Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
Quote: Concerned that too many “deniers” are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3237 posts, RR: 38 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2945 times:
“We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.”
I'm pretty sure most viewers don't even count on them to get the daily weather right nor hold them personally responsible for it, let alone the supposed trends of weather over the last thousand years.
To say this is laughable means we've already failed in giving them the time of day.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2943 times:
Oh no, an activist group is doing something ultimately meaningless, but that's sure to piss the other side off!
Quoting aloges (Reply 1): What would convince you that human activity is causing and/or accelerating climate change?
Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2927 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 1): What would convince you that human activity is causing and/or accelerating climate change?
Mathematical proof of a SIGNIFICANT impact. Not just SOME impact. If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
FingerLakerAv8r From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2879 times:
One of the meteorologists in my hometown of ROC is Kevin Williams. This man is one of the coolest people on tv because he actually liked the colder weather and had a snow maker in his backyard to make even MORE snow (like Western New York needs more snow lol).
I can see him reading this now and loading up the cannon in his backyard as a one-man army to rid the world of warmth lol
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2825 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
Quoting FingerLakerAv8r (Reply 6): I can see him reading this now and loading up the cannon in his backyard as a one-man army to rid the world of warmth lol
I'll join him. I went outside without a coat today. In NYC. In January. Something is seriously screwed up.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
What would convince you that human activity is causing and/or accelerating climate change?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And there is NOTHING editorial or opinionated about the tone of the OP, either.
And it is for this reason that I recuse myself from these debates. There is no debate because there is no convincing a religious zealot.
I'd much rather do something productive, like lobby the government to force parents to vaccinate their kids and eliminate "personal belief" exemptions. That might actually accomplish something.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2780 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): Mathematical proof of a SIGNIFICANT impact. Not just SOME impact. If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
This is the argument about global warming I have most problems understanding. What does it matter if it is man-made or not? We leave few natural things alone. Why this?
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
dc9northwest From Romania, joined Feb 2007, 1177 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
This is great, more preaching coming to the media. Just what we needed. Global warming is becoming a sort of religion, with preachers and militant atheists fighting it out.
I for one vote for the separation of global warming and state.
Quoting Mir (Reply 8): I'll join him. I went outside without a coat today. In NYC. In January. Something is seriously screwed up.
So whenever it's 40 degrees at night in July I can claim global warming is fake, right? But you're right, it is screwed up, where's all my snow in Chicago in January? We've barely had 10 inches. I think it's because our weathermen are global warming deniers. No, that's definitely it.
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
Sure you can, it's a free country, isn't it? You can claim Manbearpig's to blame too. No seriously, what's the big deal that some choose to deny?
Some believe in witchcraft. Some believe in God. Some believe in medicine. Others don't... You're allowed to do all or none of these. So why can't anyone deny global warming? Is it illegal? Immoral? Fattening?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2768 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 10): This is the argument about global warming I have most problems understanding. What does it matter if it is man-made or not? We leave few natural things alone. Why this?
Well I'm not on the same boat, but the idea is that since we don't have much impact on the environment, we could pollute a lot more or pollute a lot less and the climate will do the same thing regardless of what we do, so why even try? If you're in that boat, it makes sense
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 8614 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2752 times:
I have a better "purge of non-complian weather forecasters": Fire all the ones who have a track record of failure. That would be everyone at CBS 5 in San Francisco and KOIN in Portland. Roberta Gonzales (SFO) is a looker, but she probably would have told the people of Louisiana "it will be mild and dry all week and throught the weekend with a slight chance of sprinkles mid-week" when Katrina hit.
Wheel of morality turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2755 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): Well I'm not on the same boat, but the idea is that since we don't have much impact on the environment, we could pollute a lot more or pollute a lot less and the climate will do the same thing regardless of what we do, so why even try? If you're in that boat, it makes sense
That is a very defeatist view.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 13): but she probably would have told the people of Louisiana "it will be mild and dry all week and throught the weekend with a slight chance of sprinkles mid-week" when Katrina hit.
Only because she forgot she wasn't in Portland anymore. Easiest job in America is a weather forecaster in the Pacific Northwest during the winter. 50% chance of rain...for the next 3 months.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): And it is for this reason that I recuse myself from these debates. There is no debate because there is no convincing a religious zealot.
I work in this field and you'd have a hard time convincing me that it's 100% due to human causes. Just today, I worked with the EPA on a GHG emissions calculation for a transportation project. I'm not saying we don't influence climate at all, but one only needs to walk through Central Park to see evidence of glaciation or know that Seattle was once under a mile of glacial ice to know that there are variations in climate.
IMHO:
Are humans 100% the cause of climate change...NO
Are natural variations in the climate 100% of what we're seeing...NO
Is it right to blacklist meteorologists who don't preach the current climatological theory...NO
Besides, I'm not sure meteorologists are the right people to be blacklisting anyway. Shouldn't they be after climatologists? Hell, only one of the three network US morning news shows has a real meteorologist on it anyway. The rest are just pretty faces.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 14): That is a very defeatist view.
Not really. For a minute, just believe that humans only contribute 1% or whatever. No matter what we do, our impact would be nothing in the scheme of things. If we doubled our fuel burn it would only contribute 2%, if we abandoned all fuels, we'd contribute 0%. So pretty much, no matter what we did, our contribution to the global warming would be basically nothing. If the Earth wants to warm, it will warm no matter if we stopped all fuel from burning. Just the messenger here, that's the argument. And using those parameters, "do nothing" or "stop freaking about global warming" makes sense.
Now how you get to that thought process is the gray area and where most of the debate lies, I'm not really getting into that. I hope that makes sense. (And if you argue that 1% is still significant, bump it down to 0.1%, the % is not the point, the point is what we do and the effect it has on the Earth)
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2722 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15): meteorologists who don't preach the current climatological theory
As I was saying, climatologists have been discussing this for longer than I have lived. Global warming is by no means just some fancy theory that is being "preached", it is a development that has been observed and studied for decades. For that reason, the verb should be "taught", if anything.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16): Not really. For a minute, just believe that humans only contribute 1% or whatever. No matter what we do, our impact would be nothing in the scheme of things.
1% can make a huge difference. If you have a high fever, a 1% increase in your body temperature may even make the difference between life and death.
[Edited 2012-01-31 15:46:04]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 17):
As I was saying, climatologists have been discussing this for longer than I have lived. Global warming is by no means just some fancy theory that is being "preached", it is a development that has been observed and studied for decades. For that reason, the verb should be "taught", if anything.
Whenever I see a conversation like this I wonder how we would have reacted if a 1 mile thick glacier was advancing on the Empire State Building with the glacial advance being full of old cars and buildings. Or, the Space Needle in Seattle being pushed over by ice.
