|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 31, 2002, 3:23 AM
Post #1 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us evil humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one.
The information below was obtained from a presentation by Dr. Patrick Michaels, Climatologist, University of Virginia titled "The American Legislative Exchange Council Energy Sustainability Project". The presentation was made on July 2, 2002 at the California State Capitol.
*There is currently no known mechanism which can stop global warming.
*The earth has been on a macro-warming trend since the 1600's. That makes it difficult to blame industry for most of about 300 years or so.
*Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would void only 7/100 of one degree of global warming by 2050. Scientifically this infinitesimal temperature change is undetectable.
*Most apparent "global warming" occurs over Siberia and extreme north-western North America where most of the earth's coldest and driest air is.
*The Kyoto Protocol was being pushed by some in an attempt to tear down the United States' trade advantage because there is no trading bloc large enough to compete with our productivity.
*Warming in the past 100 years was 0.8 degrees. Reliable estimates show a continued trend of warming 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years.
*The mean temperature of Antartica is unchanged. Some parts have warmed while other parts have cooled.
So the next time your ice route is a little shorter, just accept it as a cycle of nature and don't try to ruin the great American way of life by implementing scientifically unsound regulations.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-30 20:28 ]
|
|
|
|
|
marcel
Jul 31, 2002, 4:01 AM
Post #2 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 523
|
I'd check to see if Dr. Patrick Michaels owns stock in an oil company, or if he was paid by G.W.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to start thinking about what we are doing to this earth and not be too gready to see that we are defecating in our own nest. We need to remember that we will pass this earth onto our childern, and theirs. Anyone who thinks we have not contributed to global warming has his head in the sand, or maybe he has spent too much time at high altitude. The only scientifically unsound reasoning in this debate is to keep doing nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jul 31, 2002, 4:01 AM
Post #3 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
So - let me see if I can achieve a summation there Jim.
We Americans have a God given right to squander all of the oil thats left on the earth in a short time period JUST BECAUSE WE CAN. So therefore WE SHOULD. AND F-THE REST OF THE F---EN WORLD THEY DON'T GET ANY THEY CAN GO PISS UP A ROPE.
LETS USE IT UP, RUN OUT OF IT AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. WE SHOULD STILL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF COAL LEFT!!!!!
NO NEED ANY AMERICAN SHOULD BE INCONVINECED AND HAVE TO GIVE UP DRIVING A SUBURBAN 20 MILES TO WORK EVERY DAY.
Seems like real weak s--- to me Jim. But there it is.
Guess you know what I think - eh? Goes way beyond "global warming" to me. I will not argue that we may have a major long term weather pattern dictating the warming.
But mama always said: "stupid is as stupid does."
Hope that helps you some.
Bill Coe
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 31, 2002, 4:44 AM
Post #4 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Hey, All I am asking for is scientific proof before I give up my "Suburban". I have yet to see any from anybody. A lot of hyperbole and rhetoric, yes, but no facts. I will even say that I am open to changing my mind, if the facts are proven. 10,000 years ago or so Yosemite was covered by glaciers and they started melting way back then. It surely wasn't industry! By the time all the present oil is used up in a few hundred years, it will have replenished itself. Who says oil just stops developing? BTW, that computer you were cussing at is made out of petroleum products-shame on you! I admit this is an inflammatory subject, but let us remain civil and let us remain friends, even if we have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jul 31, 2002, 4:51 AM
Post #5 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Are you claiming that carbon dioxide and methane do not promote increases in latent heat retention inside the atmosphere? That NOx is nontoxic? I disagree with you...
That, beyond any shadow of a doubt, HAS been proven. (cf. the planet Venus) And your 'Suburban' pumps several tons of excess CO2 and methane into the atmosphere each year. Not to mention the lovely effects of NOx on mammalian lungs (eg. yours, mine, everyone's)
There is a difference between being open-minded and being a Luddite. (Actually, Luddite is too nice -- Flat Earther is closer to the spirit here) I do believe in cyclical climate fluctuations, but I do not disbelieve the physical and chemical bases for (eg.) emissions control, and I am fairly confident that our American Way of Profligate Waste will remain unthreatened by any piss-weak laws that may pass. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer; for once maybe the rich (eg. energy companies) could get a little poorer, too, since their product is no longer reliable in much of the USA!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 31, 2002, 4:52 AM
Post #6 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
P.S.
Quote
We Americans have a God given right to squander all of the oil thats left on the earth in a short time period JUST BECAUSE WE CAN. So therefore WE SHOULD. AND F-THE REST OF THE F---EN WORLD THEY DON'T GET ANY THEY CAN GO PISS UP A ROPE.
I ask you this question, what has the rest of the world EVER done for us? They bomb our towers, they vote against us every chance they get in the UN, they won't turn over terrorists to us because we have the death penalty(France), but who do they call on every time they need help? US! We had to bail the rest of the world out of two world wars for crying out loud. I DON'T care what the rest of the world thinks. We live in the greatest country this world has EVER seen. Do you see people trying to get out? No! They are coming here by the millions! they are fighting to get IN! And we are not using all of our oil...we are using the Arab's oil first.
|
|
|
|
|
ffaallliinngg
Jul 31, 2002, 4:59 AM
Post #7 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2002
Posts: 33
|
I concede it is impossible to prove that the daily dumping of tons and tons of gaseous garbage into the atmosphere has any effect on the earth's climate. The only way to irrefutably prove that would be to take two planets identical to earth in every way, pollute the atmosphere of one, and leave the other atmosphere pristine, then measure what happens to the climate--and then repeat the same experiment at least 20 times.
Conversely,it is equally impossible to prove that spewing tons and tons of s--- into the atmosphere every day has no influence on the climate.
Given the absence of any definitive proof, I would nonetheless be a lot more reassured if temperatures were not setting new records every year.
jmlangford does make one valid point. The Kyoto protocols are what my father-in-law would call "a pimple on the ass of an elephant" compared to what needs to be done.
Or, as President-elect Gore put it in his book Earth in the Balance, "the maximum that is politically feasible falls far short of what is practically necessary" to combat human-induced global climate change.
So, as a futile gesture, my next car will be a hybrid vehicle. More practically,I will certainly not be investing in ski company stock or real estate on the Florida coastline.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 31, 2002, 5:23 AM
Post #8 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Man is responsible for sending about 7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. A lot you say? Not when you consider the fact that nature herself sends about 200 billion tons into the atmosphere annually. BTW, when NASA scientist James Hansen started the "global warming" furor in 1988 by talking about increased temperatures, he failed to tell us that he only measured land temperatures. Forget the fact that oceans cover 73% of the earths surface! That kind of "science" is full of holes.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jul 31, 2002, 5:27 AM
Post #9 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Okay, everybody. Don't get me wrong on this. I'm not "bashing" anyone. Bare with me, if you have questions or take offense, please ask or PM me. Thanks all for being so cool! Steve
I'm with you Jody. Global warming is not due to human beings. I'm not sure any of you are aware of this, but you do realize that at every moment of every day since the birth of this Earth, the orbit is narrowing closer and closer to the sun, right? Well, if you didn't know, now you do. It has been proven a long time ago that humans have nothing to do with global warming. Our "Green House" gases only depleted Ozone, which is more a less a "filter" to lessen the effect of radiation from the sun. Layman's terms, the Ozone is sunblock. No smart answers off this one. We all know the sun's "heat" is not what causes the burn.
Being environmentally concious is a great thing, but people seem to jump and react before information is in hand and understood.
I'm with Jody. I'm not giving up my SUV either.
Some really don't know or are too set in their ways. This isn't wrong, but these are the types of people that usually try to tell you what you can and can't do, and that is wrong.
Go example. I met a girl on-line. We decided we would meet up at our local crag for a night of camping and a day or two of climbing. She is a nice girl, but has gone to college for environmentalism (specific degree escapes me). Now, she is a good example. You could tell that her age and naivety were in direct correspondance with the fact that she was still hanging on everyone else's words and idealisms. Specifically, what she learned in college. This is fine, because college doesn't teach you about life or how to use your knowledge to be your own person. This is something that you develope later with the wisdom you received and carry. So, I was (more or less) told I was stupid because I drove an inefficient vehicle. This was her big thing. Fossil fuel consumption. Not just the consumption, she could care less about pulling it from the Earth. It was using it that she hated. Fossil fuel use was bad, I was worse because I have a vehicle that uses even more of it, however, she still showed up in a car, now didn't she?
I blew it off, we didn't blend. She will grow up some day and realize that certain things can't be stopped and there are other things more worthy of the effort and time spent. She'll eventually lose the "brain washing" and become more of her own person. I'll say this. She is very intellegent and will do well. Just like man not being responsible for global warming, it can't be helped. So until there is hard evidence, I'm not giving up a car with room and power for some shatty compact. What I will do is give everyone a lift! Hey, I got room for eight in that sucker and with a roof top luggage rack, plenty of room to lug our gear!
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-07-30 22:31 ]
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-07-30 22:33 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 31, 2002, 5:39 AM
Post #10 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Thanks Steve! I was beginning to feel outnumbered!
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Jul 31, 2002, 5:40 AM
Post #11 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
Hmmm... well Mr Langford, I have been hanging around this site for a while, and generally have found your contributions extremely informative and worthwhile. Here however, you seem to be talking out your arse.
Look at your attitude. Do you really wonder why other cultures find you offensive enough to want to commit attrocities against you (please note that I in no way support the actions of september 11)? This arrogance is amazing. Do you even realise that there are Australian and other troops in Afghanistan? I doubt it.
Your country is large and wealthy - that is not necessarily the same as RIGHT. The scientific data on the Greenhouse Effect is pretty much irrefutable. Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere. Other substances such as CFC's, used mostly by developed countries like yours (and mine) had an even greater effect until they were banned.
As a world leader, your country should not be trying to fight initatives such as the Kyoto Protocol, but supporting them, and more.
Don't get me wrong, Australia also refused to ratify the Protocols, but only because the US did.
Quoting some guy with a PhD. does not make you right, either. Tobacco companies refused to believe that smoking caused cancer, we thought the world was flat, the amount of mistakes made in the elucidation of the structure and function 0f DNA defy belief. Scientists can be wrong (I am a science undergraduate), doctors can be cranks, crooks and have vested interests.
Your comments serve only to re-inforce the view held by many about people's attitudes in your country. I'm sure that the majority of US citzens are intelligent and compassionate individuals who care about the world. Perhaps you should think more about what you are saying - maybe do a little more research.
Your country only becomes great through great deeds. Defending your right to f--- up the earth by driving big cars is not great. Its selfish.
By the way, adding a smiley to your post does not validate your views.
Have a good day, and enjoy the smog.
Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Jul 31, 2002, 5:50 AM
Post #12 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
Right, just read Wildtrail's post. Here's some more.
First, and most importantly, there is a difference between Greenhouse gases and ozone depleting gases. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, creating a "greenhouse" effect. Ozone layer depleting gases deplete the ozone layer, meaning more UV light can get through. UV light, apart from making our planet hotter, CAUSES CANCER! These two concepts together (greenhouse gases and ozone depletion) form global warming.
Second, the sun is getting closer?! This is by such an infintesimally small amount that it is for all intents and purposes, negligible.
Third, driving a big car is not a right, it is a luxury. The fact that this girl of Wildtrail's drove a car may very well have been because she had no alternative! Did she have it converted to LPG?
Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
nutterd
Jul 31, 2002, 5:51 AM
Post #13 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 9
|
Jody (and Stephen),
There is so much mis/disinformation in your postings, it's hard to know where to begin, or even whether to begin, since anything said will probably fall on deaf ears. However, I'l l give it a shot.
Certainly, the planet is in a natural warming trend. JUST as certainly, the actions of mankind, and particularly Americans, have exacerbated the problem. Perhaps global warming is unstoppable. That doesn't mean it's not ameliorable. Evidence shows that species higher up the trophic ladder (that'd be HUMANS) suffer disproportionately from increased surface temperatures. Email me if you want the citation from the journal Nature. The Kyoto Protocol wasn't perfect; far from it. Sure there were some parties endorsing it to undercut U.S. trade. But so what? We Americans (and a host of other first-world countries) have been living high on the hog on the backs of third-world countries for...oh, 300 years or so. Don't think so? Let's talk slavery. Let's talk the coffee trade. Those Nikes on your feet. The computers you and I are typing on. Do you think the people putting this stuff together DRIVE home from work every day? hahahahaha!
Warming estimates: from 0.8 degrees/100 years to 1.6 degrees/100 years. That's a DOUBLING of the RATE of increase. Remember that brain teaser about how many pennies you'd have if you doubled over each square of a checkerboard? Now do that with the Earth's temperature.
What "proof" of global wariming is acceptable to you? The loss of coastal towns to rising sea levels, maybe? Well, that's already happening. Been to Louisiana or the Chesapeake Bay lately? Skin cancer rates? Oh yeah, they're on the rise too.
And just how fast do you think oil "replenishes" itself? Replenishment implies self-sustainability. Oil ain't. Unless we kill all the vertebrates, find JUST the right marsh to put them in, and somehow accelerate their decomposition and fossilization and whatever the hell other processes turn them into oil. Sorry. Not a geologist. BUT, what it took 3 or 4 million years for geological processes to CREATE, humans will deplete in the 100 years, give or take a few, after the invention of the internal combustion engine.
Finally, it's disingenuous to pull out arguments from 1988 data, VERY early on in this area of scientific endeavor, to prove a point. Linus Pauling used to think nuclear weapons were a good thing, too.
And Stephen, where oh where do I start with your "facts?" Um. "Proven" a "long time ago?" Got any citations for this piece of wisdom? I can give you citations for pretty much all of my points. What was the last science book or peer-reviewed journal article you read? Many times, infornation IS understood, but some people, not understanding the implications themselves, think that if they can't understand it themselves, then NO ONE understands it. Age and naivete (note spelling) may be correlated negatively, but I'd bet that age and a propensity for self-indulgence are even more strongly positively corellated.
I now bow out of this debate, as it is clear that few if any facts by anyone knowledgeable in this area will be presented. Flame away, if desired.
[ This Message was edited by: nutterd on 2002-07-30 23:01 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jul 31, 2002, 5:59 AM
Post #14 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Yes, but Green House gases are not responsible for global warming. Check the facts. It is true. No one is starting any fights here. Just good conversation. I think Jody's point is clear. It is obvious and scientifically proven that man does not have to do with the warming of the planet, so those who dislike the fact that we drive something that only gets 17 highway, need to get over it. If anything, we are "draining" the planet faster.
However, my wife just battled cancer, so these issues (though I love the planet) are of little importance to me right now. I think I'll fight a battle a little more obtainable than the inevitable destruction of the planet. That would be finding a cure and better treatments for cancer.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 31, 2002, 6:04 AM
Post #15 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Duncan,
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but there is absolutely NO proof that global warming is actually happening and if it is, there is no proof that WE are causing it. I just have a problem with huge alterations to our awesome lifestyle based on what unproven computer models tell us might happen in the next 1000 years.
BTW, "Great deeds make a country great". Last time I checked, if it wasn't for the terrible, arrogant, non-caring, industrialized United States of America, this world would have had its butt kicked twice in world wars and we would probably be living under Adolf Hitler or something! I am just sick and tired of people trying to subjugate our country's sovereignty by telling us how to run our country. Also, the United States of America, in all of its filthy rich glory, just happens to supply 1/3 of the world's food. The U.S. also shells out billions upon billions in foreign aid to those countries less fortunate. We also happen to have the best medical research and treatment facilities in the world! We are a pretty good country, and I am fed up with the rest of the jealous world trying to bring us down with unproven "scientific" studies. Show me the proof!
My most valid statement to date!
BTW, I have nothing personal against anybody that disagrees with me. I realize that I am probably in the minority on this site. Since my wife won't let me argue with my relatives anymore, and since I haven't been in a good argument lately, I thought I would do it here. Sorry if I have offended anybody with my "non-climbing" opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jul 31, 2002, 6:08 AM
Post #16 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Nutterd,
I don't flame. Frankly, I don't care at the moment (please read last post) about any of this anyway. As far as misinformation, no. Man is NOT responsible for global warming. CFC's, green house gases, etc. We haven't done anything. Nature has been on a course long before we got here. Temperature have been rising and will continue and started before we could have been accountable for it in the first place. Anyway, all is moot. Why? Because you aren't going to be changed by me, nor I, you. We all are entitled to our beliefs, but working for the environment I have learned a long time ago that we aren't responsible for global warming. Either way, again, moot.
I'm going back to the cancer thing anyway. I've taken this year and next year off worrying about what can't be fixed.
Steve
Like I said, no flames. Its sad to see that some one would flame you for your opinions and beliefs. Isn't the internet ridiculous?
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jul 31, 2002, 6:12 AM
Post #17 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Damon,
Sorry. I missed your post. No she didn't have it converted. Yes the Earth moves very slowly towards the Sun. This is the reason for the "slow" warm up. The Earth has gone through warming before, it will again, until eventually at an estimated 46 billion (can't quite remember, but that sounds right) years, the Earth crashes into the Sun.
I understand the whole "cancer/ozone" thing, thanks. She didn't get cancer from that, though.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
nutterd
Jul 31, 2002, 6:20 AM
Post #18 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 9
|
Stephen,
You can keep saying over and over again that humans don't cause (or, more appropriately, exacerbate), global warming, but repeating an untruth over and over doesn't make it true. I'll stick to the peer-reviewed literature, which, even though there's plenty of disagreement as to the extent, shows quite a bit of consensus on this issue.
For the 2 or 3 people who care about or are even reading this, a summary of fairly current research at a fairly nontechnical level:
http://www.esa.org/education/factsheets/globalclimatechange.htm
Or, I'd be happy to email you a pdf of:
Confronting Climate Change in California: Ecological Impacts on the Golden State, published by the Ecological Society of America and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
pinto
Jul 31, 2002, 6:20 AM
Post #19 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 22
|
Wow, my car is going to crash into that big wall coming up and there's nothing I can do about it!! How 'bout I just press the accelerator and hold it for a while. Why bother with the brake or the steering wheel? I'm sure they don't work. Somebody told me so.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jul 31, 2002, 6:29 AM
Post #20 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Okay Doug,
I've been to that site before and just rebriefed myself with its info again. Firstly, understand I have no intentions of making enemies here. I am only enjoying conversation.
I have studied that info many times and, frankly, it still doesn't prove anything.
Like you said, I can say it over and over. Man is not responsible for global warming. We are responsible for a lot of bad things, but not global warming.
The study of the Earth is complex, and I leave this thread on this note. It's been there before and will be there again.
Sorry, forgot one thing. It will most certainly survive the human race.
Regards to all,
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-07-30 23:33 ]
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-07-31 12:56 ]
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Jul 31, 2002, 6:43 PM
Post #21 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
I'm gonna start by apologizing. I have read very little of this thread. I skimmed it really quickly. I Just had to say something immediatly.
Jody you scare the sh it out of me.
"What has the rest of the world ever done for us"
That is the most ignorant ethnocentric statement i have ever heard. For shame. I really expected better from you .
America is nothing more than a mix of the cultures of other countries. They've given us everything we have. I won't even get non western with this one. Because I'm pretty sure that if I did I would just get dismissed as a "new age" eastern minded idealist with no grouning in the real world. Hell, I've written people off that way before. Why shouldn't you?
So lets stick to the west. Shall we?
You took issue with France. Ok historically most of the conquorers of the Britich Isles have come either from or directly through that country. I know they hate to admit it but a great deal of English culture originated in France. Tats ENGLISH CULTURE. Where do you see American culture as coming from?
Thats one very general example of what other countries have done for us.
Now what have we done for other countries?
Find me a good example of another country asking us to come in and help[ them with more than just money that we have agreed to that we did not gain more from than they did. Sure as hell wasn't Vietnam.
Oh yeah, and your computer models are just as unproven as my computer models. Only I have more of them.
[ This Message was edited by: biggernhell on 2002-07-31 12:59 ]
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Jul 31, 2002, 8:04 PM
Post #22 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Wild trail- At least you admit that Your SUV is sucking things away faster. Why don't you just do something about it. Knowing that you are helping to create a problem and not doing anything about it just so you can live easier is a sign of laziness and greed.
I mean, come on, we all know that this can't last forever. We're going to have to give up some comfort in order to survive. It just seems that nobody wants to be the one to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Jul 31, 2002, 11:45 PM
Post #23 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay, okay, okay. I got a little carried away with that comment biggernhell. I had not gotten personal and ridiculous on this thread until billcoe went off and flamed! (See his profanity-laced tirade). I basically let him get me fired up. I am sorry it upsets everyone so much but I am still the same person I've always been. Relatively well-liked(until now) and bending over backwards to help people out on this site(and in real life). I always get myself in trouble with these kinds of subjects. There are just certain things that trouble me and the "environment is going to hell in a handbasket" bandwagon is one of them. Part of my personality is to be very skeptical of the 'majority' opinion. I have a great deal of respect for Dixie Lee Ray. She is the former governor of WA state. She served as the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, assistant secretary of state in the U.S. Bureau of Oceans, and she has been(until her death) a longtime member of the zoology faculty of the University of Washington. She has also received the United Nations Peace Prize. She has written two books that are must reads for people concerned about the environment-Trashing the Planet and Environmental Overkill. These books were actually a turning point for me in not worrying so much about all the Doomsdayism being bantered about in the major media, etc. I would probably surprise you with how sensitive I am to the landscape, especially when backpacking in the mountains, etc. I am just not willing to make major and expensive changes to the American way of life without real proof. I may not continue this thread as it seems to have pissed some people off more than it should have, including some people I have considered friends.
|
|
|
|
|
ergophobe
Jul 31, 2002, 11:48 PM
Post #24 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2002
Posts: 150
|
Sorry Wildtrail - you're right that man doesn't cause global warming (or cooling) but we do contribute and we are probably knocking the system out of whack. Read on!
You want some facts, but let's start with an opinion - a quote from George W. Bush. Yes, that's
right, our oil executive president disagrees with Patrick Michaels:
A quote from George W. Bush
Quote:
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over
the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to
the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus
warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into
space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the
beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase
is due in large part to human activity. ...
Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account
for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about
one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We
also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all
greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries. ...
I also call on Congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions
made possible by implementing the clean energy technologies proposed in our energy plan.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
Some facts and evidence
1. Patrick Michaels is the editor of World Climate Review, an *industry* publication started and
funded by the Western Fuels Association, a trade group of US coal suppliers (no surprise that he is at
the U. of Virginia).
2. There are many factors that go into climate change and the earth has cycled through hot and warm
spells essentially forever. The last "mini ice age" came in the seventeenth century. One thing we
learn from that, by the way, is that small temperature changes have large effects, as witnessed by the
stagnant European populations during this period.
3. Yes, the earth is probably warming regardless of human impact.
4. Human impact is still significant. The system has been roughly balanced for millennia and the human
contribution, though a small portion of the total, is pushing the system out of whack. If it
continues, we run the risk of pushing the climate cycle out of the secular oscillation between cold and
warm, and moving it towards increasing warmth. We can't reasonably reduce the amount of natural
production, but we can control human inputs.
5. I would rather trust large-scale conclusions from independent organization like the United Nations,
The American Academy of Sciences and other rather than any single person on any extreme (and Michaels
is on the complete extreme fringe of science). As a brief note - President Bush asked the National
Academy of Sciences for an independent, objective analysis of the evidence and they came bace and told
him that the administration opinions on global warming (which are actually more moderate than
Michaels') are overly optimstic and the threat is real.
6. Good information for this is so prevalent, all one need do is look a little. I will spare you
reports from people World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club and so on since they, justifiably, might be
attacked as having vested interests similar to Michaels and the Western Fuels Association. So I send
you only to neutral sources like the UN, National Academy of Sciences, Pew Trust.
