won't really help"...) I think there should be perhaps taxes on higher CO2 and perhaps SO emissions. As for the problems of automobiles? I tihnk at least in my country (The US) we are far too car dependent due to many factors. Some are huge corporations of both car and oil companies wanting to increase their profits combined with cities more designed for cars rather than walking, biking, or mass transit. (ie. small commercial venues in residential areas)

Even if humans are only a small cause, better safe than sorry. Besides, resources WILL eventually run out and it does take about 50 years to swtich to other fuel sources on average... we better at least try to do the simple things to help save these.

We can't even predict the weather 2 weeks from now an we want to control it a century from now?

Do I doubt Global Warming? Yes. I have NO faith in scientists' ability to predict future climate base on a mere 100 years of accurate(semi-accurate) climatolotical data. They can't even predict next week's weather with a reasonable accuracy. But not only am I expected to accept these climate predictions as gospel, but I'm actually expected to believe that scientists have a PLAN to FIX it without screwing things up worse?

Color me skeptical. :p
Climate is not the same as the Accu-Weather Forecast.

Umm, we regulate the environment all the time here in Australia. The main example is farming. Others include dams, irrigation, salinity control, hunting permits, fishing quotas, etc. The effects aren't always what's intended, but people must have some success at it otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it. Indeed, Australians have been deliberately regulating the environment for thousands of years through controlled burn offs.

How's the rabbit population? :D

Climate is not the same as the Accu-Weather Forecast.

No, it just relies on the same information. :p

How's the rabbit population?

Up and down.

Up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down... They never stop going up and down! They're rabbits goddammit!


Rabbits in Australia are a very good example of why we shouldn't do something stupid like release rabbitts/burn megatons of fossil fuel without considering the possible consequences.

Up and down.

Up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down... They never stop going up and down! They're rabbits goddammit!


Rabbits in Australia are a very good example of why we shouldn't do something stupid like release rabbitts/burn megatons of fossil fuel without considering the possible consequences.

LOL. Okay, you got me there. :D

i belive in climate change. not caused by man though. how bout the wobbling of the sun, caused by gravitational pull of the planets. changes its distance from earth over time, which changes the overall temp of earth over time. making it hotter or colder. is that true. probably not but is sounds great huh. i don't belive global warming is real. all the data I've seen is either non conclusive or leaning to no on the global warming scale. and remember there are a ton of variables in trying to find a mean temp of the earth so when looking at data try to look at all the possible variables that they used and more importantly the ones they didn't use.

We can't even predict the weather 2 weeks from now an we want to control it a century from now?

Do I doubt Global Warming? Yes. I have NO faith in scientists' ability to predict future climate base on a mere 100 years of accurate(semi-accurate) climatolotical data. They can't even predict next week's weather with a reasonable accuracy. But not only am I expected to accept these climate predictions as gospel, but I'm actually expected to believe that scientists have a PLAN to FIX it without screwing things up worse?

Color me skeptical. :p

Yeah, and that whole thing about Winter being colder than Summer...hogwash! How can Scientists tell me Winter will be colder than Summer when they can't even tell me what the exact weather with be in my tiny region of the world a week from now? Silly scientists.

Oh, and if we were meant to fly, we'd have wings.

Man will never land on the Moon.

George W. Bush is a good President.

But seriously folks, when you present this "Waaaa, they can't predict...blah blah blah," argument you reveal how woefully ignorant you are on the subject.

Let me make an analogy for the kiddies and the intentionally obtuse (come on Goofballs, you're too smart to use that argument...again...)

Think of a deck of cards. Now say you add a couple aces to the deck. Now, can you predict with certainty that you'll be dealt an ace? No. Will more aces be dealt over time? Yes.*

There you go. A nice, overly simplified analogy to help you with the difference between predicting the weather and measuring climactic trends.

Now let's play some poker.

*think of aces as greenhouse gasses. There you go. That wasn't hard, was it?

My position?

Seated.

What I think about global warming?

I'm with Bill Maher. It needs a scarier name, like Climatia, or something.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
Some of the important parts:

"The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment. Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science.

...

Much of what he calls junk science isn't science at all, however. For example, individuals who blame their illnesses on their cell phones or the power lines in their neighborhood are not doing bad science; they are not doing science at all. They are simply using bad logic (committing the post hoc fallacy). Scientists who conclude that global warming may be significantly enhanced by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, may be wrong—currently the scientific consensus in on their side—but that does not make their work junk science. Politicians who advocate taking actions based on what might be happening rather than on what is generally agreed to be happening may be too cautious or opportunistic, but they are not junk scientists. They're not scientists at all. Lawyers who defend people who blame their illnesses on their cell phones, the local power company's nearby transformer or the silicon implant their client voluntarily sought out, are not doing junk science; they're not doing science at all. They too are hoping that the jury will use bad logic and reason that if one thing happened after another, then the former caused the latter. (On the other hand, there is no mention on Milloy's pages of so-called scientific expert Michael West, a quack dentist who claims he is an expert in identifying bite marks and whose testimony has sent at least a dozen people to prison. West is one of the most egregious examples of junk science in the courtroom imaginable. His testimony put two people on death row.)

And more:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

"Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute."

And this:
http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei/srhr/links/milloy-1.htm

"Until a few years ago Milloy was the director of science policy studies at NEPI, the National Environmental Policy Institute (a part of The Center for Strategic and International Studies).

This is supposedly, a public policy research institution "dedicated to analysis and policy impact"), but actually it is just another anti-science organisation funded by both the oil industry and Phillip Morris (a so-called "coalition" of companies with a common interest).

...

Steve Milloy also runs an organisation called Citizens For The Integrity of Science, which he claims on his junkscience.com web site to be the funder and copyright owner of the site. Its registered address is at his home: 12309 Briarbush Lane, Potomac, MD 20854 -- which is also the location of his software company, Simusoft Inc."