As I said above, I'm not saying we don't influence our climate but in my opinion we react these conversations emotionally. If humans are still around in 20,000 years we will see this happen. What will they say then?
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Even if you don't want to accept that global warming is man-made, you can't deny it's happening, nor can you deny the need to make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences, which could be very severe in some cases.
Mir,
with all do respect, out of all of the people here on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, I feel you bring your argument to the table with more fact, figures, and reasonable thinking than anyone else here.
That being said, yes, the earth has warmed some, well, a little, in the past decade or so. If I don't believe it's human caused, and tend to think it's just the natural change of the earth, which has happened over and over again, how can I "make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences?" If we're not causing it, how can we fix it?
Really. We look at a small sliver of time and blame it all on ourselves while ignoring facts, figures, and data of the constant change of the earths temperatures over time. I just don't buy it.
As far as not wearing a coat in NYC on the last day of January? Yep. Got it. It was also bone chilling below normal temperatures in parts of Europe today. Again, with all due respect, don't bring local weather into a world-wide climate debate. That never works!
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2694 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16): Not really. For a minute, just believe that humans only contribute 1% or whatever.
Not that I agree with your statement but just going along with it for a moment. We know the CO2 concentration is increasing. If we somehow believe it is not caused by us spewing out CO2 then obviously we need to capture it to counteract.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): how can I "make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences?" If we're not causing it, how can we fix it?
We are not causing waves yet we build wave breakers and rebuild beaches to protect us. We redirect water long distances to grow crop in areas with not enough rain and build drainage, flood walls, dams to protect us from where it does. We build houses with heating to protect us from cold and put in AC to protect us from heat. Why is it we can't get involved in CO2 concentrations?
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 18): As I said above, I'm not saying we don't influence our climate but in my opinion we react these conversations emotionally.
I disagree - "The Day After Tomorrow" was so bad that I didn't even watch it on a transatlantic flight. I didn't care at all for the way climate change was shown to be abrupt and something for which you cannot prepare.
The truth is that the change has been gradual and still is, if we're speaking in terms of a human lifespan. Glaciers are melting at record speeds and icecaps are, on average, getting thinner. Sea levels are rising, but only slowly. We can prepare for much of the damage this will do, but the preparations will be so costly that even we in developed and rich nations will have trouble paying for them - but hundreds of millions live in places like Bangladesh, where too little infrastructure exists to protect them against the results of stronger storms and higher tides. In the long term, this will lead to migration which will cause another set of problems.
At the moment, the planet that we live on is being treated as if we have another one somewhere in a box, ready to be used once this one is spent. I think the stakes are much too high for this experiment to continue.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 1639 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2668 times:
I find it curious how it's OK to disagree on global warming (something that can be verified with facts), how it's OK that you do NOT want to be forced into buying green and saving energy, but how it's NOT OK that I would (for example) like prayer to be kept out of public schools, how it's OK that I accept that I won't convince you, and yet I MUST accept what you say.
No wonder the world is so screwed up. Why is it a crime that these people believe in something and want to get their message across? I don't remember seeing anyone complaining when Tea Party protests were held across the nation.
I don't agree with the way they (the activists) are trying to get it across, but hey, it's a free country.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Meteoroligsts are supposed to provide services based on scientific weather and climate research. When >>90% of all climatologists have a consensus about the state of research which is the underlying scientific base of concrete meteorology, it would be a disservice to viewers if weather(wo)men followed and spread theories which are outliers at best or outright disproved at worst.
If you want a politically GOP-approved weather shaman only saying things that please a political ideology instead of following the state of scientific research, that is absolutely possible. It's just got little to nothing to do with actual science any more in that case, however. You might just as well employ a weather astrologist for pretty much the same effect if it amuses you. Just don't expect proper weather service from either of them.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 5): That's been discussed and calculated since before I was even born... I hardly agree that we're short on that.
It's been debated, but nobody, NOBODY, has been able to come up with a model that most meteorologists will nod their heads and say, "yep, they've cracked it."
Quoting mt99 (Reply 7): At what % change would you be bothered with?
I dunno. More than 10%? Depends on the cost. If we must revert to a pre-industrial society in order to lower temperatures 0.1 degrees in 50 years, I say screw it. More Air Conditioning sales.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): And it is for this reason that I recuse myself from these debates. There is no debate because there is no convincing a religious zealot.
Which is my point exactly. The envirotards are so upset at people not believing their religion, their next step is to persecute and silence the heretics. You don't see everyone else trying to isolate and silence the global warming movement, do you? We may argue with you, but we don't try to get you fired or blacklisted.
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15): Besides, I'm not sure meteorologists are the right people to be blacklisting anyway. Shouldn't they be after climatologists?
They are looking people who talk about the weather to people "out there". They want to ensure that the propaganda is reinforced, subtly or not, on a daily/weekly basis. Boffins in labs are too invisible.
Quoting aloges (Reply 17): As I was saying, climatologists have been discussing this for longer than I have lived. Global warming is by no means just some fancy theory that is being "preached", it is a development that has been observed and studied for decades. For that reason, the verb should be "taught", if anything.
• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:
- Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
- Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
- Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
- Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
- In general embrace all environmental causes.
You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in the narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” - it was published in 1977. I personally remember the 70s, and everyone was talking about the coming ice age.
Quoting aloges (Reply 21):
I disagree - "The Day After Tomorrow" was so bad that I didn't even watch it on a transatlantic flight. I didn't care at all for the way climate change was shown to be abrupt and something for which you cannot prepare.
Actually I disagree. Much of the regional climate is heavily dependent on ocean currents. The most famous one is the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe nice and toasty, much warmer than those latitudes would indicate. We also know that periodically, every few hundred centuries or so, the Gulf Stream collapses, and then (on many previous occasions) reformed itself. Such a collapse will certainly be very sudden, Europeans (particularly in the north), might find themselves with a more mid-Canadian or Russian climate within a few months. I don't think there is any question that it will happen. When? Who knows, but it will happen, again and again.
In my home town of Luzern in Switzerland there is the famous Glacier Park. The museum there shows how Luzern has been alternatively buried under glaciers and on the shores of the Mediterranean, several times over just in the past hundred thousand years. Europe's climate is quite precarious, and there is NOTHING man can do about it.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 25, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2659 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25): Depends on the cost. If we must revert to a pre-industrial society
And that is what it all comes down to. The argument isn't really about whether climate change is occuring and/ or to what extent human activities impact that change. The argument is about the fear of not being able to make money.
We had exactly the same arguments from vested interests on the issue of acid rain. Trees were visibly dying yet industry repeated that it had nothing to do with them. Eventually governments stepped in and forced industry to adopt measures to reduce emissions.
