like herding cats.

AND FUCK THE UNITED STATES. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING NOT WANTING ANY DEFINITIVE TARGETS FOR REDUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE.

i haven't had a problem with the iraq war, the disastrous health insurance system or anything else but this affects me personally. god damn idiots. if you guys vote for another bushlike individual i will kill myself and take you down with me.

we are playing russian roulette with our planet. to quote craig venter. we're all going to hell.

new rules: no more hummers, jeeps, limosines, private jets, yachts. those should all be forbidden outright. a certain limit to gallons/mile of any car that can be used. higher taxes on meat production, especially meat that is produced by animals that emits a lot of methane. the united states should start getting a decent mass transportation system. the united states should stop sucking and being evil. all people in the united states should be shot if they don't comply.

money should be taken from the west to help developing countries get energy from nuclear power. no more destruction of big forest areas in said developing contries. give money. plant more forests. plant a big forest on russia.

there should be a limit to how many miles a person can fly per year. if the limit is crossed, the person must start paying taxes that are then used to plant and preserve forests and to develop new techniques for reducing carbon dioxide emission. there get going you fucking assholes.

Let me guess you smoked meth for the first time tonight.

this is what i'm talking about. we're all doomed

lold @ plant a big forest on russia

Absolutely.

If you want to have an honest discussion. What the hell will taxing beef do?

Raise the price.

fuck global warming.

soon greenland will melt and forests will grow in the antartic.

maybe the extra forests in the antartic will even out the logging and pollution?

i'm sure if any more forests grow it won't be long before they're sold and stripped

i just spoke to my father over the phone. he's in umeå for a bussiness meeting that will take 1 hour, he flew there (it's about 1000 km) and will fly back. they could have had a video conferance but the client wanted them to be there and since they've got competitors, they have to do whatever the clients tells them. this is usually a pretty good system but in this case IT FAILS AND WE NEED LAWS

Im all for conservation. but fuck global warming. trust me. its the biggest scam since vietnam

MILANKOVITCH CYCLE! PERIGLACIAL! FUCK OFF GORE YOU COCKASS

but fuck global warming. trust me. its the biggest scam since vietnam
you must be a dickhead then.

Im all for conservation. but fuck global warming. trust me. its the biggest scam since vietnam

what makes you think so?

My problem is with the idiotic green movement. I was watching this new show about eco friendly inventors. In one segment they are painting a roof white to counteract the heat island effect in cities, 20 minutes later they are putting up black solar panels on a roof to save energy.

MILANKOVITCH CYCLE! PERIGLACIAL! FUCK OFF GORE YOU COCKASS

bingooo

That's it?

i didn't know that vietnam was such a global scientific scam.

yeah, that comparison was a bit weird

but yeah, milankovitch cycle fo rizzeal

you must be a dickhead then.

I think we've done this before, but ok... I'll make it simple for you.

the earth, a big swirling maelstrom of random cause and effect gases and micro-climates

the sun, a fucking great big massive pulsating ball of fucking gas!

trust fucking humanity with all our delusions of grandeur to accredit ourselves with the ability to destroy our own planet, while at the same time a giant ball of gas in the sky is overlooked as one of the main variable factors in the change of our climate.
We arent destroying the planet through CO2 emissions, if anything it is the destruction of the worlds forests, alongside the quite striking amount of fertiliser used to grow our crops, that is causing the most damage and acidification of the sea.

the human effect on global warming is an uncertainty, it cant be proven with so many potential variables. For god's sake, cant we please tackle the issues which we know are our fault before we go dicking around trying to change something that quite frankly isnt an immediate priority.

Again they are using scare tactics for economic motives and needs. I know it sounds wanky and lefty, but really, in a world with scarce fossil fuel, there needs to be some justification found somewhere for its control.



I dont know why i said vietnam. :noway:

seriously, i cant think of anything else that annoys me more than this. Granted, there are valid arguments for both sides, but 90% of the time it is idiots on a bandwagon that dick me off with ignorant ill informed opinions.

anyway. sorry, carry on.

I'm unclear what exactly you are saying.

global warming is or isn't happening?

global warming isn't the fault of humanity so we shouldn't worry about it?

global warming: no biggie.

global warming alarmist are using scare tactics for economic motives? what?

Sorry, i was ranting. Let me be rational here.

Global warming is currently happening, but this is perfectly natural to happen! The climate of the earth moves in cycles, or glacial periods. hot to cold, then cold to hot. every.... 10,000 years or so (with small fluctuations, did you know the river Thames froze over in the 1600's?)

To confidently attribute the effects of excessive global warming to humanity is absurd when you consider all the random variables present in the climate. Particularly that of the chaotic weather patterns and the quite trule staggering power of the sun. (Check out stuff like the milankovitch cycle here http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm)

Global warming is not really significant when we sit up and notice all the other fucked up shit we are doing to the planet, things that will get us waaaaay before this will.

My problem is with the idiotic green movement. I was watching this new show about eco friendly inventors. In one segment they are painting a roof white to counteract the heat island effect in cities, 20 minutes later they are putting up black solar panels on a roof to save energy.
how stupid can you be?

white = reflects sun and heat

black = absorbs sun and heat.

so if you want to use solar panels, which use the energy and heat from the sun to generate electricity, of course black is the best choice.

and if you want to keep a house cool, painting the roof white is a great idea.

i don't see anything idiotic there.

Global warming is not really significant when we sit up and notice all the other fucked up shit we are doing to the planet, things that will get us waaaaay before this will.
most of the "fucked up shit" is caused by pollutants. global warming emissions are pollutants too, which also have other effects other than just global warming, regardless if you believe so.

taking a negative stance against something because it's "not as positive as it claims to be" is pretty stupid.

just because reducing emissions might not reduce global warming doesn't mean it's bad to do so, it will have other advantages too.

and then if the huge likelihood chance that you are wrong turns out to be true, then it will be even more important of an achievement.

the most harm can result from the best intentions when the nature of cause and effect is unknown. See:

the waste of the opportunity to eradicate, or at least permanantly minimise the risk of many many diseases through the intelligent and restrictive use of antibiotics

Thalidomide

DDT

CFC's

TNT

The list goes on.

My point is, that in focusing all of our attention and resources on the potential danger in this matter, how can we be sure that we arent downplaying other more urgent concerns simply because they are not economically paramount.

it's not about global warming. it's not about al gore.

the environmental movement is important, but so many of the changes we need to make for environmental problem solving are things we should be doing regardless of whether the ice caps are melting or not. whether it be building spiritual connections with nature, practicing healthy ecological stewardship, or supporting local economies...we don't need global warming as our excuse. and it all feeds back to social and cultural concerns. not just the jolly green giant or the lorax or what have you

it should be called global weirding instead.

Sorry, i was ranting. Let me be rational here.

Global warming is currently happening, but this is perfectly natural to happen! The climate of the earth moves in cycles, or glacial periods. hot to cold, then cold to hot. every.... 10,000 years or so (with small fluctuations, did you know the river Thames froze over in the 1600's?)
True enough. But apparently, the crisis is not the mere fact that were in a warming cycle, but how accelerated it is this time. The earth is supposedly warming at a faster rate than ever before. Isn't there some ridiculous stat that says the top 7 or 8 hottest average recorded years in human history is just within the last decade?


To confidently attribute the effects of excessive global warming to humanity is absurd when you consider all the random variables present in the climate. Particularly that of the chaotic weather patterns and the quite trule staggering power of the sun. (Check out stuff like the milankovitch cycle here http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm)

Looking through your milankovitch information, nobody right out actually connects this with our current global warming.

I think you're greatly exaggerating the role of the sun in global warming. Check out this link:
Climate Myths:Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650)

So why don't you accept the latest IPCC findings that global warming is happening and they are 90%(?) certain that humanity is affecting it?

if you seriously believe that reducing emissions and switching to green (or less pollutive) power sources where possible is not in our best interests or worth trying to achieve that's sad.

i think you just get off on trying to be "different" or having a different opinion to the common view, even if it's silly.

if it's not the most important factor facing the world right now (which i agree it might not be) it doesn't stop it being worthwhile. and it doesn't mean we shouldn't do whatever is possible to ease the problem and find solutions.

at least netphoria is doing its part to conserve our laptop's energy with this sweet black background. easier on our screens.

if you seriously believe that reducing emissions and switching to green (or less pollutive) power sources where possible is not in our best interests or worth trying to achieve that's sad.

i think you just get off on trying to be "different" or having a different opinion to the common view, even if it's silly.

if it's not the most important factor facing the world right now (which i agree it might not be) it doesn't stop it being worthwhile. and it doesn't mean we shouldn't do whatever is possible to ease the problem and find solutions.
was this in response to my post?

what's better? green power sources so that we can keep achieving so and so an end, continuing along a path that maintains our current energy consumption; or creatively changing our practices so we can progressively consume less?

this is the techno-fantasy vs. green-tech stability vs. earth stewardship debate. industrial ascent and creative descent. true sustainability. da da da

how stupid can you be?

white = reflects sun and heat

black = absorbs sun and heat.

so if you want to use solar panels, which use the energy and heat from the sun to generate electricity, of course black is the best choice.

and if you want to keep a house cool, painting the roof white is a great idea.

i don't see anything idiotic there.


most of the "fucked up shit" is caused by pollutants. global warming emissions are pollutants too, which also have other effects other than just global warming, regardless if you believe so.

taking a negative stance against something because it's "not as positive as it claims to be" is pretty stupid.

just because reducing emissions might not reduce global warming doesn't mean it's bad to do so, it will have other advantages too.

and then if the huge likelihood chance that you are wrong turns out to be true, then it will be even more important of an achievement.