So, you like Oil companies telling you what your environmental policies should be?
AND

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771107&postcount=39
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771551&postcount=45
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771690&postcount=48
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771915&postcount=50

Ka-POW! :sniper:
So, did i miss anything? I've been on vacation ... ;)


BTW, go ahead and use whatever from my mega-global warming thread a while back. I'm liable to have more to add shortly.

As to answer the OP, i feel a little touchier than some here because i live in a canary state, where i get to see the consequences myself, and i'm quite sick of, as Desperate Measures so succintly pointed out, people arguing for corporations to actually be MORE irresponsible, stupid gits. :(

Ka-POW! :sniper:
So, did i miss anything? I've been on vacation ... ;)

Where ya been?:rolleyes:

Yeah, and that whole thing about Winter being colder than Summer...hogwash! How can Scientists tell me Winter will be colder than Summer when they can't even tell me what the exact weather with be in my tiny region of the world a week from now? Silly scientists.

Oh, and if we were meant to fly, we'd have wings.

Man will never land on the Moon.

George W. Bush is a good President.

But seriously folks, when you present this "Waaaa, they can't predict...blah blah blah," argument you reveal how woefully ignorant you are on the subject.

Let me make an analogy for the kiddies and the intentionally obtuse (come on Goofballs, you're too smart to use that argument...again...)

Think of a deck of cards. Now say you add a couple aces to the deck. Now, can you predict with certainty that you'll be dealt an ace? No. Will more aces be dealt over time? Yes.*

There you go. A nice, overly simplified analogy to help you with the difference between predicting the weather and measuring climactic trends.

Now let's play some poker.

*think of aces as greenhouse gasses. There you go. That wasn't hard, was it?

I'm not doubting the science, I'm doubting the knowledge base.

Take the same deck of cards. But this time, there is an indeterminate number of cards. Every once in a while, cards are added or taken out. Sometimes you can see the cards, sometimes you can't. Every so often, you draw ten cards. You notice that the first time you drew, you drew three aces. The second time you drew(after some cards were added and removed), you drew two aces. The third time you drew(after mor cards were added and removed), you drew one ace.

Now not only am I expected to believe that based on those three draws that the conclusion being 'We're running out of aces' is accurate but I should add more aces?

There's no reason to believe that scientists' knowledge pool is enough to predict future climate. Hell, 150 years is barely enough to qualify as short-term trend from a climactic standpoint. I certainly don't want scientists second-guessing nature based on that pool of knowledge.

At least not yet. DaVinci's published anatomy works were in 1580. That doesn't mean that I want a doctor from 1730 performing neurosurgery on me.

I expect a little more certainty before people mess around with climate. I'm not just referring to scientists. I DO expect corporations and industries to be more environmentally aware in their decisions too. I just think it's a tad early to be messing around too much with chaotic systems. But then again, maybe I'm the crazy one. :p

As a libertarian, myself, and a strong supporter of property rights, I must side heavily with the environmentalists on this issue. Pollution is an example of a negative externality. That means that, for example, if a steel factory produces an unpleasant smelling allergen, individuals who live near the factory, who are not involved with with any agreement regarding the factory (as workers, consumers or owners) will suffer from the pollution by being subject to the allergen. Therefore, pollution is a violation of property rights and the use force to regulate it is legitimate.

My fellow libertarians often argue that the government is, by far, the highest producer of pollutants. As such, limiting the scope of the government (in accordance with their plans) would drastically reduce pollution. This claim, however, is irrelevent given the facts that businesses and consumers also contribute to pollution and that pollution, as a negative externality, is a violation of the property rights of another party.

Also, the specific instance of global warming (which I believe is occuring and is being augmented by increased CO2 emmisions) is an examle of a prisoners dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma). That is, the situation in which no individual acts in her/his own self interest is preferable to all parties over the situation in which all individuals act in their own self interest. This occurs because of the following:

We will assume a very simplified idea of global warming. In 50 years, either Global Warming will have occured or will have not occured. (That is there is no spectrum to measure the degree to which it might have occured. It is an on/off sort of thing) Secondly, we will assume that the only way in which global warming can occur is if the average level of CO2 emited per individual is greater than Q. If the average CO2 emissions per individual is less than or equal to Q, global warming will not occur.

For me, as an individual, it is always self serving to refrain from limiting my CO2 emissions to Q or below. If the rest of the population does limit average CO2 emmisions to below Q, then not limiting my personal CO2 emissions to less than Q will help me to be more efficient, thus gaining an edge in the Capitalist Marketplace. If the rest of the population emits an average of more than Q CO2, then I can at least keep economically efficient for my own part by refraining from limiting my CO2 emissions to below Q. The only instance in which it becomes beneficial to limit my CO2 emissions occurs when the average CO2 emissions are so close to Q that I can personally effect whether they are above or below Q by limiting or refraining from limiting my own CO2 emission.

It has been shown that an iterated prisoners dilema tends toward the optimal solution. (That is, from this example, everyone keeps their CO2 emissions below Q.) This, however, is not an example of an iterated prisoners dilemma. Secondly, it has been hypothesized that freely made agreements can eliminate prisoners dilemas. As long as governments exist as conflict mediators, however, there will not be enough incentive to form the necessary cooperatives for such freely made agreements to work. Therefore, in order to protect the property rights of uninvolved third parties, and in order to mediate the conflict caused by the prisoner's dilemma of Global Warming, the government should force or otherwise incentivise the limitation of CO2 emissions.

xD I dunno where you got that info from, but it's wrong....

AMERICA is the country that emits the most Carbon Dioxide, but does it affect them? No, wind takes it north. The only thing that affects them is "Oh no, the gas went up by a cent, now what will my 37 gallon a mile car do?!"Ummm...

http://www.animalworldusa.org/katrina.jpg
http://bbsnews.net/bbsn_photos/topics/hurricane_katrina/katrina_2005_08_27_5am.sized.jpg

China's and India's emission are increasing, and their combined emissions will equal about 90% of the U.S. emissions by 2025, although the two countries together have about 8 times the popolation of the U.S.