A. From the UNITED NATIONS
The UN's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called Global Warming: The
Scientific Basis. I direct you to pages 10-12 in particular.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
You may find particularly interesting, the quote:
Emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually
certain7 to be the dominant influence on the trends in
atmospheric CO concentration during the 21st century.
You can find other reports at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
B. The National Academy of Sciences, the group commissioned by G.W. Bush to study the problem
http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
Check out: Are We Changing the Climate?
which has a hopelessly long URL, but which you can get to from the main page mentioned above. The
report notes that there are many uncertainties, but concludes:
Quote:
The report notes that the cooling trend in the Earth's stratosphere -- documented by satellite data
since 1979 --- is so pronounced that it would be difficult to explain through natural variability
alone. The cooling is believed to be partially a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases and the
depletion of stratospheric ozone, which warms the atmosphere at low levels but cools it at high levels.
C. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/
You may find the "Uncertainties" section interesting.
D. You can also check out the Pew Trust's pages which has several reports
http://www.pewclimate.org
Check out in particular their "Facts and Figures" chapter
http://www.pewclimate.org/book/ff_chapter.pdf
and
The Science of Climate Change: Global and U.S. Perspectives
http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/env_science.cfm
Some conclusions and opinions
Does this mean that you have to get rid of your SUV? I would still support your decision to drive
whatever vehicle you want. For example, a person who lives in a 1000 square-foot apartment and drives
an SUV two miles to work everyday probably has much lower impact than someone who has a 3000
square-foot house in the suburbs and drives 40 miles to work each day in a hybrid vehicle. Everyone
makes their choices. I think it's incumbent on all of us, however, to pick and choose what's important
to us and try to save where we can. I think it's also important not to hide your head in the sand and
pretend that contributing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses is not exacerbating climate change problems
around the world. If you want to have a clean conscience, live cleanly - a lot more cleanly than I do,
so don't think I'm throwing stones at you in particular. If you don't want to live cleanly, at least
own up to the fact that you are damaging the planet. I am and I don't try to deny it. I try to
limit my impact, but I know it is still excessive.
In short
- try your best
- own up to what you do
Same rules as for everything else
Tom
PS to JMLangford - I've lived abroad and can see the "bad old USA" in perspective - United States has
some wonderful things that I can't see in any other country, but let's have the honesty to admit our
flaws. Per capita we do use a phenomenal amount of resources. I love living in the US, but I'm more
than happy to learn both from other countries and from alternate views in the US. Anyway, I don't see
how you can say that the National Academy of Sciences, the US EPA or the UN have a vested interest in
bringing down the USA. There are many legitimate criticisms of the US these days and we can't rest on
your "we beat Hitler" laurels forever.
[ This Message was edited by: ergophobe on 2002-07-31 16:49 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 12:11 AM
Post #25 of 228
(16980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Dang egro! That was outstanding! I will go back and check the links when I have more time. One exception to your 'neutral' references-the United Nations. I would differ with the statement that they are neutral. The UN, in my opinion has an agenda against the U.S. That is another subject entirely. Thanks for an intelligent response, now I have some "facts" to study.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Aug 1, 2002, 12:36 AM
Post #26 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
jmlangford - if you need absolute proof of everything then you'll never _know_ jack. It sounds to me like you've got a convenient excuse on your hands for living with largess.
On the other hand, waste not want not seems like a sound enough principle for me, be it from a moral, environmental, or whatever other standpoint you want.
I have no absolute proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, that evolution occurs, that we are increasing the rate of global warming or that my girlfriend loves me, but I take the fact that couloirs are the driest they've been in years to mean that something's effecting them, the fact that suburban's on the road piss me off as another que not to drive one and the fact that she hasn't dumped me as a clue that she loves me and I'm going to go out on a wing and take for granted (gasp!) that the sun will be up in the morning good as always.
How much proof of somethings do you need, and how desperately do you need to defend your ways - seems you clearly feel guilty about them if you're so strapped to defend them?
josh
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 1:30 AM
Post #27 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Well, I don't drive a Suburban, I drive a little Toyota Corolla. I don't doubt that coluoirs are drying up. I don't doubt that the earth's temperature is rising slightly. I don't waste or live high on the hog so to speak. I turn off all unused lights in the house. I have some solar lighting. Heck, I even carry other people's trash out of the wilderness when I find it. I just am not willing to swallow the environmental rhetoric hook, line and sinker, and in the process, totally disrupt the American way of life that we have fought so long and hard for. Just because I like to live in a little comfort does not mean I am a squandering, wasteful, bum like you insinuated, Josh. What you are saying is that we should disrupt the entire United States economy(Which the proposed regulations including the Kyoto Accord would do)based on some unproven theories and assumptions. Everybody is getting so personal on this thread-I have nothing against anybody here-I am just surprised at the "hate" getting thrown my way because of a difference of opinion. Cheers.
P.S.I am going to get a Suburban as soon as I can afford one. No, not to be a non-caring, wasteful pig, but to keep my precious wife and three young children a little safer on the road. But no, I shouldn't care about them. That makes me selfish guy that doesn't care about the rest of the world. I should sacrifice the safety of my family because of the unsubstantiated claim that humans are ruining the earth and that Suburbans are the cause. Makes sense to me!
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-31 19:32 ]
|
|
|
|
|
russman
Aug 1, 2002, 2:24 AM
Post #28 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848
|
I have been watching this thread all day and first I must say WOW This topic is deffinatley not where Jody figured it would lead too.
I will admititly say that I am not one that keeps up on enviornmental issues (too many new fanatics pop up daily with a new way we are killing the earth). But I will also say that it also takes the whole EARTH to help ruin it. The Ozone may be thinner in North America, and the US may make huge amounts of pollutants, but am I not wrong that the ENTIRE earth is part of the problem?
Wether we are in the US or in the Land Down Under, South Africa or Mexico City, anyplace that people use fossil fuels of any kind, anyplace there is manufacturing we are all helping destroy it.
As someone said earlier, can't we all just agree to disagree? Jody lives his life, and I am quite sure we can't change his way of thought. I live mine the exact same way. Life in Alaska is different even yet for wildtrail, and I am sure that living in Sydney is quite a change from what we are used to also.
I hope we can start to either not make this such a personal battle towards Jody and start to talk respectivley toward each other...or I ask that those who are showing thier distain for my friend Jody in the numerous PMS he has recieved, send some of your nasty PMs my way and ease up off his back.
______________
http://www.contrabandent.com/...ib/ruinkai/troll.gifThe Russmanhttp://www.contrabandent.com/...ib/ruinkai/troll.gif
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 2:34 AM
Post #29 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Russ for president!
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Aug 1, 2002, 2:53 AM
Post #30 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
*sigh* Jody, it looks like you've found my 'other' weakness .. lol, I'm being sucked in again! help!
Okay, first my confessions, I havent thoroughly checked the links and references mentioned throughout this thread, so I'm basically taking everyone for their word here (dangerous and naive of me, I know). Also, I have long been a die-hard tree-hugging hippy chick who realizes that some aspects of her daily existence dont reconcile nicely with her enviro-political beliefs. *And* I dont always do as much homework as I should on every subject that I encounter, which is why I'm doing the confessions up front.
ANYWAYS, I have actually found this debate to be rather enlightening. Although I was initially outraged at the thread, I must admit that there's a lot to be said on either side of the debate, and it's interesting to see the economic arguments from people like Wildtrail and Jody, as opposed to energy-backed scientists. I say Kudos to Jody for starting the thread, and to the those contributing intelligently from sound sources.
I've learned a lot and plan to follow up to develop some solid and educated opinions myself. I'll be back in a few days when this sucker makes topic of the week .. hehe .. until then, just to throw my own .02 in the jar, I personally tend to err on the side of caution, and my priority is more about protecting Mother Earth than sustaining America's economy. Yes, yes, I realize how much I stand to lose if the economy keeps hurting, but I cant stand the thought of what my grandkids might stand to lose if we dont stop polluting. All theory, no proof .. sorry, Jody .. just one more humble opinion.
Also, I would encourage anyone flaming Jody or wildtrail in PM to take a minute to check some of their other posts on the site ... from what I've read, it's not like these guys are out to spoil the environment, just some good critical thinking on the topic. In fact, it saddens me to realize that some people are taking this so low as to attack these guys personally for their beliefs .. "to each their own" is as steadfast in my home as "waste not, want not". .. okay, okay, I'm going now .. got some homework to do!
[ This Message was edited by: clymbr_chk on 2002-07-31 19:57 ]
|
|
|
|
|
offwidth
Aug 1, 2002, 3:01 AM
Post #31 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 188
|
I don't think that it is possible to say with certainty what the ultimate effects of all of these green house gasses will be.
However, what little I know about chemistry, I beleive it is safe to say that these emmissions will contribute to the
warming of the planet.
Somebody had mentioned that we put 7 million tons of this stuff into the atmosphere while nature puts in 200 million tons of the stuff. That's means 3% of these gasses are
man-made.
I have a mathematics background, and I see the Earth's weather and climatic patterns as a really complex chaotic dynamical system. Because of this complexity it is impossible to tell before hand what the effect of this 3% will be. We can only
guess, and all of our guesses will be different.
There is a simple model that looks at the dynamics of two populations, one predators and the other prey. As the system evolves you can see how the two population's numbers oscillate back and forth (much like the temperture of the Earth). But if you go in and change the number of one of the populations however
slighly, the population numbers no longer oscillate but instead one of the species will go extict.
So it seams that we are rolling the dice by pumping all of these gasses into the atmosphere. Maybe nothing will happen, or maybe the U.S. will become a big desert and Canada will become the bread basket of the world, eh?
But if something bad does come from this, by the time we see it it will be too late to do anything about it.
[ This Message was edited by: offwidth on 2002-07-31 20:09 ]
|
|
|
|
|
marcel
Aug 1, 2002, 3:08 AM
Post #32 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 523
|
I feel vindicated knowing that Dr. Patrick Michaels gets his pay from the coal companies. As the saying goes "only time will tell". So lets all sit back and take a look at this in 10, 20, or even 50 years. I think a few people making comments here will have egg on their faces, just as I did when I bought into the pro Vietnam War rhetoric 30 years ago.
[ This Message was edited by: marcel on 2002-07-31 20:14 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 3:15 AM
Post #33 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Hey clymber_chk, I am sorry to have ruined your otherwise stellar opinion of me! I really enjoy discussing these subjects-don't get me started on gun control though, I might blow a fuse! I appreciate the intelligence you brought to the debate from the other side...maybe you can rub off on some other people.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 3:33 AM
Post #34 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Just searching for the solid truth Stu. I happen to have read a couple of books by the late Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet and Environmental Overkill. They really opened my eyes to a lot of the misinformation being foisted upon us by the environmental activists. I was almost 180 degrees(no warming pun intended) from the stand I have now on the issue. Thanks for your intelligent response, Stu. Things are actually starting to look up in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
marcel
Aug 1, 2002, 4:05 AM
Post #35 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 523
|
Since it looks like some of your facts are coming from Dixie Lee Ray I figured I'd give you a few tidbits about her. A friend of mine worked for her when she was a Governor of Washington State. According to him she had two dogs that she let piss on her carpet and draperies within her office. He told me she and her office almost always smelled like dog piss. From her stand on nuclear power, and from the billions of dollars she cost electric rate payers, not to mention she smelled like piss, I can see why she had a grudge against environmentalist. I'd suggest you look into how much money that woman cost you and everyone else on the west coast before you defend her points of view.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 4:15 AM
Post #36 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Marcel
But that still doesn't take away from some of the solid evidence she cites in her books.(I'll bet she smells worse than piss now!)Still, you are only attempting to discredit my sources instead of defending your stand.
Cheers,
Jody
|
|
|
|
|
crimpinfool
Aug 1, 2002, 4:36 AM
Post #37 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 16
|
Since jmlangford seems to know very little about science and how it is conducted, it seems a few things need pointing out. First, to anybody looking for proof of global warming as a function of human-generated pollutants, you will have to get used to disappointment. In science, there is no certainty. Gravity is a theory, not a fact. Quarks, photons, and evolution are theoretical. Global warming is a theory, plain and simple. All we have to work with is data, and the differences in public policy proposals and the debates on this forum lie in the interpretation of that data, not the data itself.
That said, any conclusions we make must attempt to make sense of the most data in the most parsimonious way. That is what science does. The scientist cited from U.Va that started this post is one scientist with one interpretation. He is, probably by his own admission, on the fringe of the scientific community. The overwhelming number of geologists, climatologists, biologists, etc. would disagree with Dr. Michaels. As a member of the scientific community, I can say that one way we typically evaluate competing theories is through converging evidence (i.e., numerous studies using different procedures result in the same conclusions). The evidence in the case of global warming strongly converges on human activity as an important cause. Certainly, it is not the only cause, but it seems to be a vital one. Perhaps more importantly, it is a factor that is under our control.
I disagree with environmentalists that say we are destroying our planet. We are only destroying the planet as we know it (and as it is able to support us). In the end, the planet will exist despite significant warming. Human life, however, depends on our ability to control our hedonism. Global warming may not destroy your favorite ice climb today, but if we fail to think more clearly about how we use our resources then your grandchildren may never know ice climbing. So why not drive a Suburban? Because the bulk of the evidence and the vast majority of interpretations point to fossil fuels as an unneccesary pollutant that dirties our air, erodes our atmospheric health, encourages desertification, and places undue economic stress on people and industry around the world trying to adapt to a changing environment.
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Aug 1, 2002, 4:43 AM
Post #38 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
While I'm not really contributing to the 'facts' here, I think it's interesting to consider the reasoning behind my enviro-political beliefs.
Personally, I admit that I havent done tons of research on the topic. I just know what 'feels' right and what
'sounds' right to me, but I've never really put any critical thought into why I believe what I believe.
More info, more reseach, less flaming about dog pee and such .. .. and Jody, this has done nothing but improve my opinion of you. While I cant say that it's changed my opinion on anything, I always appreciate a person or thread that provokes some thought.
Edit: Just wanted to add a "wow" in response to crimpinfool's comment.
[ This Message was edited by: clymbr_chk on 2002-07-31 21:49 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wetrocks
Aug 1, 2002, 4:48 AM
Post #39 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 102
|
Wow............ I'm amazed how some people still think, but it's not their fault. This important topic needs discussion because so many respected people, astro turf groups and corporate scientists tend to grey up a lot of the "facts."
I have a simple question to ask that goes beyond just global warming: how do we sustain an infinitely expanding economy in a world of finite resources?
Hummmmmmm. Are you thinking about how much you comsume? What are you leaving for the future....is it just waste and pollution?
When climbing we generally always pick the safest option to cut down the risk of us killing/hurting ourselves. Yet, when it comes to decreasing the risk of devastating our planet, we don't choose the safest option.
If anyone is interested in some very basic facts of what's happening to the climate in B.C. and Washington state (there's no finger pointing as to why it's occuring) here's a start: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/pac/climate/ccprint_page/ccindicator_print.html
"Both the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the US National Academy of Science have concluded that the global atmosphere is warming. Moreover, they agree that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years can be attributed to human activities that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
Any questions?
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 4:53 AM
Post #40 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
The overwhelming number of geologists, climatologists, biologists, etc. would disagree with Dr. Michaels.
On what do you base this assertion? Just the verifiable facts, please.
BTW, thank you for your response. This thread is actually starting to get fun. (Although I am still in the minority here.)
|
|
|
|
|
crimpinfool
Aug 1, 2002, 5:56 AM
Post #41 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 16
|
jmlangford,
Unfortunately, pollsters have not conducted any comprehensive surveys of opinions in the scientific community (thank god, just more annoying phone calls).
BTW, if everyone wants to drive their Suburbans, then why not support the development of alternative fuel sources. Electric cars are not the answer. The require charging which requires the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, plus they dump all kinds of toxic chemicals into our environment when we dispose of them. Hydrogen has been successfully developed for use in the BMW 7 series. It generates far less pollution, requires fewer resources to gather, and is generally more useful in larger vehicles.
I am getting the distinct impression that much of the support for global warming stems not from any real disregard for the environment, but rather from individuals' inability to let go of their Suburbans and a fear among some that stricter regulation will hurt the economy. As somebody else pointed out, climactic change could drive operating costs for industry and consumers through the ceiling resulting in economic destabilization. Just imagine the problems that will arise when the Alaskan oil pipeline begins to sink into the softening permafrost (hint: think environmental and economic nightmare).
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 1, 2002, 6:18 AM
Post #42 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
alright, last post I'm making to this silly thread.
1) the US is notorious for using an astounding amount of energy per capita. Therefore the actions of US citizens are disproportionately harmful to the global climate. Again, this is not a subject open to debate -- it is a fact.
2) theories in science are routinely overturned and refined, but to claim that gravity is a "theory" akin to that of evolution is a bit of a stretch. Drop an object, watch it fall down. This is less subject to debate than the beak of the finch.
Personally I bike to work because it's faster and more fun than driving a goddamned car. Of course when I do drive, I drive a Toyota pickup that gets moderate (24mpg city) gas mileage and has good collision safety. But I don't drive much.
Regardless of whether cyclical fluctuations in the Earth's temperature or gross abuse of fossil fuels and other climate-influencing emissions are to blame, I was very unhappy that the ice didn't much form at Willoughby last winter. That sucked...
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Aug 1, 2002, 11:40 AM
Post #43 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
So much that has been said in this thread is junk. It can't possibly all be replied to. But I'll try.
Crimpinfool said that gravity is a theory, not a fact. Ever known it to fail, brother? There is such a thing as certainty in science, next time you fall off the rock try to tell me about the "theory of gravity". Maybe that sprained ankle is theoretical too, huh? I must admit I didn't read the rest of your post after reading this crap - I just couldn't take anything you wrote seriously.
Jody, lets talk world wars (or the first one at least). Some might say that it was only the sinking of the Lusitania that brought the US into the war. The first 2 years were just a sort of warm up for the main event - America saving the world. Maybe if you'd come in earlier thousands of lives would have been saved. These things work both ways. Don't think I'm not grateful, but you can't have everything your way.
The US provides one third of the world's food. We'll stop exporting ours to you then shall we?
The "best medical research institutes in the world" are mainly staffed by foreigners. This issue has been of great interest to the american scientific community - the fact that the US just isn't producing the scientific strength that it used too.
Anyway, enough US bashing. There are many good things about your country and your way of life - please remember that this doesn't give you the right to do as you please. We do indeed share the earth. Lets be responsible about it.
Can't be bothered writing any more, except this. I hope you remember this debate in thirty years time, when you can't go outside without really strong sunscreen. When your grankids can't play in the park because the smog and UV radiation is too bad. Remember your strength in standing up to the environmentalists, and be proud...
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 1, 2002, 7:41 PM
Post #44 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Quote: 1) the US is notorious for using an astounding amount of energy per capita. Therefore the actions of US citizens are disproportionately harmful to the global climate. Again, this is not a subject open to debate -- it is a fact.
We also disproportionately produce more than our share of the world's goods and services. Kind of a good trade-off there?
I think people are forgetting that I am not denying that a little warming is taking place. I am just not ready to buy into the theory that we humans are the main culprits. I will give up a few freedoms(voluntarily, I hate the government, etc. telling me what to do)if I am ever convinced that we are causing this "meltdown".
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-01 12:47 ]
|
|
|
|
|
topher
Aug 1, 2002, 8:15 PM
Post #45 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 477
|
THIS, is to MR. USA. America is not the best country in the world!!! Having lived there, and many other places i can say this, it is how ever one of the most wealth. the one thing i want to know is when canadians where over helping you fight terorism, and one of you pilots killed 4 of our soliders in so called "friendly fire" why there wasnt more action take in. and if you where the best country in the world you would have to worrie abot terorism because you would keep out of every one eleses buissnes.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 1, 2002, 8:34 PM
Post #46 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
This is still going? Enough already people, please.
No more arguements. I'll agree with topher. The USA isn't the best country on Earth. Now, I don't know this by personal experience, but my best friend is a professional chef that has traveled the world (literally) and has said there are countries out there that kick our ass as far as living conditions, etc. However, like he said, somethings are better here, some things are better there. It is all a toss up. I can tell you one thing that I have learned from others. Canada kicks the s--- out of the USA on education (which many countries do) and HEALTH care (something that is important to me due to having a cancer survivor wife).
Its all heresay. You say tomato, I say tomato, right? Hell, let's call the whole thing off. This is getting silly.
Regards to all!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 1, 2002, 8:45 PM
Post #47 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
topher, at least americans know how to spell. and what the hell does us/canadian relations have to do with global warming???
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 1, 2002, 8:51 PM
Post #48 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Jody- Don't worry about pissing me or anybody else off. You seem like good people and a difference in opinion does'nt change that. I enjoy the knowledge that a little give and take of ideas gives on this subject. And if people get excited over it, what the hell? Its an important subject that everybody who can see past the end of their own nose
is very passionate about.
Peolpe (and I admit that environmentalists are the worst) who hld very passionate beliefs about something tend to do so in a black or white frame of mind. If you even start to dissagree with most of them they assume you are their the anti-christ. This is the problem that I have put alot of time into lately. This all good or all bad thing does nothing but undermine attempts at cooperation and and keep us from solving sh it.
Jody holds a view that is backed by scientific hypthesis. So does everyone who believes the opposite. Including biggernhell.
In my Anthropological experience I have found that reading a couple of books along one line, or even just one can totally change the way that you view a subject. The problem is that 9 out of 10 times you can find an equally compelling book from an equally qualified author that says the opposite. Then where are you? As Sam Kinison used to say. "Sticky, broke and confused". All your left with to trust is your personal experience and your gut. I'm probably going to look into the books that JM suggested and I hope tht a few of you out there will to. Because I'm sure he's going to be checking out all of the global warming links that have been posted here as well.
[ This Message was edited by: biggernhell on 2002-08-01 13:59 ]
[ This Message was edited by: biggernhell on 2002-08-01 13:59 ]
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 1, 2002, 9:03 PM
Post #49 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Oh, and ergophobe, you are my hero. I would never have taken the time to post all of the good info you did. You're fighting the good fight awfully hard. Thanks I appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 1, 2002, 9:15 PM
Post #50 of 228
(13675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jon,
I said before I left the thread. I guess I'm not too good at that because people like you keep saying good things.
I agree with you Jon. Environmentalists are the worst. They'll walk over everything to debate their little "issue". You are right, they see things only in black and white and that is what makes them wrong. The world is not a black and white place. Not even with gray areas. It is full of color. The problem with most environmentalists is that they are very, very small-minded. They have one belief, and they stick to it no matter what, completely missing every possible angle. Recongnizing every possible angle is the true search for the truth. How many theories in the history of man were renounced due to its absurdity? Only to later be true.
Evironmentalists would better serve their purpose by knocking off their BS "I'm right, you're wrong" garbage, see the angles and colors of life, and and search for the truth. You're right, Jon. The tip of our noses aren't too far out, now are they?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 1, 2002, 9:20 PM
Post #51 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
I have to say one thing about everybody on this thread. I am very suprised at the level of maturity. You all impress me. In an impersonal world, such as the internet, you all are on one side of the fence or the other (some standing on it in the middle). However, usually this is the place that "flaming" starts and things get out of hand. Yet, none of you do that. It is a HUGE suprise on the net to see that. I congradulate you all for being such great people. You all truly inspire me that this world can be civil even in the midst of anonimity and geographic separation!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wetrocks
Aug 1, 2002, 9:26 PM
Post #52 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 102
|
Are you familar with the concept of an
Ecological Footprint ?
Yes the U.S. may produce more goods, but where does all the raw resources used to produce these goods originate?
Where is all the waste deposited after consumption of these goods? After comsumption the waste that isn't put into the landfills is deposited into the commons.
Such gluttinous use of resources adds a disproportionate amount of pollution and waste into the biosphere. Why should any proud country continue live in such a destructive manor?
Sorry for the spaze here, but what gives the U.S. the right to s--- on the planet so much?
