NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone read The Skeptical Environmentalist? Is it any good, and how are the data and facts pertaining to Global Warming? Out of 10 (1 being not even good for toilet paper to 10 It's right up there with the Bible) how would y'all rate this book? I'm thinking about buying it because I am skeptical of the whole "Global Warming is going to Kill us All" mess. So, should I buy it?

Buy it.

Also, in before flamewar.

So, should I buy it?Why not? Just because it agrees with you, doesn't mean it's true though.

Has anyone read The Skeptical Environmentalist? Is it any good, and how are the data and facts pertaining to Global Warming? Out of 10 (1 being not even good for toilet paper to 10 It's right up there with the Bible) how would y'all rate this book? I'm thinking about buying it because I am skeptical of the whole "Global Warming is going to Kill us All" mess. So, should I buy it?

have you read Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth? it's very compelling, you have no reason to be skeptical of Global Warming the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and so are its causes, man....

have you read Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth? it's very compelling, you have no reason to be skeptical of Global Warming the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and so are its causes, man....

I don’t know about Wilgrove, but I’m not skeptical of global warming or its causes, I’m skeptical of the level of damage it will cause.
The Prophets of Doom have always been wrong before. Rarely do we perceive the events that really do us in. Otherwise, the Romans would have garrisoned the aqueducts.

I liked it, but Allanea's too late: there's already been a massive flamewar - in the scientific community. The Scientific American published a comprehensive response to the book, which generated a lot of discussion.

I recommend reading it, but then also seeking out a couple of articles in response to it, for balance. Also, any of the specific stats it cites are worth checking out: before using any particular one, it's worth knowing how supported it is.

And TSE doesn't entirely rebut global warming alarmism: it just calls out its excesses. If you want a book to prop up rigid disbelief in global warming, it's probably not the one.

have you read Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth? it's very compelling, you have no reason to be skeptical of Global Warming the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and so are its causes, man....

I prefer not to listen to Al Gore because his personal life contradicts his message.

I haven't read it, but I did hear a fascinating two hour interview with the author on a local radio station. He's quite bright, and a very interesting guy. Also, it's not like he's Captain Big Business here. He's more interesting in having people focus on more pressing things (and things that we can actually effect), while leaving more vague things for further research.

And, really, it's not as black-and-white as people like to paint it.

I don’t know about Wilgrove, but I’m not skeptical of global warming or its causes, I’m skeptical of the level of damage it will cause.
The Prophets of Doom have always been wrong before. Rarely do we perceive the events that really do us in.They've always been wrong? Some perhaps because their warnings were eventually heeded.

I prefer not to listen to Al Gore because his personal life contradicts his message.Liar.

And, really, it's not as black-and-white as people like to paint it.
It's what happens when you politicize anything.

They've always been wrong? Some perhaps because their warnings were eventually heeded.
And what would you do about global warming that would actually do any good and wouldn’t cripple the world’s economy?

Liar.

It's true, Gore owns a personal jet, owns a big house, that isn't even powered by alternative fuel. Yes he has a hybrid car (whoopie doo) and he pays other people to pollute less, so that he doesn't have to.

Yea, great role model. Hey Mr. Gore, if Global Warming is a serious threat, then maybe you might want to sell your jet?

have you read Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth? it's very compelling, you have no reason to be skeptical of Global Warming the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and so are its causes, man....

On an unrelated note, never end a post with "man", ya hippy.

That said, yes Global Warming is happening. No, it won't end the world. Yes it will cause many problems, such as droughts in areas. We can adapt, but without a decent plan in place, it will take quite some time to adapt to the climate change.

So, that's about it.

And what would you do about global warming that would actually do any good and wouldn’t cripple the world’s economy?It would cripple the world's economy to do something? Just like publishing mileages of cars or using unleaded gas will make Ford, Chrysler, and co go bankrupt?

It's true, Gore owns a personal jet, owns a big house, that isn't even powered by alternative fuel. Yes he has a hybrid car (whoopie doo) and he pays other people to pollute less, so that he doesn't have to.

Yea, great role model. Hey Mr. Gore, if Global Warming is a serious threat, then maybe you might want to sell your jet?Wilgrove, you know better. It's pretty disgusting to see you sink to this kind of level of ignorance just to suit your opinion on an issue.

It would cripple the world's economy to do something? Just like publishing mileages of cars or using unleaded gas will make Ford, Chrysler, and co go bankrupt?
Nope, in fact I'm for those things, but for reasons besides Global Warming. I doubt that would make that big of a difference though. McDonalds showing its nutrition facts didn’t. The consumer wants what the consumer wants.

Wilgrove, you know better. It's pretty disgusting to see you sink to this kind of level of ignorance just to suit your opinion on an issue.

How is it disgusting? I mean if you're on a boat, and the guy says "THE BOAT IS SINKING!" and then goes back to his cabin, and pretty much goes about business as usual, wouldn't you be skeptical of the "boat is sinking" message?

Cars are getting better gas millage. The Western World is polluting less, and everything from car engines to airliners jet are getting more efficient. Hell even our appliances are using energy more efficient, don't you think that would have some effect on the environment?

It's true, Gore owns a personal jet, owns a big house, that isn't even powered by alternative fuel. Yes he has a hybrid car (whoopie doo) and he pays other people to pollute less, so that he doesn't have to.

Yea, great role model. Hey Mr. Gore, if Global Warming is a serious threat, then maybe you might want to sell your jet?