Oh, and get this, America has 5% of the worlds population, yet it uses 35% of the worlds fossil fuels. :)
Less than 25% Still more than anyone else.

I'm not doubting the science, I'm doubting the knowledge base.

Take the same deck of cards. But this time, there is an indeterminate number of cards. Every once in a while, cards are added or taken out. Sometimes you can see the cards, sometimes you can't. Every so often, you draw ten cards. You notice that the first time you drew, you drew three aces. The second time you drew(after some cards were added and removed), you drew two aces. The third time you drew(after mor cards were added and removed), you drew one ace.

Now not only am I expected to believe that based on those three draws that the conclusion being 'We're running out of aces' is accurate but I should add more aces?

There's no reason to believe that scientists' knowledge pool is enough to predict future climate. Hell, 150 years is barely enough to qualify as short-term trend from a climactic standpoint. I certainly don't want scientists second-guessing nature based on that pool of knowledge.

You're disregarding the MASSIVE amounts of data about prehistoric conditions and the greater data we recive now from advanced satellites. You're trying to argue that the data we have is rudimentary and is based merely on weather observations. It's not.

At least not yet. DaVinci's published anatomy works were in 1580. That doesn't mean that I want a doctor from 1730 performing neurosurgery on me.

By the same argument, you would have resisted every single advance made by science. You would have refused Pasteur's vaccines. You would have stuck with gas light instead of trying Edison and Swan's lightbulbs. Franklin's assertion that lightning was electricity? You would have argued against it and refused to use a lightning rod. You would have denied the Wright bros. ability to fly. The Apollo program would have been a pipe dream to you. Go ahead, ignore the hard data and just say "it's too soon."

I expect a little more certainty before people mess around with climate. I'm not just referring to scientists. I DO expect corporations and industries to be more environmentally aware in their decisions too. I just think it's a tad early to be messing around too much with chaotic systems. But then again, maybe I'm the crazy one. :p

But climate science isn't suggesting that we mess around with the climate. It suggests that we should STOP messing with the climate.

It's not nesasarily Carbon Dioxide emitions alone, it could be all the asphalt we've laid down reflecting the heat back into the atmostsphere.

It's not nesasarily Carbon Dioxide emitions alone, it could be all the asphalt we've laid down reflecting the heat back into the atmostsphere.

The darker the ground, the more heat it absorbs. Growing forest on a field will absorb carbon dioxide reducing global warming, but because it's darker in colour than grassland it will absorb more heat, thus increasing global warming.

The darker the ground, the more heat it absorbs. Growing forest on a field will absorb carbon dioxide reducing global warming, but because it's darker in colour than grassland it will absorb more heat, thus increasing global warming.

But the air in a forest is more moist. Since water has a higher specific heat than dry air, it can absorb more energy and express it as a lower temperature.

Basically, my point is that these things are waaaaaaaay more complex than most of us think. Everyone not an expert on the subject will automatically discount important factors.

Which is a good reason why we should listen to those who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of climatology. And the vast majority of them agree that global climate change is real and that man is affecting it.

Those that disagree are almost universally funded and supported by those who have an economic interest in continuing the polluting status quo.

My position is that global warming is real, but not really caused by humans. Climate change happened for billions of years before us, and continues with us. Besides, a one degree temperature change isn't much and I find it hard to believe we're all going to die because of it.

Conversely, I still think we should lower CO2 emissions because pollution causes plenty of health problems.

SING IT SISTER!

Where ya been?:rolleyes:
How many times did you ask? ;)

In-cube sabbatical.

Seriously, the server seemed to deem me worthy of a vacation. I don't think there's mod complicitude.

You're disregarding the MASSIVE amounts of data about prehistoric conditions and the greater data we recive now from advanced satellites. You're trying to argue that the data we have is rudimentary and is based merely on weather observations. It's not.

By the same argument, you would have resisted every single advance made by science. You would have refused Pasteur's vaccines. You would have stuck with gas light instead of trying Edison and Swan's lightbulbs. Franklin's assertion that lightning was electricity? You would have argued against it and refused to use a lightning rod. You would have denied the Wright bros. ability to fly. The Apollo program would have been a pipe dream to you. Go ahead, ignore the hard data and just say "it's too soon."



But climate science isn't suggesting that we mess around with the climate. It suggests that we should STOP messing with the climate.

I don't like breaking down posts. So in response to the first paragraph, No I'm not disregarding that information. In fact, that information indicates that we are in the coolest holocene period in the last 450,000 years.

In response to your second point, My neurosurgery analogy was aimed to be something advanced, delicate and life threatening. As opposed to say, taking my temperature. I was trying to make the comparison as to the risks involved with manipulating climate based on such a small knowledge pool. As I rethink this, I might have chosen the wrong analogy. But so are you. We can see the results of electrical experiments. We can watch lunar missions. Pasteur's vaccines saved lives. Climatology is a series of educated guesses about the past and present used to make educated guesses about the future. All I'm saying is that I doubt the level of education in the guesses.

As for your third point, everything and everyone on Earth messes with the climate. Forest fires mess with the climate. Volcanoes mess with the climate. Cattle flatulence messes with the climate. It's a chaotic system which means that even the slightest variations have magnified results. Even otherwise undetectable variations can have tremendous results(the butterfly effect). That is one of the reasons why I doubt climatology's knowledge base. There is some frustrating belief that human beings ae some x-factor in Earth's climate. But everything we are, everything we produce and everything it is produced from has been part of this environment since day 1. What we do is part of the life cycle of the Earth and even if we can change that cycle(which I find difficult to believe), I question whether we should.

If the sea rises up, we'll get by. The coastal people of southern india seem to manage.

