Global warming???

[The Conquistador]

Make no mistake, I'm all for renewable energy, but the whole issue of Man-Made Global Warming is just as I suspected. As the wise men of Public Enemy once said:" Don't believe the hype".

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Oh Dear. The less we know, the more we ' invent ' and speculate !

Yes, nobody knows how the complete global climate system works, but all data and calculations show we have an effect, the question is how big it is.
Only because there are a few black sheep under scientists does not mean all climate data that is recorded is invented. The global climate models, with data from the past, get very close to the climate at that time. The problems with the future data is how we behave further, the atmosphere and what randolph posted. From the industrial revolution to now the CO2 has risen exponential and is twice as it was before. Such a high vale is million years ago, and it was warmer then, even the sun had a lower sun radiation.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

I find much in common between Angry Postman's views and my own.
The list of ' Beneficiaries ' from continued promotion of the Global Warming theory is yards long.

The politicians and ' Green-slanted Politics ' would almost certainly head the list.

It's a common political ploy to make a statement about which few would disagree, and then, when they're still mumbling their agreement, to make a suggestion which has no provable direct link with the first assertion made.

I would say the list of financial interests against global warming is even higher. Short-sighted everyone would have to pay for climate friendly behaviour, that is connected with costs for everyone, but most for the industry, and for politicians with bad financial statements in their time of power.
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now?

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

For example : Yes, Global Warming exists. The fossil record shows that without a doubt. Next proposition : We are here, therefore we must be a significant factor in the existence of this phenomenon today. NO ! THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL ! Let's face it, In Gaia terms we are like ants crawling on the floating masses of this earth's crust. We are clearly an irritant, but I would be very surprised if we are much more than that - unless, of course we explode Plutonium Bombs and contaminate the planet's atmosphere for millenia to come, or explode so many nuclear devices that we affect the tilt of the Earth's axis in some way.

The significant factor is not because we are here, it is more how we treat our environment and our recourses.

To stay in your Gaia dimensions, bacteria could not be more than an irritation to a human. They could never harm us seriously, nor do we need them for, i.e. digestion!? They are just too small.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Let's face it, aren't we deluding ourselves with man's endless desire to be in God-like control of our environment, master of all living things and masters of our own destiny ? Why, we can't even control ourselves ! !

I'm against controlling nature, but that doesn't exclude a responsible treatment to nature.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

OK Then when was the last time a known living organism affected the temperature of the Earth ? And we are so presumptuous to think that we are the chosen ones ?

The last time? Every live form with a working metabolism does it, some more some less. We use fossil fuels and acting a lot faster than any organism on earth before.
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

YES, by all means respect the planet that we live in and which supports us, but don't assume that we control its destiny by our puny activities.
YES, take in moderation, harvest and recycle, renew resources, and then both the planet and ourselves will benefit.

And those factors that are the MAJOR promotors of Global Warming and Cooling. Do we really know it all ? Or are we simply playing a guessing game about those factors way back in the geological record which brought about such profound changes that Life itself was eradicted from huge tracts of the Earth ?

Everyone thinks a nuclear war can affect the world, but many think everything else we do are puny activities.
Mankind has 23300 nuclear bombs. The smallest is 0,3kT and the biggest was 60MT. I didn't looked up much so calculated with 30MT in the middle (must be way over a realistic value).
If all bombs (30MT in middle) are detonating the energy would be 2796*10^18J (2796EJ (Exa Joule)).
The word energy use is nearly 500EJ per year and still fast rising.
Over 70% of it is produced with fossil recourses.
The energy of a nuclear war is deadly but the world energy use has no effect on it?

We may not the biggest promoter of global climate (I think I heard guesses around 15-20%), but even a small amount could have bad effects for us.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

I think the Jury is very much out on this, and will remain so for a long time to come. OK, let's keep our planetary ' garden ' tidy, nourished and watered as far as is within our power to do so, and trust in Gaia to do the right thing ( and, sadly, not necessarily by us ! )

Why keeping the planet tidy, if Gaia does the right things for us?

[Mel Asher]

Originally Posted by Tread

Yes, nobody knows how the complete global climate system works, but all data and calculations show we have an effect, the question is how big it is.
Only because there are a few black sheep under scientists does not mean all climate data that is recorded is invented. The global climate models, with data from the past, get very close to the climate at that time. The problems with the future data is how we behave further, the atmosphere and what randolph posted. From the industrial revolution to now the CO2 has risen exponential and is twice as it was before. Such a high vale is million years ago, and it was warmer then, even the sun had a lower sun radiation.