I did a search and could find nothing that confirms that Gore owns a private jet, I did find sites that referred to his flying commercial airlines....

And what would you do about global warming that would actually do any good and wouldn’t cripple the world’s economy?

well the technology needed to reduce global warming would create a lot of wealth

and not doing anything about Global Warming will cripple the world's economy far worse. to me this is no brainer.

Cars are getting better gas millage. The Western World is polluting less, and everything from car engines to airliners jet are getting more efficient. Hell even our appliances are using energy more efficient, don't you think that would have some effect on the environment?it would have some effect but we are increasing greenhouse gases faster than we're eliminating them, we're not doing nearly enough.

It's true, Gore owns a personal jet, owns a big house, that isn't even powered by alternative fuel. Yes he has a hybrid car (whoopie doo) and he pays other people to pollute less, so that he doesn't have to.

Yea, great role model. Hey Mr. Gore, if Global Warming is a serious threat, then maybe you might want to sell your jet?

First off, you're writing is beyond... well thought:

owns a big house, that isn't even powered by alternative fuel.


Do houses fly now? And since when did owning a big house constitute polution? It's not like it's a god damn factory.

It's true, Gore owns a personal jet,
and
Yea, great role model. Hey Mr. Gore, if Global Warming is a serious threat, then maybe you might want to sell your jet?

Heeeee doesn't. He at one point flew regularly on a personal jet that was owned by the United States Government (being the Vice President and all), but never owned a jet himself.

Check your facts mate.

pays other people to pollute less, so that he doesn't have to.

He pay's people to pollute less, while he pollutes less. You even said yourself he owns a hybrid, i'd call that polluting less.



Did you even READ what you wrote before posting it?

it would have some effect but we are increasing greenhouse gases faster than we're eliminating them, we're not doing nearly enough.

Well, as far as I can tell, there's no way for us to eliminate greenhouse gas. Once it's in the atmosphere it stays there. The only real way to eliminate greenhouse gas would be to stop all factories, all power plants, all cars, all planes, anything that uses fossil fuel. That would send our economy crashing down like a rock.

Well, as far as I can tell, there's no way for us to eliminate greenhouse gas. Once it's in the atmosphere it stays there. The only real way to eliminate greenhouse gas would be to stop all factories, all power plants, all cars, all planes, anything that uses fossil fuel. That would send our economy crashing down like a rock.

Lets see, the Planet or Economy.


"Tough one" as Al Gore put it.


-----------------------

That being said, go pick up a science notebook about greenhouse gas. The atmosphere can correct itself and go back to a smaller state.

That said, yes Global Warming is happening. No, it won't end the world. Yes it will cause many problems, such as droughts in areas. We can adapt, but without a decent plan in place, it will take quite some time to adapt to the climate change.

So, that's about it.

it will be an economic and humanitarian disaster...there is no adapting to it you just can't move hundreds of millions of people to new countries as land becomes uninhabitable...how many refugees can you fit into your home?

Will it end the world? not imediately but it will if left unchecked. a 5c degree increase in Ocean temp will mark the end of civilization.

Lets see, the Planet or Economy.


"Tough one" as Al Gore put it.


-----------------------

That being said, go pick up a science notebook about greenhouse gas. The atmosphere can correct itself and go back to a smaller state.

Well as far as I can tell, and you can call me a cynic, but come to Hell or High Water, people are always going to prefer money over the economy. Why, because people are greedy.

it will be an economic and humanitarian disaster...there is no adapting to it you just can't move hundreds of millions of people to new countries as land becomes uninhabitable...how many refugees can you fit into your home?

Will it end the world? not imediately but it will if left unchecked. a 5c degree increase in Ocean temp will mark the end of civilization.

I'd like to clarify to say that the world is fine, the PEOPLE are screwed.


This plannet has had over two ice ages, one magma storm, a gigantic meteor hitting hit (forming the moon), and you think a little bit of global warming will hurt the planet? No way, the planet is fine, the people are screwed.

Well, as far as I can tell, there's no way for us to eliminate greenhouse gas. Once it's in the atmosphere it stays there. The only real way to eliminate greenhouse gas would be to stop all factories, all power plants, all cars, all planes, anything that uses fossil fuel. That would send our economy crashing down like a rock.

Convert all Power plants to either Nuclear, Wind, Solar, or hydro. have the factories use the electricity from these power plants. Have electric cars/trains, admittedly Planes and a lot of ships would still burn fossil fuels, but I think the earth can handle that.

The Third World would still produce greenhouse gases, but I think the Earth can handle it.

I’m skeptical of the level of damage it will cause.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece

An inhabited island of 10,000 people has been claimed by the sea.

Well as far as I can tell, and you can call me a cynic, but come to Hell or High Water, people are always going to prefer money over the economy. Why, because people are greedy.

I won't call you anything, I am not going to judge you on what you say. That being said, fixing the atmosphere will generate more money then loose.

Well, as far as I can tell, there's no way for us to eliminate greenhouse gas. Once it's in the atmosphere it stays there. The only real way to eliminate greenhouse gas would be to stop all factories, all power plants, all cars, all planes, anything that uses fossil fuel. That would send our economy crashing down like a rock.

not true, the planet is like a giant organism it breathes, it can convert greenhouse gases but it cannot keep up to the increase...we only need the will to do reduce our use of fossil fuels, the technology is there to do it...it will cost more but what value do we put on the planets well being, where else can we go?