If the whole earth turns to desert, we'll get by. The Bedouin seem to manage.

If the glaciers come south and cover the planet, we'll get by. The Eskimo seem to manage (not to mention our common ancestors a couple of geological seconds ago).

These people got/get by with little or no technological aid, save that which is most minimally necessary for their survival. I myself currently live in one of the most technologically advanced civilisations the world has ever seen.

I really, really couldn't be less worried about global warming. Really.

What do I think about global warming?

I think it would be a good idea.

What do I think about global warming?

I think it would be a good idea.
Uhm ... chez what?

Uhm ... chez what?

Obviously he's a vogon who needs higher tempretures and more CO2 in the air to feel comfortable. Or maybe he's just really cold.

Obviously he's a vogon who needs higher tempretures and more CO2 in the air to feel comfortable. Or maybe he's just really cold.
So long as he doesn't start the whole poetry thing .... the name infers a LOT.

No, it just relies on the same information. :p
No, not really. Actually, no. Not at all.

Uhm ... chez what?

That's a cool house.

Anyway, my family owns some property right on the cliffs overlooking the sea. It would be the most awesome place in the world; except for the troubling 55 degrees north business.

Originally, the global warming sounded like a mint plan - in view of the above. And probably that is what he is thinking.

Now though, the global warming people are saying its going to get colder however, so personally, I'm against it.

That's a cool house.

Anyway, my family owns some property right on the cliffs overlooking the sea. It would be the most awesome place in the world; except for the troubling 55 degrees north business.

Originally, the global warming sounded like a mint plan - in view of the above. And probably that is what he is thinking.

Now though, the global warming people are saying its going to get colder however, so personally, I'm against it.
Perhaps you'd dig an Alaskan experience or two. That's where i currently reside.

If that happens, then big coastal cities like New York City, and San Francisco will be flooded! And that could mean if all this water freezes, people would be ice-skating all around NYC! LOL!!:cool:

If it keeps raining like it has been it probably will.
and the coast will continue to fall into the ocean...like it has been. Me, bitter? Nah...:mad:

Perhaps you'd dig an Alaskan experience or two. That's where i currently reside.

You know, I've never been to alaska. I've toyed with the idea of visting from time to time, but I've never been all that serious, mostly because I don't know all that much about it other than the cruise commercials I see on TV; and I'm not about to start believing them.

So let me ask you then - if you don't mind - is it worth visiting? And what are the pitfalls &c.

You know, I've never been to alaska. I've toyed with the idea of visting from time to time, but I've never been all that serious, mostly because I don't know all that much about it other than the cruise commercials I see on TV; and I'm not about to start believing them.

So let me ask you then - if you don't mind - is it worth visiting? And what are the pitfalls &c.
It's worth it. There's quite a lot to see, real estate acreage ALONE.
Whittier, Homer, Hope, The Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes, various places along the main highway ... it was mentioned more than once in Star Trek:The Next Generation (with an augmented picture of Anchorage). Lots of moose, a few wolves, bears, rodents, LOADS of sealife, even frogs. Lots of republicans and libertarians. A lot of people with accents who shipped up here to work on the pipeline in the 70's.
As caveats go, our state senator is a f*cking lunatic as is our horribly corrupt governor.
The reason why it's a good state to visit in the sense of this thread is that it's a canary state, and it has more obvious consequences to it than any others of the union. I've posted at great length about it before. I could exhume if you want.

If the sea rises up, we'll get by. The coastal people of southern india seem to manage.

If the whole earth turns to desert, we'll get by. The Bedouin seem to manage.

If the glaciers come south and cover the planet, we'll get by. The Eskimo seem to manage (not to mention our common ancestors a couple of geological seconds ago).

These people got/get by with little or no technological aid, save that which is most minimally necessary for their survival. I myself currently live in one of the most technologically advanced civilisations the world has ever seen.

I really, really couldn't be less worried about global warming. Really.

I'm not extremely familiar with the ways of those countries, but my questions are, do they have the extreme belief in property and/or the ability to move around and stay anywhere?

It's worth it. There's quite a lot to see, real estate acreage ALONE.
Whittier, Homer, Hope, The Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes, various places along the main highway ... it was mentioned more than once in Star Trek:The Next Generation (with an augmented picture of Anchorage). Lots of moose, a few wolves, bears, rodents, LOADS of sealife, even frogs. Lots of republicans and libertarians. A lot of people with accents who shipped up here to work on the pipeline in the 70's.
As caveats go, our state senator is a f*cking lunatic as is our horribly corrupt governor.
The reason why it's a good state to visit in the sense of this thread is that it's a canary state, and it has more obvious consequences to it than any others of the union. I've posted at great length about it before. I could exhume if you want.

Nah, don't bother with the exhumation.

I just wanted to hear from a resi whether or not it would be a good trip. Living on the east coast, alaska is more foreign to me than france, and as I said, I don't really know that much about it. But if you like it, it's probably worth a visit.

Nah, don't bother with the exhumation.

I just wanted to hear from a resi whether or not it would be a good trip. Living on the east coast, alaska is more foreign to me than france, and as I said, I don't really know that much about it. But if you like it, it's probably worth a visit.
Absolutely.
I should also add that the Hawai'ian islands are worth a tour or two, totally.

I should also add that the Hawai'ian islands are worth a tour or two, totally.

Been there, got the T-shirt.

I do love to travel.

Hey, Straughn, I'm drunk. But thanks for keeping the debate alive with sensibility... now, I step away from the computer for the rest of the night.

I'm skeptical about global warming still. As I've mentioned in another thread, I've had scientists from the same institution tell me completely different things and both had a peer group to back them up.

I'm not convinced about it just yet.

Originally Posted by Desperate Measures
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
Some of the important parts:

"The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment. Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science.

...

