NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe in global warming at all? Do you think it is man-made or natural? Thoughts and solutions?

Do you believe in global warming at all?
Yes.
Do you think it is man-made or natural?
Both.
Thoughts and solutions?
Has happened before, and will again; Time is the great healer.

Oh Gods.

Oh Gods.

Divine intervention is certainly possible, but I think "man-made" makes more sense.

global warming skepticism is the art of accepting that humanity actively dumps billions of tons of pollution into our land, sea, and air, but refusing to accept that this can actually have any impact.

global warming skepticism is the art of accepting that humanity actively dumps billions of tons of pollution into our land, sea, and air, but refusing to accept that this can actually have any impact.

Its also the art of finding whatever scientist in fields totally unrelated to anything that has to do with climate to agree with you.


Or creating 'junk science' on a level that would make cigarette companies blush.

global warming skepticism is the art of accepting that humanity actively dumps billions of tons of pollution into our land, sea, and air, but refusing to accept that this can actually have any impact.

It's like blaming the trash can for the smell, instead of the trash you put in it.

global warming skepticism is the art of accepting that humanity actively dumps billions of tons of pollution into our land, sea, and air, but refusing to accept that this can actually have any impact.

That's the part I've never got. If you want to say global warming is a natural thing, fine, you're not completely wrong. But to say that because it is unlikely global warming is man-made implies we shouldn't try to change our pollution levels (which no one believes are positive)? Suppose my doctor tells me I'm at risk for heart disease, and I should exercise and eat more healthily. If after a year I don't get a heart attack, that's not really proof exercise and a healthy diet are bad.
Actually, a better analogy of global warming skepticism might be after a year I get three heart attacks, and just pretend they never happened. Then I use that fact to claim exercise and healthy eating are bad.

That's the part I've never got. If you want to say global warming is a natural thing, fine, you're not completely wrong. But to say that because it is unlikely global warming is man-made implies we shouldn't try to change our pollution levels (which no one believes are positive)? Suppose my doctor tells me I'm at risk for heart disease, and I should exercise and eat more healthily. If after a year I don't get a heart attack, that's not really proof exercise and a healthy diet are bad.
Actually, a better analogy of global warming skepticism might be after a year I get three heart attacks, and just pretend they never happened. Then I use that fact to claim exercise and healthy eating are bad.

After you find a plumber to tell you that your doctor is wrong and has some sort of scientist conspirecy to get grant money.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it Climate Change?

It's like blaming the trash can for the smell, instead of the trash you put in it.

to an extent, yes. But what I don't understand is how utterly militant some people are about it. I mean, I understand if, you're...say....a coal company, you might not like the idea of global warming. But what truly boggles the mind is how some people, with no scientific training, and no real vested interest in the outcome, save the interest we all have in ensuring our planet stays habitable, are so rabidly against the idea. We even see some of it here, with some people so willing to post any time someone in some way suggests it might not be real.

Why this insistence that it's not real? Why this crusade to try and and discredit the idea that, "hey, all this shit we're throwing away? Maybe that might just possibly have some sort of impact"? I can't understand it. It's not like these kind of people really care about "the integrity of science", these are, after all, largely the same people who try to force "teach the controversy (that we invented)". Why are some people so militantly against the idea? Is it selfishness? Is that it? Do they just want it to so desperately to not be true, in order to justify their own behavior, so they don't have to feel guilty about their apathy? Or are they just so damned partisan that they must do everything in their power to discredit it, even if it involves outright lies, because that idea is supported by a prominent democrat?

Are they so deeply politically partisan that they're willing to plug their ears and scream, because the messenger is Al Gore? Even when that message is "hey, we may actually want to stop, you know, fucking up the planet"

to an extent, yes. But what I don't understand is how utterly militant some people are about it. I mean, I understand if, you're...say....a coal company, you might not like the idea of global warming. But what truly boggles the mind is how some people, with no scientific training, and no real vested interest in the outcome, save the interest we all have in ensuring our planet stays habitable, are so rabidly against the idea. We even see some of it here, with some people so willing to post any time someone in some way suggests it might not be real.

Why this insistence that it's not real? Why this crusade to try and and discredit the idea that, "hey, all this shit we're throwing away? Maybe that might just possibly have some sort of impact"? I can't understand it. It's not like these kind of people really care about "the integrity of science", these are, after all, largely the same people who try to force "teach the controversy (that we invented)". Why are some people so militantly against the idea? Is it selfishness? Is that it? Do they just want it to so desperately to not be true, in order to justify their own behavior, so they don't have to feel guilty about their apathy? Or are they just so damned partisan that they must do everything in their power to discredit it, even if it involves outright lies, because that idea is supported by a prominent democrat?

Are they so deeply politically partisan that they're willing to plug their ears and scream, because the messenger is Al Gore? Even when that message is "hey, we may actually want to stop, you know, fucking up the planet"

I suspect its because some people are just totally against any sort of environmental regulation for corporations.

to an extent, yes. But what I don't understand is how utterly militant some people are about it. I mean, I understand if, you're...say....a coal company, you might not like the idea of global warming. But what truly boggles the mind is how some people, with no scientific training, and no real vested interest in the outcome, save the interest we all have in ensuring our planet stays habitable, are so rabidly against the idea. We even see some of it here, with some people so willing to post any time someone in some way suggests it might not be real.

Why this insistence that it's not real? Why this crusade to try and and discredit the idea that, "hey, all this shit we're throwing away? Maybe that might just possibly have some sort of impact"? I can't understand it. It's not like these kind of people really care about "the integrity of science", these are, after all, largely the same people who try to force "teach the controversy (that we invented)". Why are some people so militantly against the idea? Is it selfishness? Is that it? Do they just want it to so desperately to not be true, in order to justify their own behavior, so they don't have to feel guilty about their apathy? Or are they just so damned partisan that they must do everything in their power to discredit it, even if it involves outright lies, because that idea is supported by a prominent democrat?

Are they so deeply politically partisan that they're willing to plug their ears and scream, because the messenger is Al Gore? Even when that message is "hey, we may actually want to stop, you know, fucking up the planet"

It's like recycling. Even the most basic recycling requires some lifestyle alteration to put in a little bit more effort into your daily life. People are stupid and lazy, and don't want to make those changes. It's an even greater change with greater environmental consciousness.

Never attribute to malice what can better be explained by stupidity (or laziness).

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it Climate Change?

not...really. In fact, I'd say that would be less accurate. "change" is a fairly vague term, "warming" is a lot more specific.

not...really. In fact, I'd say that would be less accurate. "change" is a fairly vague term, "warming" is a lot more specific.

You can't deny that some places on Earth are cooling down, while others are warming up.

not...really. In fact, I'd say that would be less accurate. "change" is a fairly vague term, "warming" is a lot more specific.
Err... both have happened over the last few million years, though.

not...really. In fact, I'd say that would be less accurate. "change" is a fairly vague term, "warming" is a lot more specific.

The one good thing about going with "change" instead of "warming" is that it's a slightly faster way of shutting up the people who think "well it totally snowed here yesterday" is an argument against "the GLOBE is getting warmer."

You can't deny that some places on Earth are cooling down, while others are warming up.

It refers to average temperatures of the global.

You can't deny that some places on Earth are cooling down, while others are warming up.

I don't think you fully understand the concept of "a warming trend". Moreover, where are these places on Earth that are experiencing an overall cooldown?

The one good thing about going with "change" instead of "warming" is that it's a slightly faster way of shutting up the people who think "well it totally snowed here yesterday" is an argument against "the GLOBE is getting warmer."

The difference between climate and weather is beyond these people. I tend to just ignore them.

Err... both have happened over the last few million years, though.

well...yes, that's true. And we can be fairly certain that they were all natural phenomena. We don't believe that dinosaurs burned fossil fuels. In fact, the image is vaguely cannibalistic....

However when discussing "global warming" the term is usually understood as something quite clear. A rapid global warming trend, caused by human intervention.

Considering we are still coming out of an ice age, I would hope that the planet is still warming up. The alternative is the start of another ice age and all...

to an extent, yes. But what I don't understand is how utterly militant some people are about it. I mean, I understand if, you're...say....a coal company, you might not like the idea of global warming. But what truly boggles the mind is how some people, with no scientific training, and no real vested interest in the outcome, save the interest we all have in ensuring our planet stays habitable, are so rabidly against the idea. We even see some of it here, with some people so willing to post any time someone in some way suggests it might not be real.

I think there are two reasons: first, it's something you can really see. I know, glaciers have melted, and there's less snow on that mountain than there was forty years ago, but I cannot honestly claim to have noticed global warming affecting my daily life; if scientists didn't tell me about it I would be in the dark. That's what gives people the idea that they are able to discount it. The reason people want to discount it is that, if the problem is as large as scientists say, fixing it is really, really hard. It will require a massive effort on the part of governments, but also on individuals. So, to summarize: there's this theory which I can't really see with my own two eyes, I have to just trust scientists. (And not just any scientists, scientists who study the weather. We all know their batting average.) If this theory is true, I will have to make personal sacrifices and see my government make it a priority over other things I like, with no tangible benefit for myself. Hmmm, do I want to believe this or not...
Eventually, I think most people will, plenty already do now. For everyone to get on board, though, activists will have to show that the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have many short-term, tangible benefits, in addition to longer-term goals.