Ok, ok, time to calm........quite venting........it's not only the U.S. causing the problem. I apoligize for pointing a finger. Just be aware of the excessive impact that the American lifestyle has on our planet.
Once I became aware of the impact I was having on our planet I sold my big Ol'GMC 4x4 and made changes to many other aspects of my lifestyle. Simple changes make such a difference over the long run.... I can't remember the last time I needed to use a disposable coffe cup and my cardio is great from all the biking.
After just flipping back to the thread I'm now way off topic but what can ya do. I gotta agree that the hardcore environmentalists lost any respect I had for them years ago. Regardless....we need to take care of this place...sounds simple enough...so lets minimize how much we consume.
Time to hit the crags. Gotta go, cheers to all.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkjunkie
Aug 1, 2002, 9:50 PM
Post #53 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2001
Posts: 153
|
Dear Mr. Langford:
To answer the question of what has the rest of the world done for us lately.
The "developing world" has served as a cheap source of natural resources and labor. The United States goverment is responisble for much violence in the name of "perserving democracy" an oxymoron for making the world safe for for corporations.
Take a look at the involvement of the US government in Central and South America. For example, the involvement of the US in Chile (overthrowing a democractically elected president Allende after he nationalized some industries and upset ITT). Guatamala - where the US has ties to the death squads and helped to overthrow an elected government - I believe that this was at the behest of the United Fruit Company. Columbia is currently on the receiving end of Plan Columbia in which the US supplies money and equipment for a campaign which is essentially against the people of Columbia.
Also - look at the example of Nicargua - the World Court found the US guilty of waging a terrorist war against the Sandinista government. The US supplied information to the Contras and encouraged them to attack soft targets. Soft targets are medical clinics, farms, villages, etc.
So before you start complaining about what the world has done for us lately - take a look at your cheap clothing, gasoline, tv's and other electronic products, shoes, even the alumninum that your carabiners are made of and then you'll see what the rest of the world has done for us.
Deirdre
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Aug 1, 2002, 10:00 PM
Post #54 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
1) If the USA saved France twice in the 20th century it was really the least we could do for them saving our ass durring the revoloutionary war and for showing us the way to democracy. That's one thing another country has done for us and I'd say a pretty big one.
2) Australlia: please don't stop sending food as I have no domestic source for Vegemite.
3) Langford: I totally disagree with your take on global warming. Take that stuff back to RushLimbaugh.com.
4) The USA does kick ass but that's because we've got the strengths of every culture in the world to draw upon.
E Pluribus Unum!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 1, 2002, 10:19 PM
Post #55 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Just a short comment if I may.
The US must continue to be an economic powerhouse and by staying strong economically it will over time develop the knowledge and science to solve environmental problems.
Cripple the US and other developed nations and where will the money come from to solve these seemingly intractible problems.
Sure talk about what could be a problem and over time man will solve that problem, I have no doubt that man has the ability to solve these problems just don`t nobble the economic activity that will support such an effort.
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 1, 2002, 10:48 PM
Post #56 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Wildtrail-Glad you agree and all but, just remember, I'm not talking just about environmentalists. I'm talking about both sides. Both sides have the same problem. If they're passionate about something alot of people view things as blac and white. That goes for miners, loggers, captains of industry, priests, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. Its closed minded and a really shi tty wat to go through life.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 1, 2002, 11:04 PM
Post #57 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Agreed!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 1, 2002, 11:15 PM
Post #58 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Ah, yes JM we do, but how does one equte to the other? Are we helping more than we are fu cking up?
|
|
|
|
|
russmanswife
Aug 1, 2002, 11:58 PM
Post #59 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 344
|
just have to add my two cents and this is all i am going to say on this. we use up fossil fuels everyday driving cars is not the only people use up the earth's resources. take what we eat that food doesn't magically appear out of no where it takes fuel to grow it and harvest it and get it to the store and then to your table, same with the clothes you wear i have yet to see t-shirts falling from the sky guess what they get to the store buy a truck burning fuel aka fossil fuels. your computer that you are typing on at the moment or surfing the internet you are using electricity to run that computer which may or may not come from fossil fuel, around here we have hydroelectic power don't even get started on the threat that that is to salmon even though they are an endangered species isn't it funny to still see the stores selling it and restaurants serving it. yes i am concerned about the enviroment and would like to see my kids have a beautiful planet to live on but at the same time i don't want them running around naked cold and starving because we can't take the risk of using too much of the earth's resources. i am from oregon and i am proud to say that many family members worked in the logging industry (yes they helped cut down trees oh my god!) an industry which helped provide for my family not only in material posessions but put food on the table and clothes on our backs without that i may not be and neither would my son. it isn't necessarily that we need to stop using natural resources we need to be more responsible in the way we go about using them. as far as suvs go i would say after many years of the government trying to get car manufacturers to make them more fuel efficient and i have yet to see a suburban get 30 miles to the gallon i would say that there is a bigger picture out there that not everyone always sees any of the manufacturers clothing, food, autos or otherwise are not ready to make the step to help everyone else save the planet. quit blaming the common man and start looking for the bigger fish to fry. until then i will drive my big ole suv to keep my family safe and make my trips in it to the grocery store so that i can feed and clothes my family and during all that time burning fuel to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 2, 2002, 12:31 AM
Post #60 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
wow, this topic has been going on forever! Is there a list of longest-enduring topics somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
climber_chick
Aug 2, 2002, 1:01 AM
Post #61 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 278
|
i'm sure we can HELP with adding to the global warming, although i'm sure you people wouldn't want that. with the cutting down of the rainforests, it certainly helps. since the rainforests help with alot of our oxygen, if the oxygen supply depletes, then the greenhouse effect will take place and then global warming will occur. yup yup. a school project has done me some good.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpinfool
Aug 2, 2002, 5:14 AM
Post #62 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 16
|
I think we've all lost the point of this thread. Langford wanted "proof" that we are causing global warming. I stand by what I said earlier, that no scientific evidence can grant certainty. Indeed, uncertainty is inherent in science. If you look at any peer-reviewed article you will notice the extensive use of STATISTICS, which are an expression of PROBABILISTIC CONCLUSIONS. In the case of gravity, the rock falling on my head is the observable data, and we posit a mystical force called gravity as the cause of this phenomena. However, since we cannot see gravity itself, only the supposed effects of it, we can only theorize that it exists with some probability. My apologies to those who are unable to wrap your mind around this. Likewise, just because we know the Earth is warming does not mean we can automatically know that humans are causing this. We must advance theories base on which ones best describe the data. Currently, most atmospheric scientists agree that human-generated pollutants play an important role in global warming. However, nothing is ever "proven" or certain because we cannot directly observe the effects on the scale we are measuring. That should not, and cannot stop us from taking steps in what we believe is the best direction. If the best data and the best models point to human activity as contributing significantly to global warming, then get off your high horse (or your mile-high SUV) and get to work. To those of you who get 15 mpg or less in your vehicle (and it is less than 5 year old), would you honestly prefer to NOT get better gas mileage? Do you realize that a more renewable energy source would be cheaper to operate on in the long run? The problem as I see it is perspective. If we look only 5 years into the future, then energy conservation is not as important as reducing taxes. However, when we decide to look further into the future, say 25 years, then taxes seem trivial compared to taking steps to control global warming. Also, to those who want to wait for more solid science, know that you are in the esteemed company of the CEO of Exxon/Mobil and Pres. Bush, whereas the CEO's of the other major oil producers have already acknowledged the role fossil fuels play in global warming.
[ This Message was edited by: crimpinfool on 2002-08-01 22:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 2, 2002, 5:33 AM
Post #63 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
To answer one of Eric's questions, no I would not prefer better gas mileage. I may be one of the few, but I like power. I also like lots of room, so it is an SUV or 4X4 pickup for me. I also own an old muscle car, so again, the power thing. Its not a "penis envy" thing either. I was born in a family that likes powerful or luxury cars. I have owned a "effecient" vehicle once. It was the worst. I had no room for anything, it couldn't pass itself, and I just hated it. I do as much as I can for the environment, but I'm not giving up everything. I will always own something with "balls", so to speak. Besides, my SUV makes a great road-trip vehicle and I can carpool like a madman (it seats eight). When I go across country with friends it is more effecient. One vehicle using 150 bucks in gas is better than three using 100 bucks, isn't it? Well, that may be a moot point, but I'm still not giving up the HP. If it can't fly, I won't buy. I can strap two kayaks, a bunch of bikes and gear to the darn thing, plus carry a group of people.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 2, 2002, 5:47 AM
Post #64 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay, I can't answer everything at once so, bit by bit, I'll try.
Quote #1 from crimpinfool:The overwhelming number of geologists, climatologists, biologists, etc. would disagree with Dr. Michaels.
Quote #2 from crimpinfool:jmlangford,
Unfortunately, pollsters have not conducted any comprehensive surveys of opinions in the scientific community
Well, I did a little research and the Gallup organization(a neutral pollster, wouldn't you agree?) conducted a poll of scientists that are actually involved in global climate research. Here are the results:
53 percent do not believe that global warming is occurring.
30 percent say they don't know
17 percent say they believe it is occurring.
I rest my case on that point.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 2, 2002, 7:07 AM
Post #65 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
hmm, lots of long posts on this topic. I'll keep mine to one subject that bugged me as I read through them.
The U.S. citizens driving their suburbans are not the main cause.
Several posts on here from americans have pointed at America as a huge cause of polution. I'll admit that there is a lot here, but our laws also limit it quite a bit. I have been to places overseas where even the citizens who live there all their lives could not breath because of the exhaust from the constant streams of junky, old cars in extreme cases of disrepair. It struck me that some of you have your thoughts centered on Americans and how much they are poluting. Look at how our laws limit polution, especially through automobiles.
American polution is nothing when compared even to tiny, third world countries!
I'll not go into the other aspects of this as it would be a waste of typing energy, but this subject just struck me. My opinion is with Jim.
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Aug 2, 2002, 10:50 AM
Post #66 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
Quote:
Well, I did a little research and the Gallup organization(a neutral pollster, wouldn't you agree?) conducted a poll of scientists that are actually involved in global climate research. Here are the results:
53 percent do not believe that global warming is occurring.
Well I wonder what kind of definition they're using for "global warming," cause the dictionary definition, "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere" is measurably happening, so I wonder what these scientists aren't believing in?
|
|
|
|
|
taxexile
Aug 2, 2002, 12:18 PM
Post #67 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 97
|
I just bought shares in a company that manufactures sun cream. I urge you all to buy more SUVs and continue your gaseous emissions. After all, it's my God-given right to profit from the suffering of future generations, right?
|
|
|
|
|
taxexile
Aug 2, 2002, 12:54 PM
Post #68 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 97
|
Er...thanks for the insights into Switzerland Rico. Obviously you live in a different country, which just happens to be also called Switzerland, to the one that financed the Nazis in WW2, is home to the some of the world's most repugnant corporations, who's banks stole Jewish money, and which gets rich making money from both sides in many wars. But at least your streets are clean.
It's not your English that's poor Rico, just your grasp of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
madscientist
Aug 2, 2002, 2:14 PM
Post #69 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159
|
This tread is long so I did not get a chance to read everything, but I don't think this has been stated before.
I talked to a scientist from NOAA about a year ago about the effect of pollution on the environment. His belief that Global Warming was an over simplification. Most of the world's pollution occurs in large industrial areas, and does not distribute itself uniformly over the earth. Down wind of these areas, large clouds of gases form which warm up the earth downwind of the industrial area. Upwind (because of some mechanism I did not understand thus I forgot) the temperature actually got cooler. Thus the average temperature of the whole earth did not change much. I'm sorry I can't quote any sources, but this theory is speculation. Fortunately, they can run large scale computer simulations that predict this effect, and all availiable data seems to support the simulations. There needs to be much more data collected, as of a year ago, to say anything for sure.
There was also someone who talked about a Hydrogen fueled car, i.e. a feul cell car. Honda is talking about releasing a model within the next ten years. They are easy enough to make, but there are two problems. Cost, and the fuel. People will have to get the fuel, so some kind of large scale changing of gas stations will have to occur. Also, the last quote I saw was that one would cost about $500,000. Personally, I will have to wait for the cost to come down. Honda seems to think they can do it though. There might be some Constuction equipment and Trucks built sooner. The nice thing about a fuel cell car is that the waste is water. We could use a little more water here in Colorado.
|
|
|
|
|
stewbabby
Aug 2, 2002, 2:46 PM
Post #70 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 802
|
Ok, im too lazy to read all of each post on topic, so im not sure if this has already been stated, but i will say it anyway. FACT-MORE DAMAGE IS DONE TO THE ATMOSPHERE IN ONE YEAR BY VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS AND METHANE GAS FROM COWS FARTING, THAN ALL OF THE POLUTANTS THAT HUMANS HAVE PRODUCED THROUGHOUT TIME.
stewart
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Aug 3, 2002, 2:14 AM
Post #71 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
Hey Wildtrail, my post containing the word CANCER and your reference to your wives cancer are completely seperate. My reference to cancer came BEFORE yours.
I was not, and would not be so insensitive as to suggest that your wife's cancer was caused by by UV. It was not my intention to offend you, or your wife.
I hope that both you and your wife are OK.
Sincerely,
Duncan
PS. I will PM this to you so that I know you get it.
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Aug 3, 2002, 2:32 AM
Post #72 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
On a slightly less friendly note...
Crimpinfool, your ID is at least half right. Having shown that the LAW OF GRAVITY is only a theory, what will your next trick be? Perhaps you will overturn the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS? Is a perpetual motion machine on its way?
As a self professed member of the "scientific community" you should know the very DISTINCT difference between a theory and a law. LAWS, SUCH AS THOSE OF GRAVITY AND THERMODYNAMICS ARE CALLED LAWS BECAUSE THEY CAN BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED. THEORIES (EVOLUTION FOR EXAMPLE) ARE SO CALLED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED, BUT DO FIT THE AVAILABLE DATA.
I am an undergraduate science student and I have known this since high school. What exactly is your position in the "scientific community". If you are presenting your views as those of a "scientist" then this is pertinent (as opposed to impertinent
)
One of my pet hates is people who spout "scientific" views about topics when in reality they do not know what they are talking about (please note I am no longer talking about my friend crimpinfool, but more generally). As a biotech student, I am constantly reading CRAP about genetically modified food and so on. I realise that this is off topic, and include it only to qualify my position.
Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 3, 2002, 5:17 AM
Post #73 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
A friend PM'd me this and I thought it was well put:
Saw your thread on Global Warming and thought I would drop a line. It is amazing how far spun up some people can get over something like this but it never ceases to amaze me how some of these eco folks can get worked up. I love the outdoors as much as the next climber and do what I can but I agree with you that it is not simply the Americans that are the problem. I also agree that we have bailed out the rest of the world too many times and then been kicked in the teeth. For those that asked when did we help out when there was nothing in it for us look to Ruwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and numerous other sites where we have worked, fought and died and got nothing out of it. I also find it interesting how the younger generation can point out all the evils but has few answers to solve the problems. I was always taught not to be quick to point out a problem unless you have a viable solution for it. Most of us are already aware of the problems, we just need solutions that are viable. To say stop driving your cars is not the solution! I have been to some areas in Eastern Europe where the air quality (because of high emission fuels (coal)) is terrible, South America is cutting forests at an unbelievable rate and Japanese fishing trawlers sweep vast areas clear of any fish. Everyone recognizes these problems but few have answers for emerging countries that need the income from trees, have no modern factories and need the fish to feed vast populations and sell overseas.
I guess I should get down off my soapbox now. I just wanted you to know that I agree with you. There are a lot more pressing problems than worrying about the .8 degree temperature increase. Particularly in light of evidence that does not support that we are the cause of it!
Thanks also to Russmanswife for her passionate post!
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-02 22:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 3, 2002, 6:33 AM
Post #74 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
And here is another PM I think needs to be read:
Ok, I guess I'll put in my two cents.
On the issue of global warming, the heat islands we have created have more of an impact than the fossil fuel emissions. What is a heat island? Atlanta is a heat island,
New York, San Francisco, etc.... But science doesn't seem to address that issue.
How about that ozone layer, here we have "ozone depleting gases" being released at ground level, destroying the ozone layer so high above us (IN THEORY, there is still no actual proof of this), but it doesn't affect the ozone here at ground level. Ozone is a major ingredient in smog, so shouldn't all those "ozone depleting gases" actually be
helping the smog problem?
I drive a Sable wagon. When I can, I commute 20 miles to work on a bicycle. I just believe that you should not trust every talking head, just because the liberal press
puts them on TV. After all, TV is after ratings, so they'll put ANYTHING on that they think will get them ratings. Just look at the newspaper, they'll put any controversial
theory on the front page, but the correction will be on the last page.
I am not feeling so alone anymore!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 4, 2002, 3:59 AM
Post #75 of 228
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
ergophobe...In checking your links I checked out the Pew Institute. A certain Ms. Claussen is the chief advocate and speaker for their 'global warming' agenda.
In Pew's profile of her I quote the following:
Ms. Claussen is also a member of the board of directors of the Environmental Law Institute.
In the Environmental Law Institute's statement of their mission, I quote the following:
Behind the attorney in the courtroom is the lawyer in the library searching for new arguments and precedents. The first resource and often the last resource needed by these lawyers is the Environmental Law Reporter (ELR) and the research reports of ELI.
Kind of tells me she has a vested interest in keeping those laws piling up. Has to keep those lawyers busy. Also discredits her "neutrality".
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-03 21:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
crimpinfool
Aug 4, 2002, 6:16 AM
Post #76 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 16
|
To those who do not understand science,
The Law of Gravitation refers to the mathematical gravitational constant, a model that describes and predicts how object A acts upon object B. That is, it describes object behavior, not the causes of those behaviors. This is a subtle but important difference that I hope all of you who have taken a physics class in middle school recognize. The constant does not say what causes the the behavior, it only quantifies the relationship between objects. My point goes to causal attributions. We can formulate a model that predicts global warming and may formally specify its progression, but the question on this post was what causes global warming. We don't know what the proximate cause of object behavior is in the case of gravity. Is gravity a particle wave emitted from objects that has some pulling effect on nearby objects? Perhaps it is non-material? I doubt your physics professor knows the answer to this (like I said, science is full of uncertainty). What we know is that the earth revolves around the sun and a rock from above will fall on my head. In the case of global warming we know that the Earth is warming. The question is whether human activity is an important cause. And an answer to this question will never be 100% certain. If DMON is as earnest in biotechnology as professed, then certainly statistics is part of the curriculum. What they don't tell you in high school is that the reason we use stats is because we DON'T know all the answers. So, again, I return to my original point: If you are hoping for a completely unbiased, doubtless report on global warming, please don't kid yourself.
P.S., DMON may note that the examples of scientific laws he notes are formal (i.e., mathematical) models. Global warming is far more complex than thermal dynamics or gravity in a vacuum.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 4, 2002, 6:23 AM
Post #77 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
crimpinfool...Did you mean causal relationships instead of causal attributions? I understand what you are trying to explain-I actually got an A in physics in college. Thanks for your input on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 5, 2002, 4:09 AM
Post #78 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Am I talking to myself now? Everybody has left the thread. No response to my Claussen/Pew rebuttal?
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 5, 2002, 8:12 PM
Post #79 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Ok Jody, I'm back.
I have no idea if it has been mentioned in this thread yet. But, if you want an impartial view of human effect on global warming you need look no further than President Bush. When he was trying to explain why he wouldn't sign the kyoto accord he said that, yes science did show that the production of green house gases by humans was causing signifigant global warming. He is the president. He does have our best interests in mind right? I'm pretty sure that Dubya doesn't sway toward unsubstantiated claims by environmentalists very often. I mean, hell the only reasin he didn't sign it was because it didn't force developing nations to enact emissions legislation. The fact that the average citizen of a developing nation emits 3 tons of co2 per year while the Average American produces 20 tons is neither here nor there.
[ This Message was edited by: biggernhell on 2002-08-06 10:35 ]
|
|
|
|
|
climber1
Aug 6, 2002, 7:56 PM
Post #80 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2000
Posts: 484
|
Jody,
either you are pretty far out there on the right, or this is a troll. I'm hopin' that your trollin'
|
|
|
|
|
indamtnsbj
Aug 6, 2002, 8:57 PM
Post #81 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 77
|
Being a degreed Geologist who now works in the oilfield itself, I have views on both sides.
It is a damn shame that the earths glaciers are receding, and anything that we can do to prevent this should be done.
However, the headlines of "Global Warming" are so catchy that many people go off quoting and blaming the burning of fossil fuels for this.
I have read the science reports, and I am still not convinced nor unconvinced that we are influencing the earth's climate.
HOWEVER- Everyone must notice how damn hot is seems to be in the summer, there has been a hell of alot of forest fires lately, and has anyone seen the brown smog in an airplane at 30,000 feet.
Regardless if you think that we are screwing up the climate or not, everybody should pitch in and make an attempt to burn less energy.
Damn guys, turn your A.C. down from 4 to 3 in your car, give somebody a lift, do something to help out.
So, if you dont believe in Global warming, do a little to lessen the smog over Denver, Rio de Janeiro, or where ever you are.
BJ Null
Macae, Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
chrisshaeffer
Aug 6, 2002, 9:27 PM
Post #82 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 86
|
A little different perspective on the "Global Warming" issue:
The last galcial advance of the most recent Ice Age ended 35,000 years ago. Long time, eh? The glaciers have been retreating and the earth warming ever since.
Even during the Ice Age, however, there were several interglacial stages where the glaciers had retreated further and the earth was warmer than it is today. If I recall correctly, the interglacial stages lasted 60-70,000 years and the longest was 120,000. (My numbers may be a bit off, but you get the idea.)
Possible conclusions?
1) There is no real evidence that the "most recent" Ice Age is even over- we might be in an interglacial period.
2) The current warming trend might have started when stone tools were concidered high tech.
3) Human pollutants MAY be affecting global warming, but no one is really sure how much.
Most people think of the earth as a stable system- and for the most part it is. Our view of "stable", however, can be rather short-sighted compared to the variables involved.
Take care,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 6, 2002, 9:37 PM
Post #83 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Good point
Scientifically verifiable
Sound
Very little contraversy surrounding it
Pretty much accepted fact at this point
NOT AN EXCUSE TO KEEP ON DOING THINGS THE WAY WE ARE.
Look up at indamtnsbj's post
Global warming is not the only thing to worry about. I like my lungs as well and I promise that the stuff those coal fired powerplants and heavy duty automobile engines are spitting out ain't exactly a warm spring breeze.
[ This Message was edited by: biggernhell on 2002-08-06 14:40 ]
|
|
|
|
|
chrisshaeffer
Aug 6, 2002, 10:28 PM
Post #84 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 86
|
Hey, biggernhell, was that aimed at me?
No arguments. I'm an environmnetal educator and I work in wildlife conservation. People are definately mucking things up in a variety of ways.
I was just speaking to the issue of the thread. I'm all for reducing industrial and consumer waste and pollution- I just don't shout "global warming!" as a reason for it. I shout a host of other reasons (vanishing biodiversity, habitat loss, low air quality, rising asthma rates, blah, blah, blah...), but was staying on the (main) subject of the thread.
Take care,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 6, 2002, 10:41 PM
Post #85 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Gotcha
I'm glad to see that someone can manage to stay on topic when it comes to issues like this.
|
|
|
|
|
lightboi
Aug 6, 2002, 11:21 PM
Post #86 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 109
|
I have neither the education(just a degree in history and theatre) or the resources(damm me for being at work) to cite to make my arguement. But I will make it anyways.
No matter what we as a species do to the planet life will continue. Ice Ages, 20 deg temp swings in 10 years, meteor stirikes, mass extinctions, polar reversals, cold ocean currents stopping, advancing deserts, and the sky falling.
The worst that the human race can do is make the planet unhabitable for US. Life will continue here just as it has for millions of years. Evuloution works.