Much of what he calls junk science isn't science at all, however. For example, individuals who blame their illnesses on their cell phones or the power lines in their neighborhood are not doing bad science; they are not doing science at all. They are simply using bad logic (committing the post hoc fallacy). Scientists who conclude that global warming may be significantly enhanced by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, may be wrong—currently the scientific consensus in on their side—but that does not make their work junk science. Politicians who advocate taking actions based on what might be happening rather than on what is generally agreed to be happening may be too cautious or opportunistic, but they are not junk scientists. They're not scientists at all. Lawyers who defend people who blame their illnesses on their cell phones, the local power company's nearby transformer or the silicon implant their client voluntarily sought out, are not doing junk science; they're not doing science at all. They too are hoping that the jury will use bad logic and reason that if one thing happened after another, then the former caused the latter. (On the other hand, there is no mention on Milloy's pages of so-called scientific expert Michael West, a quack dentist who claims he is an expert in identifying bite marks and whose testimony has sent at least a dozen people to prison. West is one of the most egregious examples of junk science in the courtroom imaginable. His testimony put two people on death row.)

And more:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...even_J._Milloy

"Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute."

And this:
http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei...s/milloy-1.htm

"Until a few years ago Milloy was the director of science policy studies at NEPI, the National Environmental Policy Institute (a part of The Center for Strategic and International Studies).

This is supposedly, a public policy research institution "dedicated to analysis and policy impact"), but actually it is just another anti-science organisation funded by both the oil industry and Phillip Morris (a so-called "coalition" of companies with a common interest).

...

Steve Milloy also runs an organisation called Citizens For The Integrity of Science, which he claims on his junkscience.com web site to be the funder and copyright owner of the site. Its registered address is at his home: 12309 Briarbush Lane, Potomac, MD 20854 -- which is also the location of his software company, Simusoft Inc."

So, you like Oil companies telling you what your environmental policies should be?

Ad hominem.

Errr... I don't think that would be a very good idea. You see, what I actually said was that temperature rises may not be attributable to human action, not that we should deliberately induce temperature rises. I think you may simply have gotten a little carried away.

Everyone can read the comment I was responding to, and it certainly said nothing about temperature rises not being attributable to human activity. It said you didn't believe global warming exists, and even if it did, our temperature was lower than it normally was anyway. A logical inference was that you would be all for warming it up, posthaste.

I expect a little more certainty before people mess around with climate. I'm not just referring to scientists. I DO expect corporations and industries to be more environmentally aware in their decisions too. I just think it's a tad early to be messing around too much with chaotic systems. But then again, maybe I'm the crazy one. :p

Interestingly, that is actually a stronger argument for doing something about climate change than not doing something about it. Even if we are somewhat uncertain about what will happen if we mess with these complex systems (and know that there is a possibility that the effects will be detrimental) then we probably should not be pouring CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented level.

I'm skeptical about global warming still. As I've mentioned in another thread, I've had scientists from the same institution tell me completely different things and both had a peer group to back them up.
Also, as it was in said thread, Desperate Measures did a more than efficient job of pointing out to observers and lookers-on that it was pretty one-sided as far as the integrity of the argument was concerned. The discussion between the two of you appeared to do a lot for Desperate Measures' case, and it thankfully, there was evidence to qualify it.

Hey, Straughn, I'm drunk. But thanks for keeping the debate alive with sensibility... now, I step away from the computer for the rest of the night.
On a Monday night?

Also, as it was in said thread, Desperate Measures did a more than efficient job of pointing out to observers and lookers-on that it was pretty one-sided as far as the integrity of the argument was concerned. The discussion between the two of you appeared to do a lot for Desperate Measures' case, and it thankfully, there was evidence to qualify it.

I don't remember ever having a discussion with him. I think I dropped off of that thread. Will dig it up.

I'm skeptical about global warming still. As I've mentioned in another thread, I've had scientists from the same institution tell me completely different things and both had a peer group to back them up.

I'm not convinced about it just yet.



Ad hominem.
conflict of interest. I can't argue when I'm this drunk, Straughn, help. Yeah. monday night, drunk. Good times.

conflict of interest. I can't argue when I'm this drunk, Straughn, help. Yeah. monday night, drunk. Good times.
Hey, no worries. Kerubia said it his/herself that they'd dig it up ...:
I think I dropped off of that thread. Will dig it up.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10784109&postcount=111

So far, no other posts from them.
Besides, you've had to argue that so many times, you can afford on good name for someone to bother looking you & the topic up on the archives. I've done that a bunch of times. So far, you don't even need to explain yourself, IMNSHO. Sup up!

GLOBAL WARNING
Cow fartage...
How much methane cows are making every day to warm up this planet?
:headbang:

GLOBAL WARNING
Cow fartage...
How much methane cows are making every day to warm up this planet?
:headbang:
Ah, don't forget to factor in the southern states (republican mostly) and the people involved in heartily sniffing up said farts. Truly, verily, it explains a lot.

GLOBAL WARNING
Cow fartage...
How much methane cows are making every day to warm up this planet?
:headbang:

Save the planet- eat more beef.

What I think is that global warming is a real, critical issue threatening our future, one that will have disastrous consequences in at most 20 years if we don't act.

And what I also think is that it's an issue which, combined with the other issue being world poverty, cannot be solved within the capitalism framework. Capitalism creates too much waste (advertising, duplication of infrastructure, duplication of research costs, ...), invests too much ressources fighting each other in the economical war that we can't, inside capitalism, eradicate poverty without destroying the planet.