You have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. You have no clue what a heat island is and how it's horrible for cities and energy savings. Cities are 20 degrees hotter because of everything black, black top roads, dark roofing etc. So there for if you put solar panels one everything you will just make the cities even fucking hotter thus cause people to use more energy to cool their, which kind of overrides the tiny amount of energy you get from a solar panel. From now please have some fucking clue what you are talking about before you reply.

BumbleBeeMouth -

good points.. i have heard about all of those arguments. Even if they are not as strong as some people make them out to be, they do serve to well show how little we understand about something so completely mind-blowingly complicated and dynamic as our solar system. To think that any one dude and his team of washington cronies who makes an "inconvenient" movie has ALL the answers is complete and utter bullshit.

I challenge anyone who thinks bumbleBeeMouth's points arn't valid to prove it.


it's not about global warming. it's not about al gore.

the environmental movement is important, but so many of the changes we need to make for environmental problem solving are things we should be doing regardless of whether the ice caps are melting or not. whether it be building spiritual connections with nature, practicing healthy ecological stewardship, or supporting local economies...we don't need global warming as our excuse. and it all feeds back to social and cultural concerns. not just the jolly green giant or the lorax or what have you

it should be called global weirding instead.


Good post. What we should start doing is stop being stupid.. ie relying on on foreign energy sources. There is no reason whatsoever that a nation with as much industrial might and capabilities as the united states should not be able to sustain her own power/energy requirements from resources found within her own borders. I am talking about nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and to a small extent, wind. Coal, oil and natural gas are terrible, in-efficient wastes of money, and forgetting the entire global warming argument completely, certainly do nothing to help the air quality of the cities nearby.

The problem is those morons who keep getting elected to washington, are much too concerned with the ideas of the fickle masses, and the large companies who payed for their campaign to ever do anything about it.


how stupid can you be?

if you seriously believe that reducing emissions and switching to green (or less pollutive) power sources where possible is not in our best interests or worth trying to achieve that's sad.

i think you just get off on trying to be "different" or having a different opinion to the common view, even if it's silly.


Stop attacking people. Stop for a minute and think.. do you actually know what you are talking about? Are you involved in new research on the causes and effects of global warming? Do you even fully understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect? or do you just read a few condensed, one-sided articles on the internet and appoint yourself an expert on the topic?

The problem with people today, and the reason why global warming seems like such a big deal, is because there is a lot of money spent, buy very cunning politicians who really want everyone to believe everything they say. From here it is just human nature to talk about what we have been sold into thinking.. to amplify some story that we heard so each time it sounds more interesting.

new rules: no more hummers, jeeps, limosines, private jets, yachts. those should all be forbidden outright. a certain limit to gallons/mile of any car that can be used. higher taxes on meat production, especially meat that is produced by animals that emits a lot of methane. the united states should start getting a decent mass transportation system. the united states should stop sucking and being evil. all people in the united states should be shot if they don't comply.

Communist.


money should be taken from the west to help developing countries get energy from nuclear power. no more destruction of big forest areas in said developing contries. give money. plant more forests. plant a big forest on russia.

I hope you are joking, either that or you are an idiot. First of all, we shouldn't hand out nuclear secrets like playing cards. Developing countries don't have the technical resources and experience to run nuclear power plants safely. Developing countries dont have the energy demand to warrant nuclear power plants. Large countries with industrial capability and large energy demand (like the united states) should have more nuclear power plants.



If you want to have an honest discussion. What the hell will taxing beef do?


He is referring to the fact that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Cows fart methane. If enormous amounts of methane were suddenly released into the environment, it would cause global catastrophe at a much higher rate than if it were carbon dioxide.

It is a theory which spans from small, laboratory based experiments, and counts for nothing on a global scale.

Literal bullshit.

You have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. You have no clue what a heat island is and how it's horrible for cities and energy savings. Cities are 20 degrees hotter because of everything black, black top roads, dark roofing etc. So there for if you put solar panels one everything you will just make the cities even fucking hotter thus cause people to use more energy to cool their, which kind of overrides the tiny amount of energy you get from a solar panel. From now please have some fucking clue what you are talking about before you reply.
not at all. urban heat islands are not linked to global warming, it's much more of a temporary issue. green power = number one priority, so black for sdolar panles is more important than negating the heat island effect. but for other less important things, such as roofing, any steps / measures that can be taken are good.

there is nothing contradictory there. people should stop trying to pick apart suggestions and solutions for not being complete or perfect and start doing whatever they can. a little is better than nothing.

was this in response to my post?
no, of course not. i agree with you. it was in response to bumblebee.

You have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. You have no clue what a heat island is and how it's horrible for cities and energy savings. Cities are 20 degrees hotter because of everything black, black top roads, dark roofing etc. So there for if you put solar panels one everything you will just make the cities even fucking hotter thus cause people to use more energy to cool their, which kind of overrides the tiny amount of energy you get from a solar panel. From now please have some fucking clue what you are talking about before you reply.


agreed trev is an idiot.. but there is a little bit more to it than that. The black solar panels will convert more sun energy (which would have been converted directly into heat) into electrical energy and therefore less total heat.

Now depending on what that electrical energy is used for, may or may not make the cities alot hotter. I think the bigger problem than the color of the roof is a small city with a million people in it all running their own personal air conditioner.. but you are right there are alot of conflicting theories behind the environmental wackos.

just because reducing emissions might not reduce global warming doesn't mean it's bad to do so, it will have other advantages too.



ill agree with you here.

There is absolutely no advantage to generating electricity with coal, oil, and natural gas over other more advanced technologies.

Completely ignoring the global warming issue, we really should get our act together and stop wasting money and destroying the economy/stability of this country.

is there any place to go for good information about this issue? They all seem like nut/retard arguments on either side whenever I try to read about it...

Stop attacking people. Stop for a minute and think.. do you actually know what you are talking about? Are you involved in new research on the causes and effects of global warming? Do you even fully understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect? or do you just read a few condensed, one-sided articles on the internet and appoint yourself an expert on the topic?

The problem with people today, and the reason why global warming seems like such a big deal, is because there is a lot of money spent, buy very cunning politicians who really want everyone to believe everything they say. From here it is just human nature to talk about what we have been sold into thinking.. to amplify some story that we heard so each time it sounds more interesting.
yes, i know what i'm talking about
no, i'm not involved with research
yes, i understand the sciences behind the phenomena which we are discussing
no, i don't just read a few, i talk to lots of people, and read from many, mainly objective sources. i don't consume much of the commercial media content at all.
no, i don't appoint myself an "expert"

the problem you address is because only now is it becoming such a large issue, and reaching out to enough people for it to become a political issue with any weight.

i've been interested in these issues for over 15 years, as soon as i was aware of them. through biology, physics, geography in high school through to discussion forums at major universities across australia, i do my best to find unbiased factual information.

it really makes me sad how people use these issues for personal attention, and mis-information for alternative motives.

what have i said that makes you think i'm in that group?

my main point has been: regardless of how people may think other factors affect global warming (and how i disagree), that reducing human impact on environmental change in all areas is important and should not be considered "wrong" or "useless" just because it is not the only perfect solution.

is there any place to go for good information about this issue? They all seem like nut/retard arguments on either side whenever I try to read about it...


unfortunately no, not many.. not on the internet anyway. Everything is complete hype, designed to either scare you into believing, or undercut all the arguments of the people trying to scare you. Just make sure you read both sides of the issue.

There is a great book that talks about the actual mechanics of what happens to heat or cool the earth.. putting the science into easy to understand terms and such, without trying to sell you on one side of the debate or another, and i cant remember what it is called and it is pissing me off right now.. ill figure it out and post it back here. Its great because it gives a good foundation of knowledge to people who wouldn't otherwise know what is really going on, so they can then read the articles and start to form an educated opinion.

Fuck, cant remember still, it has been a while. Ill email my uncle, he still has a copy i think.

what have i said that makes you think i'm in that group?

my main point has been: regardless of how people may think other factors affect global warming (and how i disagree), that reducing human impact on environmental change in all areas is important and should not be considered "wrong" or "useless" just because it is not the only perfect solution.


i think it was your calling people stupid that made me think you were one of those who goes around calling everyone an idiot because they know how global warming works because al gore told them so. If i have done so in error, i apologize.

If you want to cut pollution down than fine, i am on your side.. but it is for completely different reasons. Accusing people of getting their kicks because they purposely think outside the box just to piss everyone else off is crap. Unless you can talk intelligently about this topic without cut and pasting from wikipedia, then it might do you some good to go read up on the topics that BumbleBeeMouth is talking about. They arn't as glamorous as al gore's movie, but they most certainly hold water.

originally posted by Debaser:

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeMouth
Im all for conservation. but fuck global warming. trust me. its the biggest scam since vietnam



what makes you think so?




The biggest issue I had/have with GW is the demogaugery Al Gore puts forth, particularly the rhetoric about the "debate is over" non-sense.



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c


from the above article:


Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)"


Can't figure out what's worse, the IPCC or the "Rock Stars" who gussied up to Al Gore during his stupifying agenda driven brainwashing concert.

Can't figure out what's worse, the IPCC or the "Rock Stars" who gussied up to Al Gore during his stupifying agenda driven brainwashing concert.


my heart sunk a little bit when i found out the pumpkins were doing that show.. when billy was a complete dick-head on stage with his zeitgeist airplane banner circling the stadium i was relieved though. Good old billy. Fuck you al gore.

BumbleBeeMouth -

good points.. i have heard about all of those arguments. Even if they are not as strong as some people make them out to be, they do serve to well show how little we understand about something so completely mind-blowingly complicated and dynamic as our solar system. To think that any one dude and his team of washington cronies who makes an "inconvenient" movie has ALL the answers is complete and utter bullshit.

I challenge anyone who thinks bumbleBeeMouth's points arn't valid to prove it.