I would say the list of financial interests against global warming is even higher. Short-sighted everyone would have to pay for climate friendly behaviour, that is connected with costs for everyone, but most for the industry, and for politicians with bad financial statements in their time of power.
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now?



The significant factor is not because we are here, it is more how we treat our environment and our recourses.

To stay in your Gaia dimensions, bacteria could not be more than an irritation to a human. They could never harm us seriously, nor do we need them for, i.e. digestion!? They are just too small.



I'm against controlling nature, but that doesn't exclude a responsible treatment to nature.



The last time? Every live form with a working metabolism does it, some more some less. We use fossil fuels and acting a lot faster than any organism on earth before.
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer.



Everyone thinks a nuclear war can affect the world, but many think everything else we do are puny activities.
Mankind has 23300 nuclear bombs. The smallest is 0,3kT and the biggest was 60MT. I didn't looked up much so calculated with 30MT in the middle (must be way over a realistic value).
If all bombs (30MT in middle) are detonating the energy would be 2796*10^18J (2796EJ (Exa Joule)).
The word energy use is nearly 500EJ per year and still fast rising.
Over 70% of it is produced with fossil recourses.
The energy of a nuclear war is deadly but the world energy use has no effect on it?

We may not the biggest promoter of global climate (I think I heard guesses around 15-20%), but even a small amount could have bad effects for us.



Why keeping the planet tidy, if Gaia does the right things for us?

Thanks for the dissection and commentary, Tread.
One simple question which very few Western Politicians will face up to and give a straight answer ( without tacking on their own particular slant, that is )
Jenae has fingered it : Isn't it true that Western Politicians are shit scared to admit that the West ( in particular ) has overused fossil fuel resources to such an extent that they are in very real danger of being held to extortionate fuel prices by the OPEC cartel and other contollers of pertroleum products less than friendly to the West ? And that so as not to trigger this extortion, Global Warming is being trumpeted as the one thing to fear, taking the heat ( no pun intended ) off themselves as having promoted for years the abuse of finite resources. You see if they made an all out drive to develop non-carbon bases sources of electricity ( the widespread Nuclear power issue still being very contentious after Chernobyl ), then other Global producers of Oil would be quick to try to discourage such initiatives, as their source of Livelihood would be severly dented as a result. How would they do it ? Why, by putting up the price of oil ! Would the West have the political will to prevent this ? I think not.

I think the West has shot itself in the foot through sheer greed and rampant consumerism, and it will be made to pay the price.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Thanks for the dissection and commentary, Tread.
One simple question which very few Western Politicians will face up to and give a straight answer ( without tacking on their own particular slant, that is )
Jenae has fingered it : Isn't it true that Western Politicians are shit scared to admit that the West ( in particular ) has overused fossil fuel resources to such an extent that they are in very real danger of being held to extortionate fuel prices by the OPEC cartel and other contollers of pertroleum products less than friendly to the West ? And that so as not to trigger this extortion, Global Warming is being trumpeted as the one thing to fear, taking the heat ( no pun intended ) off themselves as having promoted for years the abuse of finite resources. You see if they made an all out drive to develop non-carbon bases sources of electricity ( the widespread Nuclear power issue still being very contentious after Chernobyl ), then other Global producers of Oil would be quick to try to discourage such initiatives, as their source of Livelihood would be severly dented as a result. How would they do it ? Why, by putting up the price of oil ! Would the West have the political will to prevent this ? I think not.

I think the West has shot itself in the foot through sheer greed and rampant consumerism, and it will be made to pay the price.

Quite true. However, as I drive around the freeways of S. California the possibility of an alternative to fossil fuels seems remote indeed. Our entire infrastructure is based on consuming fossil fuels. It seems impossible to maintain this level of activity with any other alternative. Ultimately, we will be forced into a very different lifestyle.
It all boils down to world population. If the world population was a tenth of what it now is, oil would last for centuries and the natural environment would survive. We are literally eating and consuming ourselves out of house and home.
So, what politician is going to advocate and what government is going to enforce what china has done, limit children to one per family?

[The Conquistador]

I'm just waiting for a plague to annihilate us. We are overdue for the next bubonic plague or spanish influenza or zombie virus. Hopefully zombie virus...

Am I bad for wishing for a zombie apocalypse?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I'm just waiting for a plague to annihilate us. We are overdue for the next bubonic plague or spanish influenza or zombie virus. Hopefully zombie virus...