Only a more rational economy, without all the wastes created by capitalism, favoring socialised solutions like public transports over private solutions like cars, free from advertising and needless duplication can fulfill both the safeguard of the planet and the protection of human beings. Capitalism is failing at both.

well we're not gonna solve it by scapegoating easy and obvious targets and not looking at our own individual priorities and the incentives they are creating. and yes, it is very real. i think it's gotten to the point now that the phenomina called global warming is pretty hard to deny or even to deny that it's the work of our own ways of life. (even if a lot of people still somewhat missunderstand its nature because of the name)

the combination of using combustion to generate energy and power transportation, with the scale of human population is objectively observably pretty much the unambiguous cause of it.

and we're certainly not going to solve it as long as we continue to worship the petrolium powerd private passinger automobile.

how we're going to solve it is a multi-pronged stratigy on may front. that or nature will solve it for us by most of us starving off if we don't.

we need to do several things. stop worshiping the automobile is obvious, though not by itself a total solution. getting as much of our energy as we can from wind, solar and hydro, and living without as much as we can that we don't. that and last but not least, lowering all human firtility accross the board without bias or exception.

only if we do all of these things can we expect to make a dent in the momentum its been gathering for most of a century or more, though only within the last decade or so having become unignorably obvious.

and that dent won't be anymore insentanious then was the proccess that got it rolling in the first place.

it can and will be stopped eventualy. but just scapegoating smokestack industries and expecting them alone to even be able to do it won't.

it's our little monster, all of us togather, and only all of us togather can defuse its destructiveness.

we can also stop electing fanatical dollar worshippers, if we've actualy even elected them at all, which is perhapse not beyond a reasonable doubt that we might not have.

we also need to regrow all those trees we've been clear cutting to turn that carbon back into air like they were doing. like where all the air that's breathable that we have ultimately comes from.

(earth's atmospher before photosynticizing vegatation appeared on land was methane amonia)

=^^=
.../\...

=^^=
.../\...

We should all do our bit to cut emissions, save the environment and lobby our governments to do the same, but it will all be in vain unless the United States does it too...they have the technology and money to do something, and saying 'the third world' are polluting is a lame and pathetic excuse, lead by example. I want to know that my children and any grandchildren that I might have will have enough water to wash with and drink....and be able to afford to.

I recently heard a someone say that world war three will be over drinking water....

We should all do our bit to cut emissions, save the environment and lobby our governments to do the same, but it will all be in vain unless the United States does it too...they have the technology and money to do something, and saying 'the third world' are polluting is a lame and pathetic excuse, lead by example. I want to know that my children and any grandchildren that I might have will have enough water to wash with and drink....and be able to afford to.

I recently heard a someone say that world war three will be over drinking water....
If the United States would stop treating the issue as a party issue there would be a better chance of our government taking Climate Change seriously.

Hey, no worries. Kerubia said it his/herself that they'd dig it up ...:

So far, no other posts from them.
Besides, you've had to argue that so many times, you can afford on good name for someone to bother looking you & the topic up on the archives. I've done that a bunch of times. So far, you don't even need to explain yourself, IMNSHO. Sup up!

Were you talking to me or the other?

So far, I've found two other threads where I've mentioned the two professors' (and their peer group backing), but I've yet to find a conversation between them and I.

Were you talking to me or the other?

So far, I've found two other threads where I've mentioned the two professors' (and their peer group backing), but I've yet to find a conversation between them and I.
What exactly were each of their arguments and what peer group backing were they each referring to?

What exactly were each of their arguments and what peer group backing were they each referring to?

One's argument was that global warming was a natural development while the other was that it was man-made. On the other thread where I mentioned that one said global warming wasn't happening, I meant that he didn't think humans were causing it. I'll have to go back and edit that to remove confusion.

Unfortunately, I never got the peer groups from either of them. When I see them again on campus, I'll be sure to get them and I'll get the evidence behind each one and see which convinces me.

Hey, maybe I'll even post it here!

One's argument was that global warming was a natural development while the other was that it was man-made. On the other thread where I mentioned that one said global warming wasn't happening, I meant that he didn't think humans were causing it. I'll have to go back and edit that to remove confusion.

Unfortunately, I never got the peer groups from either of them. When I see them again on campus, I'll be sure to get them and I'll get the evidence behind each one and see which convinces me.

Hey, maybe I'll even post it here!
They both seem to be right to me and wrong in a couple important ways. Climate Change is a natural development. Men, however, are contributing much to the warming of the planet. It's actually possible to see exactly how much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is from natural events and how much is caused by man.

They both seem to be right to me and wrong in a couple important ways. Climate Change is a natural development. Men, however, are contributing much to the warming of the planet. It's actually possible to see exactly how much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is from natural events and how much is caused by man.

Interesting. I've often thought about if both sides could be right in many ways. Also leaves a chill wondering if the Earth is naturally warming and we're contributing to it.

Or if Udelia (I think that's who posted it) is right in that:

A.) If man is causing it, it appears to be too late to reverse it.
B.) If it's natural, there's no known way to reverse it.

Interesting. I've often thought about if both sides could be right in many ways. Also leaves a chill wondering if the Earth is naturally warming and we're contributing to it.

Or if Udelia (I think that's who posted it) is right in that:

A.) If man is causing it, it appears to be too late to reverse it.
B.) If it's natural, there's no known way to reverse it.
Without the effect of man adding to it, there is every reason to believe that we would have been in a stable environment for a very long time. Men are tipping the scales. You should take a look at Tim Flannery's book.

Without the effect of man adding to it, there is every reason to believe that we would have been in a stable environment for a very long time. Men are tipping the scales. You should take a look at Tim Flannery's book.

What's the title of it again?

I think you mentioned it a few pages back, but I'm too lazy to look. But at least I'm not drunk :)

What's the title of it again?

I think you mentioned it a few pages back, but I'm too lazy to look. But at least I'm not drunk :)
The title is The Weather Makers. Yeah, I think I'll put off being drunk for a while.

Interesting. I've often thought about if both sides could be right in many ways. Also leaves a chill wondering if the Earth is naturally warming and we're contributing to it.