Convert all Power plants to either Nuclear, Wind, Solar, or hydro. have the factories use the electricity from these power plants. Have electric cars/trains, admittedly Planes and a lot of ships would still burn fossil fuels, but I think the earth can handle that.

The Third World would still produce greenhouse gases, but I think the Earth can handle it.

That bothers me, and here's why. We expect the Western and basically 1st and 2nd world countries to change from fossil fuel to alternatives. However when it comes to 3rd world country. Suuuurreee they can pollute. Nah it won't be a problem, nah in 50 years they'll have alternative fuels. Jesus Christ on a stick people, these 3rd world countries are just starting out on their industrial revolution. Me thinkth that would be the PERFECT time to introduce fossil fuel. I mean God knows we handled fossil fuel pretty well.

I won't call you anything, I am not going to judge you on what you say. That being said, fixing the atmosphere will generate more money then loose.

and hows that?

Well as far as I can tell, and you can call me a cynic, but come to Hell or High Water, people are always going to prefer money over the economy. Why, because people are greedy.

absolutely correct...so do we give up and do nothing?...it's easy for me to do nothing, I'll be long dead before the worst happens and right now I'm enjoying the mild winters...but I look at the worried faces of my kids and think what kind of horror show am I leaving for them and their kids...I can't do nothing I will do what ever I can...

That bothers me, and here's why. We expect the Western and basically 1st and 2nd world countries to change from fossil fuel to alternatives. However when it comes to 3rd world country. Suuuurreee they can pollute. Nah it won't be a problem, nah in 50 years they'll have alternative fuels. Jesus Christ on a stick people, these 3rd world countries are just starting out on their industrial revolution. Me thinkth that would be the PERFECT time to introduce fossil fuel. I mean God knows we handled fossil fuel pretty well.

1.) they cannot switch to alternative fuels right now, they don't have the means or the technology. However, we can. The fact that they cannot doesn't give us the right to continue polluting, "but timmy does it too!" doesn't work.

2.) the rate of growth and progress will be vastly different than what it was back in the late 1800s. All 3rd world countries have to do is obtain what the 1st world has, they don't have to whip all their stuff up from scratch, like the assembly line, mass production, electricity, etc.

We already wrote the books, all they gotta do is take notes....

and hows that?
Well for starters, there would be all sorts of jobs created to manufacture what ever alternative(s) get used. A fuel cell just doesn't appear out of thin air, someone needs to manufacture it.

1.) they cannot switch to alternative fuels right now, they don't have the means or the technology.

2.) the rate of growth will be vastly different than what it was back in the late 1800s. All 3rd world countries have to do is obtain what the 1st world has, they don't have to whip all their stuff up from scratch, like the assembly line, cotton gin, electricity, etc.

1.) Give them the means and technology

2.) and how do you think we got what we have, by inventing the cotton gin, and the assembly line etc.

Cars are getting better gas millage. The Western World is polluting less, and everything from car engines to airliners jet are getting more efficient. Hell even our appliances are using energy more efficient, don't you think that would have some effect on the environment?

The western world is polluting more. At best the rate of increase is maybe slowing
a bit and now the rest of the worlds rate of increase is umm increasing.

"The CSIRO found that in global terms, China has the highest current growth rate in CO2 emissions although it's emissions per person are below the global average. China's accumulated contribution since the start the 1800s is only five per cent of the global total. The USA and Europe have each contributed more than 25% of accumulated global emissions.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere — a separate measure to carbon emissions — had also increased at an unprecedented rate. Dr Paul Fraser, also from CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, said that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide grew by two parts per million in 2005, the fourth year in a row of above-average growth. "To have four years in a row of above-average carbon dioxide growth is unprecedented," Dr Fraser said.

He said the trend over recent years suggests the growth rate is accelerating, "signifying that fossil fuels are having an impact on greenhouse gas concentrations in a way we haven’t seen in the past."



Hey guys we have enough dynamite planted in the dam to blow it up 100 times over,
so I've told the fellas to try to only put single sticks up at a time and they've said they will see what they can do and some of them are already putting in less dynamite with each trip so the policy is paying off.

Won't it?
Well gosh its gotta have some effect.
What do you mean we need to take 100% away
that's impossible it would completely undermine our dynamite industry.


Anyway make up your minds
some of you say we'll eventually weaken the dam so much, just drilling the holes to place the dynamite that it just gives way on its own.
Though quite frankly I haven't yet been convinced by their science.
The real fanatical doom and gloomers say the dynamite could explode :rolls eyes:

That bothers me, and here's why. We expect the Western and basically 1st and 2nd world countries to change from fossil fuel to alternatives. However when it comes to 3rd world country. Suuuurreee they can pollute. Nah it won't be a problem, nah in 50 years they'll have alternative fuels. Jesus Christ on a stick people, these 3rd world countries are just starting out on their industrial revolution. Me thinkth that would be the PERFECT time to introduce fossil fuel. I mean God knows we handled fossil fuel pretty
well.

the third world produces a fraction of the greenhouse gases, I believe one country with a 1/20 th of the worlds population produces 30% of the Greenhouse gases, the USA...my country produces more per person but having a small population we don't contribute much...

1.) Give them the means and technology

2.) and how do you think we got what we have, by inventing the cotton gin, and the assembly line etc.
1) That would hurt our profit margins. If they can build their own fuel sells, why the hell would they pay us to do it for them?

2) But they do not have to invent it. It already exists. All they have to do is clone it, which by comparison is about as simple as eating.

1.) Give them the means and technology
We are, or hopefully will, by setting an example.