I think there are two reasons: first, it's something you can really see. I know, glaciers have melted, and there's less snow on that mountain than there was forty years ago, but I cannot honestly claim to have noticed global warming affecting my daily life; if scientists didn't tell me about it I would be in the dark. That's what gives people the idea that they are able to discount it. The reason people want to discount it is that, if the problem is as large as scientists say, fixing it is really, really hard. It will require a massive effort on the part of governments, but also on individuals. So, to summarize: there's this theory which I can't really see with my own two eyes, I have to just trust scientists. (And not just any scientists, scientists who study the weather. We all know their batting average.) If this theory is true, I will have to make personal sacrifices and see my government make it a priority over other things I like, with no tangible benefit for myself. Hmmm, do I want to believe this or not...
Eventually, I think most people will, plenty already do now. For everyone to get on board, though, activists will have to show that the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have many short-term, tangible benefits, in addition to longer-term goals.


And going green and being environmentally sustainable can be very profitable as well. Its too bad not enough people are showing everyone that.

And going green and being environmentally sustainable can be very profitable as well. Its too bad not enough people are showing everyone that.

Right, those are some of the short-term benefits. And while our reliance on foreign oil probably isn't the bogeyman it's made out to be, it certainly can't hurt to limit it. While these aren't as important as the long-term goal of slowing global warming, they are useful in that they counter opposition based on economic grounds.

Considering we are still coming out of an ice age, I would hope that the planet is still warming up. The alternative is the start of another ice age and all...

if you want to go technical, we're in an ice age right now. we just happen to be ~12k years into an interglacial period

if you want to go technical, we're in an ice age right now. we just happen to be ~12k years into an interglacial period

No we're not, because there's no ice in my front yard.

Quod erat demonstratum, you're wrong.

to an extent, yes. But what I don't understand is how utterly militant some people are about it. I mean, I understand if, you're...say....a coal company, you might not like the idea of global warming. But what truly boggles the mind is how some people, with no scientific training, and no real vested interest in the outcome, save the interest we all have in ensuring our planet stays habitable, are so rabidly against the idea. We even see some of it here, with some people so willing to post any time someone in some way suggests it might not be real.

The problem, on this one, is within the scientists themselves. Pretty much, the scientists are creating an air that the existance of global warming is a fallacy; there's been a number of times when NASA's figures have been adjusted by a well-known global warming skeptic from Canada.

In addition to that, there's the well-known problems with the models not being able to fit actual world-temperature observations beyond a certain amount of time into the past without adjustment. My own studies of meteorology, as extremely amaturish as they are, suggest this would actually be an expected problem of modelling weather itself. Beyond a certain range of time, your weather data is guaranteed to be wrong. Not even the best prediction tool is capable of accounting for things we don't know.

The third issue is what we don't know. Clouds are, for the most part, still a mystery. Modelling them is next to useless, and yet it's generally agreed they have an impact, possibly a major impact, on Earth's weather system. They just don't know what that impact actually is.

The fourth part is the inaccuracy of simplification. The Carbon Dioxide Cycle is a misnomer; carbon dioxide does not drive warming on Earth. In fact, it's classified a minor greenhouse gas. The major driver of warming is, and always has been, water vapor. Carbon dioxide is just a minor feedback mechanism that keeps the water vapor part of the cycle going. Thus, by releasing carbon dioxide like we have, we quite possibly accidentally simulated a global rise in temperatures happening and caused the cycle to activate. The problem this is the question on if we can control it, or if the past history of the cycle proves that it is beyond controlling outside of natural mechanisms once it's started. Science cannot answer that because we are in a situation Earth has never faced before.

The fifth part is political; the IPCC, the UN body that deals with this, is arguably corrupted by politics. The scientists on it are chosen by politicians and representatives of each government not only get to choose who's on the panel, but also get a say in how the reports are editted. If you were to look up a particular report where the editor's comments were released because of the Freedom of Information Act, you'll find that the United States Government under Bush's control had more say in the word editting than the actual scientists did. In addition, Hansen, the guy who is in charge of the program in NASA that deals with this, has a known political agenda in favor of pushing through global warming reform.

The sixth part is that, mysteriously, NASA cannot recieve data from a number of stations, and haven't for years, that you can find current data on with a Google search.

The seventh part is that one of the major editors of the IPCC reports came out and outright stated he's a skeptic. I think you could see how it is people would question it when not even one of the editors believes it.

The final part is the accusations of bias within science communities themselves, of people losing their jobs just because they went against the common opinion. Whether or not these are true is irrelevant; what matters is that they exist and create an additional air of doubt around it.

There's actually a lot more than just this, but this is enough for most people. Keep in mind I am not stating my agreement with it, just part of the case against AGW.

Why this insistence that it's not real? Why this crusade to try and and discredit the idea that, "hey, all this shit we're throwing away? Maybe that might just possibly have some sort of impact"? I can't understand it. It's not like these kind of people really care about "the integrity of science", these are, after all, largely the same people who try to force "teach the controversy (that we invented)". Why are some people so militantly against the idea? Is it selfishness? Is that it? Do they just want it to so desperately to not be true, in order to justify their own behavior, so they don't have to feel guilty about their apathy? Or are they just so damned partisan that they must do everything in their power to discredit it, even if it involves outright lies, because that idea is supported by a prominent democrat?

Actually, it's because of the crusade to push certain things through.

Are they so deeply politically partisan that they're willing to plug their ears and scream, because the messenger is Al Gore? Even when that message is "hey, we may actually want to stop, you know, fucking up the planet"

Al Gore flies around in a heavily-polluting private jet and lives in a resource-consuming mansion. He's a hypocrite; that's why the campaign against him.

The problem, on this one, is within the scientists themselves. Pretty much, the scientists are creating an air that the existance of global warming is a fallacy; there's been a number of times when NASA's figures have been adjusted by a well-known global warming skeptic from Canada.

In addition to that, there's the well-known problems with the models not being able to fit actual world-temperature observations beyond a certain amount of time into the past without adjustment. My own studies of meteorology, as extremely amaturish as they are, suggest this would actually be an expected problem of modelling weather itself. Beyond a certain range of time, your weather data is guaranteed to be wrong. Not even the best prediction tool is capable of accounting for things we don't know.

The third issue is what we don't know. Clouds are, for the most part, still a mystery. Modelling them is next to useless, and yet it's generally agreed they have an impact, possibly a major impact, on Earth's weather system. They just don't know what that impact actually is.

The fourth part is the inaccuracy of simplification. The Carbon Dioxide Cycle is a misnomer; carbon dioxide does not drive warming on Earth. In fact, it's classified a minor greenhouse gas. The major driver of warming is, and always has been, water vapor. Carbon dioxide is just a minor feedback mechanism that keeps the water vapor part of the cycle going. Thus, by releasing carbon dioxide like we have, we quite possibly accidentally simulated a global rise in temperatures happening and caused the cycle to activate. The problem this is the question on if we can control it, or if the past history of the cycle proves that it is beyond controlling outside of natural mechanisms once it's started. Science cannot answer that because we are in a situation Earth has never faced before.

The fifth part is political; the IPCC, the UN body that deals with this, is arguably corrupted by politics. The scientists on it are chosen by politicians and representatives of each government not only get to choose who's on the panel, but also get a say in how the reports are editted. If you were to look up a particular report where the editor's comments were released because of the Freedom of Information Act, you'll find that the United States Government under Bush's control had more say in the word editting than the actual scientists did. In addition, Hansen, the guy who is in charge of the program in NASA that deals with this, has a known political agenda in favor of pushing through global warming reform.

The sixth part is that, mysteriously, NASA cannot recieve data from a number of stations, and haven't for years, that you can find current data on with a Google search.

The seventh part is that one of the major editors of the IPCC reports came out and outright stated he's a skeptic. I think you could see how it is people would question it when not even one of the editors believes it.

The final part is the accusations of bias within science communities themselves, of people losing their jobs just because they went against the common opinion. Whether or not these are true is irrelevant; what matters is that they exist and create an additional air of doubt around it.

There's actually a lot more than just this, but this is enough for most people. Keep in mind I am not stating my agreement with it, just part of the case against AGW.



Actually, it's because of the crusade to push certain things through.



Al Gore flies around in a heavily-polluting private jet and lives in a resource-consuming mansion. He's a hypocrite; that's why the campaign against him.

Wow. You sure say a lot of things are 'well known', when in reality, theyre crap.

Wow. You sure say a lot of things are 'well known', when in reality, theyre crap.

Are those two mutually-exclusive?

Are those two mutually-exclusive?

Fair enough.

The Carbon Dioxide Cycle is a misnomer; carbon dioxide does not drive warming on Earth. In fact, it's classified a minor greenhouse gas. The major driver of warming is, and always has been, water vapor.
The atmosphere is a pretty complex, intricate thing. Adding more of anything to it than usual is going to change it, no matter what the source of the extra stuff is.

Al Gore flies around in a heavily-polluting private jet and lives in a resource-consuming mansion. He's a hypocrite; that's why the campaign against him.

Dude, people rejected his position before that even came out.

Al Gore flies around in a heavily-polluting private jet and lives in a resource-consuming mansion. He's a hypocrite; that's why the campaign against him.
Not really. He campaigns for government action to combat global warming. If as vice-president or senator he did not work for this, he would be a hypocrite.