Or if Udelia (I think that's who posted it) is right in that:

A.) If man is causing it, it appears to be too late to reverse it.
B.) If it's natural, there's no known way to reverse it.

it is too late. current projections are that if you want to see the arctic frozen, the worst case scenario is that you must go before 2015. Best case is 2080 for the entire arctic to be melted. Siberia and Greenland are melting. The Himalayas are melting, depriving Southeast Asia of its principal source of freshwater. The Sierra Nevada is melting, depriving cities like Los Angeles of principle source of freshwater. The Antarctic is breaking apart.

This would have naturally happened in 10 000 years. It's the 200 years part that's the problem.

it is too late. current projections are that if you want to see the arctic frozen, the worst case scenario is that you must go before 2015. Best case is 2080 for the entire arctic to be melted. Siberia and Greenland are melting. The Himalayas are melting, depriving Southeast Asia of its principal source of freshwater. The Sierra Nevada is melting, depriving cities like Los Angeles of principle source of freshwater. The Antarctic is breaking apart.

This would have naturally happened in 10 000 years. It's the 200 years part that's the problem.
I'm still not sure it will disappear quite so fast, the 2080 sounds a bit more realistic to me. But you want to be extra frightened?

"A warmer Arctic may have many consequences. “It’s a value judgment. For the oil industry it will be an advantage if the ice disappears, increasing access to oil and gas reserves,” notes Prestrud. He says that about 25% of the Earth’s remaining reserves are in the Arctic."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6615

This is bushanomics here. Global warming does not exist. The president said so. End of story. End of debate. The tread is dead.

:headbang: How will they solve this, before it's TOO LATE??????????????????????????????????

Does it need to be "solved"? o_O

If people didn't like warm weather nobody would ever vacation in Florida, Arizona or Mexico. So a few extra degrees of warmth is all to the good. :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

I'm not entirely convinced that "global warming" even exists. Currently I am leaning towards thinking that it does not. Even if it does and even if the (wildly inaccurate) computer models predicting massive rises in global temperature are true, it will make little difference. The earth's temperature right now is way below the average it has been over the course of life on earth.

Where did you get this? In fact, the earth goes through cycles of ice ages and then warmer periods. The ice ages are WAY longer then the warm periods. In fact, from the time of the beginning of this cycle (a seriously long time ago), the earth has spent most of it's time as a snowball. Essentially meaning that the "average", as you say, is significantly lower then current temps and should be. This is elementary climate stuff. Couldnt you google basic info before posting as to not sound like an idiot? You are right about the climate models though, they suck.

Concerning reducing the human additions to global warming: sure centain things may help but will never be done. If Govs wanted to be "green", they would be. They could pump all sorts of dollars into alternative energy, etc. but dont. Easy enough to figure out why: the power structure of much of the world make it impossible for all humans to live equally and freely and goodly and prettily. What does this have to do with global warming? Well think of it like this: the earth is a toilet in which we all live. Now we could all work to make it clean and nice but there are a few who think they shouldnt have to clean so they make some of the others hold them up to the point that they are now not in the toilet but are sitting on it. Their shit (and the gases that come with it in this case) make the world suck. They (corporations and governments that allow them) pollute, we buy from them (hold them up), and then complain when our fancy toilet is soiled. Boo Hoo, ya big crybabies. Stop sucking your thumbs and shove them up the butts of the bigwigs, that'll stop the gases from flowing.

Totally!111111111111111111111111111111111 Honestly, how can people be so arrogant to say global warming doesn't exist. I'm not sure where Praetonia lives, but if you have the history channel, discovery, or hell even the news, turn it on once in a while.:rolleyes: I do watch the history and discovery channels all the time. The have shown plenty of evidence that we really have no #*&$ing clue what is really going on with our planet.
The History Channel has aired a show that talks about how the world has been coming off of a "little ice age" that probably started off the Dark Ages and lasted into the 19th century. Ever heard of the "Year Without a Summer"? I even remember the show saying that in the warm era beforehand, that the French were complaining about how English :eek: vineyards were doing so much better than them.
So at least most of the warming has been natural.

Before anyone starts ranting at me, let me explain what I think and why.
The globe is warming up and carbon dioxide levels have risen by a lot recently, but I have several problems with this whole issue and laying the blame in any one place. The major one is that for all the evidence and increasing knowledge that we have on the subject, we really know far too little to make a truly "educated" guess. :headbang: Volcanic eruptions can cause a more serious global climate change than even the worst that we may have caused so far. Another is that the issue is too politically charged for its own good.:headbang: I do agree that finding alternate fuel and energy sources and reducing emissions is a good idea, and for reasons other than environmental. Fossil fuels don't get renewed fast enough for us to rely on them forever and that reduced emissions would cut down on air pollution and help asthma and allergy sufferers everywhere.

I also think that the supervolcano under Yellowstone park or some stray cellestial object colliding with Earth or some as of yet unknown disease or World War III:gundge: will end the human race sooner than these climate changes.:upyours:

I also think the search for extraterrestrial intelligence would be a great idea if not for the fact that there is obviously none one Earth, because how would we recognize intelligence when we encountered it?:confused:

They both seem to be right to me and wrong in a couple important ways. Climate Change is a natural development. Men, however, are contributing much to the warming of the planet. It's actually possible to see exactly how much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is from natural events and how much is caused by man.
Not really. Do you count how much forest men have destroyed thousands of years ago? Or last year? If not, why not? What about global dimming?

One scientist thinks that without man the next ice age would be happening right now. Our agricultural habits changed the course thousands of years ago, not during the past 50 or 100 years.

Does it need to be "solved"? o_O

If people didn't like warm weather nobody would ever vacation in Florida, Arizona or Mexico. So a few extra degrees of warmth is all to the good. :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
...perhaps you aren't aware of Texas' weather for the past two days. Ask them what they think.

...perhaps you aren't aware of Texas' weather for the past two days. Ask them what they think.
You can only hope that that poster was joking... the idea that "Warmer is better because more girls will wear bikinis" is a ridiculous response to Climate Change.