2.) and how do you think we got what we have, by inventing the cotton gin, and the assembly line etc.

And now we have to pioneer the next big step, sustainable energy. Once we do that the 3rd world will follow, just like they're doing now.

1) That would hurt our profit margins. If they can build their own fuel sells, why the hell would they pay us to do it for them?

2) But they do not have to invent it. It already exists. All they have to do is clone it, which by comparison is about as simple as eating.

1. Well we could sell it to them, duh. Either that or train them over here, then send them back home so they can do it themselves.

2. Yes, but who's training them on the latest and greatest on technology? Unless someone shows them the latest and greatest, they'll be doing it by trial and error.

1. Well we could sell it to them, duh. Either that or train them over here, then send them back home so they can do it themselves.

2. Yes, but who's training them on the latest and greatest on technology? Unless someone shows them the latest and greatest, they'll be doing it by trial and error.



Advocating for the security of the economy, but yet comming up with idea's to watch it collapse.

1. Well we could sell it to them, duh. Either that or train them over here, then send them back home so they can do it themselves.

2. Yes, but who's training them on the latest and greatest on technology? Unless someone shows them the latest and greatest, they'll be doing it by trial and error.
1) Selling them technology and giving them technology are two different things.

2) It is not like they actually have to understand how it works in order to build them. You only need to know how to put it together.

Out of 10 (1 being not even good for toilet paper to 10 It's right up there with the Bible) how would y'all rate this book?

My scale's a bit different: 1-10, 1 not even good for toilet paper, 10 is it's right up there with Darwin.

My scale's a bit different: 1-10, 1 not even good for toilet paper, 10 is it's right up there with Darwin.

Well whatever, same diff.

My scale's a bit different: 1-10, 1 not even good for toilet paper, 10 is it's right up there with Darwin.

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

I know, but I like splitting hairs :)

First off, here is the article talking about Gore and Private Jets. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Now, just because Paramount (who releases the picture) pays for it, it's OK??? Come on, quit being hypocritical...

Seriously, though, and enough on Algore, the thing that gets me about Global Warming is how everyone is so sure it's strictly human input (how egotistical of us, really)

Man, we are causing so much global warming, we are even causing Mars' polar caps to melt...

It's called the Sun, people. And it's getting warmer.. (well actually, it's leveled off now)

The 3-5 C raise in temperatures? Those are put out by far left Green groups who WANT TO SCARE YOU. Truth is, that is by far the worst scenario. Even then, it won't cause the issues as bad as they make it.

Look, (and I'll try to type slow here so everyone can understand it) The Earth Changes. That means that sometimes parts of it get warmer, and parts of it get colder. The mean temperature (not mean as in angry and causing problem, but the average) of the Earth has been FALLING for the last (at least) 100 Million years. In the age of the Dinosaurs it was over 5C warmer than today (I think it was much more, but it's been a while since I read that article in Nature, like years...)

Warmer temperatures world wide mean longer growing seasons, and milder winters. Yeah, it also means potential for flooding (which we have the technology in hand to control, see the Netherlands as a good example of how to live below sea level) Bugs come (happens now) Crops fail (ditto) and guess what? We still seem to live.

Humans are problem solvers. The problems are not completely (heck, from the study I've done on it (at least 100 hours, maybe more... quite a bit for a layman) it appears that Man didn't do very much of it at all... Solar data is the most damning thing for human causality of global warming.

CO2 emissions are naturally self regulating.

USA IS the #1 polluter. That is fact. It is also fact that it is the most capable (and doing so, thanks) remover of pollution. The rate of decline in USA versus China and India will have that oft touted (and now incorrect, it has gone down in last 2 years) number versus their increases, crossing shortly (within 10 years at most).

BTW as an aside, did you know that there are more acres of forested land in the USA today than at the time of the American Revolution? Why? Human intervention. We've gone back and planted more to make our planet greener.

Also, did you know that RainForest is a lousy soil reproduction system and that it is not very sustainable on its own? Grasslands are much more stable. Also look at total living vegetable matter / hectare in various areas and see what is the most CO2 scrubbing... you might be in for a surprise...

Please note, I am not disputing that there is some warm up. I AM disputing how much Man has done to cause it.

Oh, btw, chlorine emissions... (one of my favs, what got me into looking at this whole topic about 15 years ago) Total Mankind output of Chlorine emissions (mostly chloroflorocarbons) is 600 Tonnes / yr. Mt. St. Helens during eruption put out that much per HOUR. Mt Penatubo, same... and the oceans put that much out per SECOND. The whole greenhouse gas thing from chloroflorocarbons also dealt with formulae that had to be skewed to the point that one chlorine atom had to affect 200 O3 molecules in order for the theory to work. That didn't even explain how the much heavier than air molecules would get 10 miles up to begin with.

I don't have any good explanations beyond this... but don't dismiss them because you don't want to believe. Find me some provable updated facts, and I may buy in... but you gotta SHOW ME, and not just Blather about it or quip a one liner and expect me to change my mind.

100 million years from now, our ancestors may be thanking us for warming up the atmosphere.

One last thing. France is doing it right. They have mass produced nuclear power plants (that the eco-wienies in this country hate, for reasons that are misguided and wrong) and have the right idea on how to handle nuke power. Their example is what we should have done here in USA. They used our technology to do so.

BTW as an aside, did you know that there are more acres of forested land in the USA today than at the time of the American Revolution? Why? Human intervention. We've gone back and planted more to make our planet greener.