And that's not the real reason for the campaign against him. If Al Gore spoke in favor of extravagance and conspicuous consumption but lived in a hovel and drove a Volvo, I doubt many people would bat an eye. People disagree with his message, and use his personal habits as a way to go after him.

there's been a number of times when NASA's figures have been adjusted by a well-known global warming skeptic from Canada.

source?

In addition to that, there's the well-known problems with the models not being able to fit actual world-temperature observations beyond a certain amount of time into the past without adjustment.

source?


...

etc.

Wow. You sure say a lot of things are 'well known', when in reality, theyre crap.

Well, they're well known to be crap.

It goes in cycles, Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age, current period...

The problem is, although man's contribution is insanely small, when you work within a balanced system, like the one the Earth goes through, that insanely minuscule amount, has a habit of tipping the scales one way or the other, and now your cycles are fucked up...

man's contribution is insanely small

it really isn't

The problem is, although man's contribution is insanely small

Trillions of tons of CO2 is "insanely small"?

The atmosphere is a pretty complex, intricate thing. Adding more of anything to it than usual is going to change it, no matter what the source of the extra stuff is.

Please take the statement in context to what comes after in that section :) You'll find I already accounted for that, plus accounted for the different situation from the past events.

Dude, people rejected his position before that even came out.

Some of us rejected him before it even came out because we already knew that; it wasn't exactly that hidden.

I'm not saying I reject the message he tried to send. That the Earth is warming can be scientifically proven using events that have happened in the last century. Nor do I reject that carbon dioxide could have caused this; scientifically, it's more likely impossible for it to not have caused this. The only question that I ponder is if we can control it, or if the cycle itself is beyond our control. These are not reasons to not begin immediate cleanup; by not cleaning up, we can only make it worse, especially when you consider how much carbon dioxide we have around to act as a continual feeding mechanism to the oxygen actions that drive the cycle.

Not really. He campaigns for government action to combat global warming. If as vice-president or senator he did not work for this, he would be a hypocrite.

And that's not the real reason for the campaign against him. If Al Gore spoke in favor of extravagance and conspicuous consumption but lived in a hovel and drove a Volvo, I doubt many people would bat an eye. People disagree with his message, and use his personal habits as a way to go after him.

Honestly, I disagree with his actions and his habits. If he is going to give a message, he should be willing to lead the way. We have had many people throughout the years who have talked of change, and yet were unwilling to be a leader of change themselves and wanted others to lead for them. Since he is so willing to put himself in the spotlight, he should be willing to serve as an example. Instead, his actions mere act a fuel for the engine that keeps delaying what is necessary. In that, his message becomes a hurdle to the very change it encourages.

it really isn't

I mean in comparison to natural occurrences like Volcanoes, etc...

Its a very large amount, just really small in comparison...

But, I would say that even the comparatively small amount is enough to cause a whole host of Climate Problems that we are currently experiencing, so something still needs to be done about it...

source?



source?




etc.

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

There's a lot of information and a lot of sources in there. Not just in articles, but in sources provided by the commentors themselves. The blog itself is actually very good; the author does an excellent job of keeping track of environmental issues.

I also got the items for presenting what the argument actually is from there as well. You can see, in my post, a couple places where I disagree with the particular point I was commenting on.

I mean in comparison to natural occurrences like Volcanoes, etc...

so do i. we put out 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

now we're an order of magnitude below total photosynthesis and respiration, of course, but we are clearly a significant player in the make-up of the atmosphere

so do i. we put out 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

now we're an order of magnitude below total photosynthesis and respiration, of course, but we are clearly a significant player in the make-up of the atmosphere

See, I get conflicting information on that (unfortunately our only news radio is Fox News Radio, so its not hard to see why) , its really beside the point though, I would say, as either way something needs to be done...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it Climate Change?

Yes. :fluffle:

Do you believe in global warming at all?

It's not about believing. It's about: it's real, it's not.

Hmm... Let's ask the Expert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Seems by the poll we are largely in agreement global warming has both natural and man made causes. The debate needs to focus to what degrees the parties are at fault now.

Do you believe in global warming at all? Do you think it is man-made or natural? Thoughts and solutions?

Personally I not only believe that it is man-made, but I actually hope that it is man-made as well.

You see, I have a plan consisting of multiple stages.

Leave my car running, 24/7/365
Continually run all electrical appliances in my home at their maximum activity levels
Have a rack of harmful aerosol cans constantly emitting their contents before being replaced by fresh cans
Force-feeding entire fields of cows beans to produce more methane
Instead of recycling, burn ALL TRASH no matter the pollution emitted

The ultimate goal of this plan, which I am always trying to recruit more people into, is to warm the planet to a point where Britain is no longer the cold, wet, miserable island that it is today but rather a tropical paradise, where high temperatures and sunny skies reign supreme. If London is sunk by rising sea levels in the process I will consider that a bonus, as it'll drive house prices down quite a bit.

My plan to physically move the island further south failed early on (did you know that islands don't actually float on the water?!), so this is my next best choice.

I encourage everybody to help me in this endeavor. Help make Britain less depressing!

I encourage everybody to help me in this endeavor. Help make Britain less depressing!

Climate Change: making Siberia the hot place to be!

I think the only reason people are complaining about global warming is because there are more people then there were back when it happened in the Roman era. The lands will be flooding which will cause thousands to lose their homes. Back then this didn't really matter as much because there weren't as many people living in these areas where the flooding would occur. I think we should let nature take it's course...maybe the human population will go down a little and balance shit out a little more.

Personally I not only believe that it is man-made, but I actually hope that it is man-made as well.

You see, I have a plan consisting of multiple stages.

Leave my car running, 24/7/365
Continually run all electrical appliances in my home at their maximum activity levels
Have a rack of harmful aerosol cans constantly emitting their contents before being replaced by fresh cans
Force-feeding entire fields of cows beans to produce more methane
Instead of recycling, burn ALL TRASH no matter the pollution emitted

The ultimate goal of this plan, which I am always trying to recruit more people into, is to warm the planet to a point where Britain is no longer the cold, wet, miserable island that it is today but rather a tropical paradise, where high temperatures and sunny skies reign supreme. If London is sunk by rising sea levels in the process I will consider that a bonus, as it'll drive house prices down quite a bit.

My plan to physically move the island further south failed early on (did you know that islands don't actually float on the water?!), so this is my next best choice.

I encourage everybody to help me in this endeavor. Help make Britain less depressing!
Two words: gulf stream.

You people are entertaining, so I will make a thread based on degrees of both parties after this thread dies.

I think the only reason people are complaining about global warming is because there are more people then there were back when it happened in the Roman era. The lands will be flooding which will cause thousands to lose their homes. Back then this didn't really matter as much because there weren't as many people living in these areas where the flooding would occur. I think we should let nature take it's course...maybe the human population will go down a little and balance shit out a little more.

Heh methinks you have little or no understanding of the concept of climate change.

When it happens, it happens globaly and on a massive scale. It will not be a case of a little flooding, nor will the human population decrease a little bit.

Think ice age and you'll be in the right sort of area.:D

Mainly natural.

When it happens, it happens globaly and on a massive scale. It will not be a case of a little flooding, nor will the human population decrease a little bit.


And this is where I think that so many of the "do something now" arguments fall short. Is something going on? Yes. Do we know what the outcome of those changes will be? No, but we have a range of possibilities. So whenever someone wants to advocate large-scale action, they always fall back to the "describe the worst case (or the case that's even worse than that) like it's the probable outcome if we do nothing."

But it's not at all probable; it's at the very tip of the bell curve of possible outcomes. That's not what we need to worry about any more than we need to worry about alien invasion. Possible? Yes, but so frickin' unlikely that it's a waste of resources to discuss.

What we should be doing is looking at the fat part of the probability curve and doing cost-benefit analysis on trying to avoid it. It's the hyperventilating "But we'll all die if we don't completely rejigger EVERYTHING" minority that really keeps the silent majority turned away from doing something smaller (and more sensible.)

Know this, and it's not a climate-specific statement: People love to overreact.

global warming skepticism is the art of accepting that humanity actively dumps billions of tons of pollution into our land, sea, and air, but refusing to accept that this can actually have any impact.

Generally they believe that CO2 is not a pollutant in the first place.

I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE STILL DISPUTING THIS! LOOK AT THE SCIENCE, HELLO!

Only right-wing fascist Republicans like Sarah Palin could deny scientific evidence.

does global warming exist, yes. I am so convinced that we are the main factor, no.

prove to me that CO2 is an effective enough greenhouse gas that the amount we pump out accounts for the total temperature change.

However we humans do have an effect on the enviroment (CFCs and the ozone) but at least we are starting to take care of the enviroment.

I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE STILL DISPUTING THIS! LOOK AT THE SCIENCE, HELLO!

Only right-wing fascist Republicans like Sarah Palin could deny scientific evidence.

The world would be a much simpler place if only this were true. There are a whole range of people that can and do deny scientific evidence. They love it.

I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE STILL DISPUTING THIS! LOOK AT THE SCIENCE, HELLO!


Never stop questioning.
Thus spoke Einstein, the man who designed the most irrefutable physical theory ever (so far).

If the facts seem clear, it doesn't mean you shouldn't discuss it anymore. It just means discussing it becomes a bit more boring. In the end it seems you're debating about whether 2+2 truly equals 4.

I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE STILL DISPUTING THIS! LOOK AT THE SCIENCE, HELLO!