Lets put a date ot 20,000 years for Humans living in orgainised groups, that lead to cities, nations, SUV's. A 20K sample from 35 million means nothing. 5000 yeas of written history means even less when looking at this same time frame. I remember from a geology class that the Appalation Mountains were once higher then the Hymilaya Mountains, was there ever a save the Appalation Range from erosion commitee?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 6, 2002, 11:50 PM
Post #87 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
To quote if I may, climber 1 "Jody,
either you are pretty far out there on the right, or this is a troll. I'm hopin' that your trollin'"
I need to take issue with the hypothesis that any who dare to differ from the view of the left must therefore be far out on the right.
I have seen nothing in Jodys postings so far that would represent the views of someone on the far right.
Please people keep the insults out of this debate and simply debate the facts without resorting to hurling broad insulting generalisations.
To insinuate that perhaps someone could be on the far right is quite unfair.
I`ve been following this thread and find it highly entertaining and informative. Refreshing really as we have a fairly biased media here in Oz and a Government which is siding with the US on not signing the Kyoto Protocols. Of course the left of Oz politics is screaming blue murder but I`m with the guvmint on this one.
I can see that this protocol is a way for the environmental lobby to fund itself at the expense of the rest of us. No you say, it`ll never happen, huh, just watch if the protocol ever did get signed.
The devil is in the detail so they say and this protocol has a very nasty sting in its detail. Try taxing all carbon emissions by industry for a start, of course the developing world has been exempted so why wouldn`t they vote for it and sign. Sheesh gimme a break.
I`m still with Jody on this one and I love to see sound science debated rather than the trite politique of the environment lobby.
...Phil...
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 7, 2002, 1:05 AM
Post #88 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Good post philbox
If you guys want to see The human affect on global warmiong as debaitable I'll go with that.
I don't see what this right or left business has to do with anything. It is just another way to particize people and get them at one anothers throats without solving the problems at hand.
As far as kyoto being a way to fund the environmental lobby at our expense, hasn't big business been susidized at the expense of the American pulic for quite a while any way. At least the environmental lobby would put the money toward helping the environment as opposed to either hoarding it for themselves or using it to make more money. Then having more money and being even bigger business they need more subsides and tax breaks. That way they can make even more money and become bigger and need even more subsides and tax breaks. Then when they go around like this long enough they end up like the legendary Indonesian Concentric bird and fly in ever tightening circles until they dissapear up their own ass.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 9, 2002, 4:44 PM
Post #89 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I found this little tidbit on a website recently:
"World Heads for Warmest Year Yet" ? (3 Aug 02)
This was the dramatic headline from Reuters quoting British `weather experts'. They declared "The first six months of the year have been the second-warmest ever and average global temperatures in 2002 could be the highest ever recorded, British weather experts said." This claim is of course based on surface thermometers in cities, and in third world jurisdictions where meteorological exactness is not exactly high on their agendas.
So, it's cold shower time again.
Here is global mean temperature as measured by the only accurate way - from US satellites, giving the world an even spread without errors from heat islands and sub-standard records from non-OECD countries.
It shows the temperature of the lower atmosphere for the first 6 months of each year since satellite measurement began in 1979. As is clear from the graph, 1998 stands out loud and clear as the warmest, caused by the big El Niño of that year. 2002 is way, way behind 1998 and is similar to 1991.
There would have to be a humungous global heatwave to overtake 1998 at this late stage in the year and the chances of that happening are almost zero. So the `British experts' are really just making a wild leap of wishful thinking.
And has 2002 been as warm as they claim? We have more sea ice than ever around the Antarctic, trapping several ships at times, and one of them now stuck for months. The Northwest Passage has not so far opened this year. Record-breaking low temperatures hit the US mid-west and eastern states in May this year, while south-eastern Australia had the coolest summer in decades. They even had snow in South Africa recently. Peru was hit by severe cold. Even Britain, where these self-styled `experts' reside, is having a rotten cold, wet summer this year. Some places were admittedly warmer than usual, such as the US southwest, but all that evens out on a global basis.
So it's stretching credulity to claim that 2002 has been especially warm so far, certainly nothing on the scale of 1998.
But then, all this is not about science - it's about politics and the Green offensive against governments still wavering over ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The European Union has done so already - turkeys voting for an early Christmas.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-10 18:13 ]
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-10 18:16 ]
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-10 18:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 9, 2002, 5:16 PM
Post #90 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
I've watched this forum for a while now, and it has been very entertaining to me as well. As a geologist, my scientist side tells me that warming is indeed a natural trend when the Earth exits an ice age - that is what we are doing. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. It takes a while, but after the ice age ends a warming trend begins. It has to do with where the Earth is in its orbit - and the fact that the Earth's orbit fluctuates and at times is closer to the Sun. That causes warming, the opposite causes cooling and thus ice ages. What will this mean for the future of humans? We don't know as 'civilized' humans have not lived through an ice age or the warming times. We've lived in the comfortable intermittent period. Is there a current temperature increase entirely due to human behavior? possibly, but not very likely. As others have said this planet is very resilient and will endure past what we have done to it. Life will go on past humans. That does not mean we do whatever we want to the planet without reaping the consequences. But the consequences of what we are doing are indeed very short-term in terms of the Earth and its history. The dinosaurs had their 100 million years, humans will likely have a lot less than that. The fact of the matter is humans have grown used to 'owning' this planet we live on and using it for whatever we want. That isn't a trend you will see this race giving up - no matter what facts and figures you throw at us.
I think this forum points out an important fact: this is why environmentalism and environmental policy are such hard areas to lobby and defend. There is too much playing with numbers and speculation to make any SOLID arguments using facts that are fabricated based on attempting to forsee the future. It's a tough game.
Good info. from that article, Jody! ESPECIALLY interesting since this year is an EL NINO year that is known (by fact and observation) to cause ABNORMAL WARMING around the globe!!!
interesting....
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 9, 2002, 5:50 PM
Post #91 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
A good link to follow up! http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
|
|
|
|
|
wetrocks
Aug 9, 2002, 7:26 PM
Post #92 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 102
|
What have I been thinking all this time. I feel like such a tit for trying to lead a lifesytle that won't adversely affect the planet. Thanx for showing me the error of my ways.
If those bloody scientists can't prove with 100% certainty that we're affecting the climate than screw them. From now on I'm taking the easy way out....denying that we contribute to climate change. That's right we're innocent I tell you. Turn up that A/C, rev those V-8's, burn that fossil fuel...who cares it doesn't have any impact!
What a pile of s--t.
|
|
|
|
|
fisaacs
Aug 9, 2002, 7:48 PM
Post #93 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 67
|
insofar as that whole SUV thing goes, there are so many reasons to get rid of the things, that you don't need global warming.
SUV Drivers, ask yourselves the following questions:
What percentage of the time it is driven does your SUV go into 4wd?
What percentage of the time your SUV is driven do you have more than one person in your SUV? More than 5 if the SUV holds that many? How frequently is it filled to capacity with passengers?
It's one thing to drive your explorer loaded to the hilt with friends and gear to the crag over terrain that demands 4WD. Its another to own a soprano's edition Navigator that never leaves town and regularly holds 3 people or less.
Its not the suv's that are bad, its the way people use them.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 9, 2002, 8:02 PM
Post #94 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Wetrocks...I have said this before and I guess I'll say it again. How far are YOU willing to go to "walk the talk". If you are 100% honest with yourself, you will...1:Stop wearing clothes(takes industry to produce them), 2:Get rid of any kind of manufactured transportation(no, no bicycles either, they're made out of metal, rubber, etc. and getting those products "ruins the environment", 3:You will go live off the land somewhere in all your naked glory(make sure that cockroach you are forced to eat is not an endangered variety! ), and finally, although there are many more, 4:Do not use any natural resource that can't be immediately replenished.
Now, I am illustrating the absurd by being absurd. But isn't it interesting that we are being asked to drastically change our lifestyles because of someone else's 'perceived' notion that we(humans) are responsible for a concept(global warming) that has no proof attached to it. There are a million things that "seem to make sense" on the surface but we don't turn our entire world upside down based on these faulty assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 9, 2002, 8:03 PM
Post #95 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Percentage of time I use 4X4. All winter and quite often for off-roading and accessing "high clearance" roads. I'm no chump. I didn't buy an SUV just to follow a trend. I'm not a drone like most SUV owners (not saying anyone here is).
How often do I have more than one person it it. Almost all the time as I carpool when climbing and take frequent road trips. My wife also, three out of five days at work, uses it to carpool. It is, also, our only vehicle (one vehicle family). Most "couples" can easily get away with being a one car family, most don't. Put it this way. My gas hog SUV uses less gas than families using two cars. Unless of course, both cars are a Toyota Echo or something.
Filled to capacity? Rarely. It holds up to eight, but the very back seat is small and useless for adults. They would be cramped, so I say it is a 5 person vehicle as I leave the very back flipped down to make room for hauling gear, etc. How often do I have five in it? One or two times a week. Four people, almost every day (wife picks up three people for work).
I agree with you. Most people don't need one. I think if you own one and the only off-road action it might see is if you accidently back through a puddle, I think you are an idiot, but I still support my belief in that "to each their own." Still, I don't buy a vehicle to buy a vehicle, follow trends, or for status to flash my money. I buy it for a purpose and frankly, I hate SUVs. Not necessary and no "capacity" for "gear". Thankfully, I have convinced the wife into a mid sized pick-up (4 door for people room). Better on gas, adequate passenger room, more room for lugging stuff around. For my purposes, a 4X4 pick up is more versatile and usefull.
My two cents. Sorry if I offended anyone. Not my intention. I'm just Mr. Opinion and I thank everyone for being so "cool" to me when expressing them.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 9, 2002, 8:23 PM
Post #96 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
fisaacs...
This is a FREE society. I like my SUV because it keeps my family safer(more metal to protect them). Part of the price we pay for living in a FREE society is that not everything will be to our liking. Part of the disinformation that is prevalent pertaining to those that hold similar viewpoints to mine is that we are TRYING to wreck the environment! How dumb is that?! We have to live here too as do our children, etc. I am just trying to use some logic here and if that goes against the environmentalists agenda I am labeled 'extreme right wing'. I have not called anybody 'extreme left wing'. We could do more harm than good if we just dive blindly into something based on unproven theories.
I don't want to see glaciers and ice routes melt either(the subject of this thread). I lived in National Parks for the first 13 years of my life and for the next 15 years my dad was a Range Conservationst for the Army(his job was making sure the Army didn't ruin the environment on the base). I majored in Natural Resources Mgmt. in college. I have studied both sides of the issue.
I just don't think humans are as responsible for everything they are being blamed for.
|
|
|
|
|
russmanswife
Aug 9, 2002, 9:02 PM
Post #97 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 344
|
okay now i have to reply to the suv question. although i have a small one, jeep cherokee. first of all before my son was born we had a smaller car and you don't realize how much stuff you have to pack around for one small person. we had a stroller, a carrier, diaper bad and if we were gone for a weekend a play pen that he slept in plus are bags and don't forget a car seat. you can't get all that stuff in a small car. when we have another child we already know we are going to have to get something bigger, two car seats and double the baby gear. as far as how many people we ever take with us we have taken four people and the baby and it is not comfortable believe me very cramped. on top of baby stuff i have horses you can't tow a horse trailer with a honda civic unless you are going down hill! as far as 4x4 goes i use it all winter from the first snow fall until spring, yes it does help with snow and ice if you know how to drive in snow! believe me i have seen plenty of idiot drivers with 4x4's in the ditch from just going to fast. i totally agree with jody as far as safety goes i have a child to protect and if i have to i will drive a tank to get him back and forth to daycare safely, those compact cars WILL NOT survive most accidents. the bigger the vehicle the better if i get in a car accident i am going to win, and walk away from it with my child in my arms.
|
|
|
|
|
russmanswife
Aug 9, 2002, 9:08 PM
Post #98 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 344
|
just thought of a little side note the earth is constantly changing humans have been on this planet for such a short period of time, it is kind of depressing but we don't know how much longer we are going to be here. the earth is constantly changing on the surface and underneath, just like nature it adapts and changes - EVOLUTION. we find new species of animals while some die out, it is dry in areas where there use to be lush fields and lakes. you can't stop what has been going on for millions of years some things are just greater than all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 14, 2002, 12:55 AM
Post #99 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
nice answer...i like the metaphore. Here's a question: Does the yeast know the end is near?
Also, big suv's are only safer in collisions with smaller cars. In these RARE occasions (most every one drives an suv, so a collision is just as likely to occur between 2 suv's), the people in the smaller vehicle will probably sustain massive injuries, while the suv will be somewhat unharmed. (Not always the case, however.) If this is your logic for buying an suv, you are essentially saying "i don't care about anyone else"..selfish. Since you are selfish, you also don't care about the health of the environment, which ultimately affects your children, grandchildren, and so on. So your selfishness ultimately hurts everyone.
Have you considered the increased risks of rollovers associated with suv's? What about increased costs to repair damages to the massive vehicles? Why not drive a big rig? Those probably come out pretty well in accidents, plus you can move 30 tons in it! All the towing capacity you'll ever need!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 14, 2002, 2:23 AM
Post #100 of 228
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Civilization, by definition, requires that we give up freedoms in exchange for safety. You can't freely steal, kill, or rape. You can't drive a tank on the freeway or fire missles from your backyard.
ball-nut...you can do better than that. Stealing, killing and raping are universally understood to be morally unacceptable.
We purposely give up individual freedoms in order to allow us to live without as much fear of one another
I answer this with a quote from Benjamin Franklin...Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither!
BTW, the definition for civilization is:an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-13 19:55 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 14, 2002, 3:23 AM
Post #101 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
collegekid...you can choose the safer car. Since you want to drive a Yugo and I want to drive a SUV, that makes ME selfish? Your attitude is what is prevalent in Socialist governments. Those governments are made up of an elite few that think they are smarter than those they rule over. They tell others how to live without regard for how it affects them. I am not forcing my opinions about SUV's on you. I respect your freedom of choice in the matter. Just don't force your lifestyle on me based on an unproven opinion that my car is ruining the environment.
BTW, this thread at one point hadsomething to do with alpine ice routes melting due to human caused 'global warming'. Just getting back on subject! Thank you for everyone's input, pro and con!
|
|
|
|
|
gunkjunkie
Aug 14, 2002, 6:44 PM
Post #102 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2001
Posts: 153
|
Has anyone noticed the "Asian Brown Cloud"? Excellent example of human created climate change. The 1.8 mile high cloud is causing drought due to a lack of evaporation of water because the sun can't get through the clouds. The cloud was created through fossil fuel use, forest fires from land clearing and possibly from cooking fires (though i think last is probably a very small portion of the total.)
Also the proliferation of high ozone/poor air quality days. I expect them here on Long Island - but this is the first year they've had them in Washington County NY.
Deirdre
|
|
|
|
|
russmanswife
Aug 14, 2002, 7:04 PM
Post #103 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 344
|
from the sounds of things this is what i keep getting from the enviromentalist side of this discussion basically screw the human race lets save the planet instead. what good is it going to do to have a planet that is inhabited by people that can't even live together or accept others for who they are. i don't care whether the planet is still here if we are going to have stupid insane wars over religion and race issues because we as a people have not evoled and learned to live with each other we are not doing anything for ourselves or our children by leaving them a world that can't get along.
since we have posed the suv question i am going to put forth another question does any do anything to try and HELP other humans such as volunteer or mentor young children? it sounds like most of the responses support the idea earth first, humans second but i will give someone the chance to prove me wrong.
oh by the way look on the freeways sometime, guess what there are bigger vehicles out there on the road than suvs that burn up alot more gas and use the road alot more than suvs, sorry people the suvs are the smallest part of the problem. those eighteen wheelers are carrying millions of pounds of product and are on our roads everyday not to mention the trains and cargo ships that are doing the same.
|
|
|
|
|
chrisshaeffer
Aug 14, 2002, 7:43 PM
Post #104 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 86
|
Interesting to see all the angst geared towards SUV's. Whatever. I've seen my share of excess- the Day Camp I run is located close to one of the richest burbs of Portland and the kids are routinely dropped of in sparkling, shiny, freshly waxed Suburbans and Lexus SUV's. It would be easy to point fingers and lay blame.
Some of these people, though, are the most significant contributors to env. legislation, candidates, and organizations in the state. Some of them have given many thousands of dollars to the Park for scholarship funds, building funds, or just to keep the education programs going.
The economic world they move through is one of displayed excess. That's the game they play. Because they play it, they can continue to weild the legislative power that they do. (shrug) Not the way I do it, but I'm certainly not going to tell them to ditch the Lexus and buy an Insight on the basis that they are destryoing the world.
Too easy to draw lines, point fingers, lay blame and judge. Not good for anyone. I feel like I remove myself from the process when I blame someone else. I work on doing what I feel is right and let others figure out what they feel is right. Maybe not the best way, but it works for me- there are always more details than I know so how can I judge?
-C
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 14, 2002, 11:11 PM
Post #105 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
ball-nut...I put industry in bold because you guys are leaving it out of the definition of civilization. Also, I stand by the founders of this country. I am proud to stand behind such a "lame device" as Ben Franklin!
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-14 19:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
waxman
Aug 14, 2002, 11:28 PM
Post #106 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 173
|
I was in AP Biology and I was told that global warming is a trend that goes up and down. If it were plotted on a graph it would look like a wave. Maybe we are just in the upwards cycle of the wave.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 18, 2002, 2:59 AM
Post #107 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stealing, killing and raping are universally understood to be morally unacceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from ball-nut...
Says you. Morals are not universal. There have been societies where killing and raping were acceptable...end quote
Okay ball-nut, what is your point? Are you saying that just because some society somewhere allows that that we should accept it? Sounds like that is what you are saying. Either way, it does not apply to us here in the USA.
Back to the subject of the thread-no proof has yet been laid out to me. A lot of political statements and cliche's etc, but no proof that human's can do anything to stop the melting of glaciers and alpine ice.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-17 20:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 18, 2002, 3:39 AM
Post #108 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
I'd like to see a vote of some sort....
How many of you believe that our society (world) as a whole needs to change it's ways drastically in the future (next decade/generation) in order to allow future generations to have the same quality of life that we enjoy? By drastic changes, i mean new energy sources/policy, stricter pollution standards, more restrictions in general...
I think we do indeed need these changes. (They are already starting to happen anyway, wether you like it or not.)
|
|
|
|
|
coconutz
Aug 18, 2002, 9:26 AM
Post #109 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 78
|
I'm with Langford. It's just like us to think that we are the center on the universe and we can cause anything/do anything. .
Why has no one said anything about the Kyoto Protocall and it trying to dismantle the balance the of trade the US has with less industrialized nations? Hum.........It was after all in the opening post by Langford. As an Economics major I find it to be an interesting part. So far all I've seen is SUV drives blaming SUV drives for driving an SUV.
"Hi Mr.Pot, I'm Mr.Kettle, Have we met?"
Langford, I think the quote above about giving up freedoms to get safety was refering to Mills' "Social Contract". You give up being in a "state of nature" to be in a society and the perks that come along with it. Mills said it best, life in a the state of nature is "brutish and short". You inherently lose some freedom with this. I can live with that
[ This Message was edited by: coconutz on 2002-08-18 02:37 ]
|
|
|
|
|
marks
Aug 18, 2002, 8:31 PM
Post #110 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 376
|
ive just read some of the replies,why do some americans think they helped anybody in europe,during the 2 wwars,that is crap.Also what is the fascination in 5 litre cars that burn fuel at gallons per mile not mpgI know the vast majority of americans are decent people,but the few narrow minded,ignorent ones give the whole country a bad name(that includes the biggest idiot in usa,g "w" b)
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 18, 2002, 9:20 PM
Post #111 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jesus! Can you guys just drop the subject? The fact is that man hasn't affected global warming significantly. The Earth always goes through a heating period after a frozen period.
The fact is there are too many people hell bent on incorrect information, believing that "man" has made the temperatures warmer. There is "global warming", but there has always been global warming. Thousands of years from now, there will be global cooling too. Then it will all repeat itself.
Either way, the arguement is pointless due to the human nature of opinion. Moot points are made and argued. How about a new subject?
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-08-18 14:21 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Aug 23, 2002, 4:46 PM
Post #112 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
I'm new to this site and just browsing around. I came across this debate-wow! You guys are passionate on these issues. I don't see 'global warming' melting my Alpine routes. I am just worried that if they ban my suv I won't be able to drive myself and my gear to the mountains.
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Aug 23, 2002, 5:21 PM
Post #113 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Everyone has good points, even Jim. But, a lot are opinions, and we all know about opinions.
Check out the following site and educate yourselves. And, then maybe you'll quit arguing in circles and further wasting forum space.........
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
boulderbob
Aug 25, 2002, 10:17 PM
Post #114 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2002
Posts: 6
|
This is a great forum and I offer a few comments....North America has done a great deal to reduce emmisions since the 70s and we have not quit, environmental science has reduced fossil fuel emmissions by a thousand fold........we had large toxic clouds in the70s, Asia has them now, lets get Asia to clean up there act!!
Kyoto will destroy the economy, the goals set are unreasonable........
The real data on mans' contribution to Global Warming exists.....the left wing enviro alarmists refuse to acknowledge it. The science they believe is "JUNK SCIENCE".....do some research, open your mind!
"The Truth is Out There"
"Climbers for a sound environmental policy unite"
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Aug 25, 2002, 10:33 PM
Post #115 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
"Let Asia clean up their act"?
Don't forget that, in addition to this comment's isolationist, escapist, blame-shifting attitudes, Asia has more toxic clouds today because this is where the majority of cheap production is now done for the good old USA!
Essentially, you are shifting the blame to Asia for damaging the air, while at the same time you enjoy the cheap products that are causing the same pollution. All that the U.S. has done in the last twenty years has been to shift the dirtiest pollution over to third world countries, while we reap the benefits of cleaner air AND cheap labor.
"Kyoto will destroy the economy"
The same has been said in response to emancipation legislation in the mid 19th century, and to child labor laws in the early 20th century.
Only through true cooperation is it possible to truly reduce the massive and destructive impact we have on our planet.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderbob
Aug 25, 2002, 11:37 PM
Post #116 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2002
Posts: 6
|
you must live in a cave with no power----solar powered computer?
|
|
|
|
|
yezad
Aug 26, 2002, 12:26 AM
Post #117 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2002
Posts: 61
|
Okay, even though my address is listed as Kingston, Ontario, I'm an American born and raised. Now I've had the luxury of spending the last 4 years in Canada and been able to see how the US is viewed by outsiders and everyone has their opinions. But that's all they are, opinions. Now the US government has made quite a few mistakes that has allowed people to bash americans as greedy, ignorant, power-mongers and a cadre of other beautiful labels, but as our colleague Mr. Langford has pointed out, the facts speak for themselves and all the positive things we have done as a country far outweigh the negatives. Would ANYONE care to imagine what the world would be like if the colonials had never one the revolutionary war and the United States had never existed? Probably not. But this global warming issue is much more complicated than blaming american consumerism. The sun, as most of you should know is a star. It's been burning for millions and millions of years and scientists have proven that it is dying. What happens when a star dies? Well, it can become a black hole, or do what the sun is doing and swell until it becomes a red giant(that'll be one hell of a supernova). The sun is closer to the earth than it was way back in the day and even though none of us will be around to see it, it will engulf mercury and venus and maybe even Earth. if it doesn't, Earth will be reduced to nothing more than a scorching hot cinder and life will cease to exist on this hunk of rock. Now, that said, that doesn't mean we as humans haven't done our part to royally
f--k this place up. CFC's and other wonderful Green House gasses deplete the ozone (hello grade 9 science class) This increases the radiation coming through our atmosphere and BANG things get a little warmer outside. Also, the planet has seen a resurgence in techtonic activity, primarily around the ring of fire. More earthquakes, dormant volcanoes are becoming active again and this is causing the planet to heat up from the inside as well. Now maybe the planet WOULD be a better place if we all rode bycicles to work instead of cruising around in our high octane SUV's that coughed up vomit inducing smoke, but we can't lay all the blame on these things. Laying blame in general is counter productive. Did anybody on this website do the world ANY good by yelling at one another? No. The best we can do is take care of this place, if for no other reason then so we can watch our children climbing on the same rocks we once were. hate and anger and negative emotions pollute the world just as badly if not worse than my dads suburban.