...perhaps you aren't aware of Texas' weather for the past two days. Ask them what they think.

Oh Dear. How could I possibly have overlooked that long streaming line of refugees fleeing Texas in order to live in places like Minnesota, Canada and Alaska? :eek:

You can only hope that that poster was joking... the idea that "Warmer is better because more girls will wear bikinis" is a ridiculous response to Climate Change.

Oh really? o_O

Whyever do you say that? Is it that you have an igloo fetish or would you rather that all girls draped themselves in burkas? :p

you are all forgetting about the effects of the number 1 green house gas: WATER VAPOR!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Check it out, its some good stuff.

I watched a Nova special last night about the dimming sun.
It is happeneing because of all of the soot in the air is forming more
cloud droplets to form, causing the clouds to become more and more
whiter, thereby causing more sunlight to be reflected back. That also goes
for the smog and other areas of heavy smoke pollution. More pollution = more particles in the air = more things for water vapor to attach themselves to = more clouds and bigger clouds and whiter clouds. They found this phenomina over the Indian ocean and China as well as over Europe actually causing temperature to go down! Wow! I guess thats gonna put a monkey wrench into the "global warming" works. However, who the hell knows what this will do to the actual Earth!

I watched a Nova special last night about the dimming sun.
It is happeneing because of all of the soot in the air is forming more
cloud droplets to form, causing the clouds to become more and more
whiter, thereby causing more sunlight to be reflected back. That also goes
for the smog and other areas of heavy smoke pollution. More pollution = more particles in the air = more things for water vapor to attach themselves to = more clouds and bigger clouds and whiter clouds. They found this phenomina over the Indian ocean and China as well as over Europe actually causing temperature to go down! Wow! I guess thats gonna put a monkey wrench into the "global warming" works. However, who the hell knows what this will do to the actual Earth!
This is why Climate Change is a better name for it than Global Warming. Global Dimming works to cool the Earth on some parts of the planet but does little on other parts.

you are all forgetting about the effects of the number 1 green house gas: WATER VAPOR!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Check it out, its some good stuff.

Heh. Good stuff indeed! ^_^

But be careful about mentioning water vapor as a cause of global warming to our friends here - If you presuade them you might have the effect of causing them to wanting to ban H2O from the entire planet. ^_^;

Think I'm kidding? There's already a school of thought among them that says trees are a cause of global warming and should be made extinct. :eek:

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php

Bluzblekistan,
You might find this point made by Jerry Pournelle to be of interest. The fact that the Sun is a variable star is *not* effected by what we do here on Earth. The evidence that environmentalists don't believe in global warming either is simple: If they did they themselves would push for the building of more nuclear power plants. Mind you, I consider that a good idea because nuclear energy does make for cleaner air but I don't think we need hold our breath waiting for Greenpeace of the Sierra Club to do anything of the sort. ;)

This is why Climate Change is a better name for it than Global Warming. Global Dimming works to cool the Earth on some parts of the planet but does little on other parts.

The reason it's called Global Warming goes back to the 1970s. Back then the Doomsday Cultists were all chanting how increased cloud cover was gonna trigger a new Ice Age. Then in the 1980s we got irrefutable evidence that the world had been getting *warmer*. Embarassed silence from the Greens for 30 seconds and then they started chanting about how Global Warming was gonna Destroy The World. :D Let's look at your latest dire prediction for an example: The planet is going to be cooler in some parts than in others. And what would happen if there wasn't "Global Dimming"? o_O

The planet would still be cooler in some spots than in others.:eek:

Boy, now that we look at it more closely this Climate Change of yours is really quite fearful ain't it?:rolleyes:

Oh Dear. How could I possibly have overlooked that long streaming line of refugees fleeing Texas in order to live in places like Minnesota, Canada and Alaska? :eek:Yes, dodge, it does indeed make you look ... uhm, "smarter" ... :rolleyes:



Oh really? o_O

Whyever do you say that? Is it that you have an igloo fetish or would you rather that all girls draped themselves in burkas? :pNow you're getting downright pornographic. Never mind Texas' lethal HEAT STREAK, now you're making ME hot. And i LIVE in Alaska!

I watched a Nova special last night about the dimming sun.
It is happeneing because of all of the soot in the air is forming more
cloud droplets to form, causing the clouds to become more and more
whiter, thereby causing more sunlight to be reflected back. That also goes
for the smog and other areas of heavy smoke pollution. More pollution = more particles in the air = more things for water vapor to attach themselves to = more clouds and bigger clouds and whiter clouds. They found this phenomina over the Indian ocean and China as well as over Europe actually causing temperature to go down! Wow! I guess thats gonna put a monkey wrench into the "global warming" works. However, who the hell knows what this will do to the actual Earth!
Good to know that you have the integrity and wherewithal to STAY ON THE SAME CHANNEL ONE HOUR LONGER so you could qualify your bolded statement. *wag of the finger*

Now you're getting downright pornographic. Never mind Texas' lethal HEAT STREAK, now you're making ME hot. And i LIVE in Alaska!

Oh my! :eek:

[Grabs a couple of cute female NSers at random and carefully places them between himself and Straughn. Grabs one for himself while he's at it. ^_~]

Heh. Then that would go a long way towards explaining why you didn't realize that heat streaks in Texas, fatal or otherwise, aren't exactly the most surprising thing in the world. :)

Oh my! :eek:

[Grabs a couple of cute female NSers at random and carefully places them between himself and Straughn. Grabs one for himself while he's at it. ^_~] ONE? Underachiever. This is the net. You'd think someone with your penchant for self-indulgence might've followed suit here ... it's nice to be pleasantly surprised.

Then that would go a long way towards explaining why you didn't realize that heat streaks in Texas, fatal or otherwise, aren't exactly the most surprising thing in the world. :)STILL missing it ... *wag of the finger*
Get back to your one NStress and gain some perspective ... ;)