Only right-wing fascist Republicans like Sarah Palin could deny scientific evidence.

So quick to insult convservatives and Republicans. That is no way to get them on your side.

So quick to insult convservatives and Republicans. That is no way to get them on your side.

don't need them on our side, just need them out of the way.

Are there any good books on the subject for people (like me) lacking in scientific knowledge?

Two words: gulf stream.

Then we keep going with even more Global Warming to compensate!

so do i. we put out 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

now we're an order of magnitude below total photosynthesis and respiration, of course, but we are clearly a significant player in the make-up of the atmosphere

You could also add that volcanoes release substantial amounts of particulates as well which act to cool the climate by either simply blocking solar radiation (ash) or acting to promote cloud formation (sulphur dioxide).

There's a similar mechanism with some photosynthetic organisms as well, phytoplankton release Dimethyl sulphide (DMS) into the atmosphere. The particles act as condensation nucleii for clouds. Ironically we were doing something similar until we restricted use of aerosols and largely banned CFCs (not that i'm advocating starting to use CFCs again). Sorry, a little off topic.

I encourage everybody to help me in this endeavor. Help make Britain less depressing!

Bah, such an achievement is impossible

The fourth part is the inaccuracy of simplification. The Carbon Dioxide Cycle is a misnomer; carbon dioxide does not drive warming on Earth. In fact, it's classified a minor greenhouse gas. The major driver of warming is, and always has been, water vapor.

The issue with water vapour is twofold;
1. It works both ways: Water vapour in the atmosphere can produce warming, it's a large part of the reason why the earth's temperature is suitable for life. However when that water condenses to form clouds, it reduces incoming solar radiation by increasing atmospheric albedo and thus encouraging cooling. It's part of the reason why some of these geo engineering schemes involve cloud seeding or encouraging growth of DMS producing phytoplankton. In contrast carbon dioxide absorbs the radiation from the earth's surface but does not block solar radiation, it also has a longer atmospheric residence time.

2. The amount of water vapour in the atmopshere is temperature dependent: A high amount of atmospheric water vapour requires the atmosphere to be warm. Cold air does not hold moisture, it's why the centre of Antarctica is a desert. Therefore water vapour load, while it impacts the temperature, is largely a product of it and requires pre warming. It can make things worse but it can't initiate the problem.

As for my own opinion on the subject. The earth warms and cools naturally so there is no doubt that there is a natural aspect. The issue is not the warming itself but the fact that the rate is far too fast to be purely natural. We are not causing all the warming but we are accelerating it.

Sorry for the scary looking block of text, I started writing and found myself unable to stop.

I don't know, I've seen some pretty convincing evidence:

http://www.hogrockcafe.com/Global%20Warming%20Proof%20Positive.jpg

Maybe it's not all that bad...

And this is where I think that so many of the "do something now" arguments fall short. Is something going on? Yes. Do we know what the outcome of those changes will be? No, but we have a range of possibilities. So whenever someone wants to advocate large-scale action, they always fall back to the "describe the worst case (or the case that's even worse than that) like it's the probable outcome if we do nothing."

But it's not at all probable; it's at the very tip of the bell curve of possible outcomes. That's not what we need to worry about any more than we need to worry about alien invasion. Possible? Yes, but so frickin' unlikely that it's a waste of resources to discuss.

What we should be doing is looking at the fat part of the probability curve and doing cost-benefit analysis on trying to avoid it. It's the hyperventilating "But we'll all die if we don't completely rejigger EVERYTHING" minority that really keeps the silent majority turned away from doing something smaller (and more sensible.)

Know this, and it's not a climate-specific statement: People love to overreact.


Let me see, umm wrong, wrong, wrong and err oh yeah wrong.

The fact that the Earth has a history of climate change, and that via the study of geology we know how damaging to life that is and how extreame climate change is, and how once it reaches a certian point there is no stopping it, says that our worst fears are very real and valid, and indeed we should be doing all possible to try and counter it regardless of cost.

[Let me see, umm wrong, wrong, wrong and err oh yeah wrong.

The fact that the Earth has a history of climate change, and that via the study of geology we know how damaging to life that is and how extreame climate change is, and how once it reaches a certian point there is no stopping it, says that our worst fears are very real and valid, and indeed we should be doing all possible to try and counter it regardless of cost

I am new to the NSG forums, and thus lack the frame of reference (with regard to the poster) required to interpret whether this post is parody or self-parody. Judges?

The world would be a much simpler place if only this were true. There are a whole range of people that can and do deny scientific evidence. They love it.
They love the taste in their mouths as well, as one might expect of any cheaply-rented whore.
Like Palin.

Oh wait, it's amazing what the news divulges sometimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-palin15-2009apr15,0,3824210.story

Are there any good books on the subject for people (like me) lacking in scientific knowledge?

*cough*

[

I am new to the NSG forums, and thus lack the frame of reference (with regard to the poster) required to interpret whether this post is parody or self-parody. Judges?

Judges?
Perhaps you're looking for "peers".
The best "judge" in this circumstance is to familiarize yourself with the material and know that if it is jape or parody, both of you are sharing the joke.
If you like, there are plenty ... plenty ... of threads about this subject in the forum archives.
You might consider punching myself in the search field, past posts from myself and Desperate Measures might be of some use to you.

Perhaps you punch them in as well, as far as posting history, though, if that would suit you. :)

*cough*Have you considered any science journals, with updating of information constantly? Might be better.

It seems there's a lot of ignorance (less than 20% agreeing with reality) with all the people who incorrectly believe that global warming is natural when it is entirely man made (not partly natural and partly man-made either). Without human activity the Earth would actually be in a slight cooling cycle.

As for solutions, nuclear fission is the only viable solution we have at the moment (solar power and wind power and just diversions that prevent the fossil fuel industry from being destroyed).

don't need them on our side, just need them out of the way.This one, right here. Absofuckinglutely.

EDIT:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rightwing-extremists16-2009apr16,0,5094675.story

the sad fact is that the current administration while progressive, is not going to treat the issue of global climate change (and deforestation) with the red alert WWIII level urgency it deserves.

Gloabal Warming is part of a natural cycle, and is largely, if not totally, caused by a Solar event. So, unless you know how the human race can regulate the Sun, I wouldn't bother trying to get the various governments of the world to tackle something that they'd screw up all the while squandering the wealth of working people.

Look at the rate of growth and shrinkage of the Martian polar ice caps. Over the years, you will find that they mirror the growth and shrinkage of the Earth's polar ice caps.

Look at the rate of growth and shrinkage of the Martian polar ice caps. Over the years, you will find that they mirror the growth and shrinkage of the Earth's polar ice caps.

That suggests other factors coming into play but in no way disproves AGW hypothesis.

Look at the rate of growth and shrinkage of the Martian polar ice caps. Over the years, you will find that they mirror the growth and shrinkage of the Earth's polar ice caps.

no, they really really don't. go try to find a source for the claim, you'll see.

To my mind, in order for me to be satisfied that man made global warming really is happening, three things must be proved.

That global temperatures will continue to rise over the next 1000 years and that the consequence of such warming will be as disasterous as is predicted.
That global temperature and carbon dioxide levels are in fact linked and that the relationship is that CO2 affects temperature and not the other way around.
That man can be reliably held responsible for the rise in CO2 and any consequential or otherwise rise in temperature.

The issues with the first point are mainly to do with the fact that most of the statistics we have are for a very long period of time and the class widths are often several thousand years wide. It is therefore difficult to look at a more short term impact over the next 100 or even 1000 years. Also, the ice caps make up a percentage of the world's water that is in the single figures and in all probability would not cause the sea level rises predicted, particularly not in the short term. In the long term it is possible due to the increased temperatures causing the expansion of the water in the sea but this would (due to the sheer size of the sea) take a very long time. Other than that I would accept this in that the consequences are not limited to the rise in sea levels and the amount of climate models suggesting continued temperature rise.

The second point is an altogether more tricky one and this is where a lot of the doubt lies. The correlation is fairly obvious and shows that in all probability, there is a link. However, correlation does not always imply a relationship. For example there is correlation between the declining number of pirates in the world and the rise in temperature but these two are clearly unrelated. I accept that the CO2, temperature relationship is (for the moment) the only one rooted in any hard science and so would accept it with reservations. Given this, it is more difficult to establish which way the relationship goes. It is entirely possible that a rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2. However, if you look at the shape of the temperature/co2 graphs for the last 160000 years you see that when co2 rises a little, temperature rises a lot. This is characteristic of a relationship whereby the smaller rise causes the larger and it is therefore most probable that co2 does indeed affect temperature. However, the possibility of other factors in the relationship is by no means ruled out and it is still possible to conceive that we have the relationship completely the wrong way around.

The final point to be proven is based on (admittedly extremely strong) circumstantial evidence. If we accept that an abnormal increase in co2 is in fact the cause of the current increased rate of warming then we must establish that said abnormal increase in co2 is caused by man. This is a case of: well who else could it be? if nothing else. The rapid industrialisation of the last three hundred years corresponds to the abnormal increase in co2 levels but this is not enough to rule out other factors.

It is therefore, by no means certain that man made global warming is real. There are many doubts that still need to be assuaged before we can fully accept it. But for now prudency dictates that we must accept it on the balance of probabilities and do what we can to combat it. It is however, important to keep an open mind as to the other possiblities and factors.