We had exactly the same arguments from vested interests on the issue of lead in petrol and paints. The effects of lead poisoning were visible but industry repeated that it had nothing to do with them and, even it did, removing lead would be the end of civilisation as we know it. Funnily enough cars are still on the roads and the world hasn't come crashing down.
No-one that I have met is arguing for a return to a pre-industrial society. On the other hand, plenty of people are arguing in favour of more efficient use of resources and finding replacements for some resources so as to limit our impact. I suppose it comes down to not fouling one's own nest.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 26, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2646 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25): It's been debated, but nobody, NOBODY, has been able to come up with a model that most meteorologists will nod their heads and say, "yep, they've cracked it."
The only thing you're showing here is that you don't know how science works.
That is never what scientific research ends up as. Absolute certainty in the way you're claiming it for your own views is entirely unscientific.
The optimum achievable in science is the equivalent of "yep, that appears to be the most consistent with all observations" as a consensus among the scientific community of the respective field.
That's it, and that is what all of natural science and by extension our entire technological civilization is based on.
And in climatology there is a >>90% consensus among climatologists that the most plausible explanation for all observations made is that human civilization is shifting the climate balance towards higher temperatures.
That is already as good as it gets in climatology, and given the massive scale of the threat that emerges from the implications plus the obvious economic unsustainability of the current level of wasting of precious resources even independently of any climate implications the consequences to be taken are quite obvious...
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25): I dunno. More than 10%? Depends on the cost. If we must revert to a pre-industrial society in order to lower temperatures 0.1 degrees in 50 years, I say screw it.
…namely that we need to innovate out of this already oncoming mess.
This is a challenge which is not met by closing one's eyes and going into full denial as some still do, contributing to a further exacerbation of the consequences left to the younger and coming generations to clean up after them.
Just because this is hard to fight doesn't mean that it's not worth fighting. The next decades to come are not for cowards, but the challenges are very likely to be won. We just can't remain stuck in beliefs and habits from the past if we want to achieve that.
I'm not that young any more myself, but I'm ready to contribute to the solution rather than just being part of the problem (which I still am to some degree at this time, but I'm working on it).
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 28, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2609 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): If I don't believe it's human caused, and tend to think it's just the natural change of the earth, which has happened over and over again, how can I "make adjustments to limit or mitigate the consequences?" If we're not causing it, how can we fix it?
Perhaps we can't fix it. But if that's the case, then we should certainly be doing something so that we can continue to survive in the world that will result. A world that is warmer means we might have global food shortages as certain crops become unviable, or as farmland is eaten away by desertification or submerged by rising sea levels. And that's going to have to be adjusted for, and it would be best not to wait until it actually happens before we decide it's time to take a look at how we're going to get our food to where it needs to be, or what we're going to do about the fact that most of our economic activity is located next to oceans. That's what I mean by "mitigating the consequences".
My overall point is that pretending it doesn't exist isn't helping anything. It does exist, it will have consequences, and that's true no matter what's causing it (and personally, I'm not convinced that human activity is the main driver, but I do believe we're contributing, and we do have the power to slow the process).
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): As far as not wearing a coat in NYC on the last day of January? Yep. Got it. It was also bone chilling below normal temperatures in parts of Europe today. Again, with all due respect, don't bring local weather into a world-wide climate debate. That never works!
Apparently the tongue-in-cheek nature of that post didn't come across as well as I hoped. Yes, I know regional weather patterns don't make a difference.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 8614 posts, RR: 19 Reply 30, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15): Only because she forgot she wasn't in Portland anymore.
I guess I should have said that, after living in the Northwest for 30 years, I never saw Roberta Gonzales on the TV there.
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15): Easiest job in America is a weather forecaster in the Pacific Northwest during the winter. 50% chance of rain...for the next 3 months.
Not lately! I was there two weeks ago and it was sunny and cold. Last week, snow, ice and floods. Now, back to rain and sun for the next week or so. Very different from when I was a child!
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24): envirotards are so upset at people not believing their religion, their next step is to persecute and silence the heretics. You don't see everyone else trying to isolate and silence the global warming movement, do you?
Actually, you do. Just watch FOX or listen to any right-wing radio show. They all call the environmentalists who warn of climate change all sorts of ugly names and discredit them by talking about snow in Florida and drought in the West. If that isn't isolating and trying to silence a movement, I don't know what is!
Wheel of morality turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 31, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2517 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24): It's been debated, but nobody, NOBODY, has been able to come up with a model that most meteorologists will nod their heads and say, "yep, they've cracked it."
There are still a few self-proclaimed scientists who claim that evolution does not and never did occur. While they should of course retain the right to make fools of themselves in public, there's no reason why anyone who's looking for factual information on the issue should empoy them. The same is true for climate change.
(Almost) Anyone can write a book. And they have (pdf file):
Quote:
That's from 1977. There's also a reason why I'm not using the term "global warming", but "climate change": in some areas, an rise in the worldwide average temperature (which is hardly a useful number because it omits so much detail) may very well result in something of an ice age. The point is that the stakes are too high to try and see what happens if we just go on like in the past century.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24): I personally remember the 70s, and everyone was talking about the coming ice age.
Had that been studied for decades and proven time and time again by data and observation? As I said above, even creationism has its supporters, but that doesn't mean evolution isn't a fact.
Quoting cmf (Reply 27): Funny thing is that even at that time there was a 6 to 1 ratio between warming and cooling proponents.
most interesting
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24): I don't think there is any question that it will happen. When? Who knows, but it will happen, again and again.
So what's the reasoning for us to do everything in our might to accelerate the change? That's what happens now and it's not the smartest idea because our civilisation is built upon the current climate.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24): Europe's climate is quite precarious, and there is NOTHING man can do about it.
Quite the contrary. We can make it worse much more quickly than it might otherwise be bound to happen by putting additional billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The more gradual the change is, the easier it will be to deal with. The Gulf Stream won't collapse over night.
Quoting geezer (Reply 29): Well I believe that climate is like the stock market...............it will ALWAYS fluctuate.
...and if you screw it up, it will fluctuate much more quickly than it would otherwise have done.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 33, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2477 times:
Quoting geezer (Reply 29): Well I believe that climate is like the stock market...............it will ALWAYS fluctuate.
That is certainly true. The fluctuations are just not what's being discussed and researched in this matter. An increasing trend underlying these usual fluctuations is!
Climate is not to be confused with the short-term and localized weather anyway – climate is the long-term and in most cases continental or even global baseline on which weather variations are based; And that baseline is increasingly shifting upwards temperature-wise.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 2766 posts, RR: 11 Reply 34, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
What do local weathermen and women have to do with global warming anyway?
'And today, expect some haze in the morning which will clear up in the afternoon with temperatures raising into the mid 70's thanks to catastrophic man-made global warming. Thank you and good day.'