[ This Message was edited by: yezad on 2002-08-25 17:30 ]
|
|
|
|
|
evs786
Aug 26, 2002, 1:14 AM
Post #118 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 17
|
Personnally I think the global warming issue is a crock of bull. THe earth has undergone "ages" such as the several Ice ages, and warming ages, its all part of the earths cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Aug 26, 2002, 3:23 AM
Post #119 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Finally, after 9 pages of thread, evos says it the way it should have been said a long time ago!
|
|
|
|
|
bobtheboulderer
Sep 5, 2002, 4:29 AM
Post #120 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 185
|
Dang Jody, I would think that someone with your history in the outdoors would have a little softer attitude towards those that are trying to save the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:19 AM
Post #121 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Bob, I am not trying to ruin the environment! I just will not allow myself to be drawn in to these hysterical Chicken Little theories! I still havenºt had one person here answer some of my arguments with facts...just theories.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Sep 6, 2002, 7:38 AM
Post #122 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jesus Christ! End this stupid thing!
It isn't significant. Get over it!
In a thousands of years this planet will begin to freeze again. Get over that, too!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 6, 2002, 7:44 AM
Post #123 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Hey wild...you better not be talking to me that way!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Sep 22, 2002, 2:29 PM
Post #124 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Just saw in an AP report...A group of Australian scientists said the ozone hole over Antarctica is healing/closing itself.
|
|
|
|
|
tradpuppy
Sep 22, 2002, 2:33 PM
Post #125 of 228
(13545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2002
Posts: 722
|
Yes, they put antiseptic and a bandaid on it I hear.
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Sep 22, 2002, 2:54 PM
Post #126 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
We ARE destroying the quality of life on this planet, no question. All one has to do is observe with one's own eyes and feelings. Smog, traffic, stress, noise, chemical contamination of water, soil, etc.......
Most energy we use and pollution we generate in western North American society comes from moving things around. That includes moving climbers and gear from home to the crags. I advocate living locally. Unfortunately, certain "powers" have "us" leveraged into certain non-sustainable positions that we don't nessesarily want to be in, though the uniform building code, the uniform commerical code, tax laws, etc...
Also, Is this car lifestyle really what we want? They take so much energy to operate, maintain, insure. The "embodied energy" represented in a car is mind blowing! It takes the rest of the world's labor to provide them for us. And we go through about 10 per lifetime!! Not to mention the fuel; "who cares if 100,000 arabs die as long as I can run down to the cornor store in my Suburban for some ice cream and a lighter." Sorry, this is starting to sound like a rant.
I've done a huge amout of research on "sustainability" issues, so if anybody is really interested, please contact me personally.
[ This Message was edited by: micronut on 2002-09-22 08:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
rockhugger
Oct 26, 2002, 3:59 AM
Post #127 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 419
|
Ive seen everyone blame cars ,industry ,smokers and alot of things on this global warming crap,it's a damn clever marketing ploy to make money ,dont you get it !!! some marketing dude says lets change the name of this refrigerant to r- 134a and say it has no cfc's and we'll charge a juicy price for it and the conversion kits.now you tell me ,how the hell does a gas that is heavier than air get into the upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone layer? hunh?? and how come no one takes volcanoes into account ,how many are active? did you know that they spit out huge volumes of chlorine and florine gas and co2. the so called earth first enviromentalists won't tell you that ,why ? because those assholes are getting kickbacks from all the so called "new" "ozone friendly " products. they are part of a scam ,conspiracy of a sorts to make you believe if you buy AQUANET with no cfc's you are decreasing the effect on the ozone layer.I SAY BULLSHIT!!! Volcanoes erupt every day and spew billions of tons of that s--- into the air all day and night long and has been doing so for however long this rock we are on has been in existence. I am now done ranting,
|
|
|
|
|
spremegoat
Oct 26, 2002, 4:24 AM
Post #128 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2002
Posts: 37
|
you know, this post is what i love about america....and the reason the rest of the world gives us no respect. We as climbers especially should have a high regard for nature. Our actions as a people directly affects nature and hence our crags. nad it is precisely this type of crap from gw junior-fallatiating reactionaries that casues so many problems. Why don't we all go bust some unions in latin america with US trained assasins while failing to control our waste-output and risking warfare for personal familial vendettas! sounds like a plan to me.
|
|
|
|
|
esoteric1
Oct 26, 2002, 6:18 AM
Post #129 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705
|
I only read the first page of this one so I dont know how the topic is turning out now, but I am disgusted and appauled at the lack of concern and ego related to the environment and the over inflated ego`s of you "americans" I live in the united states and I quite frankly am ashamed of it. not to say i dont enjoy the perks, but the perks come at another person being walked upon so i can have a cheap shirt. and there is nothing cool about the us being a superpower and killing for oil, drive your suv`s waste your oil spend your money on things that make your egos inflate, and blend in with a society that instead of coming to a peacefull means to an end, eggs on the bastardization of life in 3rd world countries. eggs on war so we can flex our muscles and say we are #1....#1 is just a # and your ego is tied to it. not mine
|
|
|
|
|
rockhugger
Oct 26, 2002, 11:50 PM
Post #130 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 419
|
If your so ashamed of America,you are free to move out and take all your bleeding heart liberal puke friends with you please.
|
|
|
|
|
jono
Oct 27, 2002, 2:49 AM
Post #131 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 2067
|
ive been reading this thread and i have to say its interesting. all ill say is i personaly believe that global warming is a natural cycle. im not going to take it any farther and im not going to argue with anybody, just an opinion.
jon
|
|
|
|
|
wetrocks
Oct 27, 2002, 4:38 AM
Post #132 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 102
|
And rockhugger gots some fire in him! This tread has been a good battle of opinion, not insults, can ya ease up on slanging that crap there.
Global warming is occurring, even the U.S.A. gov't has accepted that fact, but we're unsure why it's happening. Is global warming caused by the Milankovitch Cycles, increased CO2, land cover changes, or is it a combination of numerous factors that are contributing to the increased rate of warming. I believe that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle, but humans have changed the inputs so the cycle is now unnaturally accelerating.
CO2 emissions are part of the reason. The warmest the globe has been with life on it had the highest concentrations of CO2 that the inhabited planet had ever witnessed. Most of the coal that's being mined today was created during this time. The plants sequestered this CO2 and today we're releasing it and helping to bring conditions back to what they were when these plants were thriving.
I've realized that I'm contributing to a major problem and have tried to adjust my lifestyle to minimize my impact. ..........and I've got to quit reading this thread......it's too easy to get on a rant. I just don't want to look back when I'm old and feel the guilt for being so naive. If you don't think we're screwing up this planet then you've been successfully brainwashed. You don't need to show me this or that fact to tell me that I miss many things that are now gone because of a lack of consideration and foresight.
|
|
|
|
|
inf11b
Oct 30, 2002, 6:28 AM
Post #133 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 22
|
Since this is such an emotional subjuect, I'm sure that those who disagree with me won't even bother to read this, but what the hell
Well, with all the controversy on the subject it seems like this can be simplified to a few points:
1. The earth is getting warmer- This is not much, i think it's about 2degrees on average for the last 100 years. This also doesnt apply to all regions, for example greenland has gotten significantly colder since the 1500's so it's an average, but not true everywhere.
2.The earth does go through warming and cooling cycles through history. We had an ice age about 10,000 years ago and the temprature has fluctuated. Most people don't know that the world has "mini-ice ages" every couple hundred years. This is when the weather just turns incredebbly cold for about 10 years. Happened in the 15-1600's in Europe. They actually had people ice skating across the Danube.
3. Large amounts of hydrocarbons have been released into the atmosphere in the last several centuries and some evidence indicates that this is correlatory to a global rise in tempratures. Note that CO2 is not considered a major "greenhouse gas" while CO and methane are. Basically, now that cars have catalytic converters more of these so called greenhouse gasses are released in cow farts than car emissions.
--Whether global warming is caused by man or naturally, we'll never know. It's probably a combination of the two. It's important to remember that the planet's "natural state" is always changing and has never been constant even before humans. Heck, if you want to turn the world back to its natural state, we need to get all of that fossilized carbon out of the ground and back into the atmosphere where it originally was.
--As for stopping global warming, the question is whether or not stopping or reducing (slowing) the amount of burnt fossil fuels would actually change global warming. Best estimates are minimal impact.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Oct 30, 2002, 6:49 AM
Post #134 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Wow! Flames aside. I can't believe this is still going on. Wow!
|
|
|
|
|
polarwid
Nov 18, 2002, 11:55 PM
Post #135 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2001
Posts: 3608
|
THIS THREAD may be relevant...
It is late November and we have MAYBE an inch of snow on the ground, and not much more in the mountains...
[ This Message was edited by: polarwid on 2002-11-18 15:56 ]
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Nov 25, 2002, 3:36 PM
Post #136 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
ITS ALIVE! LOOK IGOR ITS ALIVE! HAHAHAHAHA!
Seriously, WOW, this thread has really got some legs on it.
Thanks for the link Polarwid. Good info.
|
|
|
|
|
foograbbinstone
Nov 29, 2002, 10:09 PM
Post #137 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 225
|
I'm with Jody,
I don't think that anything we do can halt,lessen or even irritate global warming trends.They have been in play long before humans were even treading the earth!
I think the biggest contribution we as humans make towards global warming,comes from the spewing of all that hot gas from our mouths.So does humanity go the route you have been trying to push SUV's.Do we try and put a curve in the population growth to curb global warming or do we wear rebreathers.
Here's something else to ponder. Big huge cavernous pockets in the ground where all this oil is being pulled from.Oil is thick and heavy.It creates pressure on the walls around it underground. when its finally empty what happens then? can you say SINKHOLES......... the size of the Texas. How long before the structural integrity of the cavern diminishes. Its almost like a snow bridge,and when the variables are just right someone's in for a supprise
Just something that jumped in my head figured who better to drop it on!!!!
and to rob someone that posted it before hand ( can't recall who)What we do is comparable to a pimple on an elephants ass.the split second of a blink in a span of a century.
any comments you might have about my statements,save them for the next Ice Age they'll be just as effective!!
|
|
|
|
|
rockpossum
Nov 29, 2002, 10:32 PM
Post #138 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 230
|
Whatever the truth is I hope all the lamenting will bring about less air pollution.
Maybe all the biznoid wannabes in their Explorers and family trucksters, urgently heading to the mall for some self gratification, will get off the road too. I'm not sure that is what the American way of life is supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Nov 29, 2002, 11:29 PM
Post #139 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Apologies all for repetition, but I'm not usually on a dial-up, otherwise I would've read everything.
I didn't think this would enter into the debate because its another "we're not quite sure" thing. I noticed this way back in the seventh grade when we had to graph sunspots for an assignment, and if you're willing to extrapolate backwards with me on this graph you'll note that there appears to be an approximately 50 year cycle of sun spot maximums on top of the regular 11 year cycle. Around 1920, the number is lower so there's the chink in the armor. You will also note that the maximum number of sunspots at a max has been steadily increasing since 1880. Backwards extrapolation of the data with these same patterns (an even bigger one that I'm not skilled enough to divine) places an unusual low around the 1600's. As Jody said, the earth has been warming up since then. Just another idea.
However, that's still no reason to keep polluting. We've seen all sorts of nasty side effects (like acid rain and human induced "natural" selection) from industrial activity, all from an over reliance on fossil fuels. We are seeing wars happen because of a concern for fossil fuels (and don't tell me that the oil fields in Iraq haven't glimmered in our policy makers' eyes, they have, why do you think we haven't jumped happily down the Saudis' throats just yet?). Of course, its a catch-22. Abandon oil and we solve part of our problems. But we also cut out over half of the middle east's economy, potentially causing more strife. So there you go, right back where we started from.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Nov 29, 2002, 11:43 PM
Post #140 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Thank you. For those that believe "man" causes global warming, please review the graph. It does explain a lot. Like he said, no reason to keep polluting, etc.
Now, can this thread die? (note the duality, irony, and hypocrasy of that statement)
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
indeco
Nov 29, 2002, 11:56 PM
Post #141 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2002
Posts: 84
|
I firmly believe that many world leaders are going receive lumps of coal from Santa this season, since they evidently feel it's a justifiable play toy. Some may even get two lumps.
[ This Message was edited by: indeco on 2002-11-29 15:57 ]
|
|
|
|
|
sunsation
Nov 30, 2002, 1:10 AM
Post #142 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2002
Posts: 184
|
Is global warming significant? Good question. Debatable. This question is merely one part of the bigger picture. Are we polluting the environment? Yes. That is not debatable. A few things for all of you to think about...check into the bleaching processes used to make your toilet paper, kleenex, sanitary products, etc. (horribly polluting); give some thought to that detergent you use to wash your clothes (full of chemicals that rub against your skin 24/7, plus get dumped into our oceans); how about that steak you are eating? (mad cow disease happened for a reason, but what are we REALLY doing to change how we raise our animals for slaughter?); what about the chemicals used to fertilize the food we eat?; how about the preservatives in our food? I once heard a stat that today it takes almost 25 years for our bodies to decompose after we die. Thirty years ago it took less than 5. We are embalming ourselves alive from all the preservatives in our food.
So is global warming signifcant? Who knows. But there ARE many things we could do individually to be gentler on our earth. In time I hope more people will educate themselves on the subject and make a conscious effort to protect this beautiful planet we call home.
|
|
|
|
|
alexinmilton
Nov 30, 2002, 1:18 AM
Post #143 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2002
Posts: 56
|
Jim I'd like to know where you got the idea that "By the time all the present oil is used up in a few hundred years, it will have replenished itself."
It's been a year but i recall (from a course I took last year at Western Uni.) that if the current trends continue then as early as 2050 we won't be able to have the oil to support our lifestlye.
The fossil fuels that we take for granted have been accumulating over millions of years. I'm not saying that the oil wells will be empty it's just that we will be at the spot where it will take one barrel of oil to extract a barrel (ie. not feisable)
Look at all of the changes that have happened (and our dependancy on fossil fuels) over the past century. I am definitly curious about the changes that will come about when we are forced to find an alternative fuel source.
|
|
|
|
|
calimouth
Nov 30, 2002, 1:23 AM
Post #144 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 62
|
I would have to agree with those people who contend that Global Warming is not caused by humans. I recently took a course on Ecology and Evolution at Dartmouth College with a professor with whom i did not agree. After many instances of her mentioning global warming, I finally raised my hand and asked her for proof, thus setting off a firestorm of liberal anger. She gave me studies of ice cores that show temperature increase. These cores show increases since 2000 YEARS AGO! She then gave me studies of ocean temperatures. These readings were taken in the GULF STREAM, DURING SUMMMER!! She then gave me CO2 levels taken at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. These readings are taken during an especially active period in the volcano's history--OF COURSE CO2 WAS HIGHER!!
I am completely open-minded to information that people give me--except if it's swayed towards a certain viewpoint. Every scientist knows that you should not conduct a study to prove something--that's impossible. You can only disprove the "null hypothesis." And from my standpoint, scientists have yet to prove false that humans are not causing global warming.
However, make no mistake, the climate IS changing. It has done this for billions of years. Animals wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for a climatic period called "snowball earth." I just think that people need to think a little more. If you ask the average-informed person if humans are causing global warming, he/she will probably say yes. But, ask them how they know this, and they will stare at you blankly. All that I'm saying is to get the information straight from the source (i.e. published reports) and even then, question them.
Oh, and just to clear up something i saw posted earlier, greenhouse gases ARE NOT ozone depleting gases. The major greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane. Ozone-depleting molecules are choro-flourocarbons, or CFCs. And if anyone has been reading the news or reports lately, the ozone hole is closing up and should be all but a memory in about 40 years. Good news for all!!
|
|
|
|
|
tradguy
Dec 3, 2002, 12:03 AM
Post #145 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 526
|
Holy cow. I never realized there were so many uninformed people out there. A few disclaimers first:
a.) wildtrail - sorry, but I can't let this topic die with so much mis-information presented.
b.) YES, I have read every post in the 10 pages of this topic.
c.) I have witnessed first-hand glacial recession, and it has impacted (negatively) my climbing.
d.) I have degrees in Physics and Electrical Engineering, so while I'm not a genius, I'm also not an idiot, and have a scientific background which comes in quite handy for analyzing research data.
e.) I'm not going to summarily address every individual and statement that was somehow flawed, but I'll hit some major themes and call it good.
OK - now to cover some things:
1.) GRAVITY - whoever said gravity is theory and not law is on crack (figuratively) and clearly never took a quantum physics class. The causes, in addition to the effects, of gravitational attraction ARE understood by scientists. We even have equations to calculate gravitational attraction between two bodies of any given mass and distance of separation. Get a PhD in quantum physics and you will understand.
2.) AUTO INDUSTRY - SUV's are not the problem with pollution. Every car manufacturer is required to meet an overall fuel efficiency mark for the sum total of the cars it produces. Thus, for every 10 mpg Expedition put out by Ford, there are a certain number of 30+ mpg Focus's to balance it out. It's all controlled by legislation, which we as voters have the theoretical power to influence, but for now, eliminating SUVs simply means that the rest of the cars can be WORSE and we end up with the same effect. Keep in mind also, that just because a car gets better mileage doesn't automatically mean it's less polluting. Remove the catalytic converter from a Civic and see what you get. Look around sometime, and think how much better we'd be if we simply removed those old beasts that are churning out blue smoke from the tailpipe because the seals on the engine are shot and they are burning oil. But we can't do that, because it wouldn't be "fair" to the poor people.
3.) GLOBAL WARMING - Yes, the surface temp of the planet has ever so slowly been increasing by a fraction of a degree over the last century. No, it cannot be shown that it is being caused by humans, and most likely, any human contribution is infinitessimally small. The ice age / warming cycle is caused by the earth's spatial orientation and relative position to the sun. Throughout time, the earth's tilt changes from 22 degrees to 25 degrees in a regular cycle of about 41,000 years. Currently we are at 23.5 degrees. The axis around which the earth rotates also exhibits a "wobble". The wobble essentially causes in the seasons to shift in relation to the earth's position in it's orbit of the sun. The period of the wobble is about 26,000 years, with winter and summer basically being switched half way in between (ie 13,000 yrs). The shape of the earths orbit also changes from circular to eliptical and back in a regular cycle of about 100,000 years. When you plot all these changes simulatenously, the result is a complex sinusoidal relation of time and predicted temperature (due to changes in angle and amplitude of incident solar energy upon the earth) that coincides very precisely with global temperature changes throughout earth history.
What does all this mean? It means global warming is a normal, predictable astronomic event, and that it is absurdly egocentric to believe that we have any effect or control on or over it. Now I know that all the cars and emissions are not good for the planet - hell, I think it sucks that when I was a kid I could see the front range from 50 miles east of Denver, and now I can't even see it IN Denver - but that pollution has little if anything at all to do with global warming, and should be attacked in the name of air quality, not under the false pretense that we are turning the planet into a giant oven.
There are many more things I'd like to comment on, but that's enough for now. Thanks for reading!
|
|
|
|
|
flying_dutchman
Dec 3, 2002, 12:17 AM
Post #146 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 708
|
we are still screwing our world in a big way though; cutting down forests, picking up kids from school via surburban when they could get off their lazy assess and walk for five minutes which in turn affects health care and... damn, off topic. so the moral of this forum is?
[ This Message was edited by: flying_dutchman on 2002-12-02 16:34 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mtnjohn
Dec 3, 2002, 12:44 AM
Post #147 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
The world is going to die.
Humans will have long since been extinct when it happens.
Our effect on this spinning rock will have been long removed & replaced.
That said, lets try and keep the good parts good as long as we're still around. It just makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Dec 3, 2002, 1:02 AM
Post #148 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Thanks Tradguy for a very informative and balanced post. You brought together an awesome amount of facts in a succinct post. Dude ya rock.
...Phil...
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Dec 3, 2002, 1:50 AM
Post #149 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
If you're interested in global warming, or the growing body of evidence that has many climate scientists seriously concerned, there's a lot of information out there. Possible starting points include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's site:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Much better yet, read a year's issues of Science, for reports from the real cutting edge. If you don't read the journals, don't assume that the issues are simple and you know the answers. (If you do read the journals, you'll know why they're not.)
Do *not* look for your information on Rockclimbing.com, unless you understand that all you're getting here is a bunch of climbers' opinions. Some expressed loudly, or with great confidence, but that doesn't make them true.
|
|
|
|
|
tradguy
Dec 3, 2002, 3:47 PM
Post #150 of 228
(14055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 526
|
As an interesting side note, this "global warming" business has only been an issue for a few years. Prior to that, people were all deeply concerned about "global cooling" and worried that we were gaining speed toward the next ice age.
Check out this article on GLOBAL COOLING from 1975, a further example that people are generally unwilling to accept that our planet undergoes contant change that is not under our control, and that EVERYBODY has an agenda, and will twist and distort any data to reinforce their point and promote their stance.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Dec 3, 2002, 3:59 PM
Post #151 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
Tradguy, you're not an expert on this, you just play one on rockclimbing.com. I wish you didn't sound so positive about things you don't know.
And it's not true that "EVERYBODY" has an agenda, or is engaged in twisting data.
|
|
|
|
|
tradguy
Dec 3, 2002, 5:20 PM
Post #152 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 526
|
Quote:Tradguy, you're not an expert on this, you just play one on rockclimbing.com. I wish you didn't sound so positive about things you don't know.
I never professed to be an expert on Global Warming. Hell, I have a degree in Physics and I wouldn't even profess to be an expert on that. I'm just acting as an intelligent, educated individual, presenting arguments and FACTS that were otherwise mis-stated, mis-represented, mis-interpreted, or outright omitted from this debate.
Quote:And it's not true that "EVERYBODY" has an agenda, or is engaged in twisting data.
You are wrong. Everyone has an agenda, whether they admit it or not. For example, you noted sources such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Can you honestly sit there and tell me they don't have an agenda?? Don't be so naive. Whether it's money, fame, or just the respect of random internet browsers on rc.com, everybody has something that drives them and influences the data they choose to consider, the method in which they present it, and the even the vocabulary they use to describe and interpret it.
In the end, throughout human existance, many theories about the impact of humans upon the global climate have been proven wrong. None has yet to be proven right, and I personally see no reason to catapult civilization back into the stone ages over some contrived doomsday theory of global demise.
|
|
|
|
|
gooch
Dec 4, 2002, 7:04 PM
Post #153 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2002
Posts: 68
|
Wow! Whata great thread:
My two cents-
1) Fact: No one knows for "sure" that global warming is not being solely caused by our actions, of if they are a natural cycle
2) This is about MONEY! Oil industry=Money. Plain and simple and these people make so much of it they can afford to buy new lungs if the F#$% up the air, so they don't give a rats ass.
3) We should keep the World healthy and clean because it is the right thing to do. Period.
These are for you Jim, while I do share some of your views and think the contributions of the USA go unapreciated a lot of times,
4) Last time I heard the best country in the world to live in was Norway
United Nations Report
At the top of the list in the 2002 report were: Norway, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Australia, United States, Iceland, Netherlands, Japan, Finland, Switzerland, France, Britain, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand and Italy.
5) You talk as though the US won WW1 and WW2 by themselves. You should know that:
- Canada has the largest French population that never surrendered to Germany.
- We have the largest English population that never ever surrendered or withdrew during any war to anyone, anywhere.
Namaste
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
Jun 13, 2003, 3:58 AM
Post #154 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
In reply to: In the end, throughout human existance, many theories about the impact of humans upon the global climate have been proven wrong. None has yet to be proven right, and I personally see no reason to catapult civilization back into the stone ages over some contrived doomsday theory of global demise.