Generally they believe that CO2 is not a pollutant in the first place.

and if it wasn't for its climate forcing impacts, it wouldn't be

The theory of human-caused climate change is a conspiracy perpetuated by the lizardmen and their Illuminati friends to hide the fact that its really caused by a massive heat generator they've put just under the surface. Due to overpopulation, they've run out of space in the interior of the hollow Earth, and are now plotting to warm up the planet's surface to make it all ideally habitable for lizards.

To my mind, in order for me to be satisfied that man made global warming really is happening, three things must be proved.

That global temperatures will continue to rise over the next 1000 years and that the consequence of such warming will be as disasterous as is predicted...

planning on living for a 1000 years, eh?

I can not believe any self respecting scientist would buy into this theory unless they wanted funding because this is trash science. I would hate to offend some one, but their is no other way to put it. All they are doing is throwing a disaster out their so they can increase their power/funding. If their is no disaster then people will not want to waste time on some of these studies. As it turns out one of these studies has shown that there is the same amount of ice now as there was 30 years ago, but the truth is the ice is dynamic and it changes often so it would not take much for either side of the argument to use it in their favor. In a graph overlay of temp vs CO2 there is a very(I do stress very) loose correlation, which would show either there is no causation or the more likely thing is that it is a insignificant piece of the Earth's climate puzzle so much so that the temp is barely reliant on it. Recent studies have shown that the sun is at the peak of it's solar activity cycle, which could mean(like people seem to forget) that as usual the Earth is just being adversely effected by the sun.

The theory of human-caused climate change is a conspiracy perpetuated by the lizardmen and their Illuminati friends to hide the fact that its really caused by a massive heat generator they've put just under the surface. Due to overpopulation, they've run out of space in the interior of the hollow Earth, and are now plotting to warm up the planet's surface to make it all ideally habitable for lizards.

Fucking called it!

Seriously, I'm think that the change is mainly caused by nature, but man has had a serious effect.

I can not believe any self respecting scientist would buy into this theory unless they wanted funding because this is trash science. I would hate to offend some one, but their is no other way to put it. All they are doing is throwing a disaster out their so they can increase their power/funding.

I hate this argument. The money is a complete non issue for 3 reasons. Firstly there are plenty of people who have a vested interest in there being no change. Oil companies in particular are very very wealthy and can fund research far more efficiently than environmental groups or governments. Secondly, if people were deliberately fixing evidence then they would get crushed in peer review. Thirdly, if these people were motivated by money they would not become research scientists. Even if they were, they do not see that money in their own pockets so it is irrelevant anyway.

but the truth is the ice is dynamic and it changes often so it would not take much for either side of the argument to use it in their favor.

This is the one thing I agree with you on. However a consistent change in one direction is not a good thing. Also, to pre-empt this (assuming it will come up), thickening of ice in the Antarctic centre can actually be triggered by warming (I will explain how if anyone is interested). You mention that the total amount of ice is the same, assuming global ice this means nothing. If ice sheets in the Northern hemisphere are melting but central Antarctic ice is growing at a matched rate it can still mean warming.

Recent studies have shown that the sun is at the peak of it's solar activity cycle, which could mean(like people seem to forget) that as usual the Earth is just being adversely effected by the sun.

The solar activity cycle is an 11 year cycle, the warming trend has been going on properly since about 1980 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/ which means that it if it was driven by the sunspot cycle we would see a marked variation within each cycle which we don't. Not to say that we never see it. As I've already said there is an element of natural variation which does fit temperature trends up until 1980 or so, where it diverges in a big way. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris this site also shows the raw data from which he made the graph http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/solact.html

I also question your assertion that we are at the peak of a solar cycle http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg this shows the solar cycles since the the 18th century and clearly shows that the last peak was in about 2000, we are in a trough at present. The sunspot cycle is not a complete explanation and never has been.

I hate this argument. The money is a complete non issue for 3 reasons. Firstly there are plenty of people who have a vested interest in there being no change. Oil companies in particular are very very wealthy and can fund research far more efficiently than environmental groups or governments. Secondly, if people were deliberately fixing evidence then they would get crushed in peer review. Thirdly, if these people were motivated by money they would not become research scientists. Even if they were, they do not see that money in their own pockets so it is irrelevant anyway.

I had to laugh at the bolded part.

There's been a lot of controversy over peer-reviews over the past few years. One of the biggest ones is the question on if the peer reviews themselves haven't become tainted by bias. It may not seem dangerous when the peer review bias is in favor of science that helps, but what it does do is potentially create the idea that a person must go along entirely with the prevailing winds of science or be unable to publish anything and have it considered credible, possibly not getting anything published at all. No publications means no job after awhile, thus making it an issue where you have to go along with the prevailing theory or else.

And the underlined part: Some oil companies and a lot of coal companies actually stand to make billions from supporting global warming existing. The coal companies can make a lot of money off of the pipe dream that is clean coal, while those oil companies would make all of their money in supplying plastics and other materials that are necessary for major green technologies, such as solar power. If anything, these people only stand to gain more power in the end.

The solar activity cycle is an 11 year cycle, the warming trend has been going on properly since about 1980 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/ which means that it if it was driven by the sunspot cycle we would see a marked variation within each cycle which we don't. Not to say that we never see it. As I've already said there is an element of natural variation which does fit temperature trends up until 1980 or so, where it diverges in a big way. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris this site also shows the raw data from which he made the graph http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/solact.html

The warming trend itself has actually been going on longer than that. The warmer weather that started in 1980 is actually after a temporary cooling that happened after the 1940s, which is when the first talk about the planet warming actually happened.

Interestingly, the cooling that followed the 1940s was with a fear that the planet was sliding into a severe ice age. You can see this fear continued on in modern science, with the idea that global warming could trigger an ice age. So, yes, I must accept that, even while global warming is happening and man is the cause, some of the science involved is bunk sensationalism.

I hate this argument. The money is a complete non issue for 3 reasons. Firstly there are plenty of people who have a vested interest in there being no change. Oil companies in particular are very very wealthy and can fund research far more efficiently than environmental groups or governments. Secondly, if people were deliberately fixing evidence then they would get crushed in peer review. Thirdly, if these people were motivated by money they would not become research scientists. Even if they were, they do not see that money in their own pockets so it is irrelevant anyway.



This is the one thing I agree with you on. However a consistent change in one direction is not a good thing. Also, to pre-empt this (assuming it will come up), thickening of ice in the Antarctic centre can actually be triggered by warming (I will explain how if anyone is interested). You mention that the total amount of ice is the same, assuming global ice this means nothing. If ice sheets in the Northern hemisphere are melting but central Antarctic ice is growing at a matched rate it can still mean warming.



The solar activity cycle is an 11 year cycle, the warming trend has been going on properly since about 1980 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/ which means that it if it was driven by the sunspot cycle we would see a marked variation within each cycle which we don't. Not to say that we never see it. As I've already said there is an element of natural variation which does fit temperature trends up until 1980 or so, where it diverges in a big way. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris this site also shows the raw data from which he made the graph http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/solact.html

I also question your assertion that we are at the peak of a solar cycle http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg this shows the solar cycles since the the 18th century and clearly shows that the last peak was in about 2000, we are in a trough at present. The sunspot cycle is not a complete explanation and never has been.


Basically the point I'm trying to make is that if their is a fad or some sort of recognition gaining thing to do in science this would be it. The science has shown that their is obviously a correlation(depending on how exact you want to be), but the major thing is none of that very same science points to a causation and at this point Global Warming is being pushed by politics and not science.

The last thing I heard was that the Solar Cycle was a 20 year thing, but for the sake of argument I will go with the 11. First of all The climate is a never steady thing and on a temperature anomaly graph(I would have to look up the link again just let me know if you want it) it showed that it stayed fairly stable until about 450 thousand years ago and it started jumping around a lot and was getting warmer and colder temperature patterns out of it. This would lead me to believe something else is driving the change and it could possibly be the out put of the sun(remember we have not been measuring the output of the sun until more recently).

There's been a lot of controversy over peer-reviews over the past few years. One of the biggest ones is the question on if the peer reviews themselves haven't become tainted by bias. It may not seem dangerous when the peer review bias is in favor of science that helps, but what it does do is potentially create the idea that a person must go along entirely with the prevailing winds of science or be unable to publish anything and have it considered credible, possibly not getting anything published at all. No publications means no job after awhile, thus making it an issue where you have to go along with the prevailing theory or else.

I can see your point here and I don't know enough about the peer review process to argue otherwise, so I'll have to concede that.

And the underlined part: Some oil companies and a lot of coal companies actually stand to make billions from supporting global warming existing. The coal companies can make a lot of money off of the pipe dream that is clean coal, while those oil companies would make all of their money in supplying plastics and other materials that are necessary for major green technologies, such as solar power. If anything, these people only stand to gain more power in the end.

Possibly. Oil companies can make money selling depleted oil fields for carbon capture and storage as well. The real issue though is whether they stand to gain more than they will lose. Without a doubt there would be extra restrictions put on oil exploration and production due to environmental concerns. You also have to consider if the amount of money oil companies would make enough from plastics to account for the loss of oil based products as a direct energy resource. Once the initial flurry of activity with construction of "green" power dropped, they could find themselves in a much worse position, especially if alternate fuels were used for transport as well. I would also say that a larger proportion of the money from these technologies would go to mining companies rather than oil given the materials required to construct them, maybe not for solar but certainly for wind, tidal and geothermal (which is incidentally much underused). This is mostly speculation though and no one can really predict what people are going to do.