What a bright and coherent way to bring attention to the issue...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4871 posts, RR: 21 Reply 35, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2408 times:
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 2): I'm pretty sure most viewers don't even count on them to get the daily weather right
If they could improve their daily weather predictions to 50% accuracy, most folks would not care if they called any thing false, or ignored anything like global warming.
Besides, in the US, weather folks on TV are almost exclusively chosen based on their appearance and performance skills - as measured by their Q score.
No 'consumer' group is going to be able to get a weathercaster fired/ replaced.
windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 2141 posts, RR: 6 Reply 36, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2396 times:
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 11): This is great, more preaching coming to the media. Just what we needed. Global warming is becoming a sort of religion, with preachers and militant atheists fighting it out.
I for one vote for the separation of global warming and state.
And you can pay for your sin of living by partaking in a carbon trading scam
Quoting Mir (Reply 8): I'll join him. I went outside without a coat today. In NYC. In January. Something is seriously screwed up
Like that has not happened before?
Quoting aloges (Reply 17): As I was saying, climatologists have been discussing this for longer than I have lived. Global warming is by no means just some fancy theory that is being "preached", it is a development that has been observed and studied for decades.
No it is a scam religion that is being preached.
Quoting aloges (Reply 17): 1% can make a huge difference. If you have a high fever, a 1% increase in your body temperature may even make the difference between life and death.
1% of temperatures is well within any plus or minus averages in our daily temps. The planet will warm and cool despite our CO2. CO2 is not the driver. It is a minor green house gas.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): Really. We look at a small sliver of time and blame it all on ourselves while ignoring facts, figures, and data of the constant change of the earths temperatures over time
Sorry but the climate has never changed before.
Quoting aloges (Reply 21): Glaciers are melting at record speeds and icecaps are, on average, getting thinner. Sea levels are rising, but only slowly
All of which has happened before. But this time it is man released CO2's fault.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): When >>90% of all climatologists have a consensus about
Wrong.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 26): And in climatology there is a >>90% consensus among climatologists that the most plausible explanation for all observations made is that human civilization is shifting the climate balance towards higher temperatures.
Wrong. More propaganda.
Quoting aloges (Reply 31): Quite the contrary. We can make it worse much more quickly than it might otherwise be bound to happen by putting additional billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
3% to 5% of a trace gas is minor. By puting it in tons it gives it a nice PR effect but it is still a minor amount. We both know that correlation is not causation, that unusual weather is not evidence of the cause, that man only emits about 3% of the total annual CO2 emission
Quoting Klaus (Reply 33): And that baseline is increasingly shifting upwards temperature-wise.
The planet has experienced 5 warmings and four coolings during the past 4500 years with the MWP being much longer in time and higher in temperature than the one just experienced.
No abnormal warming here. The fact is that the climate models are and have been crap. Everything the CAGW people talk about is based on these models. Like any computer model you put crap in and you get crap out.
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 33 Reply 37, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2380 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 17): 1% can make a huge difference. If you have a high fever, a 1% increase in your body temperature may even make the difference between life and death.
1% change in body temperature isn't really significant if you don't have a fever. I always hear that the average person has a normal body temp of 98.5 degrees F. My body temp is usually 97.6, but floats around a degree or so. Since 97.6 is less than 100, that means a degree one way or the other isn't exactly 1% so in my body a 1% variation is normal.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 38, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2373 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 36): Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
When >>90% of all climatologists have a consensus about
Wrong.
"Climatologist" is not someone who writes a rant-filled blog out of his basement based on his political convictions.
It means someone with an actual degree in climatology researching in the field.
And yes, those people who actually know what they're talking about are in an overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic forcing of the climate is in fact a reality in view of measurements and observations.
GBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 36): Sorry but the climate has never changed before.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 36): The planet has experienced 5 warmings and four coolings during the past 4500 years with the MWP being much longer in time and higher in temperature than the one just experienced.
That's the action of a certain group, not climate scientists. Many, if not most of them, might consider the action embarrassing - wouldn't change a bit about the science. So please differentiate.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24): It's been debated, but nobody, NOBODY, has been able to come up with a model that most meteorologists will nod their heads and say, "yep, they've cracked it."
That's a frequent denier's argument. In fact, there are five (five!) models predicting *the same*. Would there only be one model, the deniers would say that one model was too unreliable. Now since there are five, they want only one.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 36): When >>90% of all climatologists have a consensus about
Wrong.
No, absolutely true.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 36): that man only emits about 3% of the total annual CO2 emission
That's another frequent denier's argument. The "total annual CO2 emission" is not an actual emission but a circular flow that contributes nothing to an increase in greenhouse gases. Basically it moves CO2 from one place to another place and back to the first place.
Only the burning of fossil fuels (anthropogenic), to a lesser extend deforestation (anthropogenic) and volcanoes (~ 1/100 of anthropogenic CO2) actually emit CO2.
[Edited 2012-02-01 10:38:36]
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 43, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2249 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 7): At what % change would you be bothered with?
10.
Quoting cmf (Reply 10): This is the argument about global warming I have most problems understanding. What does it matter if it is man-made or not? We leave few natural things alone. Why this?
Because we found a way to tax it, that's why. There is little in the developed world that involves changing anything that isn't regulated and taxed. You can't even do work on your home over $100 in Los Angeles without technically being in violation of the law for not paying a permit fee to the city, having an inspector come out and get paid for existing. $100. Material and labor combined.
If it can be measured, it can be taxed and regulated. CO2 can be measured.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): we could pollute a lot more or pollute a lot less and the climate will do the same thing regardless of what we do, so why even try?
Of course not. But you must buy into the myth that CO2 is a pollutant. Otherwise, your argument falls apart.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's connection as a CAUSE of warming can not be proven, and in fact, there is much research to support that elevated CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of a warming trend, not a leading indicator. A reaction to warming, not a cause of it. And if you look at the POLITICAL machinations being used to claim it is the cause and thus a pollutant, you see it is about revenue, not saving the earth.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 44, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 42): So will this weatherman keep his job?
YES. News is so boring anyways, I'd love to see more entertainment
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 45, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 43): Because we found a way to tax it, that's why.
Don't understand how it is taxed is the answer to how man-made or not matters? Based on that argument we should stop flying as it is taxed. Let's at least get some valid arguments.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 43): CO2 is not a pollutant. It's connection as a CAUSE of warming can not be proven, and in fact, there is much research to support that elevated CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of a warming trend, not a leading indicator. A reaction to warming, not a cause of it.
What a bunch of BS. The connection between increasing CO2 concentration resulting in higher average temperature is more than a 100 years old.
But I'll bite. Show the evidence that a warming trend generates higher CO2 concentration.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 46, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2226 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 21):
At the moment, the planet that we live on is being treated as if we have another one somewhere in a box, ready to be used once this one is spent.