Good post. What we should start doing is stop being stupid.. ie relying on on foreign energy sources. There is no reason whatsoever that a nation with as much industrial might and capabilities as the united states should not be able to sustain her own power/energy requirements from resources found within her own borders. I am talking about nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and to a small extent, wind. Coal, oil and natural gas are terrible, in-efficient wastes of money, and forgetting the entire global warming argument completely, certainly do nothing to help the air quality of the cities nearby.

The problem is those morons who keep getting elected to washington, are much too concerned with the ideas of the fickle masses, and the large companies who payed for their campaign to ever do anything about it.





Stop attacking people. Stop for a minute and think.. do you actually know what you are talking about? Are you involved in new research on the causes and effects of global warming? Do you even fully understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect? or do you just read a few condensed, one-sided articles on the internet and appoint yourself an expert on the topic?

The problem with people today, and the reason why global warming seems like such a big deal, is because there is a lot of money spent, buy very cunning politicians who really want everyone to believe everything they say. From here it is just human nature to talk about what we have been sold into thinking.. to amplify some story that we heard so each time it sounds more interesting.



Communist.




I hope you are joking, either that or you are an idiot. First of all, we shouldn't hand out nuclear secrets like playing cards. Developing countries don't have the technical resources and experience to run nuclear power plants safely. Developing countries dont have the energy demand to warrant nuclear power plants. Large countries with industrial capability and large energy demand (like the united states) should have more nuclear power plants.






He is referring to the fact that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Cows fart methane. If enormous amounts of methane were suddenly released into the environment, it would cause global catastrophe at a much higher rate than if it were carbon dioxide.

It is a theory which spans from small, laboratory based experiments, and counts for nothing on a global scale.

Literal bullshit.

I agree with the cows and methane part and I understand that. My problem is with the taxes. Either you try to take the money and use it to promote green causes, or they use it as a way to try to reduce dependence on beef by raising the price. Neither model will actually work IMO.

i'll call whoever the fuck i want to call any names i like, it's completely irrelevant to the issue. you become the close-minded individual if you let that affect your judgement.

when have said anything about al gore? or even wiki? what have i cut and pasted?

you (and others in this thread) have proven you don't read or comprehend something that doesn't fit what you believe a credible argument should. "oh one of his first posts was name calling, he knows nothing", "he's trying to simplify the issue, he knows nothing".

as i said, show me something i wrote. i wouldn't call conspiracy theories "thinking outside the box" but i would think a lot of it is for attention, in one way or another. just look at any other conspiracy theory and the people pushing them, and their motives.

Stop attacking people.

okay...


I hope you are joking, either that or you are an idiot.


agreed trev is an idiot.


Fuck you al gore.

hmmmm...

I challenge anyone who thinks bumbleBeeMouth's points arn't valid to prove it.


I challenge you to read the 6th previous post (http://forums.netphoria.org/showpost.php?p=3098062&postcount=34) before yours.

is there any place to go for good information about this issue? They all seem like nut/retard arguments on either side whenever I try to read about it...

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462)


Site run by actual climate scientists:
http://realclimate.org/

originally posted by < sp3:

my heart sunk a little bit when i found out the pumpkins were doing that show.. when billy was a complete dick-head on stage with his zeitgeist airplane banner circling the stadium i was relieved though. Good old billy. Fuck you al gore.

well...little doubt the record label had a hand in it and Billy rolled with it. Oppurtunity lost however to really make some noise and get some attention...i wouldn't expect him to call Al Gore out on stage. But, the event came and went and is now completely forgettable.

just get rid of all cows. more food, less farts

The biggest issue I had/have with GW is the demogaugery Al Gore puts forth, particularly the rhetoric about the "debate is over" non-sense.
Well it's over for the most part with the vast majority of climate scientists, would you admit to that? You have the IPCC that represents tens of thousands of scientists around the world. 11,000 signatories alone that signed a letter condemning this administration's stance on climate science. And how many are on the most vaunted signature list of climate change skeptics? 60. Of which most of them are not actively studying climate change.

Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654)




http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c


You do realize that the EPW is headed by a certifiable loon in Jim Inhofe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe) , right? A christian fundamentalist who compares environmentalists to nazis and calls global warming the "second largest hoax ever played on the American people after separation of church and state".



from the above article:


Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)"


I'm not a scientist but I can post a climate scientists' rebuttal to Monckton to speak for itself.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

new rules: no more hummers, jeeps, limosines, private jets, yachts. those should all be forbidden outright. a certain limit to gallons/mile of any car that can be used. higher taxes on meat production, especially meat that is produced by animals that emits a lot of methane. the united states should start getting a decent mass transportation system. the united states should stop sucking and being evil. all people in the united states should be shot if they don't comply.

i agree completely. another thing that should be outlawed is irresponsible use of natural resources for marketing. those little vehicles with mini-billboards that drive around all day. how is that any kind of useful use of gasoline.

also the government/military needs to stop wasting just to get their annual budgets for the next year. quit dumping jet fuel to ensure next year's grant allocation.


my opinion on climate change - yes we do not have definitive proof there is damage but there are enough probable causal links and potentially correct hypotheses involving emissions etc that it is stupid to just say "well, we've polluted a lot but we don't know if it's doing anything. therefore even tho we can change our ways we shouldn't bother because there's no hard proof." by the time hard proof emerges it's too late, and if hard proof never emerges, then great! we're all safe.

money should be taken from the west to help developing countries get energy from nuclear power. no more destruction of big forest areas in said developing contries. give money. plant more forests. plant a big forest on russia.


I havent read this thread but I think more global warming would allow for more tree species to survive in russia

and global warming is a natrual process of this planet

we are affecting it but.... really by how much? I mean it's going to happen whether we like it or not we cant stop the temperature at the one we like. I think that we should do what we can to stop pollution and carbon dioxide because it's not having a great effect on the environment. but I just dont like these pictures painted like if we stopped emitting any type of gas tomorrow our planet would stay the temperature it is right now forever

I think the bigger mystery is how the planet comes out of ice ages in the first place

the most harm can result from the best intentions when the nature of cause and effect is unknown. See:

the waste of the opportunity to eradicate, or at least permanantly minimise the risk of many many diseases through the intelligent and restrictive use of antibiotics

Thalidomide

DDT

CFC's

TNT

The list goes on.

My point is, that in focusing all of our attention and resources on the potential danger in this matter, how can we be sure that we arent downplaying other more urgent concerns simply because they are not economically paramount.

Weird, weird examples you've chosen... but anyway - assuming you are correct about it all being overblown etc, what do you think is the motivation for all these hordes of scientists who say it is occuring? Do you think you know something they don't? Or have they all been corrupted by some vast conspiracy?

I'm not necessarily criticising your argument, I'm just interested in how you think this thing could be so overstated.

i'm kind of ashamed to be australian after trev's posts

the most stupid thread in a long time

lord knows you can't expect humanity to muster up the resources to both minimize global warming and fight the threat of super diseases from the overuse of antibiotics AT THE SAME TIME!

the people of the world, as a generalisation, are selfish.
they don't like changing their behaviour.
they don't like things being expensive.

now as was mentioned before, you have 11,000 or so scientists claiming one thing. you have 60 or so opposed.

technically there is nothing wrong with expressing that opposing opinion. te4chnically it should be healthy to.

but when people have the choice to "believe" that:
they need to drastically change their behaviour, lifestyles, spend more money on things to provide what they already have etc.
or
it's not a problem and we can safely ignore it

what do you think a lot of people are going to decide is right?

that is why some freedom of speech and voicing some points of view are, unfortunately, best left not shared. i'm not saying it's right, or fair, but it might give the best outcome for everyone, especially for future generations.

11,000 to 60. and people here are arguing like they know better.

it's going to be hard enough to get huge populations of democracies to improve their lifestyle impacts on the environment even if it's 100% conclusive about what the consequenses are, seeing as though so many people just don't care. add some other "out" for them (global warming is not a problem) and it makes it so much harder.

so yes, in my eyes people who share these type of views around and give any real weight to them, are dickheads. think a few steps ahead about the full picture of what the world is dealing with.

It's too late. let's learn how to live with extreme weather patterns and enjoy it....

FALL JUST STARTED IN TEXAS THIS IS WRONG

ok i'm too lazy and have too much to do in school to properly respond to any arguments here but i will say this:
1. the global warming we experience right now is caused by humans.
2.we're all fucked

and then a question for bardy:
the nobel prize comittee gave the peace price to al gore and an organization that have been involved in trying to fight global warming. why is that do you think? this is a specific question for bardy, i don't want some other numbskull answering. you got 12 votes or whatever in the intelligence poll, show me some of those brains!

the question isn't really an argument, i'm too lazy like i said

the people of the world, as a generalisation, are selfish.
they don't like changing their behaviour.
they don't like things being expensive.

now as was mentioned before, you have 11,000 or so scientists claiming one thing. you have 60 or so opposed.

technically there is nothing wrong with expressing that opposing opinion. te4chnically it should be healthy to.

but when people have the choice to "believe" that:
they need to drastically change their behaviour, lifestyles, spend more money on things to provide what they already have etc.
or
it's not a problem and we can safely ignore it

what do you think a lot of people are going to decide is right?

that is why some freedom of speech and voicing some points of view are, unfortunately, best left not shared. i'm not saying it's right, or fair, but it might give the best outcome for everyone, especially for future generations.

11,000 to 60. and people here are arguing like they know better.

it's going to be hard enough to get huge populations of democracies to improve their lifestyle impacts on the environment even if it's 100% conclusive about what the consequenses are, seeing as though so many people just don't care. add some other "out" for them (global warming is not a problem) and it makes it so much harder.

so yes, in my eyes people who share these type of views around and give any real weight to them, are dickheads. think a few steps ahead about the full picture of what the world is dealing with.

yeah it's a drag. a big problem with global warming is that it's not as obvious as say, getting a nuclear bomb in the head. it's easier and more CONVENIENT to pretend that it's not caused by humans and blah blah blah. we'll have to wait for some major disasters in the us before there is a significant shift there. hopefully it's not too late by then

i would probably pretend that it didn't exist as well if my brain was functioning right but as we all know. it doesn't.

you've definitely got the hang of the whole multiple posts in a row thing going dean.

i've got the hang on sucking

I'm writing a paper on solar energy.
It would be nice to see it used more, since it requires no fuel and gives off no emissions.

edit: Oh, I see you covered commercial building-integrated photovoltaics, but there are also solar power plants (PV and thermal) that supply electricity to regular buildings, although they can supply to far less people that other kinds of power plants.

i've got the hang on sucking
man of many talents then.

lord knows you can't expect humanity to muster up the resources to both minimize global warming and fight the threat of super diseases from the overuse of antibiotics AT THE SAME TIME!
:rofl:
Yes, i understand that. My point was more along the lines of fools rush in.

I do feel that the government places too much pressure on global warming in relation to its importance, down to both the hunt for popularity (green thinking is seen as admirable) and the current dependence on fossil fuels.

The fact of the matter is that due to the current political climate and increased scarcity of resources, the government needs to find a scapegoat for increasing the price of fossil fuels. If they can guilt trip you into using them less then it softens the blow. Please dont misquote me here, there is nothing wrong with minimising the consumption of fossil fuels, however i take umbrage with the methods used with which to do so. It is quite simply, brainwashing the ignorant to provide cultural weight to an argument. People will believe something if they want to, or are afraid it might be true.


That whole live earth concert left me pretty much apopleptic with fury, but i will save that for another time.



11,000 to 60. and people here are arguing like they know better.


Trev You must be the most awesome troll ever. SINCE WHEN DID THE WEIGHT OF NUMBERS JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF ANYTHING!! flat earth, geocentric view, witches, black people not having rights. You are quite naive, or come across that way.



Hillzy, no, it isnt a vast conspiracy, the arguments for and against can both be argued competently, i must admit, that perhaps we are doing something. The fact is that it is difficult to truly know, and that is my sticking point.


@Debaser, in terms of solar activity having little effect on the trend for warmer temperatures, the use of this example was more as an additional variable to consider, and it is kind of the prime variable. Maybe ive just had a long day, but the article you linked me to, seems rather inconclusive, there are also geothermal variations, trophosphere anomalies and ocean current trends to consider. I mean, the information available is quite staggering to comprehend in its totality.


Wow, this is my first tl;dr Sorry...

The fact of the matter is that due to the current political climate and increased scarcity of resources, the government needs to find a scapegoat for increasing the price of fossil fuels. If they can guilt trip you into using them less then it softens the blow. Please dont misquote me here, there is nothing wrong with minimising the consumption of fossil fuels, however i take umbrage with the methods used with which to do so. It is quite simply, brainwashing the ignorant to provide cultural weight to an argument. People will believe something if they want to, or are afraid it might be true.


It seems like you are grasping for some ulterior conspiracy motive to explain why (the vast majority of) climate scientists are trying to pull this global warming "hoax" over everybody.

There is no need for a "scapegoat" for the increasing price of oil. The plain fact of depleting fossil fuels and instability in the middle east are easily accepted reasons. So that motive makes no sense.

i would probably pretend that it didn't exist as well if my brain was functioning right but as we all know. it doesn't.

Most americans are too self absorbed to give a shit about global warming. They are fat, lazy, have a cell phone attached to one ear, an ipod in the other, a game controller in their hands, and a big summer sausage shoved in their mouths.

a lovely sweeping generalisation there.

Most americans are too self absorbed to give a shit about global warming. They are fat, lazy, have a cell phone attached to one ear, an ipod in the other, a game controller in their hands, and a big summer sausage shoved in their mouths.

that could be said about most people in every country(except maybe the fat thing), it may not be a cell phone or an ipod, but they are too self absorbed in their own little world too.

our planet has gotten hotter and cooler while we were still swinging in trees

you big baby.

yes lets not concern ourselves with waste and pollution

our planet has gotten hotter and cooler while we were still swinging in trees

But not at this current dramatic rate just in the last couple decades.

it's just a coincidence. earth has moved a bit closer to the sun for the first time ever.

yes lets not concern ourselves with waste and pollution
i absolutely think we should be concerned about waste and pollution, but those are not the same as "global warming"

it has nothing to do with dramatic increase in the levels of air pollution

But not at this current dramatic rate just in the last couple decades.
two decades ago scientists were worried about global cooling

a lovely sweeping generalisation there.

actually im' pretty sure her post can be backed up with numbers.

fuck it. scientists don't predict us being truly fucked (cities. underwater.) for another 100 years. no worries, mate.

i don't think anyone has gotten the nobel prize for fighting global cooling

fuck it. scientists don't predict us being truly fucked (cities. underwater.) for another 100 years. no worries, mate.
did you know that at one time the western united states was under water? yes it's true

actually i've never heard about it being a big deal at all.

i don't think anyone has gotten the nobel prize for fighting global cooling
don't kid yourself, gore got the nobel prize because te lefties on the panel felt bad that he was "cheated" out of an election

natural climate fluctuations exists. this is not one of them.

i absolutely think we should be concerned about waste and pollution, but those are not the same as "global warming"

all i hear is talk of "climate change" so you're missing the boat

also, what does it matter? I mean denying this stuff outright for reasons plucked from your lower colon just means you're not going to ever be serious about the environment and you'll dismiss anything that has to do with reform because it's based on "global warming."

am i wrong?

lets ban suvs, lets just start with that

Debaser, your only flaw is your willingness to feed trolls. But there is actually a semi-decent conversation going here so its best to ignore nimrod as he has shown once again he resorts to trolling whenever an issue is clearly out of his element and beyond his understanding.

Trev You must be the most awesome troll ever. SINCE WHEN DID THE WEIGHT OF NUMBERS JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF ANYTHING!! flat earth, geocentric view, witches, black people not having rights. You are quite naive, or come across that way.
well you've just proved your a dickhead. you think you know better than the difference between 10,940 or so scientists.

please share with us your basis for having such wisdom. large IQ? let me guess, you've done some research before, or studied science at one point?

i'm being simplistic about it because THIS VIEWPOINT DESERVES NO WEIGHT in our current time, it is not going to help and only slow down if not destroy any progress that is made.

yes, i know people can be wrong, vast majorities can be wrong, and have been in the past, but not very often. most of the time, they are right. it does not mean that every time there are differing opinions of hugely imbalanced proportions that you can pull the "earth was flat" card, because 99% of the time you will still be wrong. it's a rarity for that to happen, and even more so as technology and our knowledge base increases and grows.

two decades ago scientists were worried about global cooling

So? Back in the 1970's, after 30 or so years of global temperatures falling, a handful of scientific papers predicted it (nothing compared to the amount of research and papers predicting global warming these days) and they've obviously changed their minds.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"

i'm glad you approve of this and refrain from sharing in the discussion, mayfuck.

:rofl:
Yes, i understand that. My point was more along the lines of fools rush in.

I do feel that the government places too much pressure on global warming in relation to its importance, down to both the hunt for popularity (green thinking is seen as admirable) and the current dependence on fossil fuels.

The fact of the matter is that due to the current political climate and increased scarcity of resources, the government needs to find a scapegoat for increasing the price of fossil fuels. If they can guilt trip you into using them less then it softens the blow. Please dont misquote me here, there is nothing wrong with minimising the consumption of fossil fuels, however i take umbrage with the methods used with which to do so. It is quite simply, brainwashing the ignorant to provide cultural weight to an argument. People will believe something if they want to, or are afraid it might be true.


That whole live earth concert left me pretty much apopleptic with fury, but i will save that for another time.






Trev You must be the most awesome troll ever. SINCE WHEN DID THE WEIGHT OF NUMBERS JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF ANYTHING!! flat earth, geocentric view, witches, black people not having rights. You are quite naive, or come across that way.



Hillzy, no, it isnt a vast conspiracy, the arguments for and against can both be argued competently, i must admit, that perhaps we are doing something. The fact is that it is difficult to truly know, and that is my sticking point.


@Debaser, in terms of solar activity having little effect on the trend for warmer temperatures, the use of this example was more as an additional variable to consider, and it is kind of the prime variable. Maybe ive just had a long day, but the article you linked me to, seems rather inconclusive, there are also geothermal variations, trophosphere anomalies and ocean current trends to consider. I mean, the information available is quite staggering to comprehend in its totality.


Wow, this is my first tl;dr Sorry...


this is pretty much exactly what i wanted to say, but put much more eloquently than i could have last night.

A+.


I was also tired and cranky when i sat down at the computer last night.

don't kid yourself, gore got the nobel prize because te lefties on the panel felt bad that he was "cheated" out of an election

they wanted to make gore feel better or did they just want to make a comment on the 2000 election process in the united states? in either case, it seems like an excellent strategy and not a waste of prize at all.

don't kid yourself, gore got the nobel prize because te lefties on the panel felt bad that he was "cheated" out of an election

baseless.

all i hear is talk of "climate change" so you're missing the boat

also, what does it matter? I mean denying this stuff outright for reasons plucked from your lower colon just means you're not going to ever be serious about the environment and you'll dismiss anything that has to do with reform because it's based on "global warming."

am i wrong?

lets ban suvs, lets just start with that
What am I denying? I think we should be concerned about pollutants in our air and water.

So? Back in the 1970's, after 30 or so years of global temperatures falling, a handful of scientific papers predicted it (nothing compared to the amount of research and papers predicting global warming these days) and they've obviously changed their minds.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"
"We were wrong before. In fact exactly the opposite of what we were running around and screaming is now true. Believe us now though!!"

Debaser, your only flaw is your willingness to feed trolls. But there is actually a semi-decent conversation going here so its best to ignore nimrod as he has shown once again he resorts to trolling whenever an issue is clearly out of his element and beyond his understanding.

I wouldn't engage trolls if I wasn't so damn bored.

next year the comittee is rumored to give the award to rick waller, since he lost pop idol 2002 in england to Darius Danesh.

"We were wrong before. In fact exactly the opposite of what we were running around and screaming is now true. Believe us now though!!"

childish.

yeah because its those exact same handful of scientists from the 70's that is claiming global warming and nobody else nor any other tens of thousands of other currentclimate scientists

ok i'm too lazy and have too much to do in school to properly respond to any arguments here but i will say this:
1. the global warming we experience right now is caused by humans.
2.we're all fucked



Glad you have it all figured out.

Please correct me if i am wrong, but i have tried to debate this many a time, and 90% of the time when someone comes out and states this it is because they just watched the al gore movie and/or read one or two crazy articles somewhere and now consider themselves to know everything they need to know to understand the issue.

nah i've read stuff in science, nature etc. i trust them more than i trust you guy

aaaand craig venter. i trust craig venter more than i trust you

and i trust my own brain. the issue is actually so crystal clear that i can't be bothered to have an argument concerning if it's actually happening. the more interesting question is what to do about it. and maybe if something will be done at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

"Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[42] Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998.[43][44]"

it's odd that there's this correlation between the amount of CO2 that we put in the atmosphere and how hot the planet is, but i'm sure it's completely coincidential. perhaps NASA changed their meassurment results to make Al Gore happy, given that he lost the election.

and i trust my own brain. the issue is actually so crystal clear that i can't be bothered to have an argument concerning if it's actually happening. the more interesting question is what to do about it. and maybe if something will be done at all
bingo

yeah i just threw in some random wikipedia quotes in there. people who don't agree have other motives than purely intellectual ones for disagreeing.

Glad you have it all figured out.

Please correct me if i am wrong, but i have tried to debate this many a time, and 90% of the time when someone comes out and states this it is because they just watched the al gore movie and/or read one or two crazy articles somewhere and now consider themselves to know everything they need to know to understand the issue.


Why do you toss out or glam onto global warming denier claims and then completely ignore rebuttals to them and instead just bring up al gore?

Since you want to change the subject to al gore, why don't you tell me what exactly was wrong with his movie? Be specific.

"We were wrong before. In fact exactly the opposite of what we were running around and screaming is now true. Believe us now though!!"

<a href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/">But that's not what happened</a>

the biggest cause of global warming is overpopulation. you should be pro-war if you're worried about global warming

<a href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/">But that's not what happened</a>


But Al Gore is so fat!

<a href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/">But that's not what happened</a>
"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's?"

That's not the same question, now is it?

ok if we're all on the same page and we think something should be done about impurities in the air and water, what the fuck are you arguing about nimrod

ok if we're all on the same page and we think something should be done about impurities in the air and water, what the fuck are you arguing about nimrod
the effect that man has had on planetary temperature in regards to technology

never put down your sword proud warrior

the effect that man has had on planetary temperature in regards to technology

so we should be concerned about pollution

but it has no effect on the earth

Sorry, i was ranting. Let me be rational here.

Global warming is currently happening, but this is perfectly natural to happen! The climate of the earth moves in cycles, or glacial periods. hot to cold, then cold to hot. every.... 10,000 years or so (with small fluctuations, did you know the river Thames froze over in the 1600's?)

To confidently attribute the effects of excessive global warming to humanity is absurd when you consider all the random variables present in the climate. Particularly that of the chaotic weather patterns and the quite trule staggering power of the sun. (Check out stuff like the milankovitch cycle here http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm)

Global warming is not really significant when we sit up and notice all the other fucked up shit we are doing to the planet, things that will get us waaaaay before this will.

So Bumbles, why is it that the 10,000 year cycle corresponds with the weakest solar forcing? Why does it lock step with the variations in orbital eccentricity, when eccentricity has the smallest effect on the amount of solar energy coming in?

"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's?"

That's not the same question, now is it?

Why would people be screaming about global cooling if they didn't think it was going to make any significant difference? People were predicting an ice age then, but not in the scientific community - because they knew that their understanding was extremely limited at such an early stage, and that even if trends pointed toward possible cooling they weren't going to be drawn on making predictions. So the media went for it instead

so we should be concerned about pollution

but it has no effect on the earth
We should be concerned about polluting our air and water because of the negative effects it can have on the wildlife and humans who encounter it.

How is that saying it has no effect on the earth? Unless you mean "Gaia" or some insane shit like that...

I don't think considering the Earth one complex life-form is really all that insane but that's neither here nor there. I just can't possibly fathom the logic that takes you from climate change is a natural process, to the fact that polluting air and water does have a negative effect on life, but has no effect on climate at all.

I just don't see the value in arguing this at all if the conclusion; that we have to take care to prevent and reduce pollutants, is already agreed upon.

and i trust my own brain. the issue is actually so crystal clear that i can't be bothered to have an argument concerning if it's actually happening. the more interesting question is what to do about it. and maybe if something will be done at all


same here, however its quite apparent that i am on the other side of the fence. i flat out do not believe that mankind's effects on climate change are anything more than negligible compared to what naturally happens without any interference. i am not stupid, either. i have given up trying to convince people, because i share many similar goals with people who are concerned with "global warming".

i am 100% in favor of stopping the burning of fossil fuels for power generation.

i am against the hype and bullshit, however, and am quite disturbed by everyone's willingness to believe everything that they are told.

did you even read the graphs i posted mate?

did you even read the graphs i posted mate?

what, you think some graph that god knows who posted on wikipedia is all the proof i need to change my mind? give me a little more credit than that.

same here, however its quite apparent that i am on the other side of the fence. i flat out do not believe that mankind's effects on climate change are anything more than negligible compared to what naturally happens without any interference. i am not stupid, either. i have given up trying to convince people, because i share many similar goals with people who are concerned with "global warming".

i am 100% in favor of stopping the burning of fossil fuels for power generation.

i am against the hype and bullshit, however, and am quite disturbed by everyone's willingness to believe everything that they are told.

Frankly, your arguments and others on your side are quite lacking. I'm disturbed by how you ignore pretty much any rebuttal to them.

On what basis do you carry your beliefs? Are you a climate scientist? I am not, so I have to rely on experts I trust (what do you rely on?). I can easily lay out and point to where I get my information from and why I trust it. You, however, resort to ad hominem attack, bringing up al gore and basically whatever else comes out of your ass.

Maybe you like to think that you are somehow superior to everybody by carrying this contrarian view. But your inability to explain them or support them is sad.

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument

climate shit

lol

listen debaser, i really hate getting heated and flaming people in arguments on the internet.. i obviously dont know your background and you dont know mine. its frustrating.. isnt it? something is so clear in your head but people refuse to listen to everything you say. sorry if i came across as a jerk in earlier posts.

if you want to believe in gobal warming, then fine.. i just hope you are doing something about it by keeping an open mind and contributing to the furthering of knowledge with research, funding or volunteering or whatever you can do on the issue (if it is something you truly are concerned about), and are not just serving to repeat everything that has already been said. everyone knows there is scientific arguments on both sides of the issue, and its the bickering over who is right that is keeping us stagnant and not moving forward.

i am doing my part for the environment, and the stability of the future for my grandkids both in my country and around the world, and i chose to do it from a platform that does not believe in human-induced large scale climate change.

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument


thanks, i felt out numbered

I thought numbers didn't matter?

We have a handful of global-warming deniers on one side and tens of thousands of scientists on the other.

But yet I ask you directly for your information sources and you just try to change the subject.

You say that there are scientific arguments on both sides of the issue, yet I scan this thread and I don't actually see you delving into them or attempting to address the rebuttal of melankov cycles (which doesn't really need a rebuttal because nobody actually even tries to say that this current warm up is due to the melankov cycles, they just throw out this fact of the melankov cycles and just leave it for you to infer your denialist views).

I've posted repeatedly my sources. You have not. And what little arguments your side has made, I rebut them and/or point to scientific rebuttals. You then ignore these. Why?

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument

Sorry, that's not even an argument.

i flat out do not believe that mankind's effects on climate change are anything more than negligible compared to what naturally happens without any interference.

why?

The only thing that's frustrating is not the perceived attitudes and possible anger (its only a stupid internet messageboard), its how denialists just declare the discussion is at an impasse without actually ever making a good faith argument in the first place.

We have a handful of global-warming deniers on one side and tens of thousands of scientists on the other.

Just to give you perspective, in the 1840s there were tens of thousands of scientists saying that the Irish potato famine was caused by wet rot and a handful of guys that said it was a fungus from the Americas. Guess which one was right.

At the same time I still see no reason why anyone would argue and deny human effected climate change in the first place unless they want to keep driving your SUV down the driveway to get the mail or put a smelting plant on Lake Tahoe, because whether climate change is effected by humans or not it's not going to hurt anything or anyone to assume that we <i>are</i>.

Unlike the potato famine misdiagnosis.

Just to give you perspective, in the 1840s there were tens of thousands of scientists saying that the Irish potato famine was caused by wet rot and a handful of guys that said it was a fungus from the Americas. Guess which one was right.


Ok, that's a fair point.

But that doesn't in any way mean that just because they are in the minority it means they must be right!

But can a denier please give me a good reason to believe their side? Just saying "oh, people have been wrong before" is only reason to hedge your conclusions (even the IPCC doesn't make these claims with 100% certainty), it's no where near reason enough to dismiss global warming claims entirely as deniers are wont to do.

Trev You must be the most awesome troll ever. SINCE WHEN DID THE WEIGHT OF NUMBERS JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF ANYTHING!! flat earth, geocentric view, witches, black people not having rights. You are quite naive, or come across that way.

You give a list of errors caused largely by ignorance and a lack of application of the scientific method in the process of telling us to ignore the current scientific wisdom?


Hillzy, no, it isnt a vast conspiracy, the arguments for and against can both be argued competently, i must admit, that perhaps we are doing something. The fact is that it is difficult to truly know, and that is my sticking point.


Your argument here is "I don't really know much about this so it must be wrong" no?

You still haven't answered why I shouldn't believe the collective opinion of the worlds climate scientists.

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument

Some guy who took some undergraduate papers one time doesn't believe in global warming? We must have been wrong all along, someone alert the UN!

Why would people be screaming about global cooling if they didn't think it was going to make any significant difference? People were predicting an ice age then, but not in the scientific community - because they knew that their understanding was extremely limited at such an early stage, and that even if trends pointed toward possible cooling they weren't going to be drawn on making predictions. So the media went for it instead
I said scientists were concerned about cooling. Not that an ice age was imminent.

Also it's fairly well accepted that any period of dramatic heating would eventually result in an ice age, so maybe they were right

Some guy who took some undergraduate papers one time doesn't believe in global warming? We must have been wrong all along, someone alert the UN!


who said he didnt believe in global warming? that's retarded. Beliving in global warming and BELIEVING THAT WE ARE CAUSING A LOT OF IT are different things. And go fuck yourself he knows more about the earth's history than you ever will.

and the people on the "other wisde" of the argument here are just looking at things from a different perspective and I think everyone in this thread agrees that we should stop polluting our atmosphere. I dont have any desire to drive an SUV. I drive a freaking honda.

Anyway, I had a few geology professors in college who were also on the other side of the argument as well. I mean most...sane.. influential scientists would probably shut up if they didn't fully believe that humans are having as big of an impact as we think.. simply because what is the main stream is helping society change.

Just to re-set the semantic table here: Whenever I talk about global warming or climate change, I'm really talking about the theory that humanity is affecting the climate (mainly thru a dramatic rise of C02 levels) and causing this recent dramatic acceleration of global warming. Even the bush administration admits that the earth is getting warmer -- the only debate (a debate in which one side has vastly more scientific weight) is whether or not humans are causing an abnormal rapid acceleration.

im not really here to argue because its not like anyone's mind ever gets changed because of things we say here. I just wanted to point out that there were other people on that side of the argument. the poster was getting ganged up on.

I just wanted to point out that the evidence and support on that other side of the argument is bollocks.

26 common climate change (denier) misconceptions. (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462)

It's disturbing how posting this doesn't phase you guys at all. Oh its just some wacky scientists spouting on about stuff. boring. Plus Al Gore is so damn annoying! So natch, whatever he's pushing must be bullshit, amirite?

yeah because you are the resident climate expert on netphoria, who gives a shit what anyone here thinks. we only have one geologist in the house and hes not here to give any input.

yeah because you are the resident climate expert on netphoria, who gives a shit what anyone here thinks. we only have one geologist in the house and hes not here to give any input.

heh. I'm no climate expert (which is not the first time I've admitted that in this very thread). I just read a lot. What do the resident climate change deniers do?

What is the motive? Why do you say 'let's do all the things to fight global warming' out of one side of your mouth and then say 'well global warming is bullshit' out of the other side? It's a glaring incongruity that I can only assume is related to politics (which is the actual bullshit in this world).

cause I dont like pollution and I would like to find an alternative to fossil fuels

although I hope that the civilzation of the future still needs rock to build with otherwise im out of a job

and were you asking what I do for a living?

heh. I'm no climate expert (which is not the first time I've admitted that in this very thread). I just read a lot.
yes, you read leftist websites that promote agendas... everyone's seen your story links

yes, you read leftist websites that promote agendas... everyone's seen your story links

It's pretty sad when people start degrading science websites as "leftist". Please tell me the lefty agenda of the websites I've posted on here. go!

I noticed you stopped posting links to the stuff you read because people pointed out how hilariously rightwing nutty they were. You just declare my links as lefty but don't actually say why.

Do you have any actual points about climate change or are you just going to call me a liberal and pretend you just made an argument?

ignore him Debaser

Do you have any actual points about climate change or are you just going to call me a liberal and pretend you just made an argument?

Sean Hannity in the house

Some guy who took some undergraduate papers one time doesn't believe in global warming? We must have been wrong all along, someone alert the UN!



Hillzy's always been the kinda guy you wish would post more often

and were you asking what I do for a living?

No, I was trying to make the point that I freely declare where I get my sources from. What sites I read. Whose opinions I trust.

But for some reason most deniers don't do the same. I said, "I read a lot. What do climate change deniers do?" As in: Do you read? Where do you get your information? What do you read? Give me a link to explore.

If I'm not mistaken, there has been only one source link from a denier in this thread (about the milankovitch cycle), which I was fair enough to read the entirety of it only to discover that it doesn't even try to connect it to this current global warming. I offered more information on it and more links. DeviousJ addressed it, too. That was met with nothing or 'eh, its complicated! so....yeah...you leftys are...'.


*EDIT* I almost forgot that TOC posted a link, too, from a site by a crazy loon and referenced some quotes by another crazy loon to which I posted another link that eviscerated the latter loon. Nobody has attempted a response.

who said he didnt believe in global warming? that's retarded. Beliving in global warming and BELIEVING THAT WE ARE CAUSING A LOT OF IT are different things.

Fair enough.

And go fuck yourself he knows more about the earth's history than you ever will.

Hehe, this statement almost makes me want to post some more about my job etc but no.

Hillzy's always been the kinda guy you wish would post more often

Aw gee thanks.

it would be really cool if we still had the flaming thread icon

think about it

listen debaser, i really hate getting heated and flaming people in arguments on the internet.. i obviously dont know your background and you dont know mine. its frustrating.. isnt it? something is so clear in your head but people refuse to listen to everything you say. sorry if i came across as a jerk in earlier posts.

if you want to believe in gobal warming, then fine.. i just hope you are doing something about it by keeping an open mind and contributing to the furthering of knowledge with research, funding or volunteering or whatever you can do on the issue (if it is something you truly are concerned about), and are not just serving to repeat everything that has already been said. everyone knows there is scientific arguments on both sides of the issue, and its the bickering over who is right that is keeping us stagnant and not moving forward.

i am doing my part for the environment, and the stability of the future for my grandkids both in my country and around the world, and i chose to do it from a platform that does not believe in human-induced large scale climate change.

Like Debaser said, he's asking you to explain why you believe global warming isn't anthropogenic and you're just basically saying 'hey man, I do my bit for the environment' as though that's an answer. Limiting the effects of climate change is going to take a lot of effort, and the costs will negatively impact pretty much everyone, so having people on board with the justification for it is important - and it will shape political policy too, which is an issue with the US pres elections coming up.

So it's not just a case of 'you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want, we all want to help the environment anyway', it's about whether or not something needs to be done and about people having the resolve to see it through. What you're saying is akin to a bunch of accountants saying that you're haemorrhaging money and you need to reorganize your finances urgently, and you saying 'hey I'm naturally thrifty!'

it would be really cool if we still had the flaming thread icon

think about it

Al Gore slash fan fiction?

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

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

What were you trying to accomplish by posting this? It's like you've taken an ambiguous stance in this thread because on one hand you know global warming is a problem but on the other hand you work for an industry that gets tax breaks to pollute the earth. If anything that article just supporting what Debaser and company have already said.

I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist:

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070430-wwljc-globalwarming.2485b657.html

What were you trying to accomplish by posting this? It's like you've taken an ambiguous stance in this thread because on one hand you know global warming is a problem but on the other hand you work for an industry that gets tax breaks to pollute the earth. If anything that article just supporting what Debaser and company have already said.

how does my company get tax breaks to pollute the earth?

I was just bored and googling random stuff, I am fairly indifferent about peolpe here agreeing with em

I would like to argue about why mayfuck thinks my company gets tax breaks for polluting the earth though

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

Scientists have studied the earth's climate for hundreds of years, gather data daily from all over the planet by thousands of scientists and found strong evidence that it's not just the sun causing global warming. By comparison, we've barely studied Mars climate and have found that one region of Mars has melted in a 6 year period -- thats it. That definitely shows regional warming, but to claim global warming on Mars is just an assumption right now without more evidence. That's just my amateur summation on it. But just reading the second page of your own link knocks down the Mars theory a few pegs. And now here's some wacky scientists using sciencey talk to science down the mars stuff:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

For anymore alternative theories that want to lay it all on the sun, you should google and familiarize yourself with the Faint Sun Paradox (where data shows that while the sun and earth were younger, the sun was weaker but yet the earth was hotter).

I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist:

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070430-wwljc-globalwarming.2485b657.html

Yes, misinformation exists. So what to do? Read both sides.

A quite convincing takedown of William Gray:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

heh. I'm no climate expert... ...I just read a lot. What do the resident climate change deniers do?


i also read a lot on the topic, i am not a climate expert, but i am intimately involved the sciences of fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and large scale power generation. i understand, on a technical level, the arguments of both sides.. and fully accept that the "non human induced" argument holds a lot more weight. i am also dedicating my career to doing everything i can to secure and stabilize the power generation market in the united states. i gather as much technical information about alternative power sources (and any related topics.. such as "global warming") as i can.



Do you have any actual points about climate change or are you just going to call me a liberal and pretend you just made an argument?


here's one.. the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere may not be caused, as much as we think, from mankind's actives (ie burning hydrocarbons). The earth's oceans contain certain concentrations of dissolved gasses within its water, one of those gasses is CO2. As water heats up, it looses its ability to hold gasses in solution, and the gasses are released.

I dont need to post an article about this, it is an absolute fact..

If the earth has been heating up for the past X number of years, (which is reasonable to say it has been, also reasonable to say it has been from natural causes).. then the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been routed from the oceans, NOT from man. What i am saying is that the increase in CO2 followed the increase in temperature, not vise versa.

That last paragraph is debatable, because they could have happened at the same time, and the concentrations from man and the concentrations from the ocean are really, really hard to accurately calculate.. but it is clear to me that ocean effect is much stronger

I am not denying that carbon dioxide had an affinity for absorbing the infrared spectrum, this can be proven and is a fact on the lab bench.. but it is more complicated than that when looking at a large scale complicated system. More CO2 on the earth does not necessarily mean more heat. There will be a heat input, yes, but this will also cause a secondary effect of greater convective heat transfer to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated off into space.

I dont like posting articles, because you can find just about any article to say anything you want to.. its not hard.

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 383 parts per million (ppm) by volume.[23] The 23 there means that the data have been taken from here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

before humans, there has never been a ppm value of CO2 higher than 300 ppm in the atmosphere, not even during the peaks. to draw the conclusion that the oceans suddenly have started to release more CO2 into the atmosphere now for some reason than ever before, is crazy. even if the majority of those gases comes from the water because of a feedback effect from the CO2 we'va already put out, it doesn't really matter. we still have extraordinary high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that have never been reached before.

i post this again

"Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree."[42]

now, the CO2 levels are higher than ever in the history of the earth. we know there's a connection between CO2 and the greenhouse effect and several temperature records have been broken since reliable widespread instrumental measurments became available.

"Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[17][18]"

we could not live on earth if we didn't have the greenhouse effect. you've gone so far as to question if the greenhouse effect exists, that's crackpot reasoning and i doubt that you can find many articles posted on that.

the talks in bali have apparently stranded because the us, japan, canada and australia are unwilling to set procentual goals for reducing emissions. it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

^ despite it being a non-binding agreement

here's one.. the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere may not be caused, as much as we think, from mankind's actives (ie burning hydrocarbons). The earth's oceans contain certain concentrations of dissolved gasses within its water, one of those gasses is CO2. As water heats up, it looses its ability to hold gasses in solution, and the gasses are released.

I dont need to post an article about this, it is an absolute fact..

If the earth has been heating up for the past X number of years, (which is reasonable to say it has been, also reasonable to say it has been from natural causes).. then the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been routed from the oceans, NOT from man. What i am saying is that the increase in CO2 followed the increase in temperature, not vise versa.

That last paragraph is debatable, because they could have happened at the same time, and the concentrations from man and the concentrations from the ocean are really, really hard to accurately calculate.. but it is clear to me that ocean effect is much stronger

I am not denying that carbon dioxide had an affinity for absorbing the infrared spectrum, this can be proven and is a fact on the lab bench.. but it is more complicated than that when looking at a large scale complicated system. More CO2 on the earth does not necessarily mean more heat. There will be a heat input, yes, but this will also cause a secondary effect of greater convective heat transfer to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated off into space.

I dont like posting articles, because you can find just about any article to say anything you want to.. its not hard.

Temperature variations are natural, and the energy involved in the entire system is huge - nobody's saying that isn't the case, or that humans are responsible for all of it, the point is that the recent rapid increases on top are down to human activity and that's what's going to push things over the edge. We're putting way more CO2 into the atmosphere, it can be accounted for there by isotopic analysis, and it lags the temperature record because it's a feedback - higher temperatures mean more CO2 is released, meaning even higher temperatures which result in even more CO2 until an equilibrium is reached. The whole 'CO2 lags behind temperatures!' thing has been addressed long ago but people keep bringing it up like it's some new evidence that nobody has explained.

And how can you say more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean more heat, when in the next breath you say there will be a greater convective heat transfer? The fact there's more heat to transfer kinda implies there's more heat, no? CO2 blocks outgoing energy from escaping except at the colder extremes of the atmosphere, where the lack of heat means less is emitted - to balance that, the entire atmosphere has to warm up until those cold extremes get hot enough to pump out enough energy into space and balance what's coming in, that's the whole problem. The planet is measurably absorbing more radiation than it's able to emit, that's why temperatures are rising (and why they'll continue to rise)

here's one.. the current CO2 levels in our atmosphere may not be caused, as much as we think, from mankind's actives (ie burning hydrocarbons). The earth's oceans contain certain concentrations of dissolved gasses within its water, one of those gasses is CO2. As water heats up, it looses its ability to hold gasses in solution, and the gasses are released.

I dont need to post an article about this, it is an absolute fact..

If the earth has been heating up for the past X number of years, (which is reasonable to say it has been, also reasonable to say it has been from natural causes).. then the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been routed from the oceans, NOT from man. What i am saying is that the increase in CO2 followed the increase in temperature, not vise versa.

That last paragraph is debatable, because they could have happened at the same time, and the concentrations from man and the concentrations from the ocean are really, really hard to accurately calculate.. but it is clear to me that ocean effect is much stronger


good, now we're actually talking!

That's a good question, how do we know that the increase in CO2 levels is due to human activity and not from the oceans? As you already understand, the oceans contain CO2. Now if the ocean is emitting carbon, then you would expect to find a carbon decrease in the oceans. But this is not the case. Measurements find that carbon has increased in the oceans. Oceans are absorbing more CO2 than ever before. You can then check out this line of thinking from the other end by observing that carbon (carbon-14) has decreased from the land biosphere (and thus CO2 has been emitted from land).


In fact, the oceans act as a huge CO2 sink, absorbing an incredible amount of C02, and acting as a buffer for the extra CO2 caused from human activity. That explains the discrepancy between the dramatic rise in CO2 emissions compared with the overall CO2 levels. But when will this buffering capacity reach its limit? And as you pointed out, the warming of the oceans decreases this limit.

source link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160)

wait i'm too lazy to back that up more if i needed to

...

it doesn't really matter. we still have extraordinary high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that have never been reached before.

i post this again

"Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree."

...



Yea, that is precisely my point.. warmest temperatures = highest concentration of CO2 levels.. that helps my argument



the talks in bali have apparently stranded because the us, japan, canada and australia are unwilling to set procentual goals for reducing emissions. it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

politics are ridiculous.. we need to stop bitching back and forth with other countries/global corporations and just lead the way. dont just tax people who burn hydrocarbons.. build new clean power plants, further research and development, and let the free market decide if it wants to spend 80 cents per kilowatt-hour for dirty power, or 5 cents per kilowatt-hour of clean energy.

we (the US) will never be the first ones to do it though.. as long as oil companies keep paying for our president's campaigns. Thats the shit that REALLY makes me mad..
:dammit: :dead:



we could not live on earth if we didn't have the greenhouse effect. you've gone so far as to question if the greenhouse effect exists, that's crackpot reasoning and i doubt that you can find many articles posted on that.

i had a feeling there would be someone who responded to my statement like that.. let me ask you a question, and i really am not trying to be a jerk or anything.. its a serious question.. Do you, personally, really understand the mechanics of how the greenhouse effect works?

dont be so quick to hit the "i believe" button that more CO2 = more heat on earth, always without exception. it is a lot more complicated than that.. the whole CO2=heat model is very one dimensional and ignores many many factors. i most certainly believe in the greenhouse effect, but to believe in an unbalanced system that has no regulation or negative feedback is foolishness.



And how can you say more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean more heat, when in the next breath you say there will be a greater convective heat transfer? The fact there's more heat to transfer kinda implies there's more heat, no? CO2 blocks outgoing energy from escaping except at the colder extremes of the atmosphere, where the lack of heat means less is emitted - to balance that, the entire atmosphere has to warm up until those cold extremes get hot enough to pump out enough energy into space and balance what's coming in, that's the whole problem. The planet is measurably absorbing more radiation than it's able to emit, that's why temperatures are rising (and why they'll continue to rise)

yea, i understand the basic idea.. what you say is true, but there are many other factors ignored when you only look at one gas, one method of heat transfer. i was merely saying that CO2's effect is not as strong as some other effects that counter act, and contribute to heating and cooling. And as soon as CO2 is not the dominant factor, its really hard for human-induced theories to have a leg to stand on.


good, now we're actually talking!

source link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160)

ill talk as long as i have time for
:cheers:

but be careful.. that article reads very nicely and sounds very convincing.. but it is quite tactful in its choice of words because there is a large hole in the argument it is trying to make.

from the article:

"All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year"

tricks you into thinking that the concentration of gaseous CO2 in the ocean has been going up.. "carbons" in the ocean are different from gaseous CO2 in solution.. that concentration has most certainly gone down. (again, due to rising temperatures).

Its really hard to say for certain exactly how much is from us, and how much is from natural sources.. but the mere existence that it is a major, if not dominant contributer throws a gigantic wrench in human-induced arguments.

"Yea, that is precisely my point.. warmest temperatures = highest concentration of CO2 levels.. that helps my argument"

you're missing one thing i posted. the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have NEVER been this high. it's a bit of a coincidence that the levels of CO2 are higher than they've ever been before just as the human species have begun to burn fossile fuels. you can see cyclical patterns of temperature and CO2 in the atmpsohere that suddenly go hawire just around the time that we start using fossile fuels. it's very strange.

"Yea, that is precisely my point.. warmest temperatures = highest concentration of CO2 levels.. that helps my argument"

you're missing one thing i posted. the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have NEVER been this high. it's a bit of a coincidence that the levels of CO2 are higher than they've ever been before just as the human species have begun to burn fossile fuels. you can see cyclical patterns of temperature and CO2 in the atmpsohere that suddenly go hawire just around the time that we start using fossile fuels. it's very strange.

where are you getting your temperature data from if:

"reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s"

?

well the CO2 meassurments can at least be tracked way back, and they are out of control.

yea, i understand the basic idea.. what you say is true, but there are many other factors ignored when you only look at one gas, one method of heat transfer. i was merely saying that CO2's effect is not as strong as some other effects that counter act, and contribute to heating and cooling. And as soon as CO2 is not the dominant factor, its really hard for human-induced theories to have a leg to stand on.

But we were talking about two methods of heat transfer (convection and radiation), and where are you getting this idea that CO2 isn't the greenhouse gas responsible for the trends we're seeing? Please don't say it's water vapor, because that isn't a forcing.

Just indulge me here - since you believe in the greenhouse effect, and you apparently realize that temperatures started to increase very rapidly in the 20th century, if CO2 forcing isn't the dominant factor in this additional warming then what is?

but be careful.. that article reads very nicely and sounds very convincing.. but it is quite tactful in its choice of words because there is a large hole in the argument it is trying to make.

from the article:

"All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year"

tricks you into thinking that the concentration of gaseous CO2 in the ocean has been going up.. "carbons" in the ocean are different from gaseous CO2 in solution.. that concentration has most certainly gone down. (again, due to rising temperatures).
Then what do you make of this statement?
"The mass of carbon (carbon is the "C" in CO2) must be conserved. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans or the land, we would measure a carbon decrease in these two reservoirs."



Its really hard to say for certain exactly how much is from us, and how much is from natural sources.. but the mere existence that it is a major, if not dominant contributer throws a gigantic wrench in human-induced arguments.
First off, I'm not sure I can buy your dismissal of the carbon measurements in the oceans without some scientific sources to read up on.

Second, that was not the only reason that scientists don't believe in the degassing of the oceans theory -- it was only the most simple one I could explain. DeviousJ touched on it before and its about the measurements of certain isotopes (the lack of) in our atmosphere to determine where the CO2 is coming from. I can't really explain it in any simpler terms so I'll post a letter from the same source I posted before, responding to your very notion:

I was puzzled when I read the ex- change of letters on global warming in the January 2005 issue of PHYSICS TODAY (page 13). George Smith suggested that the recent carbon dioxide increase could be the result of a century of global warming—in particular, by the degassing of the ocean. Spencer Weart answered (correctly, but see below) that scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have calculated the budget between the carbon input with the sinks in different reservoirs of the carbon cycle: ocean, forest, soil, and so forth

Besides technicalities implying that the global CO2 budget still has second-order uncertainties, I'm surprised Weart didn't cite first-order proofs demonstrating that the recent CO2 increase cannot be due to ocean warming. Those killing proofs are well-known in the climatology community—for example, in the IPCC—but it is crucial to emphasize them again for a wider audience.

The recent CO2 increase—280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005—is accompanied by three phenomena that completely rule out ocean warming as the main cause:

* Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
* Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
* Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.

Nonspecialists will not easily be impressed by model calculations and complex budgets that contain often large uncertainties. Moreover, I have seen dishonest skeptics using "old hat" arguments such as ocean CO2 outgassing to refute the responsibility of human activities in the recent CO2 increase and the forthcoming large global warming.

One crucial note about the global budget of inputs and outputs that Weart should have stated: Known CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation largely exceed (by about a factor of two) what remains in the atmosphere. Hence, if warming were the cause of the CO2 increase, how would we account for the hundreds of gigatons of carbon generated by human activity?"

Edouard Bard
([email protected])
Collège de France
Aix-en-Provence

well the CO2 meassurments can at least be tracked way back, and they are out of control.

my argument has been that CO2 levels are a direct result of temperature changes.. then you said that no.. they have tracked consistently with temperature until we started burning fossil fuels, and that the data looks great up until that point. but you also admit that we only have had reliable temperature measurements since "the last 1800's", which is conveniently when we started burning fossil fuels..

so the only timeframe too which you claim we have accurate, comparative data is also the timeframe when you claim everything "suddenly goes hawire"? hawire in comparison to what? the data that we didnt have before that? what are you basing that on?

not following you.

good posts, good questions which i want to respond to however i dont have time to write what i want to say, but ill be back tomorrow. need to be at work for 5 am.

peace

I was just bored and googling random stuff, I am fairly indifferent about peolpe here agreeing with em

I would like to argue about why mayfuck thinks my company gets tax breaks for polluting the earth though

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."- Upton Sinclair


Since you've announced that you've closed your mind on the global warming discussion, I guess I'll ask if you'd like to respond and/or point out any falsehoods in this big article about how "clean coal" is a sham. I was curious too about what mayfuck said and I came across this today. I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist.






Big Coal's Dirty Plans for Our Energy Future (with shocking photos) (http://www.alternet.org/story/70475/)
By Antrim Caskey, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2007.
Big coal is hoping for government subsidies to replace oil. But its "clean coal" plan is an ecological nightmare for everyone.

Just as the American people and the world are beginning to recognize the necessity of shifting to renewable energies, Big Coal, in collusion with an out-of-step administration, is pushing their dirty fossil fuel as the solution to our nation's energy crisis.

Big Coal and its cohorts envision a "clean coal technology" future fueled by liquifying and gasifying coal, capturing the carbon emissions and injecting them underground. By 2030 the West Virginia Division of Energy -- a nascent state agency formed in July, 2007 -- wants to oust oil and exalt coal by displacing the 1.3 billion gallons of foreign oil the state currently imports every year.

The WVDoE believes "that higher energy prices are providing and will continue to provide market opportunities" for a variety of alternative coal technologies including "coal waste, coal fines and coal bed methane," according to a document released in December 2007 called, "A Blueprint for the Future."

But scientists and environmentalists say "clean coal" does not exist; it is a misnomer and an oxymoron. The National Resources Defense Council has said, using the term "clean coal" makes about as much sense as saying "safe cigarettes." The extraction and cleaning of coal inevitably decimate ecosystems and communities.

Citing abundant supplies of quality domestic coal, escalating oil prices that are hoving around $100 per barrel, and security concerns raised by dependence on foreign oil, the coal industry is chomping at the bit to secure their stake in the false pursuit of domestic energy independence through a federally assisted coal-based economy. But as the world wakes up to the climate crisis and people learn more about modern coal mining and the continuing exploitation of Appalachia, which has sickened entire communities, polluted the water and air, and condemned vast sections of an ecologically extraordinary land to death, the coal industry faces an increasingly uphill battle against growing public awareness and concern.

[continued...] (http://www.alternet.org/story/70475/)

where's my ClimaCalm? this global warming's givin me anxiety

so i hope everyone has bicycles and/or uses mass transit...

Yes I ride my bicycle on the 105 every day

Yes I ride my bicycle on the 105 every day
on your way to sell oranges?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."- Upton Sinclair


Since you've announced that you've closed your mind on the global warming discussion, I guess I'll ask if you'd like to respond and/or point out any falsehoods in this big article about how "clean coal" is a sham. I was curious too about what mayfuck said and I came across this today. I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist.






Big Coal's Dirty Plans for Our Energy Future (with shocking photos) (http://www.alternet.org/story/70475/)
By Antrim Caskey, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2007.
Big coal is hoping for government subsidies to replace oil. But its "clean coal" plan is an ecological nightmare for everyone.

Just as the American people and the world are beginning to recognize the necessity of shifting to renewable energies, Big Coal, in collusion with an out-of-step administration, is pushing their dirty fossil fuel as the solution to our nation's energy crisis.

Big Coal and its cohorts envision a "clean coal technology" future fueled by liquifying and gasifying coal, capturing the carbon emissions and injecting them underground. By 2030 the West Virginia Division of Energy -- a nascent state agency formed in July, 2007 -- wants to oust oil and exalt coal by displacing the 1.3 billion gallons of foreign oil the state currently imports every year.

The WVDoE believes "that higher energy prices are providing and will continue to provide market opportunities" for a variety of alternative coal technologies including "coal waste, coal fines and coal bed methane," according to a document released in December 2007 called, "A Blueprint for the Future."

But scientists and environmentalists say "clean coal" does not exist; it is a misnomer and an oxymoron. The National Resources Defense Council has said, using the term "clean coal" makes about as much sense as saying "safe cigarettes." The extraction and cleaning of coal inevitably decimate ecosystems and communities.

Citing abundant supplies of quality domestic coal, escalating oil prices that are hoving around $100 per barrel, and security concerns raised by dependence on foreign oil, the coal industry is chomping at the bit to secure their stake in the false pursuit of domestic energy independence through a federally assisted coal-based economy. But as the world wakes up to the climate crisis and people learn more about modern coal mining and the continuing exploitation of Appalachia, which has sickened entire communities, polluted the water and air, and condemned vast sections of an ecologically extraordinary land to death, the coal industry faces an increasingly uphill battle against growing public awareness and concern.

[continued...] (http://www.alternet.org/story/70475/)


no falsehoods there.. clean coal is a sham, and it sucks, in absolutely every way.


"that higher energy prices are providing and will continue to provide market opportunities"

- yea exactly.. at a dollar per kilowatt-hour you can do a lot of fancy stuff to hide the problems you are creating with ass backwards engineering.. but they arn't stopping pollution, they are just redirecting where it goes so that it slides through the silkscreen of government regulations. and it costs so damn much money, that if oil and natural gas prices continue to rise, and they will.. (esp natural gas), they can soon do it at a profit.

Nuclear, geothermal and hydrodynamic technologies can make the same electricity with nearly no environmental impact at 20 times less the cost.

you know that they have to get the nuclear stuff from the ground too right, I mean that what that article sounds like it's anti-making holes. I think they are whining about mountain top removal stuff. Which sucks but I mean... it's what's most economical right now so I don't really see it going away in the near future. In the long term future, sure. I am pro-nuclear and I think it's retarded we havent built a new power plant in like 25 years. I think coal is a political cluster fuck which is why I didn't go into that industry. I know more about aggregates. Which actually probably causes more visual pollution than coal simply because most of them are surface mines and tehy have to be near cities.

Colors magazine put out a fun issue based on global warming. Called "Your next sustainable holiday". It was the summer issue but it's up on their website's archive.