Frankly, that's bullshit. Of course there're more forested acres in the US now, in the Revolution the US was something like 1/5 the size it is now. Human intervention? Really? Give me a good source, because where I live, we have deer walking around scrounging food out of backyards because they have nowhere to go. Look on google earth, because in many places you can walk for mile on end without ever getting out of the suburb.

EDIT: Oh, and also, that throws everything else you just said into doubt. Great 100 hour study.

Frankly, that's bullshit. Of course there're more forested acres in the US now, in the Revolution the US was something like 1/5 the size it is now. Human intervention? Really? Give me a good source, because where I live, we have deer walking around scrounging food out of backyards because they have nowhere to go. Look on google earth, because in many places you can walk for mile on end without ever getting out of the suburb.

EDIT: Oh, and also, that throws everything else you just said into doubt. Great 100 hour study.

Lovely intelligent comment. Too Bad You just smeared it all over yourself.

The data if you would care to dig is from the US Forestry Service. Guess What? It includes wooded areas that you call suburbs. If it has more trees than their threshold limit (their term and no I don't remember the exacts, go read for your friggin self instead of spouting off) then it is considered forest. And the figures are for the entire USA today compared to the same land mass at that time. That comment is very specific btw, as there was already some deforestation of the coasts happening at that time. I am not disputing that. Also, I did NOT say old growth. Remember, too, that trees are planted as a cash crop in parts of the USA that originally had no trees.

Where I am at (KS), 100 years ago you could go for 50 miles without seeing a tree. Today, I doubt (could be wrong) if there are more than 100 square miles left in KS without trees on them. I do know that there is a huge effort to save the remaining tall grass prairie FROM forestation. OK, NE and parts of TX have the same issue...

So the deer are co-habitating with humans, eh? Hmmm does that mean there might be, oh, I don't know, TREES where you are???

Here is the quote from the book on the subject that I read several years ago... look it up:

Enormous tracts of trees were destroyed by settlers in this country, without being replanted. Today, reforestation is a critical component of the U.S. lumber industry. Furthermore, with increasingly sophisticated measuring methods, the more sure we are about the rapidly increasing rate of forest growth in the continental United States. These are the current facts: In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land. In 1987 the number had climbed to 731 million acres, according to the most recent numbers available in the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1993-1994 edition.

"According to the U.S. Forest Service, annual timber growth in the U.S. now exceeds harvest by 37 percent. Annual growth has exceeded harvest every year since 1952. In 1992, just 384,000 acres -- six-tenths of 1 percent of the National Forest land open to harvesting -- were actually harvested. As a result of growth steadily exceeding harvests, the number of wooded acres in the U.S. has grown 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wooded growth in the U.S. today is an amazing three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today." -- Joseph Bast, Peter Hill and Richard Rue, Eco-Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books: 1994), p. 23.


So, doubt away... but back your tantrums up...
Oh, and the 100 hours thing, it's a lot more than that... but again, since you have nothing but crap to say, who gives a rats...

One last thing, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

Here's the ski report for Mars. 'Splain to me again (since I'm spreading BS) how Man is causing the Polar Caps to disappear on Mars one more time...

Clearly the USFS hasn't taken a walk in any of their "forests." And do you really think those deer are leading healthy lives, scrounging a living off people's gardens - gardens, I might add, that've probably been sprayed with pesticides?
And could you give me a link to the exact page where you found that? Thank you.
Also, I noticed you said "rats..." I assume by this you meant "a rat's ass." See, when we want to make something possessive, we use apostrophes, and when we want to make it plural we don't use them. Sorry, I just wanted to say that in case you didn't pass 3rd grade.
And, when the hell did I say that I thought Man was causing the Martian ice caps to melt. I can't find it anywhere...

EDIT: Ah, yes, edit your post to make yourself seem less stupid. And is this the same Forest Service that is selling books that say the Grand Canyon was created by the flood described in the Bible?

Clearly the USFS hasn't taken a walk in any of their "forests." And do you really think those deer are leading healthy lives, scrounging a living off people's gardens - gardens, I might add, that've probably been sprayed with pesticides?
And could you give me a link to the exact page where you found that? Thank you.
Also, I noticed you said "rats..." I assume by this you meant "a rat's ass." See, when we want to make something possessive, we use apostrophes, and when we want to make it plural we don't use them. Sorry, I just wanted to say that in case you didn't pass 3rd grade.
And, when the hell did I say that I thought Man was causing the Martian ice caps to melt. I can't find it anywhere...

EDIT: Ah, yes, edit your post to make yourself seem less stupid. And is this the same Forest Service that is selling books that say the Grand Canyon was created by the flood described in the Bible?

Look. I am not going to spoon feed you.

Obviously, you have a set agenda and facts are not going to deter you.

If ALL you can do is whine about my supposed grammar, then I will let my citations stand where they are.

No matter what, you will find some little nit to pick, so from now on, I will not bother with you, rather allowing others to look at the facts that I have lain out as compared to the drivel you spout and decide who is more credible.

And, just to be fair, I was not going for the rat's ass... I was going for another word that is generally used as a single word that is not polite for civilized company... which you obviously are not, but I imagine others are. Crude language paints you for yourself.

Again, until you provide ANY evidence other than "I walk through my suburbs" , which I imagine are tree lined, I will consider all of your comments as ad hominum attacks and ignore them thusly.

Good Day to You Sir.

I Said, Good Day.

That bothers me, and here's why. We expect the Western and basically 1st and 2nd world countries to change from fossil fuel to alternatives. However when it comes to 3rd world country. Suuuurreee they can pollute. Nah it won't be a problem, nah in 50 years they'll have alternative fuels. Jesus Christ on a stick people, these 3rd world countries are just starting out on their industrial revolution. Me thinkth that would be the PERFECT time to introduce fossil fuel. I mean God knows we handled fossil fuel pretty well.

Oh bugger off. The developed world got rich by raping the environment and excuse us if us third worlders puke when you give us your sanctimonious BS even when you continue to lead per capita pollution contribution.

It is not our problem if you do not give access to cleaner energy. It was the west led by the US that imposed sanctions on India and denied nuclear fuel based on the nuclear apartheid called NPT. Only now this is being corrected and nuke fuel is allowed to be imported....at the figurative last hour...when our insatiable demand for oil is driving up prices for you.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/04/stories/2007010406991200.htm
CHIDAMBARAM (Tamil Nadu): Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday reiterated that developed countries must bear more responsibility in meeting the challenges of climate change and promoting sustainable development by altering their consumption patterns.

The "developing world cannot accept a freeze on global inequity." The measures the global community took to protect the environment and deal with climate change should be equitable in their impact on the development prospect of the developing countries.
..
"We can and must use the inventiveness and ingenuity of our knowledge to find new pathways to growth. But this must be a shared effort. It must be an effort that enables the poor to improve their quality of life, their well-being, their consumption levels, without being forced to pay the price for the profligacy and excessive consumption of the rich and the super rich."

Solar data is the most damning thing for human causality of global warming.

what, you mean for showing that it is in fact our fault, cause the extremely good solar data shows there hasn't been any increase on that end in the past 50 years, despite the increase in warming rate observed since then?

Nope, in fact I'm for those things, but for reasons besides Global Warming. I doubt that would make that big of a difference though. McDonalds showing its nutrition facts didn’t. The consumer wants what the consumer wants.The funny thing is, when the industry claims it'll go bankrupt due to some environmental regulations, they're probably lying, as they were when they were whining about mileage figures and unleaded gas.

How is it disgusting? I mean if you're on a boat, and the guy says "THE BOAT IS SINKING!" and then goes back to his cabin, and pretty much goes about business as usual, wouldn't you be skeptical of the "boat is sinking" message?Wilgrove, you know that he isn't doing "business as usual" and still you lie about it?

Has anyone read The Skeptical Environmentalist? Is it any good, and how are the data and facts pertaining to Global Warming? Out of 10 (1 being not even good for toilet paper to 10 It's right up there with the Bible) how would y'all rate this book? I'm thinking about buying it because I am skeptical of the whole "Global Warming is going to Kill us All" mess. So, should I buy it?

Note that the author is not a meteorologist, physicist, geologist or a letter holder in any physical sciance at all. He's a statistitcian. If you want to buy the book, great. But if you're going to give his arguments any weight then I would encourage you to go see a mechanic next time you have heart problems.

what, you mean for showing that it is in fact our fault, cause the extremely good solar data shows there hasn't been any increase on that end in the past 50 years, despite the increase in warming rate observed since then?

Actually it is against human causality. Here is where I got my data for this. There are others, but this was quickest...

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

So I have to ask where you got your data?

Please note that we are coming out of a 600 year cold cycle of the sun. A mini ice age if you will. So of course temperatures are going up.

Humans are contributing a little bit, but not nearly what the alarmists would have everyone think.

Everybody sees a warm day in January and screams "Global Warming". I remember in the 1970's when we were all going to be frozen to death by now...

Earth is going to change. There is next to nothing you can do about it. Get used to your insignificance in the world. Sorry.

BTW, I am a big proponent of "green power" weird as that may sound... I think that solar and wind are great things, and although I haven't gotten my windmill up yet, it will be soon. So don't think I am saying all is lost... I am saying that what I do is more to make me feel better (and save me money) than it is to save the environment.

To whoever it was (sorry forgot to look) who was commenting on how the USA and Europe was limiting nuclear power in the 3rd world, you are correct, it is shameful, especially in India, to limit that safe and clean source of energy. I realize that there were safety concerns (look no further than Iran and North Korea today) but I also think that it was completely unfounded with the case of India, as it has shown itself to be a more rational country than most.

Actually it is against human causality. Here is where I got my data for this.

http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html

Actually it is against human causality. Here is where I got my data for this.

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

So I have to ask where you got your data?

Please note that we are coming out of a 600 year cold cycle of the sun. A mini ice age if you will. So of course temperatures are going up.

Humans are contributing a little bit, but not nearly what the alarmists would have everyone think.

Everybody sees a warm day in January and screams "Global Warming". I remember in the 1970's when we were all going to be frozen to death by now...

Earth is going to change. There is next to nothing you can do about it. Get used to your insignificance in the world. Sorry.

BTW, I am a big proponent of "green power" weird as that may sound... I think that solar and wind are great things, and although I haven't gotten my windmill up yet, it will be soon. So don't think I am saying all is lost... I am saying that what I do is more to make me feel better (and save me money) than it is to save the environment.

fact-air temp and greenhouse gases are the highest they have been in 600,000 years.

fact-the last 10 yrs of winters are the warmest ever recorded and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the highest they've ever been. There is a connection here that is shouldn't be to complex for even you to see.

Luckily for the world a "layman" (you) is not doing the research we have real scientists who have no reason to lie about their findings.

The funny thing is, when the industry claims it'll go bankrupt due to some environmental regulations, they're probably lying, as they were when they were whining about mileage figures and unleaded gas.

Wilgrove, you know that he isn't doing "business as usual" and still you lie about it?

Actually, the automotive industry in the USA is going bankrupt due to pensions and insurance responsibilities THAT THEY SIGNED OFF ON 20-40 years ago.

Harsh as it sounds, I only feel a tiny bit sorry for them. They were dumb enough to sign off on these contracts with UAW, now the crows are roosting (or should I say, the Vultures are Circling???)

Sadly, I think this is a foreshadowing of USA and it's social security system.

Actually, the automotive industry in the USA is going bankrupt due to pensions and insurance responsibilities THAT THEY SIGNED OFF ON 20-40 years ago.

Harsh as it sounds, I only feel a tiny bit sorry for them. They were dumb enough to sign off on these contracts with UAW, now the crows are roosting (or should I say, the Vultures are Circling???)

Sadly, I think this is a foreshadowing of USA and it's social security system.And the fact that they make shitty cars that can't really compete with European or Asian cars in the rest of the world has nothing to do with it?

The Prophets of Doom have always been wrong before. Well, there's two reasons for that. Some were full of it; and others did their job too well.
One never gets points for preventing a mess, only for cleaning it up.

fact-air temp and greenhouse gases are the highest they have been in 600,000 years.

fact-the last 10 yrs of winters are the warmest ever recorded and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the highest they've ever been. There is a connection here that is shouldn't be to complex for even you to see.

Luckily for the world a "layman" (you) is not doing the research we have real scientists who have no reason to lie about their findings.

Proof please. My comments were based on the South Pole Ozone hole depletion, in which the year that O3 dissipated (the "hole") from 1955-2000 was 1956-7, when there was increased volcanic activity. If I recall correctly, 2002-3 beat it, but again, only because of increased volcanic activity. Has the base line crept upward? A little. But Man only contributes a tiny fraction of 1% to this. Sorry.

What I am saying is this is not a single trigger system. There are a lot of factors that play into the final answer, and you seem to think that Man is the big one. We aren't. We're small time in the overall global balance. Do we do a bit? Yep. Do we do as much as you and others want us all to think? Nope. Sorry, do more research and SHOW ME. I am open to looking at data.

Lastly, you ask why would scientists lie? Because in order to pass peer review you have to say what they want to hear, or else they will call you a crack pot. No matter what your data show... especially in certain sectors such as the environment. Most scientists DO have an agenda... whether you want to believe it or not. Again, show me the specific data, and what the controls are...

And don't minimize me. It only minimizes yourself. IE if you shouldn't be bothered to listen to me, then why should I be bothered to listen to you?
Please understand, this is friendly discussion, not slam downs... I'll stack my scientific training against yours any day. I just examine the data, not collecting it... therefore I consider myself a layman. But I am trained in reading the data. I am much more of a generalists (looking at overall pictures) instead of being stuck on one little tiny piece of minutae.

And to whoever put down the author for being "just" a statistician. You've shown yourself to be ignorant of scientific study. A statistician is the first person I'd trust with their data, because they know how to look at the data and correlate it (yeah, and they know how to skew it to... just like the scientists)

Frankly, I don't know if he's right or wrong, I was just pointing out over 15 years worth of hobbyist research on this subject, and a healthy dose of "Yes, But what about ... ?" All I hope is that some of us consider all sides and all the data we can all get our hands on instead of blindly following certain people and their agendas... (and yeah, us includes ME.. that is why I keep asking you all to SHOW me with sources)

My final on this is a quote from Robert A. Heinlein. "Most 'Scientists' are simply button counters and bottle washers." I have found this to be true, sadly.

And the fact that they make shitty cars that can't really compete with European or Asian cars in the rest of the world has nothing to do with it?

or that many Japanese cars are made in USA and Canada, good quality and good mileage make for happy customers and corporations

And the fact that they make shitty cars that can't really compete with European or Asian cars in the rest of the world has nothing to do with it?

Seriously, not as much as you would think. Total sales, (and USD / unit) are still at a level that they would be profitable if they could go back to say 1970, and the pension/insurance load that they had then... they would be rolling in money. Why? Because too many stupid Americans still buy their crap (but also give points to them for bringing their quality levels way up in the last ten years, by all accounts...)


The single biggest cost per unit from the big 3 is pension/insurance overhead. Seriously.

I've got a Ford bus... and 3 Volvo's... driven 'em for years...

Proof please. My comments were based on the South Pole Ozone hole depletion, in which the year that O3 dissipated (the "hole") from 1955-2000 was 1956-7, when there was increased volcanic activity. If I recall correctly, 2002-3 beat it, but again, only because of increased volcanic activity. Has the base line crept upward? A little. But Man only contributes a tiny fraction of 1% to this. Sorry.

What I am saying is this is not a single trigger system. There are a lot of factors that play into the final answer, and you seem to think that Man is the big one. We aren't. We're small time in the overall global balance. Do we do a bit? Yep. Do we do as much as you and others want us all to think? Nope. Sorry, do more research and SHOW ME. I am open to looking at data.

Lastly, you ask why would scientists lie? Because in order to pass peer review you have to say what they want to hear, or else they will call you a crack pot. No matter what your data show... especially in certain sectors such as the environment. Most scientists DO have an agenda... whether you want to believe it or not. Again, show me the specific data, and what the controls are...