The warming trend itself has actually been going on longer than that. The warmer weather that started in 1980 is actually after a temporary cooling that happened after the 1940s, which is when the first talk about the planet warming actually happened.

Interestingly, the cooling that followed the 1940s was with a fear that the planet was sliding into a severe ice age. You can see this fear continued on in modern science, with the idea that global warming could trigger an ice age. So, yes, I must accept that, even while global warming is happening and man is the cause, some of the science involved is bunk sensationalism.

I was referring to the point at which the warming trend diverges from the sunspot activity, marking where natural cycles appear to not account for warming. My fault however for not making that clearer. The ice age fears, certainly around the 1970s were based on the cooling potential of particulates and it never achieved widespread consensus. I agree that some of what we hear is sensationalism, however much of that is not down to the science but rather the reporting of the science. I don't think it can be referred to as "trash science" which was the reason for the original response.

Finally warming causing an ice age is actually (surprisingly) based on logic. The idea is that cold fresh water from the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets could screw up the thermohaline circulation in the Northern Atlantic which would shut down the Gulf stream. This in turn would grow the ice sheets again, increasing the amount of solar radiation reflected back into space and cooling even further. As far as I'm aware it's been established that this particular scenario is not very likely.

Basically the point I'm trying to make is that if their is a fad or some sort of recognition gaining thing to do in science this would be it. The science has shown that their is obviously a correlation(depending on how exact you want to be), but the major thing is none of that very same science points to a causation and at this point Global Warming is being pushed by politics and not science.

I will agree it is imperfect, but the causation has largely been implied by the elimination of other factors that we are aware of. Admittedly there is enough that we don't know which could be causing the problem but it would also have to account for the rate of warming. As for who is pushing it forward, you are right but in order for it to be pushed forward in such a way there has to be a legitimate scientific concern. Politicians love to do nothing as it is an easy option, in order for them to do something there have to be voices saying "look, this could be a problem", of course they then overreact. It's also controlled by what we see, most of the reporting on the subject is done on the political side rather than the scientific.

My original issue was actually with you calling it trash science when it is not. Imperfect yes, but not trash.

First of all The climate is a never steady thing and on a temperature anomaly graph(I would have to look up the link again just let me know if you want it) it showed that it stayed fairly stable until about 450 thousand years ago and it started jumping around a lot and was getting warmer and colder temperature patterns out of it.

If you wouldn't mind finding the link again then I would be interested in seeing it. The main problem at the moment, as I've said, is the separation from known natural cycles and the rate of warming. However, I'm always open to seeing new data.

no, they really really don't. go try to find a source for the claim, you'll see.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Can't find a link with historical records, at this time. Here's a link on the solar activity theory.

Denying that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will not result in a warming trend is denying thermodynamics.

I can see your point here and I don't know enough about the peer review process to argue otherwise, so I'll have to concede that.

I, on the other hand, do. He's entirely wrong.

I can see your point here and I don't know enough about the peer review process to argue otherwise, so I'll have to concede that.

It's one of the problematic points. If the accusations are correct, then you have a case where one of the major checkpoints of science has failed. If they're not, then you still have the problem of them existing and the continued damage they do. In either case, science doesn't win this one.

Possibly. Oil companies can make money selling depleted oil fields for carbon capture and storage as well. The real issue though is whether they stand to gain more than they will lose. Without a doubt there would be extra restrictions put on oil exploration and production due to environmental concerns. You also have to consider if the amount of money oil companies would make enough from plastics to account for the loss of oil based products as a direct energy resource. Once the initial flurry of activity with construction of "green" power dropped, they could find themselves in a much worse position, especially if alternate fuels were used for transport as well. I would also say that a larger proportion of the money from these technologies would go to mining companies rather than oil given the materials required to construct them, maybe not for solar but certainly for wind, tidal and geothermal (which is incidentally much underused). This is mostly speculation though and no one can really predict what people are going to do.

I can guarantee you those restrictions would vanish in a hurry when the full water cost of attempting to make plastics from plants comes to the attention of policy makers. While it's technologically possible to do so, it's resource-unfeasible; the cost in just water to help these plants grow alone is enormous. That's before you include the items that increase greenhouse gases in their production, such as fertilizers, or the sheer amount of land necessary to replace oil.

Of course, it won't stay that way. Already, new sources of oil are getting more and more difficult to use and technology is continuing to advance. If we put enough effort into researching and experimenting on the issue, I'm certain we could reverse the situation. We just need to do the work.

Also, I'll note that oil companies are not going anywhere when the "green" technologies come in. Most of the major ones, such as solar panels, actually require oil as one of the resources you tap to make them. Plus, the oil necessary for materials of batteries to store power in for when the solar panels aren't working. And then there's the other technologies. Windmills currently require either coal or oil as an essential component, tidal power is ecologically damaging to the point of potential unviability, and geothermal is plagued by tectonic stability issues. None of these problems are insolveable; we just need to work harder.

I was referring to the point at which the warming trend diverges from the sunspot activity, marking where natural cycles appear to not account for warming. My fault however for not making that clearer. The ice age fears, certainly around the 1970s were based on the cooling potential of particulates and it never achieved widespread consensus. I agree that some of what we hear is sensationalism, however much of that is not down to the science but rather the reporting of the science. I don't think it can be referred to as "trash science" which was the reason for the original response.

Finally warming causing an ice age is actually (surprisingly) based on logic. The idea is that cold fresh water from the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets could screw up the thermohaline circulation in the Northern Atlantic which would shut down the Gulf stream. This in turn would grow the ice sheets again, increasing the amount of solar radiation reflected back into space and cooling even further. As far as I'm aware it's been established that this particular scenario is not very likely.

I'll admit that the idea of warming causing an ice age is logical. It's, IIRC, one of the theories about how the natural heating-cooling cycle of the planet works. And it may be merely the reporting of the science itself that causes most of the sensationalism. Just that I do remember some scientists projecting doom and gloom scenarios that were logically rediculous as ways of trying to spur people to action. Most people I talk to disbelieve even the realistic disaster scenarios because of the trash science ones.

I, on the other hand, do. He's entirely wrong.

So I am wrong in stating that some scientists, who's topics should be perfectly easy to figure out, have accused the process of having developped a bias and thus created a bit of controversy?

I, on the other hand, do. He's entirely wrong.

Care to explain? (I'm not disagreeing with you, but just saying "He's wrong" isn't exactly convincing.)

I can guarantee you those restrictions would vanish in a hurry when the full water cost of attempting to make plastics from plants comes to the attention of policy makers. While it's technologically possible to do so, it's resource-unfeasible; the cost in just water to help these plants grow alone is enormous. That's before you include the items that increase greenhouse gases in their production, such as fertilizers, or the sheer amount of land necessary to replace oil.

I'm not really talking about reduction in the use of oil for plastics. The loss of revenue for oil companies would be in power generation and transport. It would be offset somewhat by the need for plastics and other oil products in other forms of electricity generation but that would not be as continuous as the oil requirement at present.

I was actually unaware of the potential for plastics from plants. The water issue however may not be as significant as you make out. Moving to cleaner forms of electricity increases the feasibility of widespread desalination as it would no longer be an environmental nightmare (at least from the energy requirements). The land and fertiliser content is a fair point though although I would personally be more worried about water contamination with fertilisers.

Of course, it won't stay that way. Already, new sources of oil are getting more and more difficult to use and technology is continuing to advance. If we put enough effort into researching and experimenting on the issue, I'm certain we could reverse the situation. We just need to do the work.

The thing I'm most concerned about is that once the easy to reach oil goes, people will turn to oil shale and methane hydrates. If this happens then it'll just be the status quo for however long it takes us to find out whether this is a real issue.


Also, I'll note that oil companies are not going anywhere when the "green" technologies come in. Most of the major ones, such as solar panels, actually require oil as one of the resources you tap to make them. Plus, the oil necessary for materials of batteries to store power in for when the solar panels aren't working. And then there's the other technologies. Windmills currently require either coal or oil as an essential component, tidal power is ecologically damaging to the point of potential unviability, and geothermal is plagued by tectonic stability issues. None of these problems are insolveable; we just need to work harder.

I agree that they're not going to fail as companies but I find it hard to believe that their revenue (and more importantly for them, profit) would stay at the same kind of level as it is at now, or was relatively recently ago anyway. The increased use of plastics would be largely offset by the loss of their products as major transport and direct power generation fuels. Again, this is based on if we go the whole distance with transport as well as power.

I agree largely with your assessment of alternative power generation. I do however doubt the utility of solar and wind (the pet project that will supposedly save us in the UK) as they are not suitable for base load power generation. Wind is especially bad as there can be sustained periods where the turbines don't work at all. Tidal is a horrible concept. As far as geothermal goes, if a realistic assessment of the stress in the rock is achievable then it's not an issue. The problem is that water lowers the amount of stress required to fracture the rock. If the stress is accurately measureable and the faults in the area are mappable then it's safer. Also a lot of sites use groundwater already present at the depth required, this does however limit the locations a lot more. The other problem of course is mineralisation in the pipes. I do think that it is the most promising of the sources though as it can provide a constant rate of generation and is more suited to widespread use than people think.