Am I bad for wishing for a zombie apocalypse?

Well, either way we are in deep s--t. We need to stock up on food and have our weapons ready. We need to close down Sacramento and Washington and send the politicians to Gitmo. Needless to say I am totally pissed.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, either way we are in deep s--t. We need to stock up on food and have our weapons ready. We need to close down Sacramento and Washington and send the politicians to Gitmo. Needless to say I am totally pissed.

Heads on pikes!

Advice Dog says:

[cwjakesteel]

Sadly, Global Warming is real but not necessarily caused by man.

Without Global warming, us humans wouldn't survive. Without the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the earth would be as cold as the moon.

Water is the biggest green house gas so don't let anyone tell you that carbon emmisions contribute to global warming in any great extent.

What I know contributes to global warming would be:

Deforestation: The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the burning or cutting down of trees, and the preventing of the trees absorbing the carbon from the atmosphere.

However, this is mostly countered by the ocean's natural absorption of CO2.

Cows: The methane produced from cow belches is a greenhouse gas.

But enough of the causes. I don't think we can stop any of that.

I care more about the purity of our air rather than the temperature of the earth. I'd prefer if we remove the POLLUTANTS from our air (noxious gasses and particulates). Greenhouse gasses naturally exist in the air, just as bacteria naturally exists in the colon to digest plant food.

But the biggest problem of Global Warming is Green Fascism.

Advocators of a green planet propose that the world population be reduced to 2.5 billion. Killing off the world with starvation, forced sterilization, and the promotion of class gaps.

Also, Windmills cause global warming by mixing the air around the mills, removing the hot air from the earth (cooling the earth) and then heating the air.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by cwjakesteel

Sadly, Global Warming is real but not necessarily caused by man.

...

What I know contributes to global warming would be:

Deforestation: The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the burning or cutting down of trees, and the preventing of the trees absorbing the carbon from the atmosphere.
...
But the biggest problem of Global Warming is Green Fascism.
...
Also, Windmills cause global warming by mixing the air around the mills, removing the hot air from the earth (cooling the earth) and then heating the air.

Sooooo if it's not man who's doing these things, who is it causing deforestation, green fascism and running windmills?

[Amy]

Originally Posted by cwjakesteel

Advocators of a green planet propose that the world population be reduced to 2.5 billion. Killing off the world with starvation, forced sterilization, and the promotion of class gaps.

Or do it the way we have been doing in Europe for the past 50 years. Reduce poverty and inequality, and as quality of life increases the birth rate naturally declines, because more people simply choose to enjoy life and not have kids. Apply it on a global scale and you get an overall downward trend in population until it hits a sustainable level. The main places globally for population increase are places where traditionally large families are the means used to guarantee survival because infant mortality rates were so high, with better medical access, those mortality rates drop and population explodes. Improve quality of life there to western levels, and you should see birth rates begin to drop off again. All we need is to get it to the level where humans on earth are the equivalent of the bugs in your house. A lot of them, but not on the termite infestation levels we're currently at, where the house is beginning to fall apart.

*EDIT*

Also, that's some pretty impressive conspiracy theory shit right there. Well, except the promotion of income inequality, unfortunately the IMF has in fact been pushing that shit for all too long with all the dictatorships they have propped up, and backed in the overthrow of democratic governments...

[Amy]

How anyone can be so collossally retarded as to deny a century of observed facts, which show a direct correlating graph between antropogenic carbon emissions and global climate is beyond me. I swear the only possible way is if the individual is Anacephalic (The medical term for being born without a brain).

Okay, so maybe that was a little too much hyperbole there, but seriously, anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look at the accumulated evidence cannot fail to end up agreeing with the consensus of the world's climate scientists. I can however understand the US being the bastion of opposition to reality, when it is the nation renowned for people who regularly view media sources which have been statistically proven to make you LESS well informed about current affairs than someone who gets no news whatsoever.

I direct anyone unfortunate enough to be in this situation to view all of the following:


For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

The facts, made easy. A series of videos on the science, and what it undeniably says:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp

In easier to digest short videos, every argument ever against the reality, debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...3&feature=plcp

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

How anyone can be so collossally retarded as to deny a century of observed facts, which show a direct correlating graph between antropogenic carbon emissions and global climate is beyond me. I swear the only possible way is if the individual is Anacephalic (The medical term for being born without a brain).