And don't minimize me. It only minimizes yourself. IE if you shouldn't be bothered to listen to me, then why should I be bothered to listen to you?
Please understand, this is friendly discussion, not slam downs... I'll stack my scientific training against yours any day. I just examine the data, not collecting it... therefore I consider myself a layman. But I am trained in reading the data. I am much more of a generalists (looking at overall pictures) instead of being stuck on one little tiny piece of minutae.

And to whoever put down the author for being "just" a statistician. You've shown yourself to be ignorant of scientific study. A statistician is the first person I'd trust with their data, because they know how to look at the data and correlate it (yeah, and they know how to skew it to... just like the scientists)

Frankly, I don't know if he's right or wrong, I was just pointing out over 15 years worth of hobbyist research on this subject, and a healthy dose of "Yes, But what about ... ?" All I hope is that some of us consider all sides and all the data we can all get our hands on instead of blindly following certain people and their agendas... (and yeah, us includes ME.. that is why I keep asking you all to SHOW me with sources)

My final on this is a quote from Robert A. Heinlein. "Most 'Scientists' are simply button counters and bottle washers." I have found this to be true, sadly.

In your own words "Look. I am not going to spoon feed you." no matter what link someone shows you will ignore it, as your convinced you are correct. You make your self out to be all open to new ideas but that's crap you have no intention of changing your mind. Then your condescending attitude "I'll stack my scientific training against yours any day." WTF this the internet you can be anything you want, the next thread you can pretend to be a world renowned brain surgeon.

None of your links(2 of them) explain away global warming or depletion and recovery of the Ozone, it's just how "you" want to interrupt them, to suit your own pet theories. Sun activity affects climate, woo hoo that certainly is a surprise(not). Temperature and volcanic activity affects the Ozone, so? it always has and always will.

I trust the experts and their conclusions, the overwhelming majority of scientists support man as the main cause of this global warming trend. If you want support the conclusions of a "merchant sailor" John Daly and his opinions on climate change feel free to do so but don't try to convince us that it's an expert opinion. John Daly was just another conspiracy theorist out to make buck writing a book that other gullible conspiracy theorists will buy.

In your own words "Look. I am not going to spoon feed you." no matter what link someone shows you will ignore it, as your convinced you are correct. You make your self out to be all open to new ideas but that's crap you have no intention of changing your mind. Then your condescending attitude "I'll stack my scientific training against yours any day." WTF this the internet you can be anything you want, the next thread you can pretend to be a world renowned brain surgeon.

None of your links(2 of them) explain away global warming or depletion and recovery of the Ozone, it's just how "you" want to interrupt them, to suit your own pet theories. Sun activity affects climate, woo hoo that certainly is a surprise(not). Temperature and volcanic activity affects the Ozone, so? it always has and always will.

I trust the experts and their conclusions, the overwhelming majority of scientists support man as the main cause of this global warming trend. If you want support the conclusions of a "merchant sailor" John Daly and his opinions on climate change feel free to do so but don't try to convince us that it's an expert opinion. John Daly was just another conspiracy theorist out to make buck writing a book that other gullible conspiracy theorists will buy.

Obviously you have an agenda also.

I note that I did indeed miss the link that was posted up by Laerod (thank you , btw.) As I have stated before, and will again, I am open to data about it, no matter where it comes from, as long as it is credible and verifiable. You have a hatred for anyone who disagrees with you (which I don't understand, to be honest) Daly's information is from other sources, and is verifiable, no matter that he was a Merchant Marine. Like you said, the internet is a mask that anyone can claim anything. I look at the logic of what is presented to decide.

I haven't had more than 45 seconds (literally) to look at the site, but it has a lot of credible evidence on it. The most interesting thing was the second link from there that I just happened to click on said roughly the same thing I was saying... that volcanic and solar activities have more of an effect on global warming that anything man does. It was on the physics of global climate modeling. I'll be a lot more impressed when I see on that site where their funding comes from (ya know, who's agenda they are after, since that seems to be their big thing against the "merchant marine" )

Frankly, for all I know, you're some 28 year old college drop out living in Mommy's basement mooching off of her for your cheetos and beer. :) And that could be me, too (but it's not... ) Still, look at the observations, look at the logic of where they come from, and decide how a mind is trained. I absolutely agree that anyone can claim anything.

I'm willing to look at all the data and run it through to a conclusion. Seems to me you want to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your mind's model and find some way to vilify the person presenting it, as a way to ease your decision making process.

As I've said, I am open to discussion on this... and I honestly did miss that link... tried to post a bit ago about it (had a mind game for you all to play at home about ozone, too, but I don't have time to type it in again right now) and was acknowledging it (and thanking the person who posted it yet again)

Condescension is coming from your interpretation of what I am saying. I am simply showing what I've found, and the "Hmmm, this is interestings..." Others come at me, and the verbal bantying begins... I'm willing to back down to civility... are you? (because frankly, I was not trying to come off that way... and I could again point out your comment about what a person did for a living somehow nullifies the data he points to comes off more condescending that I did, imho... but again, not trying to pick a fight...)

Glad to see we agree that solar and volcanic activity are causes. I'm a lot more liberal about this than most of what I've written would lead you to think, but I still have the niggling problem of what some people's real agenda is (and I don't think it's really "saving" the environment... I think it's control over their fellow man... therefore I want proof.) Frankly, I'm a cynical old Libertarian who is sick of having everyone stick their nose into peoples business on claims "that something must be done now", when it really doesn't.

Finally, all of this ain't Brain Surgery... don't have a "stick to go root around in there and find that there tumor..." heheh