I, on the other hand, do. He's entirely wrong.

How is he wrong? Like I said, I don't know enough to comment but that doesn't mean I dont want to know.

Care to explain? (I'm not disagreeing with you, but just saying "He's wrong" isn't exactly convincing.)

Scientists want to overturn orthodoxy. The whole concept of scientists crushing dissent is nothing more than people whining about scientists rejecting their pseudoscience. Furthermore, the people who do the review have no stake in the journal in which it is published. They are independent. And it's not one scientist doing peer review. It's many.

A quick search does turn up some people who have criticized peer review, but those I have found are universally not doing research. Rather, they serve as editors. One of them even has a reason to scapegoat peer-review. (He's the editor of the Lancet, and has approved very many poorly-done studies for publication. The peer-review could have failed, or he could have been either incompetent or dishonest. He has a vested interest in demonizing peer-review, because if peer-review is not at fault then he's very bad at his job. He's hardly trustworthy in this case.)
And the system self-regulates. The Lancet isn't exactly a trusted journal anymore. That's what happens when a journal publishes bad science. Someone notices it, and the journal is screwed.

I, on the other hand, do. He's entirely wrong.

Just to spin off from this, it's also worth noting that the scientific community will consider even drastic challenges to the existing orthodoxy. See, for example, that whole cold-fusion thing. Despite being completely contrary to the prevailing scientific understanding, it was considered, evaluated, and eventually rejected on its (lack of) merits as a scientific idea.

In the case of manmade climate change it is somewhat different. There are people who say "This is the data, but the cause is not man". However, every single thing they've tried to point to so far has been demonstrated insufficient or downright false. The result, really, is that they have to settle for trying to misrepresent or downright falsify the data, and hope they don't get called out on it by real scientists. That's a reason they don't get published, not any conspiracy on the part of the scientific mainstream.

I can guarantee you those restrictions would vanish in a hurry when the full water cost of attempting to make plastics from plants comes to the attention of policy makers. While it's technologically possible to do so, it's resource-unfeasible; the cost in just water to help these plants grow alone is enormous. That's before you include the items that increase greenhouse gases in their production, such as fertilizers, or the sheer amount of land necessary to replace oil.Synthetic hydrocarbons are more likely to be done if we need to make oil (and we could even have it done carbon neutral).

Also, I'll note that oil companies are not going anywhere when the "green" technologies come in.No, but that might have something to do with the 'Green' technologies being pretty much useless (if you are willing to use something that is non-renewable but which we can depend on for the billion years despite that then you'll have a chance solving the problem).

Of course it should be noted that it isn't really the oil companies that are the problem, but the coal and especially natural gas companies (ok, most oil companies also deal with methane) since oil isn't really used much for power generation.

Most of the major ones, such as solar panels, actually require oil as one of the resources you tap to make them. Plus, the oil necessary for materials of batteries to store power in for when the solar panels aren't working. And then there's the other technologies. Windmills currently require either coal or oil as an essential component, tidal power is ecologically damaging to the point of potential unviability, and geothermal is plagued by tectonic stability issues. None of these problems are insolveable; we just need to work harder.We do not actually know for sure that none of those problems are insolvable (until a country has run on 80% wind power I'm not going to believe that it's a viable solution, Denmark topped out at 20% because that was all their grid could handle and they didn't even manage to close any coal plants).

If we don't get good energy storage systems (i.e. much better than pumped hydro) then wind is never going to be useful for much of anything and solar will be a minor intermediate load supplier (at least on the main grid) and it is not all certain that we will have those energy storage systems or what the economics of them will be like.

Of course the fact that the 'green' technologies can't replace fossil fuels might have something to do with them being promoted so heavily. Might also be worth look at the difference in energy policy of Germany (which uses a lot of coal) and Sweden (which uses almost none).

The thing I'm most concerned about is that once the easy to reach oil goes, people will turn to oil shale and methane hydrates. If this happens then it'll just be the status quo for however long it takes us to find out whether this is a real issue.A lot of people blabber on about how we're running out of fossil fuels completely ignorant of the fact that we are not running out of fossil fuels.

If we were running out of fossil fuels we'd be replacing them with something else (and we very much are not doing that, no matter how much the windbags may think they are).

A lot of people blabber on about how we're running out of fossil fuels completely ignorant of the fact that we are not running out of fossil fuels.

If we were running out of fossil fuels we'd be replacing them with something else (and we very much are not doing that, no matter how much the windbags may think they are).
That's probably the stupidest thing posted in the entire thread.

"Global warming" is rubbish, backed by bogus science and trotted out to support government control over more and more of the world economy and the rights of individuals.

Just one more report exposing the global warming Chicken Littles: the Antarctic ice sheet is presently growing, not melting.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

But facts just get in the way of the statist power grab, don't they?

Personally, I'm doing everything I can to increase my carbon footprint. :p

*Snip lots of garbage, and foul hot air*

Personally, I'm doing everything I can to increase my carbon footprint. :p

I can see that.

Edit: Do you realize how much you sound like a poorly-written villain of an 80's cartoon?

That's probably the stupidest thing posted in the entire thread.

I once had an argument with a very respectable professor (of computer science), because he was claiming that, among other things, the entire environmentalist movement was a conspiracy orchestrated by the British royal family, dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. He also believed that we would never run out of fossil fuels, due to there being an unlimited supply under the ground, and various other ridiculous things.


If we don't get good energy storage systems (i.e. much better than pumped hydro) then wind is never going to be useful for much of anything and solar will be a minor intermediate load supplier (at least on the main grid) and it is not all certain that we will have those energy storage systems or what the economics of them will be like.

We do. They're called flywheels. Simple, effective, insanely easy to hook up, etc. Combined with some other tricks, such as solar-thermal plants for the baseload, and this would be fairly easy to do. The biggest issue, really, is the fact that it would cost money, and a lot of money, to do enough building of alternate fuel sources to start to displace coal.


A lot of people blabber on about how we're running out of fossil fuels completely ignorant of the fact that we are not running out of fossil fuels.

If we were running out of fossil fuels we'd be replacing them with something else (and we very much are not doing that, no matter how much the windbags may think they are).

I'm sorry, I was under the (evidently naive) impression that fossil fuel companies would have a serious financial interest in keeping everyone on coal and oil, even when they're beginning to run out, in order to make as much money from them as possible. And when I combined that with the fact that every reputable scientist agrees that fossil fuel resources are finite, and generally going to run out or get seriously scarce within our lifetimes, I was silly enough to believe that maybe we are actually running out.

Would you happen to have any evidence at all to support your contention?

"Global warming" is rubbish, backed by bogus science and trotted out to support government control over more and more of the world economy and the rights of individuals.

Just one more report exposing the global warming Chicken Littles: the Antarctic ice sheet is presently growing, not melting.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

But facts just get in the way of the statist power grab, don't they?

Personally, I'm doing everything I can to increase my carbon footprint. :p

You may want to actually read the article.

I liked the comments on NM's news story.

volusiarunner of FL Posted at 12:45pm today

Listen up evilbunny and the rest of you deacons of the Global Warming Church. You fools are worse than the Catholic Church during the renaissance which persecuted Galileo for daring to show evidence contrary to the popular beliefs of that time. The truth is that your man-made global warming theory is your religion. Many scientists and meteorologists are already being persecuted for daring to show evidence that is contrary to your global warming religion. And like the Church of old, the global warming nuts will do anything to silence dissent. Hey, here¿s a thought, how about letting the evidence speak for itself? Most of you Al Gore types are still using old data or overly inflated and discredited numbers anyway. So when global warming is debunked in such a way that even you will concede, what will you do? Oh I guess you will just call it ¿global change¿ and still blame man for it. Wake up! Find another religion or separate your faith from science.

George Hudak of USA Posted at 12:45pm today

Funny you should mention science... Any sixth grade science education could reveal that Man made global warming is a hoax the purpose which is to.... enrich al gore - and his global carbon trading company?, enrich research scientists - no problem no more money?, spread the wealth from high energy use socities to low energy use ones?... Pick your favorite or add your own. Why is there no open debate? Becuase it would be exposed. Warming is leading CO2 levels - not the reverse. The whole premise is shot down by looking over the raw data and scrapping the "models" - ps models also predicted there would be no problem in the derivitives markets... funny how that worked out isn't it.

happy21frank Posted at 12:37pm today

To Luke of Sydney, I believe that if you actually read the article you will find that Greg Robinson of the Australian didn't just make up the story. The information was provided by Ian Allison, head of the glaciology program for the Australian Antarctic Division. That kind of makes him what one would call "an expert". I guess that makes you an "armchair global warming fanatic". By the way, I'll let you in on a little secret, since you don't seem to understand where the water is coming from, the antarctic didn't form on a body of land, IT'S FLOATING ON THE LARGEST BODY OF WATER ON THE PLANET. Have you ever noticed what happens when water comes into contact with really cold ice? More ice forms. It really is sort of simple so that even the most simple minded people can understand. (I'm not sure what that says about Luke) Also to evilbunny, here's another simple experiment for you. Place about half of a glass of water on the counter at room temperature and add three or four ice cubes. Mark the water level on the glass. Wait until the ice melts and then check the water level again. (No cheating, the ice has to be free floating just like in the antarctic)

By the way, that article is actually blatantly lying. I went and looked up Ian Allison, and I can't find him saying anything about the ice cap not melting. I've found a whole lot said by him about the ice cap melting, though.