Okay, so maybe that was a little too much hyperbole there, but seriously, anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look at the accumulated evidence cannot fail to end up agreeing with the consensus of the world's climate scientists. I can however understand the US being the bastion of opposition to reality, when it is the nation renowned for people who regularly view media sources which have been statistically proven to make you LESS well informed about current affairs than someone who gets no news whatsoever.

I direct anyone unfortunate enough to be in this situation to view all of the following:


For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

The facts, made easy. A series of videos on the science, and what it undeniably says:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp

In easier to digest short videos, every argument ever against the reality, debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...3&feature=plcp

1. why has the global temperatures stopped rising in the last 5+ years
2. explain how man caused the last ice age and then rapid increase in temperatures 10,000 years ago to have the world at its present state? and also explain the rapid changes in temperature "little ice age" in the 18th century and the many other changes in temperature over time

a basic lesson taught in science and maths is "Correlation does not imply causation" and "cause and effect"

if you follow your logic then not only is global warming caused an increase in global temperatures (in the past) but it also has caused global temperatures to remain steady, if not decline (as it is at present).

any scientist knows the dangers of extrapolating beyond what they have measured (ie reading into the future).
although global warming is a widely accepted idea, it is by no means unanimously accepted, and still remains a hotly debated issue within the scientific community (not the same articles that get published in wikipedia), and there are many eminent researchers who do not see what you seem to see in the evidence.

Haven’t you noticed that governments have stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as "climate change"?

and lastly i am all for scientific debate, hell while something is not proven, neither side is right, and debating and discussing helps exchange of ideas and makes people strive to prove ideas with... evidence... but calling people colossally retarded and anencephalic is a tad extreme.

anyway, always willing to be proven wrong.

regards

your brain dead retard friend

[Amy]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

1. why has the global temperatures stopped rising in the last 5+ years

They have not.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

2. explain how man caused the last ice age and then rapid increase in temperatures 10,000 years ago to have the world at its present state? and also explain the rapid changes in temperature "little ice age" in the 18th century and the many other changes in temperature over time

The last ice age was indeed natural. Temperatures rose as in line with projections you could have made back then based on the environment at the time, something they are NOT doing at present.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

any scientist knows the dangers of extrapolating beyond what they have measured (ie reading into the future).

And yet, so far almost 100% of the predictions made int he last 30 years have been correct. That's what we call reliable projections.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

although global warming is a widely accepted idea, it is by no means unanimously accepted

Yes, it really is. That's why only the same crank books which publish stories about aliens building the pyramids ever publish anything by opponents of the idea. Most of whom are not scienctists so don't know what they are talking about in the first place.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Haven?t you noticed that governments have stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as "climate change"?

We began using that term when we realised it was more accurate as it encompasses the changes which occur globally as a result of average global temperature increasing (including certain streams shifting or stopping, which leads to cooling in some areas, and including different environmental effects suh as desertification, flooding, etc)

Originally Posted by aussiepride

and lastly i am all for scientific debate, hell while something is not proven, neither side is right, and debating and discussing helps exchange of ideas and makes people strive to prove ideas with... evidence...

Like creationism. There is not any evidence for one side, but GAZILLIONS of bits of evidence for the other, ALL of which corroborate each other, from billions of different sources, be it arctic ice cores, south american river mud, directly recorded temperatures across the world, satellite imagery, tree rings, etc...
I fully acept that debate has proven useful, it has led to every possible angle being explored. Now we have the avidence from all the new lines of ingestigation which debate has spurred, and they all confirm each other.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

anyway, always willing to be proven wrong.

Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been.
I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

They have not.

Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been.
I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton.

although not naure... All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that (global temperature) it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over... an article published in 2008.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

The last ice age was indeed natural. Temperatures rose as in line with projections you could have made back then based on the environment at the time, something they are NOT doing at present.
.

projections made by rodent like repltiles that most closely resembled humans at that time?
"correlation does not mean causation"
a simple rise in c02 gases was not to blame for the end of the last ice age (nor the an inverse cause for it).

all global warming :theroies did not put a end date to projections. they were simply that.. projections.

[williamsmith518]

If it were real, then EVERY country should pay per population per square mile and also upon their industries. That would make China paying over half the cost.

---------------------------------
Travesti.

[cwjakesteel]

Whaat? China's CO2 emmisions have only shot up in the past 60 years. Are you going to make everyone else pay who was a part of the industrial revolution centuries ago?

What are we going to have to give up to reduce our effect on global warming? (If there's any significant effect) What is practical without singling out anybody?

And what about that statistics manipulation sham?

[LillyBerry]

GW seems t have vanished like a passing fad now