Tradguy...you are brilliant! That is exactly how I feel! Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
vanny37
Jun 13, 2003, 5:06 AM
Post #155 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 83
|
Can anyone tell me WHY Earth Day was started??????
I wasn't even born then... but those of you of the LEFT mind seem to forget sooooo easily...
ANYONE????
The answer points to hypocrisy of the environmental movement and to the fact that it ain't an environmental movement... pushing agendas under the guise of saving the environment is pretty tricky!!
There has still not been anyone who can conclusively prove global warming from humans. It hasn't been done... if it has, I'd like to see it. And no, one study doesnt prove shit. There was a blurb in the news the other day saying that warming temperatures were helping to turn some desert areas into fertile lands... you see, you all are looking at the world through a microscope. Pointing to that one tree that just died and screaming, "LOOK! Proof of global warming!! That tree died because of the warm, polluted air." Meanwhile, you forget that the earth naturally cycles in everything. And that trees dying here, doesnt mean more are growing there. "Environmentalists" are probably the people that know the least about the environment! Only because they ignore all the facts and push agendas...
Until the facts are in, I think its a crock a shit!
my $.02 ... and i'll be looking for the answer, if it already hasn't been said and i missed it!
Cheers,
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jun 13, 2003, 5:48 AM
Post #156 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
ok, a simple piece of logic.
CO2 & co are called green house gasses.
greenhouses are made to be warm on the sun.
therefore greenhouse gasses cause increase in teparature.
ok, some more explanation. CO2 is opaque to lower levels of radiation. like infrared. some of you may not know that the air doesnt warm because of direct radiation from the sun. its transparent, e.g. it has almost no light absorbing ability, so light cannot warm it. so what happens is that the sun warms the soil (or water, or whatever) and the soil then warms the air. and the soil also looses a part of its warmth due to infrared radiation into space during the night.
so if CO2 is opaque to infrared, and its level in the atmosphere is increasing, it means less cooling via infrared radiation during the night. this means the soil is warmer in the morning than it should be. dont missunderstand, the effects aren instantaneus, but you know .001C per day gives you 1C in 1000 days.
and whoever said that warm teparatures help in bringing the rain to desserts has something really wrong with hes logic: the deserts are dry because the are warm (at leas most of them, lets ignore some that are because of prymary loss of rain, e.g. are behind high mountain ranges), so if you make the desert a little warmer, do you think the level of condensation will increase???? no, it will decrease!!!!! look into your highschool physics textbook, where it says that warmer air has higher maximum absolute humidity than cooler air. absolute humidity is the weight of water air currently has. relative humidity is its current absolute humidity divided by its max absolute humidity. and rain cant fall until relative humidity is ABOVE 100%, causing condensation, that means rain, snow...
so, the higher the temp, the higher the max absolute humidity, the more water has to be in the air for the rain to fall.
and, evaporation form the see increases relatively little in comparison to max absolute humidity change in 1C. unless you raise the temp high enough for the see to boil. but we all probably dont want to see this, dont we??? right????
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jun 13, 2003, 12:07 PM
Post #157 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: Thanks Steve! I was beginning to feel outnumbered!
You probably are. Everytime I bring up the subject amongst friends, the Global Warming Litany trots out and one can barely get a word in edgewise. At least some anti-hysteria books are coming out now. As for these scientists peddling their doom, many directly benefit from their scaremongering with obtaining grants to study their ideas. Imagine that? The more sensational you make your claims, the more money you can get. Not to be entirely cynical, of course. Many of these people in general believe in what they are doing.
And as for the Kyoto Protocol, thanks but no thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jun 13, 2003, 12:10 PM
Post #158 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: As an interesting side note, this "global warming" business has only been an issue for a few years. Prior to that, people were all deeply concerned about "global cooling" and worried that we were gaining speed toward the next ice age. Check out this article on GLOBAL COOLING from 1975, a further example that people are generally unwilling to accept that our planet undergoes contant change that is not under our control, and that EVERYBODY has an agenda, and will twist and distort any data to reinforce their point and promote their stance.
Oh my god! The Earth is getting cooler! We need to shut down Igloo and Coleman because these companies make the Earth and its perishable foods cooler. Good link there.
|
|
|
|
|
marcel
Jun 13, 2003, 3:03 PM
Post #159 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 523
|
It's hard to believe after nearly a year this thread is still going on. It's even harder to believe that some people still think we humans are not contributing to global warming! How many centuries did it take for man to admit the earth was round? I guess it's the same thing. As the saying goes "ignorance is bliss"!
|
|
|
|
|
dwm81281
Jun 13, 2003, 3:35 PM
Post #160 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 47
|
Ok I am jumping into this thread about a year late it seems, and if anyone has mentioned these points previously, I apologize for being redundant.
Any data, especially that which is made available to the public, comes with some amount of bias. That bias may come from the author's personal agenda or some other pressure (ie. political, business, peer, etc). Unfortunately we cannot all conduct our own scientific research, but we must keep this in mind when reading and researching these topics. Read both sides of the argument. Not only will it help to understand all the issues at hand, but you'll be better able to defend your argument.
Arguments like this global warming debate will never be resolved because each side has "proof" that the other side won't buy. Thus to repeatedly heap facts, figures, quotes and degrees upon each other is only burying each side in contempt and irritation. If you want to debate, come to the board with enough tolerance to actually hear the other side of the argument before you choose to dismantle it.
Thanks for making the boards enjoyable! Debate on! :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Jun 13, 2003, 3:46 PM
Post #161 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
In reply to: I ask you this question, what has the rest of the world EVER done for us?
goddamn you're a whiner. why dont you STOP thinking of yourself first and foremost?
In reply to: We had to bail the rest of the world out of two world wars for crying out loud. I DON'T care what the rest of the world thinks.
you're a moron langford. nothing more, nothing less. check your history books. WW1 was all but over when the USA stepped in.
try thinking before you speak. though you may have trouble with that since you don't appear to do any thinking for yourself.
a closed mind cannot think freely. (thanks bruce)
|
|
|
|
|
rob
Jun 13, 2003, 5:14 PM
Post #162 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 37
|
In reply to: P.S. Quote I ask you this question, what has the rest of the world EVER done for us? They bomb our towers, they vote against us every chance they get in the UN, they won't turn over terrorists to us because we have the death penalty(France), but who do they call on every time they need help? US! We had to bail the rest of the world out of two world wars for crying out loud. I DON'T care what the rest of the world thinks. We live in the greatest country this world has EVER seen. Do you see people trying to get out? No! They are coming here by the millions! they are fighting to get IN! And we are not using all of our oil...we are using the Arab's oil first. 
I so hope I just missed the sarcasm in this post, either that or I think a new level of ignorance has been uncovered. :p
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jun 13, 2003, 5:33 PM
Post #163 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: It's hard to believe after nearly a year this thread is still going on. It's even harder to believe that some people still think we humans are not contributing to global warming! How many centuries did it take for man to admit the earth was round? I guess it's the same thing. As the saying goes "ignorance is bliss"!
No one is claiming that humans don't contribute, they just apparantly don't contribute a very significant portion. It's all about perspective, Marcel.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jun 13, 2003, 6:17 PM
Post #164 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
the level of CO2 has risen significantly because of the heavy industry.
and as haevy industry usually means big bucks it wouldnt hurt them too much to install some king of cleaning apparatus. IF someone made them do it. but since the industrials have more money that the enviromentalists, this probably wont happen until its too late and everybody is able to see the damage, the general public falls into hysteria and demands action from the government. and even then there will be some wholl be lobbying to postopne the installment.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jun 18, 2003, 3:45 AM
Post #165 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
wow, what simple garbage. I can't find but a couple educated opinions anywhere here! I do have to agree with Langford on the America bit. We shell out way more than we take in, and that we produce so much of the world's food, give more foreign aide than any other country, harbor more humanitarian organizations than anywhere else in the world, and are a reasonably consistent society based on principals of human rights at the least should grant us some respect.
As far as the global warming trend, the answer is WE DON'T KNOW. Experts in the field who know far more than you or I ever will are having this same childish debate right now. One party says that the warming (which is extremely slow and has been going on since before we were mass-pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere) is part of a natural cycle and the temperature is merely fluxuating like it should. Another party argues that we can't really know that so long as we can't peer into the future, and that the Earth's temerature is increasing disproportionally to what is natural (which, again, is kinda hard to see without looking into the future).
This reminds me of how doctors have been saying "eat meat to lose weight, no eat carbs, no wait-fats, no wait-just lettuce. Jesus tapdancing Christ! Gotta love it.
|
|
|
|
|
supe
Jun 18, 2003, 4:23 AM
Post #166 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 50
|
P.S.
From a reply by jmlangford
Quote
We Americans have a God given right to squander all of the oil thats left on the earth in a short time period JUST BECAUSE WE CAN. So therefore WE SHOULD. AND F-THE REST OF THE F---EN WORLD THEY DON'T GET ANY THEY CAN GO PISS UP A ROPE.
I ask you this question, what has the rest of the world EVER done for us? They bomb our towers, they vote against us every chance they get in the UN, they won't turn over terrorists to us because we have the death penalty(France), but who do they call on every time they need help? US! We had to bail the rest of the world out of two world wars for crying out loud. I DON'T care what the rest of the world thinks. We live in the greatest country this world has EVER seen. Do you see people trying to get out? No! They are coming here by the millions! they are fighting to get IN! And we are not using all of our oil...we are using the Arab's oil first.
AND NOW MY REPLY-
Iwould like to tell you first of all that i am an american mr. langford and that i have at times shared your point of view. But to tell you the honest truth i have never fought in any world wars, never fought terrorists, and have unfortunatley done never done anything significant for america, the world, or really even for my local community. Just being born an american does not mean i have played some grand role in the world, just that i have maybe a bit more potential than others to do so because of the cushy circumstances i've been born into. I can honestly say when i say my prayers before going to bed that i thank god i was born an american simply because i am to much of a wimp to handle it anywhere else....
On the other hand, i, when i am old enough to vote will vote republican, not enviromentalist or even democratic. I don't really believe the whole global warming thing. My mom drives a huge old van because we have eight kids, not because she wants to mess up the ozone or heat the world up to 20,0000 plus degrees. so umm chill. americans make mistakes, so do the french, the british, russians, chinese etc.... We all have our psychos, so as reasonably normal people here on rc.com lets try and be sensible to each other rather than yelling ourselves hoarse over some forum that will probably have little or no effect on the world.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Jun 18, 2003, 5:15 AM
Post #167 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In my opinion, America should quit fu king around and just nuke the rest of the world. Seriously. Well, first we should take over all the rest of the countries, and take all their money and jewels and stuff, and THEN nuke them. The way i see it, America is strong enough to survive on its own. We only contribute a third of the world's CO2....therefore, if we nuke the rest of the world, well, there goes 2/3 of the pollution. Then we'd reduce global warming by a lot (if it even exists that is). Either way, we'd be better off without the rest of the world, and be able to live in peace for once.
Nuke the world = World peace.
I'm sick of people b tching about things in general, actually. If i can afford to buy a hummer for commuting to work, i should. It is my right. It's also my right to own guns....i love guns. I have a shot gun, a semi-automatic rifle, and a couple of handguns that i enjoy to shoot things with occasionally. So get off my land. And i like to eat meat...which is also my right. I like to eat steaks, chicken, lamb, squirrel, or whatever else gets in the way of my gun. Or my hummer. So back off and quit complaining about "the environment" and "global warming." Sh!t, what has the environment ever done for me in the last 5 minutes? Nothing. I earn my own living, and get no help from nobody.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jun 18, 2003, 5:19 AM
Post #168 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
LOL this topic is crazy. From Global warming being insignificant to a heated statement about how we should warm the whole globe! :D :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
kevlar
Jun 18, 2003, 3:40 PM
Post #169 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Posts: 272
|
Let it be known...my daughters are doing all they can to preserve the ice climbs...by leaving the refrigerator door open an looking inside for extended periods of time...
I hope we notice a difference soon...with the ice climbs...as my energy bill is going through the roof...
rock on...opps I mean Ice on....
John 8)
|
|
|
|
|
singlespeed
Jun 20, 2003, 3:08 AM
Post #170 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2003
Posts: 13
|
Let's see WMA's not quite positive if they have them so let's bomb the crap out of Iraq...just in case. A possibility exists that we are contributing to the warming of the globe, which could have some really harsh consequences and completely change life on earth as we know. Do we sign the Kyoto treaty to save our butts...just in case? Nah, wouldn't want to hurt big oil :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Jun 20, 2003, 3:49 AM
Post #171 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
i say, do whatever is best for the corporations. That way, they will have more profits, and our economy will be better. Since a better economy automatically translates to better lives for us all, this is the obvious choice.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jun 20, 2003, 11:31 PM
Post #172 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
what I think some people fail to understand here is that its not the "greedy corporation" that are preventing things like electric cars from becomeing popular, its the consumer. There is no market for electric cars, or for that matter a great number of things that are more environment-friendly. Don't blame big oil for the fact that everyone is still driving SUV's. Can you blame them for trying to meet the demand for their products? Hell no! Its the average consumer who decides "I think this Chevy Tahoe looks more manly than this Honda Hybrid-so I will spend more money on this gas-guzzling SUV to stoke my own sense of libido or god-knows-what instead of going the eco-friendly route of buying a perfectly good hybrid automobile that is 3 times as cost efficient." As long as you guys all have Range Rovers and Ford F250s and the like, don't preach about the evils of "big oil." They are just trying to meet YOUR demand. Its not their fault, its YOUR fault. So quit trying to blame BP and other giant oil corporations for the worlds problems and start realizing that they are just trying to get by (and make some serious money) in an oil-driven market. The market has to change first, then the buinesses adapt. It can't be done any other way.
So, until you guys go out and buy a car that is gas-efficient or is reliant on an alternative energy source, quit your bitchin and realize that we ALL are the problem, not just some "greedy, evil fat-cat oil tycoon" who is "trying so desperately to keep alternative energy from coming to the common man." The supply follows the demand.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jun 20, 2003, 11:35 PM
Post #173 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
PS-anything that hurts big oil will hurt the consumer very directly. Anything that limits or squelches the amount of money the "big oil conglomerates" make translate directly into increased prices on oil and oil products. Wanna pay 2.50$ a gallon (sooner rather than later)? I sure don't.
|
|
|
|
|
phreakdigital
Jun 21, 2003, 12:32 AM
Post #174 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2002
Posts: 228
|
The ancient greeks i am sure thought they mattered as much as we think we do today...although everyone complains about bolting and ethics and cleaning up your trash and not harming the earth...which i agree with. Yes, the earth's renewal of itself happens over lots of time, but there is lots of time. If the span of the earth's history was graphed on a timeline from san francisco to new york...we(humans) 20,000 years say, have only been around for about your fingernail length...so if we think that in that time we have the power to do anything to the earth we are just egocentric!...behold...there is something more powerful than us evil americans.
|
|
|
|
|
raindog
Jun 21, 2003, 12:51 AM
Post #175 of 228
(12838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2003
Posts: 200
|
In reply to: what I think some people fail to understand here is that its not the "greedy corporation" that are preventing things like electric cars from becomeing popular, its the consumer. There is no market for electric cars, or for that matter a great number of things that are more environment-friendly. Don't blame big oil for the fact that everyone is still driving SUV's. Can you blame them for trying to meet the demand for their products? Hell no! Its the average consumer who decides "I think this Chevy Tahoe looks more manly than this Honda Hybrid-so I will spend more money on this gas-guzzling SUV to stoke my own sense of libido or god-knows-what instead of going the eco-friendly route of buying a perfectly good hybrid automobile that is 3 times as cost efficient." As long as you guys all have Range Rovers and Ford F250s and the like, don't preach about the evils of "big oil." They are just trying to meet YOUR demand. Its not their fault, its YOUR fault. So quit trying to blame BP and other giant oil corporations for the worlds problems and start realizing that they are just trying to get by (and make some serious money) in an oil-driven market. The market has to change first, then the buinesses adapt. It can't be done any other way. So, until you guys go out and buy a car that is gas-efficient or is reliant on an alternative energy source, quit your bitchin and realize that we ALL are the problem, not just some "greedy, evil fat-cat oil tycoon" who is "trying so desperately to keep alternative energy from coming to the common man." The supply follows the demand.
I am a mafia hit man. I kill people for a living. Can you blame me for meeting the demand that exists for hits? Hell no! It's people who are always getting themselves into to trouble by being stupid and not paying back my uncle. Once you stop messing with my family then you can blame me for the work I do. Sheesh I'm just trying to make a living.
|
|
|
|
|
climberpunk
Jun 21, 2003, 1:02 AM
Post #176 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 171
|
ok im going to preface this by saying i did not read most of the 12 pages of this thread. but based on what i did see, i have to assume a few things.
most of our disagreements are not over the consequences of the facts, but wether or not we care about those consequences. Its some basic differences in moral values that we base our opinions on. I place the needs of a greater whole, all life, in front of what i see as petty personal pleasures. Im not being a martyr here, thats just how i proritize things.
as far as what the rest of the world has done for us and what america has done for the rest of the world- BORDERS ARE JUST IMAGINARY LINES. they mean nothing. borders seperating peoples are-in my mind- the root of all conflict. we devide people into neat little abstract boxes so that we can decide how to treat them without thinking about them as humans. you talk about the rest of the world "bombing our towers" the towers arent just american, they were filled with people of the whole world. the hijackers were INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, not Iraqi's. We-myself included- need to stop stereotyping people, and recognize that EVERYONE IS A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD. you are only american because you were born here-essentially luck of the draw.
COLLEGEKID: i am an vegitarian, almost vegan, because of the effect of the meat industry has on the environment and global economy-its just wasteful [email me and ill be glad to show you details as to how]. These are the same reasons i will never own a car. however, i more than respect your position as a hunter. HUNTING IS MUCH MORE NATURAL THAT EATING TOFU. my reasons for vegitarianism arent to do with the actual eating of the animal, but for the way the are grown. and as far as "WHAT HAS THE ENVIRONMENT DONE FOR ME IN THE LAST FIVE MINUTES" PLEASE TELL ME YOU WERE KIDDING!!! look around you. everything--absolutely everything--is from the environment. your food, your air, your hummer, your house, the gas for your hummer, your gun, ALL OF IT IS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT if we dont use sustainable techniques, future generations will have nothing.
Oil will replenish itself, of course, but not at ANYWHERE NEAR the rate we consume it at. just as we dont allow forests to grow back, we just destroy entire ecosystems in order to satisfy our every desire. I mean look at the Amazon, hundreds of acres of rainforest are bulldozed to the ground, and often burned, every day. this will take thousands of years, if ever, to regenerate.
Of course we[humans] have a tiny respective effect on the environment. but that is the straw that will break the camels back. That tiny tenth [if that much, i didnt do the math] of a percent that we contribute to emissions is all it takes to upset the balance.
ok im going to stop ranting now, because i dont think anything i say over the internet will convince anyone of anything-and im not making any sense.. if you would like to have a 1-1 discussion about anything- especially politics/ethics, please PM/IM me-tmsean
peace, and no hard feelings [forgive my spelling]
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jun 22, 2003, 7:10 AM
Post #177 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
a hitman, awesome! does that have a pension program that comes with it?
|
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 8, 2005, 2:47 AM
Post #178 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
Holy Sh*t, why didn't I see this thread before! :shock:
I know there's been alot said, but alot of it is outdated or just plain wrong. It's a "free" country, but just read this and make sure you know what governments are not talking about to keep the economy going.
HUMAN ACTIVITY CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING (at least in part)
Evidence is now overwhelming that humans cause global warming; it's just a question of how much. If you need GW's word, earlier this year, he has acknowledged that human activity causes global warming. For mild censored public info: http://www.ucsusa.org/ So what if the world warms up a few degrees?
CONSEQUENCES
Current estimates range from 2.5-10.4F global increases in temperature in the next 100 yrs. That means 2.5 is not likely & neither is 10.4 but the most likely increase will be close to 6-7F. In the last 10 000 yrs, the global temperature increased 1.8F at the most; we're talking a 400x increase in the rate of global warming! (do the math) It's still just 6-7 degrees F right? During the last glaciation period, it was 5-9F colder & NY was covered under 3000' of ice. There's evidence that increases in temperature causes hurricanes to increase in intensity (not frequency). How did you like Hurricanes this year? Add sea level increases and coastal cities will be even closer to the Hurricanes (for those not already flooded).
PERSPECTIVES
Estimates are based on past energy consumption in the world. Over 300 millions of North Americans (including Canadians) have been & are still increasing energy consumption. China (over 1 billion people) has been increasing its "productivity" and energy consumption 8% every year & there's no sign of stopping. India & other developing countries are not far behind (add at least another billion). Basically, the consumption of more than 2 billion people will increase 10x to reach our current level in about 30 years.
You know what, in 30yrs is also about the time that there will be no oil worth taking left. Half of the estimated oil deposits in the world have been used. Oil « production » (we only harvest it) has recently past its peak & is decreasing in quality and quantity.
Global warming is happening and it’s got major consequences on the world. Anyhow, those who want to keep up the SUVs, air-conditioning, airplanes, etc. better start putting oil aside, because there’s about 30yrs left of oil after which... (economic) Crash & burn baby :twisted:
Mick
People are just like the frog that you put in cold water & bring slowly to a boil… (it doesn’t jump out).
|
|
|
|
|
scottquig
Nov 8, 2005, 3:30 AM
Post #179 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 298
|
cause i't's more than 2 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 8, 2005, 4:10 PM
Post #180 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Holy thread revival, Batman.
|
|
|
|
|
montaniero
Nov 8, 2005, 7:20 PM
Post #181 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 238
|
Shouldn't all this SUV-bashing be in the Community forum? I know global warming melts ice but I thought this forum was to talk about couloirs, ice tools and suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
cchas
Nov 8, 2005, 10:30 PM
Post #182 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344
|
This is where scientists have done a poor job at discribing to the lay individual (and especially the politicians) on how to understand what they are saying. With a fairly high degree of confidence they believe that the current models of globel warming is correct. They will not say its absolutely certain that it will happen but a better way to concider this is to look at how I look at clinical trial data (for medical therapies) and convert it into real world situations....
If I see a therapy that has a p value of 0.05 as compared to a control, I would say that there is a statistical trend but not statistically significant enough to warrant approval ( which would require a p value of 0.005)... now if I was told that if I was on a climb and there was a 90% chance that I'd get killed, I would absolutely change how I was making my decisions. Same probability but different perceptions, one as a scientist and one as a human.
Similar situations can be applied to globel warming....
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Nov 9, 2005, 3:24 AM
Post #183 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
Adeptus, you are right about what you wrote, except for this:
In reply to: Humans may change a bit on the microscopic scale, but this is nothing compared to the natural cycles. And all the hype about increased carbon dioxide fugacity is ridicules, because values are lower now than in any other period in earth’s history.
Sure, carbon dioxide levels have been higher in the past, but was a long ago past, whose CO2 levels decreased since the coming of photosynthetic life. Human impact is clearly visible on this gragh. There is a lot of evidence out there supporting the high impact anthropomorphic activity has on the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Nov 10, 2005, 3:19 AM
Post #184 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
In reply to: ... because organic energy as a resource will soon be used up and we will have to come up with a new energy source. |
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 10, 2005, 5:36 AM
Post #185 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
Honestly, I'm not impressed. It's a personal webpage with loads of equations including a bunch of "assuming that...", "to simplify...", "approximately...", etc. about the Earth's orbit and concludes that the temperature increases we see are not human induced. Surely there is a margin of error in his model estimation; I wonder why he doesn't show that.
It sounds possible, but less convincing than human induced effects imho
In reply to: The biggest danger to humanity is ourselves.
I think we agree on that! :D
|
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 10, 2005, 6:26 AM
Post #186 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: Today's values are about 375 ppmv. But life in the Mesozoic era had no problems with values above 2000 ppmv!
Yep, and most of the life was big CO2 loving trees & almost exclusively cold blooded animals. (Humans & mammoths were not around with the dinosaurs)
In reply to: And there is a limit for the amount of carbon dioxide that humans can produces, because organic energy as a resource will soon be used up and we will have to come up with a new energy source. Photosynthesis and incorporation in carbonate sediments will fairly quickly get rid of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere too.
Photosythesis will take a while considering trees are being cut down at an increasing rate and will be prime organic energy once oil is gone. I guess we'll have to grow and bury weeds to get the CO2 out of the system. We'll fuel the vehicules & machines with ethanol which produces just as much CO2 as oil (minus the other garbage)
In reply to: So I'm just pointing out that humans are nothing special. We are only a small part of the earth's history and we make no difference. Life will continue with or without us.
Is that analogous to it doesn't matter if the whole planet blew up tomorrow because it is completely insignificant in the galaxy, let alone the universe?
I agree completely that nature will take it's course. I guess the way I see it is that it depends at what scale you care.
If we increase global temperatures by a few degrees we make no difference at the geological scale.
On the other hand, the same change at the scale of 100 years makes a significant difference for the next generations starting from children born today.
Does anyone else get :shock: & :roll: at how so many people get overprotective of their right to luxury & and not even consider what's coming up? Oh, that looks like a case of I care at the scale of my lifetime.
Ok time to go, it's getting philosophical! :lol:
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 10, 2005, 6:46 AM
Post #187 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us evil humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one. . [ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on
2002-07-30 20:28 ]
Blah Blah Blah.
Facts: Three of the last 4 years have seen the highest world wide average temps. And seemingly this is a trend.
This season had the most hurricanes ever, but was inline with an increase in hurricanes over the last 5 years.
Most Cat 5 storms ever
Ice caps are clearly melting. Sure, the kind folks in Snowshoe, WV might like ocean front property but those in say Phili, NY or Boston probably would like to stay above water.
a bunch of other stuff. I'll post a second time with the facts from NOAA on the continual warming trend.
Bottom line is we might actually have killer ice seasons every year because global warming doesn't necessarily mean that winter is going to be in the 70's in the northeast. It just means the overall world average temp for the year is increasing. What happens in various geographic regions is meaningless.
in terms of ice climbing. it's true. Mt Kenya is lacking the traditional mixed routes increasingly. Kilimanjaro is losing it's small snow cap. And the glaciers in both the US and Europe are melting at an increasingly alarming rate.
Nice try.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 10, 2005, 6:50 AM
Post #188 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: Today's values are about 375 ppmv. But life in the Mesozoic era had no problems with values above 2000 ppmv! If we increase global temperatures by a few degrees we make no difference at the geological scale. On the other hand, the same change at the scale of 100 years makes a significant difference for the next generations starting from children born today. Mick
Interestingly how many degrees would it take to put us into an ice age on a global scale? Around 4-6 degrees. So saying a few degrees here or there as a global temp difference means nothing is absurd.
I don't think you understand in a world of big #'s 3-6 degrees is a huge # if it's on a global scale.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Nov 10, 2005, 7:02 AM
Post #189 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
In reply to: It sounds possible, but less convincing than human induced effects imho
The Milankovitch Cycle has a very strong effect on global climate change. This NASA website explains it well.
In reply to: Photosythesis will take a while considering trees are being cut down at an increasing rate and will be prime organic energy once oil is gone. I guess we'll have to grow and bury weeds to get the CO2 out of the system.
The most significant CO2 sink is the ocean. In my environmental geology class, we discuss the different possible climatic changes that might occur with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. One of them is that with the melting of the ice caps, the oceans' surface area will increase, allowing more CO2 to precipitate into the oceans, thus less CO2 in the atmosphere and the Earth cools. Also, warming temperatures would mean an increase in evaporation, which results in more clouds, which follows by more of the sun's radiation being reflected back into space, also resulting in cooler temperatures. But then again, clouds trap outgoing infrared radiation, which in turn warms us. Also, warmer temperatures melt permafrost, which then releases methane (another greenhouse gas) which was trapped in the permafrost out into the atmosphere, creating more warming, and so on...
We can't fully predict our future, but despite that, I still believe in trying to have as little an impact on our planet as we can.
|
|
|
|
|
wuontherocks
Nov 11, 2005, 6:08 PM
Post #190 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: Interestingly how many degrees would it take to put us into an ice age on a global scale? Around 4-6 degrees. So saying a few degrees here or there as a global temp difference means nothing is absurd.
I know that; it's in my first post on this tread. I was simply answering another post saying that these changes occur naturally (cycles of glaciations) So my point was that the changes we are observing are much faster than that (see prev post)
"Chill" a bit :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
tallnik
Nov 12, 2005, 6:36 PM
Post #191 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 595
|
I love these kind of posts...
I love claims of people wanting to see proof of global warming, and I love people who make claims of evidence coming from counter-science.
I have to admit not having read through all 13 pages of responses...
so if someone has already said what I'm going to say, my apoplogies.
However, take a look at the sources that people present for their evidence. Many of the famed "Global warming is not human caused" scientists have shaky or not incredibly solid evidence to back up their work. That's my opinion after having studied available evidence (BA in enviro, Poi sci, and International Development from McGill)
Just think and act critically before making your conclusions. Especially if you want to agree immediately...
Cheers,
Nik
|
|
|
|
|
unclebob
Nov 15, 2005, 1:38 AM
Post #192 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2005
Posts: 26
|
In reply to: Duncan, I appreciate what you are trying to say, but there is absolutely NO proof that global warming is actually happening and if it is, there is no proof that WE are causing it. I just have a problem with huge alterations to our awesome lifestyle based on what unproven computer models tell us might happen in the next 1000 years. BTW, "Great deeds make a country great". Last time I checked, if it wasn't for the terrible, arrogant, non-caring, industrialized United States of America, this world would have had its butt kicked twice in world wars and we would probably be living under Adolf Hitler or something! I am just sick and tired of people trying to subjugate our country's sovereignty by telling us how to run our country. Also, the United States of America, in all of its filthy rich glory, just happens to supply 1/3 of the world's food. The U.S. also shells out billions upon billions in foreign aid to those countries less fortunate. We also happen to have the best medical research and treatment facilities in the world! We are a pretty good country, and I am fed up with the rest of the jealous world trying to bring us down with unproven "scientific" studies. Show me the proof!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
unclebob
Nov 15, 2005, 1:48 AM
Post #193 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2005
Posts: 26
|
In reply to: The graph you linked is absolutely true, but take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/...c_Carbon_Dioxide.png Today's values are about 375 ppmv. But life in the Mesozoic era had no problems with values above 2000 ppmv! What I'm saying is that humans may change a bit, but if we look a the big picture it is not significant. A very violent volcano eruption can emit much more carbon dioxide than the industry in the last century.
from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...Story/International/
In reply to: Worldwide, sulphur dioxide emissions from volcanoes total about 15 million tonnes a year, compared with the 200 million tonnes produced by power plants and other human activities. |
|
|
|
|
goat_boy
Nov 19, 2005, 5:45 AM
Post #194 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2005
Posts: 5
|
In reply to: I admit this is an inflammatory subject, but let us remain civil and let us remain friends, even if we have to agree to disagree.
Actually, jmlangford, I'm pleased to use my first post on this board to say that I am not interested in "remaining friends" or "agreeing" in any manner with you or anyone who :
1) Demands scientific proof of something as easy to observe as the sun rising in the morning;
2) Wants us all to amicably go along and agree with an (admittedly) inflammatory political position which YOU brought up to begin with.
All of the glaciers in the North Cascades are slated to be gone in 40 years. Global warming is a naturally occuring event, as you stated -- but it's the RATE at which its happening, and our ridiculous society's consumer-based lifestyle (perpetuated by feel-good passive-aggressive lobbyists like yourself) which has accelerated that process.
Can you "agree to disagree" with that? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 21, 2005, 2:27 AM
Post #195 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html
from that link: "In a separate study a team led by Ruth Curry, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut, has established that 20,000 sq km of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995. Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be."
Too bad that's not a measure of volume. :roll: Just plain stupid...
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
mbez
Nov 26, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #196 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 66
|
A recent article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/...ce/earth/25core.html
In reply to: Rise in Gases Unmatched by a History in Ancient Ice Shafts of ancient ice pulled from Antarctica's frozen depths show that for at least 650,000 years three important heat-trapping greenhouse gases never reached recent atmospheric levels caused by human activities, scientists are reporting today. * * * "They've now pushed back two-thirds of a million years and found that nature did not get as far as humans have," said Richard B. Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University who is an expert on ice cores. "We're changing the world really hugely - way past where it's been for a long time." James White, a geology professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, not involved with the study, said that although the ice-age evidence showed that levels of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases rose and fell in response to warming and cooling, the gases could clearly take the lead as well. "CO2 and climate are like two people handcuffed to each other," he said. "Where one goes, the other must follow. Leadership may change, or they may march in step, but they are never far from each other. Our current CO2 levels appear to be far out of balance with climate when viewed through these results, reinforcing the idea that we have significant modern warming to go." |
|
|
|
|
kixx
Nov 28, 2005, 10:25 PM
Post #197 of 228
(15494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 178
|
Some things to think about... And this is why global warming has everything to do with alpinism.
The last 10 years have seen 10 times the rate of glacier reduction in Alaska for the last few hundred years. Blame it on whatever you want, you can't miss it.
Anybody who climbs in Alaska (mostly Alaska Range) can tell you that there has been a very dramatic shift in climbing conditions there. Glaciers are melting out and the local pilots are curtailing late season flights. Last year we were told we should be "ready" to walk out. Routes are melting out much more quickly... When scheming big routes the time of year is a very big consideration. Even on Rainier I have been exposed on a melted out route with no pro to speak of. (we threaded the rope through wet volcanic rock in mid April) There should have been ice screws and pickets, but we were scrambling on talus and dodging rockfall instead of spindrift.
My climatologist climber buddy tells me that the Earth will cool herself with increased rain and other climatic changes that may eventually plunge us into an ice age until we reach equilibrium again. Don't get excited though, apparently we'll never climb in it... just something to think about.
Stay cool :?
|
|
|
|
|
JackAttack
Nov 21, 2007, 5:28 PM
Post #198 of 228
(6363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2007
Posts: 55
|
I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide1.png
this shows our temperature now, temperatures for the past three thousand years, and the average temperature for the past three thousand years.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png
this shows temperature since 1880 and how it clearly matches solar irradiance, suggesting that global warming is actually caused by the sun. it also shows the increase in world hydrocarbon use (car emissions, etc.) and how it does not match the temperatures increase.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide2.png
shows glacier shortening as compared to increase in hydrocarbons. at first it appears that they have similar slope near the end of the graph, but if you look closer you can tell that glacier shortening began before the large increase in hydrocarbons.
some people also sugest other problems from increased carbon dioxide, but there really are none. if you think about it plants breath carbon dioxide so more of it only makes them grow better as shown by this graph.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide21.png
i could put in more graphs and argue more but i really dont feel like it
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Nov 21, 2007, 5:44 PM
Post #199 of 228
(6969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
JackAttack wrote: I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.  this shows our temperature now, temperatures for the past three thousand years, and the average temperature for the past three thousand years.  this shows temperature since 1880 and how it clearly matches solar irradiance, suggesting that global warming is actually caused by the sun. it also shows the increase in world hydrocarbon use (car emissions, etc.) and how it does not match the temperatures increase.  shows glacier shortening as compared to increase in hydrocarbons. at first it appears that they have similar slope near the end of the graph, but if you look closer you can tell that glacier shortening began before the large increase in hydrocarbons. some people also sugest other problems from increased carbon dioxide, but there really are none. if you think about it plants breath carbon dioxide so more of it only makes them grow better as shown by this graph.  i could put in more graphs and argue more but i really dont feel like it
It's Alive! (almost two years to the date, not bad)
|
|
|
|
|
mjdoutdoors
Nov 21, 2007, 6:43 PM
Post #200 of 228
(6935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2007
Posts: 18
|
I think that regardless of whether you think that global warming is real or not the real issue with human acitvity and our use of fossil fuels should focus on clean air and clean water.Look at the pollution levels of our rivers and oceans, ie. mercury levels, caused by the burning of coal. Many people can deny the facts on global warming(understandable) but very few can deny the use of fossil fuels is a dirty polluting way of obtaining energy. There are better ways of getting energy, fossil fuels just happens to be conveinent.
|
|
|
|
|
nuts_bolts
Nov 21, 2007, 9:34 PM
Post #201 of 228
(5734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2006
Posts: 88
|
|
|
|
|
|
JackAttack
Nov 21, 2007, 10:41 PM
Post #202 of 228
(5724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2007
Posts: 55
|
mjdoutdoors wrote: I think that regardless of whether you think that global warming is real or not the real issue with human acitvity and our use of fossil fuels should focus on clean air and clean water.Look at the pollution levels of our rivers and oceans, ie. mercury levels, caused by the burning of coal. Many people can deny the facts on global warming(understandable) but very few can deny the use of fossil fuels is a dirty polluting way of obtaining energy. There are better ways of getting energy, fossil fuels just happens to be conveinent.
I agree with you 100% on that front. when I say that there are no problems from carbon dioxide i am only talking about carbon dioxide, not its source. I agree that there are problems with fossil fuels. I do not think we are in too much danger of running out, because we still have over 40 years of relatively easy to access fossil fuels, and we are probably only 5-10 years from a source of energy that could realistically replace fossil fuels. But fossil fuels are polluting, and I do think that we should be spending money trying to solve that issue rather than global warming. Global warming is neither dangerous to us or the environment, and it is also not something that we will ever be able to control. It is time for people to cut the crap and face the obvious evidence that any warming on earth is caused by solar irradiance (the sun) and not by humans. More than 5 billion is spent each year world wide for studies about global warming, not including costs of satelites, ships, and laboratory constuction. I can think of about 500 better uses for that money. And despite all of Al Gore's campaining about global warming, such as his movie an inconvenient truth, his home in nashville, tennessee uses twenty five times as much electricity as the average american home. Talk about an inconvenient truth. And that does not include his two other homes or the private jet he flies to promote his movie. That pretty much defines hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
graniteboy
Nov 26, 2007, 8:43 PM
Post #203 of 228
(5694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092
|
To Jody Langford, a highway patrolman who asserts that he nows something about science:
This topic has been hashed to death by both knowledgeable and (much more frequently) non-knowledgeable people in these forums. But I suggest this advice to both yourself and the many right leaning "ain't no global waming" crowd, before anything you say is to be even considered as even vaguely relevant.
First, I would suggest that you get yourself a phD in the sciences, particularly climatology, and get your work published in several major climatological science journals before your comments are to be considered even vaguely relevant to the topic. And until you have your new phD, Please recall that the opinions of a Cop are essentially worthless in the realm of scientific debate. The hard cold science of the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) firmly disagree with your opinions, as well as those of the discredited fringe scientists you guys keep digging up.
Second: I recommend that you use your new phD to fully refute the IPCC's findings. Once you've done this, I'll be all ears...until then, you're just another layman with a misconception about science.
Third: Recognize that yourself, the laymen who agree with you, and the (Very, very few) scientists who are arguing on your side of this alleged "debate" are all extremely out of touch with the science community on this matter.
Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective are largely discredited by the science community at large, and if you wanted to, you could dig up some "scientists" who still claim that the world is flat, and that a witch can be unambiguously found out by checking their weight aganist that of a duck.
Wcience moves forward, but you're all still living in the middle ages. I don't blame you for your opinions on this, but rather, the lack of emphasis on science education in the K-12 system. Nonetheless, laymen's opinions in science don't count for anything, no more than my opinions on how fast your cop car can safely drive, or how many dunkin donuts you can consume in 5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Nov 26, 2007, 10:00 PM
Post #204 of 228
(5655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
graniteboy wrote: vaguely relevant. Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective (i assume ur referring to the idea of no warming?) are largely discredited by the science community at large,
ummm i really thought i would not get into this stuff but i must say: i don't believe you would find ANY "scientist" who does not recognize that there is global warming - the question has always been are we responsible?
I say NO! and i believe those that get behind al gore's thinking are drinkin to much "koolaid"!
|
|
|
|
|
climb_eng
Nov 26, 2007, 10:09 PM
Post #205 of 228
(5648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701
|
I'd suspect that a scientist, particularly a physicist WITHOUT any previous background in climatology is probably the best qualified person out there to assess the conclusions of the IPCC and others. Climatologists are biased by their very nature. Models and such can be asessed by many people with a technical background, including many physicists and engineer, as the initial assumptions and mechanisms of the model can be understood so long as the reviewer has a background in chaotic models in general.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Nov 26, 2007, 10:12 PM
Post #206 of 228
(5648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
graniteboy wrote: To Jody Langford, a highway patrolman who asserts that he nows something about science: This topic has been hashed to death by both knowledgeable and (much more frequently) non-knowledgeable people in these forums. But I suggest this advice to both yourself and the many right leaning "ain't no global waming" crowd, before anything you say is to be even considered as even vaguely relevant. First, I would suggest that you get yourself a phD in the sciences, particularly climatology, and get your work published in several major climatological science journals before your comments are to be considered even vaguely relevant to the topic. And until you have your new phD, Please recall that the opinions of a Cop are essentially worthless in the realm of scientific debate. The hard cold science of the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) firmly disagree with your opinions, as well as those of the discredited fringe scientists you guys keep digging up. Second: I recommend that you use your new phD to fully refute the IPCC's findings. Once you've done this, I'll be all ears...until then, you're just another layman with a misconception about science. Third: Recognize that yourself, the laymen who agree with you, and the (Very, very few) scientists who are arguing on your side of this alleged "debate" are all extremely out of touch with the science community on this matter. Lastly: the very few scientists who hold this perspective are largely discredited by the science community at large, and if you wanted to, you could dig up some "scientists" who still claim that the world is flat, and that a witch can be unambiguously found out by checking their weight aganist that of a duck. Wcience moves forward, but you're all still living in the middle ages. I don't blame you for your opinions on this, but rather, the lack of emphasis on science education in the K-12 system. Nonetheless, laymen's opinions in science don't count for anything, no more than my opinions on how fast your cop car can safely drive, or how many dunkin donuts you can consume in 5 minutes.
Nice burn, and well-deserved. I call bullshit though. There's good science that refutes several of the widely circulated models that indicate humans are responsible for global warming. There's even good science that suggests that this warming trend is a continuation of the warming trend since the last ice age. Having read papers on the subject from both camps I think the only safe conclusions that can be drawn at this time are as follows:
1. all of our current models are shit.
2. since our models are shit, nobody has any effing clue what's really going on, just a bunch of pie in the sky guessing with some Numbers hot-glued on to keep the funding coming in.
Incidentally, academic arrogance is nauseating and laughable, especially in a world where someone can readily educate themselves. YHBT HAND.
|
|
|
|
|
linvillelover
Nov 26, 2007, 10:21 PM
Post #207 of 228
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2006
Posts: 43
|
i havent read anything except the 1st post.
1600s?.. just before the industrial revolution...
things didnt happen at once.
i believe humans have greatly affected not only the climate, but the entire function of the earth.
and Yes, the earth does go in up and down cycles.. we are still climbing from the ice age.
and yes, humans are probably making it happen a little quicker.
that is my $0.02
|
|
|
|
|
mr_rogers
Nov 26, 2007, 11:12 PM
Post #208 of 228
(5634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 57
|
JackAttack wrote: I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics.
My heavens, those are some impressive slides. Wherever did you get them?
oism.com <--wonder who they are?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Let's see here....
"It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."
Well(!), that's a diversity of topics. Education, Political science, Survivalist studies, and climatology. Considering that the founder is trained as a biochemist and knows nothing about any of those things, they must have a large staff in order to be experts in such a variety of fields.
No? oh.... only 6 members. And only one of them is actually paid. hmmmmm
what else we got?
.. conservative christian organization, big into homeschooling... website links to creationist groups... involved in circulating a very deceptive "scientists petition" a while back that got lots of conservative press... claims 6 faculty members, but really only one paid staff member (the founder and president), their "Professor of Electrical Engineering" is a computer consultant from Idaho (It's like Silicon valley, but different!...)
... and awwwwww.... isn't that cute. The founder's sons, Zach and Noah are members of the board (gotta pad that resume kiddo's!).
Wow... you know what you go here?
(No!)
Yup, you got yer self a group of hacks!
(Hacks! But I dust and vacuum every day!)
Sorry ma'am, but hacks are a tricky bunch. And these aren't your regular hacks, wandering about lecturing folks about things they know nothing about. No, what you've got here are 'ideologically motivated hacks.'
(Oh dear me! What will the neighbors think! Whatever will I do?)
Now don't you worry, this ain't your fault. These are tricky little bastards they are. They sneak in, arguing in bad faith with junk science in order to support a political agenda. An honest person like yourself is liable to get caught up by them as you're a trusting type who doesn't suspect folks of engaging in boldfaced lies for ideological reasons.
(And to think... I trusted them!)
Now in the future, just be more careful. I'll wipe this infestation out, but they're gonna come back in the future. Just be sure to check your sources each and every time. It's a brave new world out there and the internet has forced everyone to be their own fact-checker and editor. Also, refrain from strong drink - except on days that end in "y".
(Oh I will! Whatever can I do to repay you?)
Well..... there is one thing.... but... naw... I just couldn't... wouldn't be right...
(Oh... please tell me!)
*Porn music starts playing - fade to black (sorry folks, this is a family show)*
|
|
|
|
|
graniteboy
Nov 27, 2007, 3:36 AM
Post #209 of 228
(5622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092
|
In reply to: Nice burn, and well-deserved. I call bullshit though. There's good science that refutes several of the widely circulated models that indicate humans are responsible for global warming. There's even good science that suggests that this warming trend is a continuation of the warming trend since the last ice age. Having read papers on the subject from both camps I think the only safe conclusions that can be drawn at this time are as follows:
Hmmmm....If what you say is true (and it ain't, I work across the hall from some of the most renowned climatologists on the planet, pal, and have talked with them extensively about the junk science that the right wing readers of this thread invariably dig out of the shit pile and try to perpetrate as real science) then I wonder why neither you nor the political hacks and their third rate works you guys keep alluding to haven't received any NSF FUNDING to elucidate for us all how humans have nothing, not one iota of involvement, responsibility, culpability for the current warming trend????
You know, there are still people who refuse to believe in the law of gravity. That doesn't make them fall any slower when they pop off of a climb.
In conclusion; This whole infinitely repeating thread is really just a symptom of the very systematic, very cunning, very manuipultive war on science that the republican party has waged at the behest of their corporate masters. And I simply have no more time for it. Bush will be thrown out on his ear soon, Trent lott just resigned, and we can all look forward to a time when America regains it's status as a major world player in the envirnomental sciences, rather than staring glassy eyed and hopefully backward to the polyanna world view of the 1950s, when pollution was neither recognized nor given full weight as to it's effects.
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Nov 27, 2007, 4:26 AM
Post #210 of 228
(5603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
JM, what's so bad about progress? Wouldn't you agree that if we can be cleaner, we should strive for it?
It has been proven that no matter what the government spends our tax dollars on, whether it's war, research, or infrastucture, the net stimulation on the economy is the same. If the government was pouring billions of dollars into cleaner energy instead of this bloody mess in iraq, not only would our money stay here in the US, we'd actually be doing something to help the world.
My question to you is, why not?
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Nov 27, 2007, 4:44 AM
Post #211 of 228
(5593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
graniteboy wrote: In reply to: Nice burn, and well-deserved. I call bullshit though. There's good science that refutes several of the widely circulated models that indicate humans are responsible for global warming. There's even good science that suggests that this warming trend is a continuation of the warming trend since the last ice age. Having read papers on the subject from both camps I think the only safe conclusions that can be drawn at this time are as follows: Hmmmm....If what you say is true (and it ain't, I work across the hall from some of the most renowned climatologists on the planet, pal, and have talked with them extensively about the junk science that the right wing readers of this thread invariably dig out of the shit pile and try to perpetrate as real science) then I wonder why neither you nor the political hacks and their third rate works you guys keep alluding to haven't received any NSF FUNDING to elucidate for us all how humans have nothing, not one iota of involvement, responsibility, culpability for the current warming trend???? You know, there are still people who refuse to believe in the law of gravity. That doesn't make them fall any slower when they pop off of a climb. In conclusion; This whole infinitely repeating thread is really just a symptom of the very systematic, very cunning, very manuipultive war on science that the republican party has waged at the behest of their corporate masters. And I simply have no more time for it. Bush will be thrown out on his ear soon, Trent lott just resigned, and we can all look forward to a time when America regains it's status as a major world player in the envirnomental sciences, rather than staring glassy eyed and hopefully backward to the polyanna world view of the 1950s, when pollution was neither recognized nor given full weight as to it's effects.
Most highly recognized or most highly funded? Whatever, at the end of the day I fail to see how you can claim credibility as a scientist (or acquaintance thereof, in any case. What did you say you did again?) when you're clearly arguing from the viewpoint that any of these models are "correct". You blew your position the second you crossed the line from "well, the data suggests" to "this is clearly what's happening". Only time (or possibly better modeling) will tell if that is the case, in the mean time I haven't read anything about any climate theories put forward in the last decade making the conversion from theory to law, so until that happens all you have is a (potentially useful, possibly complete bullshit, see also epicycles) thought model. And for the record you know as well as I do that government funding for research is HIGHLY political (read not necessarily merit-based), so can the disingenuous crap about the NSF.
Also, (and pay attention here, professor) your little tidbit about gravity is a weak straw man at best. You're way out of line with implying I'm some kind of grovelling yokel (or a republican for that matter) just because I (after some research into the subject followed by several discussions with folks substantially better educated on climate science and the methods currently used to gather data) have chosen to display some skepticism. For the record (go re-read my post again if you're unsure) I clearly indicated that it is my impression that neither side of this "issue" can say they have a clear idea of wtf is going on. That's a pretty long haul from "global warming doesn't exist".
So again, for the cheap seats: YHBT HAND
|
|
|
|
|
graniteboy
Nov 27, 2007, 10:21 PM
Post #212 of 228
(5564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092
|
Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc.
Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned.
What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty.
And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head.
Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit.
Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere.
Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?
(This post was edited by graniteboy on Nov 27, 2007, 10:22 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 27, 2007, 10:49 PM
Post #213 of 228
(5555 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Graniteboy, take a week off for the excessive personal attacks against Kneivel.
Come back when you learn to play well with others.
(This post was edited by reno on Nov 27, 2007, 10:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
deschamps1000
Nov 27, 2007, 11:07 PM
Post #214 of 228
(5547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
Knievel -
Please reference an article in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that argues against global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Nov 27, 2007, 11:20 PM
Post #215 of 228
(5541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
graniteboy wrote: Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc. Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned. What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty. And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head. Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit. Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere. Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?
Ok, taken in order:
Actually, if you're an ecologist that pretty much makes you a slightly overqualified park ranger (assuming you can drive a stick shift) who's taken some extra biology (and possibly chem). Impressive.
This isn't a pissing match. Your abject failure to comprehend the last two posts on this particular topic, combined with some form of bizarre (highly unscientific) zealotry on your part has mistakenly lead you to believe this is the case. Pay attention.
I actually stated fairly clearly that science never effectively proves anything. Now that it's been made crystal clear that we both agree on that point, if you're a scientist, wtf are you doing making declarative statements?
Regurgitating the same tired crap that shows up in the newspaper and on CNN.com as far as "projections" are concerned isn't making you any headway, it's just proof that you're parroting shit you've read elsewhere, quite probably without any serious thought put on the subject, thus the highly emotional stance you're taking. I assume that's the prior dig pointing out a glaring lack of objectivity on your part hitting home.
A note on models: no shit they aren't infallible, that's the point in it's entirety (well that and MASSIVE gaps in the data sets used to create them, but that's another issue). Random fact for the spectators: to date nobody's been able to come up with a good working model for a sand dune.
So assuming you're done with the histrionics, go google "non-depositional area". When you can (preferably in 50 words or less) explain to the class why this concept is relevant to climate modeling we can continue our discourse. Here's a clue: read the previous paragraph carefully. Or you could just spit out the hook.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Nov 27, 2007, 11:30 PM
Post #216 of 228
(5536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
deschamps1000 wrote: Knievel - Please reference an article in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that argues against global warming.
I'll do a little digging and see what I can come up with. The point I'm trying to make here is not that global warming is a farce, but that there are some largely ignored issues with data gathering and modeling that shed some doubt on a lot of the stuff that's being put forth as some kind of second gospel. I'm basically playing the smartass in the back of the class who stands up mid lecture and goes "yeah, but what do we really know?". But mostly I just wanted to troll that guy. I despise academic arrogance.
Note to Moderator:
don't ban me bro!
|
|
|
|
|
JackAttack
Nov 27, 2007, 11:50 PM
Post #217 of 228
(5524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2007
Posts: 55
|
mr_rogers wrote: JackAttack wrote: I have done lots of research on the topic of global warming, fossil fuels, and alternative energy sources. i'll put out some graphs and statistics. My heavens, those are some impressive slides. Wherever did you get them? oism.com <--wonder who they are? http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine Let's see here.... "It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war." Well(!), that's a diversity of topics. Education, Political science, Survivalist studies, and climatology. Considering that the founder is trained as a biochemist and knows nothing about any of those things, they must have a large staff in order to be experts in such a variety of fields. No? oh.... only 6 members. And only one of them is actually paid. hmmmmm what else we got? .. conservative christian organization, big into homeschooling... website links to creationist groups... involved in circulating a very deceptive "scientists petition" a while back that got lots of conservative press... claims 6 faculty members, but really only one paid staff member (the founder and president), their "Professor of Electrical Engineering" is a computer consultant from Idaho (It's like Silicon valley, but different!...) ... and awwwwww.... isn't that cute. The founder's sons, Zach and Noah are members of the board (gotta pad that resume kiddo's!). Wow... you know what you go here? (No!) Yup, you got yer self a group of hacks! (Hacks! But I dust and vacuum every day!) Sorry ma'am, but hacks are a tricky bunch. And these aren't your regular hacks, wandering about lecturing folks about things they know nothing about. No, what you've got here are 'ideologically motivated hacks.' (Oh dear me! What will the neighbors think! Whatever will I do?) Now don't you worry, this ain't your fault. These are tricky little bastards they are. They sneak in, arguing in bad faith with junk science in order to support a political agenda. An honest person like yourself is liable to get caught up by them as you're a trusting type who doesn't suspect folks of engaging in boldfaced lies for ideological reasons. (And to think... I trusted them!) Now in the future, just be more careful. I'll wipe this infestation out, but they're gonna come back in the future. Just be sure to check your sources each and every time. It's a brave new world out there and the internet has forced everyone to be their own fact-checker and editor. Also, refrain from strong drink - except on days that end in "y". (Oh I will! Whatever can I do to repay you?) Well..... there is one thing.... but... naw... I just couldn't... wouldn't be right... (Oh... please tell me!) *Porn music starts playing - fade to black (sorry folks, this is a family show)*
Jesus Christ this thread is vicious.
Ok, i'll counter all of your arguments one by one, going in order down the list:
1) yes my source for these slides is oism.com. dont think thats a credible source? then ill show you plenty more if you really want me to. right now i dont feel like wasting too much of my time on an asshole like you.
2) You have a problem with small institutions? and so what if only one person is paid? in my opinion, i'd rather have volunteers who do their work because they are passionate about it and truly believe what they are publishing, rather than your brand of "scientists" who side with whoever pays them the most. let me quote from the same page you did that this particular petition was coauthored by Frederick Seitz, a former president of the national academy of sciences. I dont know about you, but that sounds pretty credible to me. also you make it sound like the petition project that I pulled my slides from was written by a bunch of wackos. Let me prove you wrong, once again. I quote: "Listed here (on the left) are the approximately 19,000 signers of this petition. Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with MS or PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate."
Do you want me to copy and paste in all of those 19,000 names of credible scientists who support the petition project? just say the word.
3) you think that my source is supporting a political agenda? ha, thats funny. Let me prove you wrong, once again (this is starting to get old).
"No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project."
4) I liked you're little dialogue at the end. It was very entertaining.
You made a noble effort to prove me and tens of thousands of other scientists wrong, but I hate to break it to you: science is on my side, asshole.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 27, 2007, 11:56 PM
Post #218 of 228
(5518 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
The way that science is supposed to work:
Make a hypothesis, test it, publish the results, including sufficient data for replication.
The way climate science works:
Make a hypothesis, cherry-pick data which supports your hypothesis, publish, but don't archive your data, so it can't be replicated, claim you are being "harassed by denialists" when other interested scientists try to replicate what you've done.
oh, and fail to publish results you've found which are contrary to your hypothesis.
Anthro GW may well be true. but the present research is so poor, we really don't know.
For example, most models (including IPCC) assume warming of 2.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2. There is NO physical basis for this. A physics/engineering quality derivation of 2.5 deg C has never been published, yet it is used in all of the most important models.
One note about glaciers, dry couloirs, etc...glaciers in the alps are in retreat....revealing 5000 year old forests. How many SUVs were around 5000 years ago?
Melting glaciers in greenland have revealed 900 year-old farms, still smelling of sheep feces from the sheep farms, long frozen, now thawing. what fossil fuels caused the previous melt?
global climate change is real-always has been.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 28, 2007, 12:19 AM
Post #219 of 228
(5506 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
*sigh*
A few things pop to the forefront of my mind.
The IPCC released their conclusions, then asked for 90 days to gather the data and present the evidence. That's just blatantly wrong.
The atmosphere on Mars is warming. Methinks that the biggest thing Earth and Mars have in common is the Sun. Fairly sure that it ain't Martian women driving their Martian children to soccer practice in SUVs causing the global warming on Mars.
Dr. William Gray (Colo. State guy who does the hurricane predictions) finds lots of flaws in the APGW argument, and posits that we'll see global COOLING, and "research arguing that humans are causing global warming is “mush” based on unreliable computer models."
Despite all this, I think that reasonable measures to reduce pollution and fossil fuel use should be promoted, if for no other reason that it's smart geopolitics and good use of resources.
I don't believe in human caused global warming. That doesn't stop me from riding my bike to the coffee shop, rather than driving.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 28, 2007, 12:31 AM
Post #220 of 228
(5496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Dr. William Gray (Colo. State guy who does the hurricane predictions) finds lots of flaws in the APGW argument, and posits that we'll see global COOLING, and "research arguing that humans are causing global warming is “mush” based on unreliable computer models." Despite all this, I think that reasonable measures to reduce pollution and fossil fuel use should be promoted, if for no other reason that it's smart geopolitics and good use of resources
i agree completely. it will cool off. it always does.
and i don't hate the environment because i'm skeptical of AGW. i clean up after myself. i don't litter. i keep things tidy. i plant trees on my property. AGW remains primarily a political issue, not a scientific one.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 28, 2007, 7:28 AM
Post #221 of 228
(5454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
[quote "jmlangford"]A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us [i]evil[/i] humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one.
The information below was obtained from a presentation by [b]Dr. Patrick Michaels, Climatologist, University of Virginia[/b] titled "The American Legislative Exchange Council Energy Sustainability Project". The presentation was made on July 2, 2002 at the California State Capitol.
[b]*There is currently no known mechanism which can stop global warming.
*The earth has been on a macro-warming trend since the 1600's. That makes it difficult to blame industry for most of about 300 years or so.
*Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would void only 7/100 of one degree of global warming by 2050. Scientifically this infinitesimal temperature change is undetectable.
*Most apparent "global warming" occurs over Siberia and extreme north-western North America where most of the earth's coldest and driest air is.
*The Kyoto Protocol was being pushed by some in an attempt to tear down the United States' trade advantage because there is no trading bloc large enough to compete with our productivity.
*Warming in the past 100 years was 0.8 degrees. Reliable estimates show a continued trend of warming 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years.
*The mean temperature of Antartica is unchanged. Some parts have warmed while other parts have cooled.[/b]
So the next time your ice route is a little shorter, just accept it as a cycle of nature and don't try to ruin the great American way of life by implementing scientifically unsound regulations.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-30 20:28 ][/quote]
My feelings are this.
lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution?
Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet.
So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing.
Driving cars with more fuel effeciency is a good thing, buying local food is a good thing, being more energy effecient at home is a good thing.
Why? Because if nothing else it saves long term money.
I know when a person has cash to burn because they don't curse when they finish filling up the H2. Being wasteful has become a sign of affluence but the reality is wasteful is wasteful, and it's not a god given or consitutional right to destroy the planet, just because YOU can.
It amazes me how selfish some people are.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 28, 2007, 5:01 PM
Post #222 of 228
(5408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: My feelings are this. lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution? Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet. So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing.
you have set up a false dichotomy.
if we can't stop GW, then "curbing pollution" has no effect on GW.
as i said above, i don't litter, i don't drive an SUV, although i DO drive a V6 pickup. by all means, encourage and educate others regarding waste. but don't turn this control over to the government. dont trounce on liberty to forward your personal views.
none of this affects GW, though. if you want people to pay attention, lead by example. don't tell a lie, then expect everyone to just follow along anyway.
"False but Accurate"...look where that got dan rather.
|
|
|
|
|
climb_eng
Nov 28, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #223 of 228
(5404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701
|
graniteboy wrote: Look, Mr Yokel: What I do for a living is called Science. I work for one of the most respected science institutes in the world. I am not a climatologist, but an ecologist. But some of the most well respected and well published research scientists in the field of climate change work in my division. Grants from NASA, NSF, etc etc etc. Look up the work of Drs Ken Taylor and Joe Connel for starters if you wanna get in a pissing match. You will be clearly outgunned. What yokels such as yourself do not understand is that science never "Proves" anything. But Science CAN say with a relatively high certainty that a particular environmental phenomenon (X) is related to human activity (y) with a 90 or 95 or 99% certainty. And that is exactly what the IPCC report tells us; Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. So, Kneivel, are you actually smarter and more well read in climatology than the collective wisdom of the IPCC ? No, you're not. You're just a whining naysayer in over his head. Are climate models infallible and do they show future trends exactly and without any variability? No. No model does that in virtually any field, dipshit. Are you a parochioal yokel for not understanding the underlying certainty of anthropogenic climate change? Yes, with a P value <.000001. I'm laughing my ass off at you while you continue to shit in your own hands, then eat it, followed by feirce projectile vomiting of this fecal-vomitus matter at the knowledge of climate scientists everywhere. Do you like the taste? Or do you have a political motive for eating all your own shit time and again?
If you're side was as strong as you claim, they wouldn't use character assassination and petty insults. Questioning science have never deserved this sort of an attack.
|
|
|
|
|
ottabox
Nov 28, 2007, 5:36 PM
Post #224 of 228
(4727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2006
Posts: 354
|
>>Patrick J. Michaels is senior researcher in environmental studies at the Cato Institute; research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; author of two books on global warming, The Satanic Gases and Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming; and editor of World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. According to a 1998 article by Institute for Public Accuracy executive director Norman Solomon, the Cato Institute has received financial support from energy companies -- including Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company, and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. According to his bio on the Cato website, Michaels is a visiting scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) in Washington, DC. The nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly calls the Marshall Institute "a Washington-based think tank supported by industry and conservative foundations that focuses primarily on trying to debunk global warming...<< and so on and so forth - makes you wonder about his credibility and whose interests he serves. I don't own oil stock or live a lifestyle of conspicuous consumption. Who do you trust more?
pico23 wrote: [quote "jmlangford"]A while back there was a post by someone lamenting the fact that us [i]evil[/i] humans were melting all the good ice routes by our lifestyle. He complained about the glaciers melting, etc. and that we were causing it. I couldn't find that thread, so I am starting a new one. The information below was obtained from a presentation by [b]Dr. Patrick Michaels, Climatologist, University of Virginia[/b] titled "The American Legislative Exchange Council Energy Sustainability Project". The presentation was made on July 2, 2002 at the California State Capitol. [b]*There is currently no known mechanism which can stop global warming. *The earth has been on a macro-warming trend since the 1600's. That makes it difficult to blame industry for most of about 300 years or so. *Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would void only 7/100 of one degree of global warming by 2050. Scientifically this infinitesimal temperature change is undetectable. *Most apparent "global warming" occurs over Siberia and extreme north-western North America where most of the earth's coldest and driest air is. *The Kyoto Protocol was being pushed by some in an attempt to tear down the United States' trade advantage because there is no trading bloc large enough to compete with our productivity. *Warming in the past 100 years was 0.8 degrees. Reliable estimates show a continued trend of warming 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years. *The mean temperature of Antartica is unchanged. Some parts have warmed while other parts have cooled.[/b] So the next time your ice route is a little shorter, just accept it as a cycle of nature and don't try to ruin the great American way of life by implementing scientifically unsound regulations. [ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-07-30 20:28 ][/quote] My feelings are this. lets say there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, should we abandon all attempts to curb pollution? Really, no matter the cause off global warming, changing wasteful and filthy practices can and will lead to a better and more sustaintable planet. So I think using global warming as a reason to become less wasteful to a non renewable resource (your planet) is a good thing. Driving cars with more fuel effeciency is a good thing, buying local food is a good thing, being more energy effecient at home is a good thing. Why? Because if nothing else it saves long term money. I know when a person has cash to burn because they don't curse when they finish filling up the H2. Being wasteful has become a sign of affluence but the reality is wasteful is wasteful, and it's not a god given or consitutional right to destroy the planet, just because YOU can. It amazes me how selfish some people are. |
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Nov 28, 2007, 5:39 PM
Post #225 of 228
(4725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
climb_eng wrote: If you're side was as strong as you claim, they wouldn't use character assassination and petty insults. Questioning science have never deserved this sort of an attack.
I ain't touching this argument with a ten foot pole, because I know how it always turns out. Neither side is ever going to have their minds changed.
However, realize that the personal attacks and insults come after years of frustration dealing with idiots "questioning science". The internet has given everyone a voice, and unfortunately a vast majority aren't worth hearing, and an even vaster majority seem to be willing to listen to the drivel the first group spouts. I've sat through more arguments than I care to recall about such topics as the fake moon landing, the healing power of far infrared radiation, the electric theory of the universe, the 911 conspiracy, creation science (there's an oxymoron) and so on...
There's a difference between "questioning science" and being misled by idiots with a website. There is so much garbage pseudoscience out there that folks who are a part of the scientific community get downright furious at the backwards ideas people come up with. Add in to that a culture in the USA which looks down on science and academics in general as stuffy nerds with no grasp on the real world, and you've got everything you need to put this country in the shithole spot we're in right now.
Global warming could potentially be the biggest issue to ever face mankind. Corporations stand to lose billions, politicians stand to lose power, and scientists stand to lose their funding. There is NO ONE anywhere who doesn't have some personal investment in this issue. That makes it potentially the toughest issue imaginable when it comes to separating the facts from the lies. It also makes it the most frustrating imaginable when you think "your side" is the right one and others are being fed a line of bullshit. Both sides of the argument have done a masterful job of painting the other side as eccentric nutjobs.
Just take a second to think to yourself what motivation you really have to support one side or the other, or perhaps more importantly, ask yourself what motivates those whose opinions you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
climb_eng
Nov 28, 2007, 5:57 PM
Post #226 of 228
(1746 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701
|
Valarc wrote: climb_eng wrote: If you're side was as strong as you claim, they wouldn't use character assassination and petty insults. Questioning science have never deserved this sort of an attack. I ain't touching this argument with a ten foot pole, because I know how it always turns out. Neither side is ever going to have their minds changed. However, realize that the personal attacks and insults come after years of frustration dealing with idiots "questioning science". The internet has given everyone a voice, and unfortunately a vast majority aren't worth hearing, and an even vaster majority seem to be willing to listen to the drivel the first group spouts. I've sat through more arguments than I care to recall about such topics as the fake moon landing, the healing power of far infrared radiation, the electric theory of the universe, the 911 conspiracy, creation science (there's an oxymoron) and so on... There's a difference between "questioning science" and being misled by idiots with a website. There is so much garbage pseudoscience out there that folks who are a part of the scientific community get downright furious at the backwards ideas people come up with. Add in to that a culture in the USA which looks down on science and academics in general as stuffy nerds with no grasp on the real world, and you've got everything you need to put this country in the shithole spot we're in right now. Global warming could potentially be the biggest issue to ever face mankind. Corporations stand to lose billions, politicians stand to lose power, and scientists stand to lose their funding. There is NO ONE anywhere who doesn't have some personal investment in this issue. That makes it potentially the toughest issue imaginable when it comes to separating the facts from the lies. It also makes it the most frustrating imaginable when you think "your side" is the right one and others are being fed a line of bullshit. Both sides of the argument have done a masterful job of painting the other side as eccentric nutjobs. Just take a second to think to yourself what motivation you really have to support one side or the other, or perhaps more importantly, ask yourself what motivates those whose opinions you believe.
I don't particularly believe either side of the argument. Why is that? Because of my experience as an engineer. I know, and I know well that modeling of chaotic, non-linear systems is a messy business. You have to get you're initial conditions JUST RIGHT or else you'll have messy and inaccurate results.
Since we can't even measure many of the initial conditions that will affect climate models, it's a very hard sell to believe the predictions based on these models.
The problems with climate science:
- A reliable data set that spans for 100 years at most. Most data used relies on proxy measurement rather then direct measurement.
- No possible way of testing the hypothesis of climate science since there is no model atmosphere to deal with, only the one we have.
- Climate modeling relies on the hypothesis that we know and understand all the 'rules of the game', or at least understand them well enough to ignore the ones we don't understand. Yet there still is a great deal of misunderstanding (that climatologists admit) of interaction between the atmosphere, land masses, and the sun. This includes items such as the earths albido, the effect of topography and hydrology on weather generation, etc.
- The biggest flaw with climate modeling (as well as many other predictive models in science and engineering) is th linearization of non-linear functions. This primarilly involves attempting to curve fit known transendentals to otherwise unknown non-linear functions. Until we understand the mathematics of non-linear functions better, such modeling will always be flawed.
This isn't from any online hacks, fake scientists, or anything of that sort. I don't know why more research to answer some of these questions isn't being done. These are however valid issues and questions, ones which anyone with any background in physics, chemistry or engineering can ask and understand.
Back to work JP.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 28, 2007, 7:38 PM
Post #227 of 228
(1714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
valarc said:
In reply to: Global warming could potentially be the biggest issue to ever face mankind.
that statement is true...however, the statement, "global warming could potentially be the biggest boon to human existence ever", is also true.
if it is that important, ask climate researchers to open up their science. force them to archive data, so that things can be audited. force them to use accepted statistical methods, and not make up non-standard methods which artificially improve their desired outcomes.
these are LEGITIMATE concerns. there is a healthy skepticism of AGW for a reason. a desire to "double check" the math, is NOT right-wing wacko denialism! why don't climate scientists release the computer codes, or archive the data in their published works? In the words of one:
"why should I release my data and code to you, when you only want to find something wrong with it?"
a physicist is rightfully horrified by this attitude. as Einstein said, " a thousand scientists can say I'm right, but it only takes one to prove me wrong"
|
|
|
|
|
chedontsurf
Jan 4, 2008, 1:48 AM
Post #228 of 228
(1650 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 64
|
you are a moron!!! i know for certain that global warming exists. if it didn't, then none of us would be dry-tooling. and btw, there is something that would stop global warming. it's called nuclear winter. wouldn't it be cool to climb at night w/o a headlamp 'cause we all glowed in the dark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