He also believed that we would never run out of fossil fuels, due to there being an unlimited supply under the ground, and various other ridiculous things.There isn't an unlimited supply of them, but we do have enough to last us at least a hundred years so we aren't running out just yet.

We do. They're called flywheels. Simple, effective, insanely easy to hook up, etc.Also completely unproven for large scale energy storage.

Combined with some other tricks, such as solar-thermal plants for the baseload, and this would be fairly easy to do. The biggest issue, really, is the fact that it would cost money, and a lot of money, to do enough building of alternate fuel sources to start to displace coal.No matter what we do we're going to have to spend money, I'd simply prefer that money be spent on technologies that we can actually count on (and solar thermal has not reached that stage).

I'm sorry, I was under the (evidently naive) impression that fossil fuel companies would have a serious financial interest in keeping everyone on coal and oil, even when they're beginning to run out, in order to make as much money from them as possible.If we were running out then fossil fuel prices would be getting higher and higher as harder sources are used, that would create economic incentives to get off them.

And when I combined that with the fact that every reputable scientist agrees that fossil fuel resources are finite, and generally going to run out or get seriously scarce within our lifetimes, I was silly enough to believe that maybe we are actually running out.I do not know of any reputable scientist who believes we will run out of coal within a hundred years (and we can convert it to other fossil fuels if we need to).

There are also other unconventional fossil fuel sources out there along with oil in Antarctica (I'd rather we not use them, but I know humans too well to expect that).

Now if we can get life extension technology working then we might be able to run out of fossil fuels, but I doubt anyone who is blabbering on about running out of oil is basing their projections on us living to a thousand (and many of them are deathists).

There isn't an unlimited supply of them, but we do have enough to last us at least a hundred years so we aren't running out just yet.

See later comments about increasing energy consumption. Furthermore, coal etc have quite enough negative effects without worrying about running out - pollutants produced by burning them, and production of greenhouse gases to accelerate climate change, are two other objections. Also, from a more nationalist point of view, a switch to sustainable energy resources will reduce dependence on foreign supplies and vulnerability to the swings of the market.


Also completely unproven for large scale energy storage.

What is there to prove? It's a simple application of physics - you attach a big motor to a flywheel, spin it up when you have spare electricity, let it drive the motor when you need it back. If you want to store more energy, spin it faster, or build another flywheel.


No matter what we do we're going to have to spend money, I'd simply prefer that money be spent on technologies that we can actually count on (and solar thermal has not reached that stage).

Good thing we're already working with it, and it's generating 300odd MW in the USA. Some of the information from the NREL (http://www.nrel.gov/csp/publications.html) may prove interesting and/or informative.


If we were running out then fossil fuel prices would be getting higher and higher as harder sources are used, that would create economic incentives to get off them.

I don't know which planet you're living on, but the one I'm on has been seeing record oil prices recently, and most of the predictions say that this is going to be fairly permanent.


I do not know of any reputable scientist who believes we will run out of coal within a hundred years (and we can convert it to other fossil fuels if we need to).

Granting, for the sake of argument, that we have 100 years of coal left at current usage levels, you fail to take into account the massive increase in energy use every year, driven by (among other factors) a steadily increasing global population, and China and India moving into the modern, consumerist world.


There are also other unconventional fossil fuel sources out there along with oil in Antarctica (I'd rather we not use them, but I know humans too well to expect that).

Yay, trash the few remaining parts of the Earth we haven't yet, all for a short-term, irreplacable boost.


Now if we can get life extension technology working then we might be able to run out of fossil fuels, but I doubt anyone who is blabbering on about running out of oil is basing their projections on us living to a thousand (and many of them are deathists).

Transhumanist, are you? In which case you of all people should realise that increasing advances in technology and consumerism are going to lead to massive increases in energy consumption, which our current systems cannot cope with. We then have the choice - build new fossil fuel plants, accelerating consumption, or move to renewable sources.

You can't deny that some places on Earth are cooling down, while others are warming up.

While I wouldn't try to deny that, it isn't all us. We're still technically in an ice age, due to the presence of the polar ice caps; we are therefore speeding up a perfectly natural process.

See later comments about increasing energy consumption. Furthermore, coal etc have quite enough negative effects without worrying about running out - pollutants produced by burning them, and production of greenhouse gases to accelerate climate change, are two other objections.Coal does have serious problems (serious enough for us to change over) but the fact of the matter is that we've still got enough that we could continue to run our civilisation without changing over.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't move away from coal, just that the need isn't coming from running out (along with that we probably won't, the renewables are simply not up to the job of replacing coal no matter how much you'd like to think they are).

Also, from a more nationalist point of view, a switch to sustainable energy resources will reduce dependence on foreign supplies and vulnerability to the swings of the market.The market is sufficiently dependable that I don't have any problem with using it.

What is there to prove? It's a simple application of physics - you attach a big motor to a flywheel, spin it up when you have spare electricity, let it drive the motor when you need it back. If you want to store more energy, spin it faster, or build another flywheel.That it can actually handle storing energy for a large scale power grid.

Things aren't as simple in the real world as they are in physics experiment land (i.e. spherical cows don't exist).

Good thing we're already working with it, and it's generating 300odd MW in the USA. Some of the information from the NREL (http://www.nrel.gov/csp/publications.html) may prove interesting and/or informative.How does the cost compare to a 1000 MW AP1000?

Solar thermal does not have a very good record so far and also causes massive environmental devastation for the power produced (deserts very much do have life).

I don't know which planet you're living on, but the one I'm on has been seeing record oil prices recently, and most of the predictions say that this is going to be fairly permanent.I'm on the one where oil prices just went down by quite a bit.

Now the oil prices probably will stay up, but higher prices mean such things as coal to oil become economically viable as does oil from unconventional sources.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that we have 100 years of coal left at current usage levels, you fail to take into account the massive increase in energy use every year, driven by (among other factors) a steadily increasing global population, and China and India moving into the modern, consumerist world.We've actually got more than 100 years left, 100 years would cover coal to oil becoming commonplace and probably cover China and India moving into the industrialised world (China is also building hydroelectric dams as quickly as they can and both those countries have also announced major nuclear builds so they won't be all coal).

With power plants having a typical life of half a century, 50 years left would be far enough in the future for me to consider a resource not running out.

Yay, trash the few remaining parts of the Earth we haven't yet, all for a short-term, irreplacable boost.I'm not saying we should, I'm saying that we probably will.

I'd prefer not to drill in Antarctica but there is oil there and if we haven't found a replacement (which people like you are doing your best to stop us from doing) then we will end up drilling there.

Transhumanist, are you? In which case you of all people should realise that increasing advances in technology and consumerism are going to lead to massive increases in energy consumption, which our current systems cannot cope with. I want us to become a K1 civilisation and I realise that fossil fuels won't be able to cope with that (but then again, we'll probably be space based by that time and space is where solar power is actually useful).

We then have the choice - build new fossil fuel plants, accelerating consumption, or move to renewable sources.Except for the fact that renewable sources can't replace fossil fuels (that's why they are being promoted, because those who put up wind turbines are also finding that they need natural gas turbines).

If you want to solve global warming you're going to have to be willing to use the 'N' word, it's as simple as that.

While I wouldn't try to deny that, it isn't all us. We're still technically in an ice age, due to the presence of the polar ice caps; we are therefore speeding up a perfectly natural process.Yes it is all us, if it were not for us the planet would actually be in a very slight cooling cycle. Completely reversing does not sound like speeding up to me.

We're still technically in an ice age, due to the presence of the polar ice caps; we are therefore speeding up a perfectly natural process.

That still does not negate the fact that each time polar ice has expanded & receded, it took thousands of years to do so. Now the ice has receded in just a few decades. That what you call SUPER SPEEDY!

Learn more about polar ice:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/

Happy Earth Day to the IPCC, The Nobel Prize Commitee, The EPA, The WMO, NOAA, NASA, the US Supreme Court and everyone else that has validated AGW.

Think keen! Think green!
:D

Happy Earth Day to the IPCC, The Nobel Prize Commitee, The EPA, The WMO, NOAA, NASA, the US Supreme Court and everyone else that has validated AGW.

Think keen! Think green!
:DStupid tokenism like Earth day really does need to stop.

Stupid tokenism like Earth day really does need to stop.

Since the Chiahoga River has not caught on fire since Earth day began, it's probably the smartest holiday on the calendar!

Since the Chiahoga River has not caught on fire since Earth day began, it's probably the smartest holiday on the calendar!Was Earth day what stopped it from catching fire?

I'd say that's very unlikely (especially when you consider just how little effect turning all the lights off for one hour actually has).

Was Earth day what stopped it from catching fire?


From catching fire again. YES!!!

I'd say that's very unlikely (especially when you consider just how little effect turning all the lights off for one hour actually has).

The Earth Day movement was why the EPA was created. A lot of rivers and lakes became cleaner after that. And a lot of new sewage treatment techniques were invented because of the EPA along with many other innovations. Reagan brought the EPA to a grinding halt right after he was elected in 1980, but they made a comeback and the innovations continued. Didn't they?

The EPA was created because there were serious pollution problems, a single day did not cause it.

The EPA was created because there were serious pollution problems, a single day did not cause it.

Yea! Just a coincidence that the First Earth Day and the birth of the EPA were both in 1970.
:rolleyes: