The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell. What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell. What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
I agree with you that polution is bad. But these days the World is a billion times cleaner than it was 20 years ago (Least in the US)
Acting like we can get away from it tho is silly. Heck Mothernature is Kicking TONS of it out with each Valcano...
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell. What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
I agree with you that polution is bad. But these days the World is a billion times cleaner than it was 20 years ago (Least in the US)
Acting like we can get away from it tho is silly. Heck Mothernature is Kicking TONS of it out with each Valcano...
As reported in 1997, volcanic eruptions release about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the course of a year. An amount the the Earth's ecology can manage. Humans release 10 billions tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. We contribute much, much, more than all the volcanos combined. And while we may have improved on cleaning up our output, our efforts are probablly offset buy the pollution caused by China, India and other up and coming economies.
Maybe its not a fraud so much as a victim of fraud itself.
And I still stand by my claim of the Anartica land mass if that ice does decide to slide off it. Some positions are still open for my new country, possible names will be happyfunland and the new new world. Please feel free to stop by and visit our largest city New New York in New New England.
The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell. What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?
Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.
It were funny, if it weren't so tragic. 90% of all scientists have said - with good arguments - that climate change is MAN MADE.
Just use some simple logic. Humanity has blown so much CO2 into the atmosphere, just go to any larger city, and then tell me, that does not have ANY effect. I mean, seriously, I dont need a university degree to know that this kind of damage men have done to the earth WILL have negative effects. Someday. Somehow. It is ridiculous to assume we can keep polluting the air, the rivers, the oceans, the forests - EVERYTHING, the way we do and not destroy ourselves in the end. No matter if solar things add to this or not, there is zero reason to stop fighting for a better climate policy. Not to speak of the fact that resccources are limited as well.
There is a worldwide agreement that most of the changes are man-made. This is just a cheap brush-off from the petro industry. It makes me so pissed to see how easily people are made insecure. There is ZERO reason to stop fighting against polluting the environment.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell. What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?
Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.
And you do know that it's the plants that convert that CO2 in oxygen don't ya? The problem is when you emit more CO2 than the plants can absorb that causes the problems. And let's not let CO2 get all the lovin'. There are other forms of polution that come out of a tailpipe or a smoke stack that will actually kill plants.....oh and people too!!
The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell. What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?
Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.
And you do know that it's the plants that convert that CO2 in oxygen don't ya? The problem is when you emit more CO2 than the plants can absorb that causes the problems. And let's not let CO2 get all the lovin'. There are other forms of polution that come out of a tailpipe or a smoke stack that will actually kill plants.....oh and people too!!
Only when it is going over the top. Is there anything wrong with fishing? Well okay, vegetarians will say it is but when you're fishing 1000s of one particular type of fish a day, it can cause problems.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
It were funny, if it weren't so tragic. 90% of all scientists have said - with good arguments - that climate change is MAN MADE. Just use some simple logic. Humanity has blown so much CO2 into the atmosphere, just go to any larger city, and then tell me, that does not have ANY effect. I mean, seriously, I dont need a university degree to know that this kind of damage men have done to the earth WILL have negative effects. Someday. Somehow. It is ridiculous to assume we can keep polluting the air, the rivers, the oceans, the forests - EVERYTHING, the way we do and not destroy ourselves in the end. No matter if solar things add to this or not, there is zero reason to stop fighting for a better climate policy. Not to speak of the fact that resccources are limited as well. There is a worldwide agreement that most of the changes are man-made. This is just a cheap brush-off from the petro industry. It makes me so pissed to see how easily people are made insecure. There is ZERO reason to stop fighting against polluting the environment.
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
It were funny, if it weren't so tragic. 90% of all scientists have said - with good arguments - that climate change is MAN MADE. Just use some simple logic. Humanity has blown so much CO2 into the atmosphere, just go to any larger city, and then tell me, that does not have ANY effect. I mean, seriously, I dont need a university degree to know that this kind of damage men have done to the earth WILL have negative effects. Someday. Somehow. It is ridiculous to assume we can keep polluting the air, the rivers, the oceans, the forests - EVERYTHING, the way we do and not destroy ourselves in the end. No matter if solar things add to this or not, there is zero reason to stop fighting for a better climate policy. Not to speak of the fact that resccources are limited as well. There is a worldwide agreement that most of the changes are man-made. This is just a cheap brush-off from the petro industry. It makes me so pissed to see how easily people are made insecure. There is ZERO reason to stop fighting against polluting the environment.
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
It were funny, if it weren't so tragic. 90% of all scientists have said - with good arguments - that climate change is MAN MADE. Just use some simple logic. Humanity has blown so much CO2 into the atmosphere, just go to any larger city, and then tell me, that does not have ANY effect. I mean, seriously, I dont need a university degree to know that this kind of damage men have done to the earth WILL have negative effects. Someday. Somehow. It is ridiculous to assume we can keep polluting the air, the rivers, the oceans, the forests - EVERYTHING, the way we do and not destroy ourselves in the end. No matter if solar things add to this or not, there is zero reason to stop fighting for a better climate policy. Not to speak of the fact that resccources are limited as well. There is a worldwide agreement that most of the changes are man-made. This is just a cheap brush-off from the petro industry. It makes me so pissed to see how easily people are made insecure. There is ZERO reason to stop fighting against polluting the environment.
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
97% agree that humans PLAY A ROLE. that is not what he was saying. Everything plays a role. The question is, how significant is that role. On that there is no consensus.
It were funny, if it weren't so tragic. 90% of all scientists have said - with good arguments - that climate change is MAN MADE. Just use some simple logic. Humanity has blown so much CO2 into the atmosphere, just go to any larger city, and then tell me, that does not have ANY effect. I mean, seriously, I dont need a university degree to know that this kind of damage men have done to the earth WILL have negative effects. Someday. Somehow. It is ridiculous to assume we can keep polluting the air, the rivers, the oceans, the forests - EVERYTHING, the way we do and not destroy ourselves in the end. No matter if solar things add to this or not, there is zero reason to stop fighting for a better climate policy. Not to speak of the fact that resccources are limited as well. There is a worldwide agreement that most of the changes are man-made. This is just a cheap brush-off from the petro industry. It makes me so pissed to see how easily people are made insecure. There is ZERO reason to stop fighting against polluting the environment.
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
97% agree that humans PLAY A ROLE. that is not what he was saying. Everything plays a role. The question is, how significant is that role. On that there is no consensus.
Again, does it really matter? What harm could come from changing our ways? We certainly aren't going to be harming the planet anymore than we are by reducing carbon emmisions , creating clean fuel, etc.
It were funny, if it weren't so tragic. 90% of all scientists have said - with good arguments - that climate change is MAN MADE. Just use some simple logic. Humanity has blown so much CO2 into the atmosphere, just go to any larger city, and then tell me, that does not have ANY effect. I mean, seriously, I dont need a university degree to know that this kind of damage men have done to the earth WILL have negative effects. Someday. Somehow. It is ridiculous to assume we can keep polluting the air, the rivers, the oceans, the forests - EVERYTHING, the way we do and not destroy ourselves in the end. No matter if solar things add to this or not, there is zero reason to stop fighting for a better climate policy. Not to speak of the fact that resccources are limited as well. There is a worldwide agreement that most of the changes are man-made. This is just a cheap brush-off from the petro industry. It makes me so pissed to see how easily people are made insecure. There is ZERO reason to stop fighting against polluting the environment.
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
97% agree that humans PLAY A ROLE. that is not what he was saying. Everything plays a role. The question is, how significant is that role. On that there is no consensus.
Again, does it really matter? What harm could come from changing our ways? We certainly aren't going to be harming the planet anymore than we are by reducing carbon emmisions , creating clean fuel, etc.
No harm can come from people voluntarily changing their ways -- but the bankruptcy of nations can be the result of humans forcing one another to change. Again this is not about people changing, but an elite forcing everyone to change based upon some ideology.
Plus, truth always matters, at least to me.
I really WOULD like to see that study, and I find it VERY suspicious that the various news sources I googled on this never link to the actual survey in question. There's some really bad, unsourced reporting in that story. It looks as if they kept the survey nebulous enough to get the answers they wanted to. We won't really know, however, because they don't actually present the source themselves.
BEFORE we decide to destroy our economies, we ought to use the best science to determine if our efforts are the right ones.
Again, does it really matter? What harm could come from changing our ways? We certainly aren't going to be harming the planet anymore than we are by reducing carbon emmisions , creating clean fuel, etc.
It doesn't. People would just like to shift/place blame, they feel it changes the outcome if they aren't to blame.
Honestly, whatever. Regardless of if Global Warming is man made or not our current lifestyle won't work in the long run. Try a test to see your ecological footprint and see how many earths that would be needed... We simply can't keep on living like we do, and if Global Warming is what's necessary to change the way we live to a sustainable lifestyle then I can accept the prize. As it's now we're pretty much killing future generations.
Honestly, whatever. Regardless of if Global Warming is man made or not our current lifestyle won't work in the long run. Try a test to see your ecological footprint and see how many earths that would be needed... We simply can't keep on living like we do, and if Global Warming is what's necessary to change the way we live to a sustainable lifestyle then I can accept the prize. As it's now we're pretty much killing future generations.
Once again we see the mindset we are dealing with. Truth doesn't matter, only ideology does. As long as people do what you want them to, it doesn't matter if you have to lie to get them to do it.
The idea that it's okay to lie about global warming because it will help us clean up our environment anyway is completely stupid. Do you people not realize the affects that global warming initiatives have on the global economy? To put in inefficient and expensive means of power production is an absolute killer to an already fragile economic climate.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The idea that it's okay to lie about global warming because it will help us clean up our environment anyway is completely stupid. Do you people not realize the affects that global warming initiatives have on the global economy? To put in inefficient and expensive means of power production is an absolute killer to an already fragile economic climate.
Don't use the current economic slump as a fall guy. Envoronmental cleanup initiatives have been pushed through good times and bad.
Anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have a significant effect on global climate (not to mention an effect on the health of every living being on the planet when you take contaminants and partial combustion products into account).
I spent 3 years doing graduate work in an atmospheric science lab. How many of you spewing in this forum are even capable of reading a scientific paper and understanding it? I suppose you all consider yourselves equally capable of prosecuting a capital murder case or doing a coronary artery bypass graft?
You can call me a tree hugger if you want. I'm a firm believer in strong industry and strong military however. I just decided to join the military mid-life because I think it's the right thing to do and my skills will be valuable there.
These idiots calling themselves conservatives, however, seem to be looking for a blank check to do whatever the hell they want because it fits their lifestyle and world view. Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years. If you doubt me, get your holier-than-thou ass back to school and learn enough to read and understand a scientific paper. Do your own reasearch. Until then all you are doing is spewing garbage that aims to make the world fit your idea of how things ought to be.
With regard to the sunspot issue- there's a saying we have in my profession: true, true: unrelated.
Just because you find that one mechanism is acting on a system, do not be an IDIOT and assume that there are not other equally important mechanisms acting on the system. God, maybe if we took all of our money and put it into the education system we wouldn't have such an IDIOT burden next generation.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have a significant effect on global climate (not to mention an effect on the health of every living being on the planet when you take contaminants and partial combustion products into account). I spent 3 years doing graduate work in an atmospheric science lab. How many of you spewing in this forum are even capable of reading a scientific paper and understanding it? I suppose you all consider yourselves equally capable of prosecuting a capital murder case or doing a coronary artery bypass graft? You can call me a tree hugger if you want. I'm a firm believer in strong industry and strong military however. I just decided to join the military mid-life because I think it's the right thing to do and my skills will be valuable there. These idiots calling themselves conservatives, however, seem to be looking for a blank check to do whatever the hell they want because it fits their lifestyle and world view. Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years. If you doubt me, get your holier-than-thou ass back to school and learn enough to read and understand a scientific paper. Do your own reasearch. Until then all you are doing is spewing garbage that aims to make the world fit your idea of how things ought to be. With regard to the sunspot issue- there's a saying we have in my profession: true, true: unrelated. Just because you find that one mechanism is acting on a system, do not be an IDIOT and assume that there are not other equally important mechanisms acting on the system. God, maybe if we took all of our money and put it into the education system we wouldn't have such an IDIOT burden next generation.
Glad to see all that education didn't go to your head! Are you saying the sun and warming are unrelated? Is carbon dioxide a pollutant as the FDA says? Is it true that a volcano spews more pollutant into the air than all the vehicles ever made? Is Al Gore's movie accurate or not?
Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years.....too bad none of us will be around for 100 years to see if you are correct.
Anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have a significant effect on global climate (not to mention an effect on the health of every living being on the planet when you take contaminants and partial combustion products into account). I spent 3 years doing graduate work in an atmospheric science lab. How many of you spewing in this forum are even capable of reading a scientific paper and understanding it? I suppose you all consider yourselves equally capable of prosecuting a capital murder case or doing a coronary artery bypass graft? You can call me a tree hugger if you want. I'm a firm believer in strong industry and strong military however. I just decided to join the military mid-life because I think it's the right thing to do and my skills will be valuable there. These idiots calling themselves conservatives, however, seem to be looking for a blank check to do whatever the hell they want because it fits their lifestyle and world view. Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years. If you doubt me, get your holier-than-thou ass back to school and learn enough to read and understand a scientific paper. Do your own reasearch. Until then all you are doing is spewing garbage that aims to make the world fit your idea of how things ought to be. With regard to the sunspot issue- there's a saying we have in my profession: true, true: unrelated. Just because you find that one mechanism is acting on a system, do not be an IDIOT and assume that there are not other equally important mechanisms acting on the system. God, maybe if we took all of our money and put it into the education system we wouldn't have such an IDIOT burden next generation.
Glad to see all that education didn't go to your head! Are you saying the sun and warming are unrelated?
No. Please revisit my "true, true: unrelated" statement above. Of course major variation in solar weather is going to affect climate on Earth. This does not mean that green house emissions are not important. Imagine a patient who claims that smoking isn't bad for him despite all of the research to the contrary. He goes to see his doctor because he is losing weight and suffering from nausea and vomiting. The doctor tells him to quit smoking because it is bad for him, and orders some tests. The tests come back and show he has pancreatic cancer. The patient says, "see doc! I told you smoking wasn't that bad for me!"
This patient is a fool, and is using the same logic many are trying to apply here.
Is carbon dioxide a pollutant as the FDA says?
Any living thing adapts to prevalent stable environmental conditions. We have adapted to life on the earth as it is now. The fossil record is full of evidence of mass extinctions related to large changes in environmental conditions. If something happens to make a large enough change in our environment we will die off too unless we have developed technology advanced enough to preserve at least a microenvironment for ourselves. CO2 is a vital part of our world, but in excess it causes destabilization of our environment, and so in excess can be considered a pollutant.
Consider: pure oxygen at a partial pressure of 2 atmospheres is highly toxic to humans. Cholesterol which is widely regarded to be "bad" in popular culture is a fundamental building block for every cell membrane in your body and is an absolutely essential part of neurotransmitter synthesis in your body. In excess, however, under the right conditions it can clock your arteries and kill you.
You have to take location, conditions, and quantity into account to decide if something is a pollutant or not.
Is it true that a volcano spews more pollutant into the air than all the vehicles ever made?
As I stated above, you can't oversimplify this. Volcanic eruptions are discrete point sources of CO2. Fossil fuel combustion is a slow, widespread, and constant source of CO2.
Which would have a bigger effect on your life: that there was a huge flood in your county in 1935, or that is has been raining in your town EVERY DAY for the past 30 years?
Here's a quick link to an article about the topic, I can dig up real papers if you wish.
Is Al Gore's movie accurate or not?
Al Gore's movie is sensationalist. Trying to explain complex scientific issues to a public that does not have a lot of scientific training is tough. Is there a way to do it without dumbing down the subject matter and making it flashy enough to be interesting? I don't know. The basic premise of the movie, that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are having profound and negative effects on our climate, are accepted by myself and every scientist that I know.
My big question is this: Why would ANYONE make a big deal out of global warming other than to try to do the right thing?? I am successful and could pretty much live any way I want to. I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV and cruise around with the AC going full blast. I want to be able to pitch all my glass and metal without going through the hassle of recycling. I want to vacation in a house right on some pristine beach in the middle of a wildlife refuge! I want cheap gas and cheap air travel to go anywhere anytime I want! I'm dead serious.. I really would like all of these things.
Realizing, however, that your choices have consequences.. a responsible person must look at the best information available and make responsible choices. Doing the right thing is pretty much a drag- what exactly do you critics see as the motivation for an "evil Al Gore?" Or for the rest of us that believe in doing the right thing even though it is frequently uncomfortable or unpleasant?
Al's biggest sin in my mind is being such a doofus that he couldn't beat the worst president in the history of the United States. As a result we got to experience the most embarrassing and destructive 8 years in the history of out great nation.
Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years.....too bad none of us will be around for 100 years to see if you are correct.
Holy crap, this is my favorite IDIOT argument of all time. Can you not see that there WILL be people around in 100 years and that they have the same RIGHT to a healthy, happy existence that we do? Trust me, our time will be remembered and vilified as the era when humans SQUANDERED almost unlimited resources in a few generations for no other reason than they were greedy, stupid, and couldn't be bothered to look at the big picture
I always hear "conservatives" talking about family values and children.. I guess they don't give a damn about families and children that aren't on the planet during their lifetime because they aren't "real enough" to them. I guess "out of sight, out of mind" works wonders for some people.
Edit: My wall of text in yellow was making my eyeballs bleed, changed it to green.
Edit 2: Color change washed out the article link- fixed.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
It's funny how people care so much about something that raises taxes and hasn't been proven at all. Infact all the evidence points to we're having no effect on the globes temp but it's just a natural process of the earth and we're just coming out of a very steady period in the planets weather. Obviously the goverment wants you to believe in it because it makes them a shitload of cash..... just a scam.
Though for some reason people want to ignore the problem we're having on our environment like polution and over hunting and cutting down the rainforests. Like why don't we do something about these issues which are things proven that we're causing? Oh yeh cause noone makes any money outta it.
It's funny how people care so much about something that raises taxes and hasn't been proven at all. Infact all the evidence points to we're having no effect on the globes temp but it's just a natural process of the earth and we're just coming out of a very steady period in the planets weather. Obviously the goverment wants you to believe in it because it makes them a shitload of cash..... just a scam. Though for some reason people want to ignore the problem we're having on our environment like polution and over hunting and cutting down the rainforests. Like why don't we do something about these issues which are things proven that we're causing? Oh yeh cause noone makes any money outta it.
I'm pretty sure that limiting greenhouse gas emissions is bad for EVERYONE businesswise, at least in the short term. Who are these theoretical people that stand to profit from making difficult but responsible choices?
Would you like to provide citations from peer reviewed scientific journals to back up your assessment of the world's climate? I'm perfectly willing to have a respectful debate with you if you can demonstrate expertise or evidence to support your position.
Pollution and tropical deforestation are both important issues that are related at least peripherally to carbon cycle/ greenhouse gas issues.
Over hunting is an important issue in many developing nations with endangered species and habitats. Over fishing is perhaps a greater problem because enforcement of regulations is much harder and a MUCH greater part of the world's food supply is involved. Changes in ocean temperature and ocean current circulation patterns stand to cause even greater devastation to world fisheries than over harvesting however, and these are again inexorably linked to climate change.
Incidentally, Hunting management in the United States has been incredibly successful as demonstrated in the recovery of once endangered species like Canadian geese, Grizzly bears, Alligators, etc. Just another example of another "liberal, tree hugging" idea that has saved a wealth of natural resources for future generations.
Look. Most scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have significant effects on climate. Limiting those emissions is MESSY, DIFFICULT, UNPROFITABLE, and generally a pain in the butt. It is also the RIGHT THING TO DO. Since when do responsible people say "doing the right thing is too hard, lets just keep things the way they are?"
Do you feel like you have the right to subject your grandchildren to an ecological disaster just because you didn't want to be inconvenienced? Remember the scientists doing this research have NOTHING to gain by publishing fair and unbiased research. Believe me, if they wanted to get RICH they would join the few scientists who have compromised themselves and jumped on the payroll of big industry that has a LOT to gain by publishing bad data that supports their position.
Apply LOGIC to the situation, see through your bias and tell me you still think this is some scam to "generate tax income."
Bizarro man.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"
We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?
Comments
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
I agree with you that polution is bad. But these days the World is a billion times cleaner than it was 20 years ago (Least in the US)
Acting like we can get away from it tho is silly. Heck Mothernature is Kicking TONS of it out with each Valcano...
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
I agree with you that polution is bad. But these days the World is a billion times cleaner than it was 20 years ago (Least in the US)
Acting like we can get away from it tho is silly. Heck Mothernature is Kicking TONS of it out with each Valcano...
As reported in 1997, volcanic eruptions release about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the course of a year. An amount the the Earth's ecology can manage. Humans release 10 billions tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. We contribute much, much, more than all the volcanos combined. And while we may have improved on cleaning up our output, our efforts are probablly offset buy the pollution caused by China, India and other up and coming economies.
volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
Maybe its not a fraud so much as a victim of fraud itself.
And I still stand by my claim of the Anartica land mass if that ice does decide to slide off it. Some positions are still open for my new country, possible names will be happyfunland and the new new world. Please feel free to stop by and visit our largest city New New York in New New England.
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?
Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.
It were funny, if it weren't so tragic. 90% of all scientists have said - with good arguments - that climate change is MAN MADE.
Just use some simple logic. Humanity has blown so much CO2 into the atmosphere, just go to any larger city, and then tell me, that does not have ANY effect. I mean, seriously, I dont need a university degree to know that this kind of damage men have done to the earth WILL have negative effects. Someday. Somehow. It is ridiculous to assume we can keep polluting the air, the rivers, the oceans, the forests - EVERYTHING, the way we do and not destroy ourselves in the end. No matter if solar things add to this or not, there is zero reason to stop fighting for a better climate policy. Not to speak of the fact that resccources are limited as well.
There is a worldwide agreement that most of the changes are man-made. This is just a cheap brush-off from the petro industry. It makes me so pissed to see how easily people are made insecure. There is ZERO reason to stop fighting against polluting the environment.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?
Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.
And you do know that it's the plants that convert that CO2 in oxygen don't ya? The problem is when you emit more CO2 than the plants can absorb that causes the problems. And let's not let CO2 get all the lovin'. There are other forms of polution that come out of a tailpipe or a smoke stack that will actually kill plants.....oh and people too!!
What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.
You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?
Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.
And you do know that it's the plants that convert that CO2 in oxygen don't ya? The problem is when you emit more CO2 than the plants can absorb that causes the problems. And let's not let CO2 get all the lovin'. There are other forms of polution that come out of a tailpipe or a smoke stack that will actually kill plants.....oh and people too!!
Only when it is going over the top. Is there anything wrong with fishing? Well okay, vegetarians will say it is but when you're fishing 1000s of one particular type of fish a day, it can cause problems.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Why did part of this thread get deleted? Did someone go cry to a mod when they couldn't think of a comeback?
The Official God FAQ
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
http://cnn.tv/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
The Official God FAQ
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
http://cnn.tv/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
97% agree that humans PLAY A ROLE. that is not what he was saying. Everything plays a role. The question is, how significant is that role. On that there is no consensus.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
http://cnn.tv/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
97% agree that humans PLAY A ROLE. that is not what he was saying. Everything plays a role. The question is, how significant is that role. On that there is no consensus.
Again, does it really matter? What harm could come from changing our ways? We certainly aren't going to be harming the planet anymore than we are by reducing carbon emmisions , creating clean fuel, etc.
The Official God FAQ
Please prove that 90% of scientists have said that climate change is man-made. there is no consensus on this. 90% believe that climate change occurs. They differ widely on the effect man has.
Either way, what scientists say what you claim and what kind of scientists are they? I'd like to see how you came to your conclusion.
Climatologists 97% agree.
Petroleum geologists only 47%....gee I wonder why...
http://cnn.tv/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
97% agree that humans PLAY A ROLE. that is not what he was saying. Everything plays a role. The question is, how significant is that role. On that there is no consensus.
Again, does it really matter? What harm could come from changing our ways? We certainly aren't going to be harming the planet anymore than we are by reducing carbon emmisions , creating clean fuel, etc.
No harm can come from people voluntarily changing their ways -- but the bankruptcy of nations can be the result of humans forcing one another to change. Again this is not about people changing, but an elite forcing everyone to change based upon some ideology.
Plus, truth always matters, at least to me.
I really WOULD like to see that study, and I find it VERY suspicious that the various news sources I googled on this never link to the actual survey in question. There's some really bad, unsourced reporting in that story. It looks as if they kept the survey nebulous enough to get the answers they wanted to. We won't really know, however, because they don't actually present the source themselves.
BEFORE we decide to destroy our economies, we ought to use the best science to determine if our efforts are the right ones.
fishermage.blogspot.com
It doesn't. People would just like to shift/place blame, they feel it changes the outcome if they aren't to blame.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
Honestly, whatever. Regardless of if Global Warming is man made or not our current lifestyle won't work in the long run. Try a test to see your ecological footprint and see how many earths that would be needed... We simply can't keep on living like we do, and if Global Warming is what's necessary to change the way we live to a sustainable lifestyle then I can accept the prize. As it's now we're pretty much killing future generations.
Once again we see the mindset we are dealing with. Truth doesn't matter, only ideology does. As long as people do what you want them to, it doesn't matter if you have to lie to get them to do it.
The end justifies the means.
Sorry, I disagree.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The idea that it's okay to lie about global warming because it will help us clean up our environment anyway is completely stupid. Do you people not realize the affects that global warming initiatives have on the global economy? To put in inefficient and expensive means of power production is an absolute killer to an already fragile economic climate.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Don't use the current economic slump as a fall guy. Envoronmental cleanup initiatives have been pushed through good times and bad.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
Anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have a significant effect on global climate (not to mention an effect on the health of every living being on the planet when you take contaminants and partial combustion products into account).
I spent 3 years doing graduate work in an atmospheric science lab. How many of you spewing in this forum are even capable of reading a scientific paper and understanding it? I suppose you all consider yourselves equally capable of prosecuting a capital murder case or doing a coronary artery bypass graft?
You can call me a tree hugger if you want. I'm a firm believer in strong industry and strong military however. I just decided to join the military mid-life because I think it's the right thing to do and my skills will be valuable there.
These idiots calling themselves conservatives, however, seem to be looking for a blank check to do whatever the hell they want because it fits their lifestyle and world view. Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years. If you doubt me, get your holier-than-thou ass back to school and learn enough to read and understand a scientific paper. Do your own reasearch. Until then all you are doing is spewing garbage that aims to make the world fit your idea of how things ought to be.
With regard to the sunspot issue- there's a saying we have in my profession: true, true: unrelated.
Just because you find that one mechanism is acting on a system, do not be an IDIOT and assume that there are not other equally important mechanisms acting on the system. God, maybe if we took all of our money and put it into the education system we wouldn't have such an IDIOT burden next generation.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Glad to see all that education didn't go to your head! Are you saying the sun and warming are unrelated? Is carbon dioxide a pollutant as the FDA says? Is it true that a volcano spews more pollutant into the air than all the vehicles ever made? Is Al Gore's movie accurate or not?
Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years.....too bad none of us will be around for 100 years to see if you are correct.
Glad to see all that education didn't go to your head! Are you saying the sun and warming are unrelated?
No. Please revisit my "true, true: unrelated" statement above. Of course major variation in solar weather is going to affect climate on Earth. This does not mean that green house emissions are not important. Imagine a patient who claims that smoking isn't bad for him despite all of the research to the contrary. He goes to see his doctor because he is losing weight and suffering from nausea and vomiting. The doctor tells him to quit smoking because it is bad for him, and orders some tests. The tests come back and show he has pancreatic cancer. The patient says, "see doc! I told you smoking wasn't that bad for me!"
This patient is a fool, and is using the same logic many are trying to apply here.
Is carbon dioxide a pollutant as the FDA says?
Any living thing adapts to prevalent stable environmental conditions. We have adapted to life on the earth as it is now. The fossil record is full of evidence of mass extinctions related to large changes in environmental conditions. If something happens to make a large enough change in our environment we will die off too unless we have developed technology advanced enough to preserve at least a microenvironment for ourselves. CO2 is a vital part of our world, but in excess it causes destabilization of our environment, and so in excess can be considered a pollutant.
Consider: pure oxygen at a partial pressure of 2 atmospheres is highly toxic to humans. Cholesterol which is widely regarded to be "bad" in popular culture is a fundamental building block for every cell membrane in your body and is an absolutely essential part of neurotransmitter synthesis in your body. In excess, however, under the right conditions it can clock your arteries and kill you.
You have to take location, conditions, and quantity into account to decide if something is a pollutant or not.
Is it true that a volcano spews more pollutant into the air than all the vehicles ever made?
As I stated above, you can't oversimplify this. Volcanic eruptions are discrete point sources of CO2. Fossil fuel combustion is a slow, widespread, and constant source of CO2.
Which would have a bigger effect on your life: that there was a huge flood in your county in 1935, or that is has been raining in your town EVERY DAY for the past 30 years?
Here's a quick link to an article about the topic, I can dig up real papers if you wish.
Is Al Gore's movie accurate or not?
Al Gore's movie is sensationalist. Trying to explain complex scientific issues to a public that does not have a lot of scientific training is tough. Is there a way to do it without dumbing down the subject matter and making it flashy enough to be interesting? I don't know. The basic premise of the movie, that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are having profound and negative effects on our climate, are accepted by myself and every scientist that I know.
My big question is this: Why would ANYONE make a big deal out of global warming other than to try to do the right thing?? I am successful and could pretty much live any way I want to. I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV and cruise around with the AC going full blast. I want to be able to pitch all my glass and metal without going through the hassle of recycling. I want to vacation in a house right on some pristine beach in the middle of a wildlife refuge! I want cheap gas and cheap air travel to go anywhere anytime I want! I'm dead serious.. I really would like all of these things.
Realizing, however, that your choices have consequences.. a responsible person must look at the best information available and make responsible choices. Doing the right thing is pretty much a drag- what exactly do you critics see as the motivation for an "evil Al Gore?" Or for the rest of us that believe in doing the right thing even though it is frequently uncomfortable or unpleasant?
Al's biggest sin in my mind is being such a doofus that he couldn't beat the worst president in the history of the United States. As a result we got to experience the most embarrassing and destructive 8 years in the history of out great nation.
Trust me, if you let industry run unchecked, the carcinogen load and greenhouse emissions will turn this planet into a living hell within 100 years.....too bad none of us will be around for 100 years to see if you are correct.
Holy crap, this is my favorite IDIOT argument of all time. Can you not see that there WILL be people around in 100 years and that they have the same RIGHT to a healthy, happy existence that we do? Trust me, our time will be remembered and vilified as the era when humans SQUANDERED almost unlimited resources in a few generations for no other reason than they were greedy, stupid, and couldn't be bothered to look at the big picture
I always hear "conservatives" talking about family values and children.. I guess they don't give a damn about families and children that aren't on the planet during their lifetime because they aren't "real enough" to them. I guess "out of sight, out of mind" works wonders for some people.
Edit: My wall of text in yellow was making my eyeballs bleed, changed it to green.
Edit 2: Color change washed out the article link- fixed.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
It's funny how people care so much about something that raises taxes and hasn't been proven at all. Infact all the evidence points to we're having no effect on the globes temp but it's just a natural process of the earth and we're just coming out of a very steady period in the planets weather. Obviously the goverment wants you to believe in it because it makes them a shitload of cash..... just a scam.
Though for some reason people want to ignore the problem we're having on our environment like polution and over hunting and cutting down the rainforests. Like why don't we do something about these issues which are things proven that we're causing? Oh yeh cause noone makes any money outta it.
I'm pretty sure that limiting greenhouse gas emissions is bad for EVERYONE businesswise, at least in the short term. Who are these theoretical people that stand to profit from making difficult but responsible choices?
Would you like to provide citations from peer reviewed scientific journals to back up your assessment of the world's climate? I'm perfectly willing to have a respectful debate with you if you can demonstrate expertise or evidence to support your position.
Pollution and tropical deforestation are both important issues that are related at least peripherally to carbon cycle/ greenhouse gas issues.
Over hunting is an important issue in many developing nations with endangered species and habitats. Over fishing is perhaps a greater problem because enforcement of regulations is much harder and a MUCH greater part of the world's food supply is involved. Changes in ocean temperature and ocean current circulation patterns stand to cause even greater devastation to world fisheries than over harvesting however, and these are again inexorably linked to climate change.
Incidentally, Hunting management in the United States has been incredibly successful as demonstrated in the recovery of once endangered species like Canadian geese, Grizzly bears, Alligators, etc. Just another example of another "liberal, tree hugging" idea that has saved a wealth of natural resources for future generations.
Look. Most scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have significant effects on climate. Limiting those emissions is MESSY, DIFFICULT, UNPROFITABLE, and generally a pain in the butt. It is also the RIGHT THING TO DO. Since when do responsible people say "doing the right thing is too hard, lets just keep things the way they are?"
Do you feel like you have the right to subject your grandchildren to an ecological disaster just because you didn't want to be inconvenienced? Remember the scientists doing this research have NOTHING to gain by publishing fair and unbiased research. Believe me, if they wanted to get RICH they would join the few scientists who have compromised themselves and jumped on the payroll of big industry that has a LOT to gain by publishing bad data that supports their position.
Apply LOGIC to the situation, see through your bias and tell me you still think this is some scam to "generate tax income."
Bizarro man.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"
We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?