Trust me, this planet is more than capable of taking care of itself. So what if sea levels rise? So what if the ice caps melt?
Yeah, a lot of species will be wiped out (and us lowly humans will take a big hit), but that's just nature cleaning itself up. Once the problems are eliminated, things will snap back to some value of normal.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 47, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46): Yeah, a lot of species will be wiped out (and us lowly humans will take a big hit), but that's just nature cleaning itself up.
And that is fine by you?
I don't think that mankind taking a "big hit" is a price worth paying for the current wastefulness.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 49, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2194 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46): Trust me, this planet is more than capable of taking care of itself. So what if sea levels rise? So what if the ice caps melt?
Few people realize that sea levels have been much higher in the relatively recent past. That's why there's evidence of Native American villages well inland on the Pacific coast. Those villages used to be on the waterfront.
Why not? Species have gone extinct due to many reasons with or without human interference for millions of years. As much harm as we do to other species, we also artificially keep some species from naturally going extinct. If a species doesn't evolve to meet changing conditions whatever they are they typically go extinct.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 30):
Not lately! I was there two weeks ago and it was sunny and cold. Last week, snow, ice and floods. Now, back to rain and sun for the next week or so. Very different from when I was a child!
This is true! One of those once every three or four year weather events though.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 50, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 49): Why not? (...) If a species doesn't evolve to meet changing conditions whatever they are they typically go extinct.
One might argue that a massive human death toll is exactly the kind of thing that we've been trying to overcome by all the research into e.g. medicine. It would be a bit of a waste to go around and kill billions of us through starvation and thirst... not to mention a wee bit inhumane. I should probably stop now before I can no longer contain my disgust.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 51, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 50):
One might argue that a massive human death toll is exactly the kind of thing that we've been trying to overcome by all the research into e.g. medicine. It would be a bit of a waste to go around and kill billions of us through starvation and thirst... not to mention a wee bit inhumane.
Put all the faith in medicine and engineering you want, but overpopulation will at some point result in an epidemic that we can not control and will result in massive human death toll. I learned this early on in my university career. Just like climate change could radically effect human population. The only difference now is that the last time sea levels rose there were significantly less people on earth.
dc9northwest From Romania, joined Feb 2007, 1177 posts, RR: 2 Reply 53, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 50): One might argue that a massive human death toll is exactly the kind of thing that we've been trying to overcome by all the research into e.g. medicine. It would be a bit of a waste to go around and kill billions of us through starvation and thirst... not to mention a wee bit inhumane. I should probably stop now before I can no longer contain my disgust.
But by nature wiping half of the human population out, it's also working to reduce our CO2 emissions, etc. I mean after all.... fewer humans means fewer cars, fewer factories, fewer flights. So nature is working to reduce our CO2 emissions even if we don't. It seems to me it's quite the self-regulating system. I'd like to think of this consequence as one working to keep the planet in equilibrium. We can have 38 billion people leading horrible lives (famine, etc) or fewer, 3 billion, leading good, comfortable, lives... Guess which I think is better. No, I'm not advocating genocide, I'm advocating reducing birth rates, etc, so that everyone can lead comfortable lives, and we reduce famine, pollution, greenhouse gas emission etc through sensible(!) policies. Of course, we've passed the 3 billion mark a long time ago, and therefore we must adjust to another level or wait for the older generations to pass. Why birth more people into this world, especially in countries where famine and human rights abuses take place? Yes, a human life is very valuable, but only if it exists. Before it exists, it is not valuable, because it doesn't exist!
If all the polar ice melted we'd get an extra 100m of water on Earth... A rise in MSL of about 100m... a bit less considering the surface area at a given height is higher than at MSL... So probably any city below 80m above MSL can be wiped out in the next few million years if we continue at the current rate. The good thing? Humans will probably not exist by then.
Let's say that if I had a choice between never flying again and breathing polluted air like in Beijing (just an example), it wouldn't be a choice really. One degree more is quite welcome in winter! More storms... Hell yeah, bring them on!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for energy efficiency, but not if it affects my lifestyle significantly. Because if I can't lead a happy life in my sense of the word, why not just shoot myself? That would help the global warming problem too, especially if billions thought this way.
Anyway, the consequences are not immediate... and we've started reducing pollution, greenhouse gas emission compared to previous decades, as we're heading further away from an industrial society to a service-based society. Of course countries are lagging behind and China, for example, is exacerbating the problem. We're already heading in the "right" direction.
I guess what I'm saying is that I simply don't see global warming as a problem and that once humans die out in the next few million years the Earth will continue to regulate itself quite well. And afterwards, there's gonna be a new global warming from the expanding red giant Sun reaching the end of its life, followed by a massive global cooling once it becomes a white dwarf... That's if the supernova won't blow the Earth to bits.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17876 posts, RR: 59 Reply 54, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 53): Because if I can't lead a happy life in my sense of the word, why not just shoot myself?
I think it's fair to say that whatever climate change does, nobody here will be affected. That's not the case, however, for future generations. Are you still willing to maximize your happiness if it negatively affects your grandchildren or great-grandchildren in real, tangible ways?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 55, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2140 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 50): not to mention a wee bit inhumane.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 57, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 39): Quoting windy95 (Reply 36):
CO2 is not the driver. It is a minor green house gas.
Oooookay... I guess we're done here.
I believe windy95 is correct here, being that Co2 makes up about 0.04% by volume of the atmosphere. And no, that's not 4 percent, that's 4 1/100th of a percent. Yea... Thats a big deal...
If you think that's a MAJOR green house gas, well then so be it. I think it's just a case of yet another global warming believer ignoring the facts as always. Love how everyone spouts "scientists say..." Well, how about let's spend more time on spouting the FACTS say....
I'll pick a good place to start. The FACTS say that the earths climate has been naturally changing since day one, and continues to do so even today. Anyone care to refute that?
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 58, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 54):
I think it's fair to say that whatever climate change does, nobody here will be affected.
Except that some people are being affected. Areas of land in some island nations have already become inundated and are no longer suitable for agriculture or horticulture. This means that the people on those islands are less able to support themselves. Now that might not be a problem if the people could simply move to higher ground or another country. As we all know, most countries have immigration controls.
On need only look at the hysteria generated by a boat arriving off Christmas Island to see that many people would oppose migration of people from affected areas.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): The FACTS say that the earths climate has been naturally changing since day one, and continues to do so even today. Anyone care to refute that?
No one disputes that. What is being denied is that human activities can and do have an affect on our ecosystem. It may be comforting to believe we can do whatever we like and it won't make a difference. Except the real world shows different. Many species will gorge themselves when there is plenty, only to see populations plummet a short while after. But an intelligent species will learn, adapt and modify its behaviour to gain best advantage. We can learn, we can make more efficient use of resources, we can decide how to mitigate effects or we can just ignore everything.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 59, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2084 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 58): No one disputes that. What is being denied is that human activities can and do have an affect on our ecosystem. It may be comforting to believe we can do whatever we like and it won't make a difference. Except the real world shows different. Many species will gorge themselves when there is plenty, only to see populations plummet a short while after. But an intelligent species will learn, adapt and modify its behaviour to gain best advantage. We can learn, we can make more efficient use of resources, we can decide how to mitigate effects or we can just ignore everything.
These conversations go to prove only one thing: the vast majority of "deniers" have limited to no understanding of even the most basic of scientific principles and processes, much less the ability to understand and interpret data at the complexity of climatology. Most meteorologists don't either; it's a completely different (though tangentially related) field. Why they insist on it only to look like complete idiots to people who understand a little bit about that which they're speaking is lost on me.
The two parties are communicating on two entirely different wavelengths. When you try to use science in a correct manner, but requiring a specialization far beyond what most people have, it becomes a conspiracy because, simply put, it requires placing certain levels of trust in people who may have (or indeed, are likely to have) different political persuasions.
The problem isn't that this is a "pseudoscience," but rather, that the majority of "deniers" are "pseudoscientists." Anybody can post a chart that looks "pretty," but with almost zero understanding of any of the other elements that went into it, the chart itself is useless. I can't tell you how many times I've seen certain individuals on here post charts or graphs with NO labeled axes or legends!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 60, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 59): These conversations go to prove only one thing: the vast majority of "deniers" have limited to no understanding of even the most basic of scientific principles and processes, much less the ability to understand and interpret data at the complexity of climatology. Most meteorologists don't either; it's a completely different (though tangentially related) field. Why they insist on it only to look like complete idiots to people who understand a little bit about that which they're speaking is lost on me.
What really got me is that like 99% of the world believes in man made global warming, everybody but the American republicans (more or less.) I can see some greedy carbon-tax people trying to make a quick buck, maybe even some corrupt scientists trying to be activists, but the bulk of climatologists (the ones who could care less about Al Gore, carbon credits, etc) say there is some. Hard to come to that conclusion in the US with all the contrary 'evidence'
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 61, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2072 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 60): I can see some greedy carbon-tax people trying to make a quick buck, maybe even some corrupt scientists trying to be activists, but the bulk of climatologists (the ones who could care less about Al Gore, carbon credits, etc) say there is some.
And here is the crux of the issue. The truth is, if these ideas had been thought of by Republicans, they would be all over global warming like white on rice. But since it was the "evil commie pinko enviroterrorists," it must be a conspiracy. Anytime a liberal comes up with a perfectly valid means to make money, based on entirely credible science (albeit fairly tacky in the case of carbon offsets), it's evil. Never mind the plenty of scams for economic gain perpetuated by both sides, this one is an easy political target for a smear campaign.
The irony is that things like cap-and-trade were initially Republican ideas that still represent the closest thing to a free market solution, while promising to deliver emissions reductions. *shrugs*
Have you ever eaten a human? Have you ever discussed anything with an animal?
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): I believe windy95 is correct here, being that Co2 makes up about 0.04% by volume of the atmosphere. And no, that's not 4 percent, that's 4 1/100th of a percent. Yea... Thats a big deal...
If you think that's a MAJOR green house gas, well then so be it.
It is a major issue precisely because CO2 makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere. It means that the quantity we emit has an effect because it can actually change such a small percentage.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): I think it's just a case of yet another global warming believer ignoring the facts as always.
Yeah, yeah...
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): Love how everyone spouts "scientists say..." Well, how about let's spend more time on spouting the FACTS say....
...this from a man who doesn't even know how to type "CO2" correctly. Sorry, but if you want to lecture people, please do get at least some facts right.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): I'll pick a good place to start. The FACTS say that the earths climate has been naturally changing since day one, and continues to do so even today. Anyone care to refute that?
What I've been saying in this thread and every other on the subject is that mankind shouldn't cause and/or accelerate climate change because that will cause more trouble than it's worth. How you interprete that as denial of the fact that climate does change naturally is beyond me; in fact you're putting words in my mouth.
Additionally, while climate has changed before and would chnage again without human interference, it wouldn't do so as quickly as it has started to do - unless of course the planet was e.g. struck by a giant meteorite.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 2141 posts, RR: 6 Reply 63, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 43): And if you look at the POLITICAL machinations being used to claim it is the cause and thus a pollutant, you see it is about revenue, not saving the earth.
Bingo. The carbon trading scam is the moneyshot.
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 48): Only that scientists do *not* say CO2 was a pollutant. They say it is a greenhouse gas which is true.
Well the EPA and the press does..
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 48): Uhm yes, it can and has been proven. If you don't wisht to read the summary for decision makers of the IPCC report
The IPCC is a very real agenda-driven mis-use of climate data to promote a set of computer model theories that make the point that policy makers read to either award continued grants or distribute wealth. Not one Climate model has followed the actual temps over the last 15 years. Manipulated data in and you get crap out.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 64, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
inb4 Windy comes up with another graph proving that everybody's wrong and the climate is just marvellous..
edit: too late
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 49): Why not? Species have gone extinct due to many reasons with or without human interference for millions of years.
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 53): I mean after all.... fewer humans means fewer cars, fewer factories, fewer flights. So nature is working to reduce our CO2 emissions even if we don't. It seems to me it's quite the self-regulating system.
While you "self-regulators" are basically correct, you mustn't forget that it's not going to "us" who will feel the consequences the most, and it's not going to be our children and grand-children either. It's going be the billions in the global south who did very little to cause the problem. The parts of the world that will become unhabitable are not located in North America and Europe.
So if you say "we caused the problem and we'll die from it", then yes, fair enough, but keep in mind that this sentence contains two different 'we's.
Sigh... some context, a link even, would have helped.
Quoting Rara (Reply 64): So if you say "we caused the problem and we'll die from it", then yes, fair enough, but keep in mind that this sentence contains two different 'we's.
I find the whole "if nature kills billions of people due to climate change, that's just self-regulation" argument pretty callous.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
captaink From Grenada, joined May 2001, 5029 posts, RR: 15 Reply 66, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1976 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): As far as not wearing a coat in NYC on the last day of January? Yep. Got it. It was also bone chilling below normal temperatures in parts of Europe today. Again, with all due respect, don't bring local weather into a world-wide climate debate. That never works!
There is a reason it is called CLIMATE CHANGE. No one fully understands the reaction of the planet. Yes we are influencing it believe it or not. But the earth is a huge very complex system. So may result in abnormally warm temps in one place and abnormally cold temps in another, on area will have drought and an another will have floods. People need to stop using the term global warming with argument that some place are colder, it is not as simple as that. How could the most complex system that we know of be so simple?
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20144 posts, RR: 57 Reply 67, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 65): I find the whole "if nature kills billions of people due to climate change, that's just self-regulation" argument pretty callous.
Effectively we have the choice to go with the people who are saying: "We don't really have a clue what's going on and if everything's going to hell that's just fine with us and we can't be bothered to do anything against it!"
Or we can go with the people who are saying: "This looks like a really dangerous path to continue on; We should take precautions and make our economy less wasteful and less dependent on finite resources which at the same time counteracts the apparent dangers to the climate!"
When having the alternatives of fatalistic complacency on the one hand and active, forward-thinking innovation on the other, it's not that hard for me to make a choice. I'm not that young any more, but I'm still far too young to just give up on everything that might challenge me just even a little bit.
captaink From Grenada, joined May 2001, 5029 posts, RR: 15 Reply 68, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1966 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): I'll pick a good place to start. The FACTS say that the earths climate has been naturally changing since day one, and continues to do so even today. Anyone care to refute that?
The question was NEVER if the climate is change, the question is how are human activities affecting this change.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): I believe windy95 is correct here, being that Co2 makes up about 0.04% by volume of the atmosphere. And no, that's not 4 percent, that's 4 1/100th of a percent. Yea... Thats a big deal...
Interesting comment. You know that there is only 20% O2 in air, and if increased, that which we so need would be come toxic? We don´t get to decide what is to be considered a small amount or large amount in something like the atmosphere, the atmosphere that makes our planet so different from others. Changing concentrations (as small as you make consider them) in a very delicate system would most certainly have effects.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 69, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1964 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 67): Effectively we have the choice to go with the people who are saying: "We don't really have a clue what's going on and if everything's going to hell that's just fine with us and we can't be bothered to do anything against it!"
Or we can go with the people who are saying: "This looks like a really dangerous path to continue on; We should take precautions and make our economy less wasteful and less dependent on finite resources which at the same time counteracts the apparent dangers to the climate!"
NO!
That is not the choice we are presented with. It's not all black and white, as you guys like to paint us. Just because we don't buy into your religion you have to call us loonies and say that we see nothing wrong in creating as much pollution as we can, just for the fun of it.
I'm all in favor of most every pollution reduction technology out there. Scrubber technology for coal plants? Wonderful - put them in, and I'm ok if it increases the price of my electricity a bit. Catalytic converters for cars increase the cost of production by maybe $1000 - I'm fine with that. I'm old enough to remember pre-emissions controlled cars and being barely able to breathe in some cities - it's a hell of a lot better now. I am all for the development and implementation of every bit of technology we can get our hands on. I'm all for increasing gasoline taxes and pushing people towards more energy-efficient vehicles, in spite of the fact that I loved the Camaro SS I drove the other day. I'm willing to make sacrifices.
But what I do not support is that we impose such punitive codes on coal plants that no amount of scrubbers will save them. You don't want to actually pass a law to ban them, so you simply put in standards which are impossible to achieve, and shrug your shoulders when they get shut down and we get rolling brownouts AND electricity costs go up 100%. And I don't like the idea of emissions trading being manipulated by very, very well connected people into a huge artificial industry which makes money off of raising living costs on working people. Look into who stands to make a percentage of every carbon credit traded if that ever gets fully implemented. Do some searching. You'll be surprised at some of the names you'll find (you won't be surprised by all of them). This is a huge racket.
I want pollution controls and reductions because they are the responsible thing to do. But I will push back when envirotards tell me "If we don't start living in tipis with solar panels on the roof and a big windmill in the yard we're all going to die!".
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 70, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 64): While you "self-regulators" are basically correct, you mustn't forget that it's not going to "us" who will feel the consequences the most, and it's not going to be our children and grand-children either. It's going be the billions in the global south who did very little to cause the problem. The parts of the world that will become unhabitable are not located in North America and Europe.
So if you say "we caused the problem and we'll die from it", then yes, fair enough, but keep in mind that this sentence contains two different 'we's.
My point is more what if we enact all the clean energy programs we can think of and the climate keeps warming up. The result as we've discussed would be vegetation changes on a global scale and an increase in sea levels flooding vast areas where the majority of people live now.
It's not inconceivable that someone would then propose a way to cool the planet down. Human history is full of anecdotes where we introduced an exotic species to control a natural species and after killing off the pest the exotic took over. That should be an example why not to tinker with natural processes. There's already proposals on how manipulate Mars' atmosphere to make it more habitable for humans, so it isn't like scientists aren't thinking about this problem already.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 67):
Effectively we have the choice to go with the people who are saying: "We don't really have a clue what's going on and if everything's going to hell that's just fine with us and we can't be bothered to do anything against it!"
Dreadnought summed up my feelings on it fairly well below.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69): I'm all in favor of most every pollution reduction technology out there. Scrubber technology for coal plants? Wonderful - put them in, and I'm ok if it increases the price of my electricity a bit. Catalytic converters for cars increase the cost of production by maybe $1000 - I'm fine with that. I'm old enough to remember pre-emissions controlled cars and being barely able to breathe in some cities - it's a hell of a lot better now. I am all for the development and implementation of every bit of technology we can get our hands on. I'm all for increasing gasoline taxes and pushing people towards more energy-efficient vehicles, in spite of the fact that I loved the Camaro SS I drove the other day. I'm willing to make sacrifices.
But what I do not support is that we impose such punitive codes on coal plants that no amount of scrubbers will save them.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 72, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 65):
I find the whole "if nature kills billions of people due to climate change, that's just self-regulation" argument pretty callous.
That's certainly so, but I much prefer to deal with such honest statements. They give you something to work with, unlike the die-hard deniers who cling to their made-up graphs, hoping the problem will go away.
And they're not only honest, they're pretty representative of the mindset that you, myself and everyone around us are currently basing our life on. If we were to properly tackle climate change, the measures would be severe and the consequences for our industries, our consumption patterns and our way of life would be dramatic. A little insulation here and some solar panels there are nice, but nowhere near sufficient. We would have to earn less, do less, spend less, travel less, enjoy less. I haven't quite worked out yet whether such a scenario would basically be compatible with capitalism, but let's just say it's doubtful. That's something that environmentalists will not tell you.
dc9northwest hits the nail on the head when he says
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 53): I'm all for energy efficiency, but not if it affects my lifestyle significantly.
That's probably representative of most people in Western democracies. And can you honestly say that you disagree? I'm not sure I could.
windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 2141 posts, RR: 6 Reply 73, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
Quoting captaink (Reply 66): There is a reason it is called CLIMATE CHANGE
Yes, because the planet stopped warming so the alarmist had to change the propaganda.
No warming in over a decade despite a continued rise in CO2. We see swings from -0.8 to +0.6 so changes over time that we are seeing are not abnormal. Seeing how much UHI effect and incomplete coverage used in the land temps used by Hadley and GISS it is no surprise that we see a warming bias compared to the satellites. Toss in the cherry picking of sites used and the massaging of data and we have one big giant mess when it comes to land temps.
GBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1926 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 72): I haven't quite worked out yet whether such a scenario would basically be compatible with capitalism, but let's just say it's doubtful.
You've hit the nail on the head as to why the strongest voices who totally deny climate change are right wing Americans who vote Republican.
Science appears to be irrelevant in this "argument" as both sides know thier truth as preached to them and refuse to budge or consider their position, there are enough graphs in this thread to prove that.
One the one extreme you've got the ultra left wing hand wringers who'll tell you that every time you plug something in you're killing another species off. Apparently we should grow our own food and cycle everywhere carrying our blongings in hemp bags we've weaved ourselves. You know the type, they're the identikit "individuals" you see at student protests, they're usually white people with dreadlocks smoking roll-up cigarettes who wear a combo of olive drab military surplus clothing and knitwear, often brightly coloured striped knitwear.
On the other side there is the ultra right wingers in the dark suits who think that big oil and unbridled capitalism is the greatest thing in the world ever! They'll scream from the rooftops that there is no environmental damage being done at all, if they admit it people might buy less stuff and burn less oil which will send thier precious profit margins down the toilet.
Both sides will find quack science and lots of lovely graphs to prove thier side of the argument.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, not the politically motivated brainwashing crap that the extremists on both sides spout, but the actual truth.
It's an arrogant position to take to say that 6 billion humans all consuming and wasting resources 24/7 365 are having no effect on the planet at all. Also driving my Golf to pick my wife up from work in an hour won't make a species of insect in Botswana extinct forever.
The environmental argument has been hijacked by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum with an agenda to push. Extreme left or right, it matters not a jot, the propaganda from both is masking the REAL truth and nothing will be definatively proved either way until they shut the hell up!
I'm going for a lie down now...........................................
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 75, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69): envirotards tell me "If we don't start living in tipis with solar panels on the roof and a big windmill in the yard we're all going to die!".
Who is doing the name calling and painting everything black and white...
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 76, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1891 times:
It's (not) amazing to me how little sources the "skeptics" actually have. Basically, their sources come from a very short, predictable list: Roy Spencer, John Christy, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Roger Pielke Jr., Richard Lindzen, Stephen McIntyre, S. Fred Singer, Don Easterbrook etc...).
This makes it particularly easy to pick their "evidence" apart, because nearly every one of their publications (if they even get published) gets picked apart by the scientific community (which is how science works, and not a conspiracy).
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 77, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1887 times:
cmf ask;
Quoting cmf (Reply 75): Who is doing the name calling and painting everything black and white...
Well here you have it;
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 59): Why they insist on it only to look like complete idiots
Quoting aloges (Reply 31): While they should of course retain the right to make fools of themselves in public,
Quoting aloges (Reply 62): ...this from a man who doesn't even know how to type "CO2" correctly. Sorry, but if you want to lecture people, please do get at least some facts right.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): There is no debate because there is no convincing a religious zealot.
There is your answer cmf.
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 11): Global warming is becoming a sort of religion, with preachers and militant atheists fighting it out.
Environmentalism IS a religion, they just haven't come to terms with this fact. The whole carbon-trading scheme is no different than paying for your indulgences back during the Roman Empire.
I am a devout Atheist and dislike religion in general and I put the environmentalist in the same camp as the Christian fundamentalist, Israeli hard-liners and Islamist. They ALL want to use the power of the government to push their agenda and penalize non-believers.
I am a Hedonist which isn't a religion but a way of life. I am pleasure seeker and I love to give pleasure. Mother nature has her own agenda and so there is no point in me living under dim fluorescent lighting, driving a small, uncomfortable, underpowered car and taking a shower once a week to feel good about myself. I don't need to give money to a Church to feel good about myself or deny myself booze and bacon to feel good about myself.
If any of you have a problem with that, go right ahead and send the Green police or brown shirts after me.
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 11): I for one vote for the separation of global warming and state.
Awesome!
Quoting seb146 (Reply 13): Roberta Gonzales (SFO) is a looker
Yes she is a looker. Keep her around.
It's not like we're listening to her weather report anyway.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19): the earth has warmed some, well, a little, in the past decade or so. If I don't believe it's human caused, and tend to think it's just the natural change of the earth, which has happened over and over again,
....and there was no bureaucracy, taxes, regulations or lawyers around either.
Quoting aloges (Reply 21): hundreds of millions live in places like Bangladesh, where too little infrastructure exists to protect them against the results of stronger storms and higher tides. In the long term, this will lead to migration which will cause another set of problems.
They fought for their independence to live on a flood plain. So whose fault is that?
Quoting falstaff (Reply 37): I always hear that the average person has a normal body temp of 98.5 degrees F. My body temp is usually 97.6,
I always knew you were a cold-blooded heathen!
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46): Yeah, a lot of species will be wiped out (and us lowly humans will take a big hit), but that's just nature cleaning itself up. Once the problems are eliminated, things will snap back to some value of normal.
Very true. I think these environmentalist are a bunch of sexist pigs! They don't trust Mother Nature to take care of things because she is a woman!
Gloria Steinem should sue Al Gore, Greenpeace and all of those organizations ran by MEN!
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 78, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1881 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 76): It's (not) amazing to me how little sources the "skeptics" actually have.
We don't need sources. We don't have to prove anything. You do. The burden of proof is on you guys to prove that A) Mankind has a significant impact on the climate, B) that this change in climate will have a significant negative impact on our lives (beyond lower heating bills in winter) and C) that Mankind can make alter any such trends in a significant manner.
Rather important, the word 'significant'. I have never heard anyone say that man does not affect the climate in any way whatsoever. The question is how much is us, and how much is something else, like sun intensity cycles, and if we did EVERYTHING the envirotards demanded, will there be a significant change? That is where I have my doubts. I believe if we managed to somehow convert 100% to solar, wind and tidal power, and got rid of oil entirely, today, it will not have a significant impact.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 79, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1881 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 76): This makes it particularly easy to pick their "evidence" apart, because nearly every one of their publications (if they even get published) gets picked apart by the scientific community (which is how science works, and not a conspiracy).
When Mount St. Helens erupted in WA in '04 it sent between 50-250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide (the cause of acid rain). All of WA state's industries combined produce around 120 tons/day of that gas. Italy's Mount Etna can produce 100 times more sulfur dioxide than Mount St. Helens. Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii's Big Island emits 2,000 tons a day of sulfur dioxide when it's erupting.
Quoting GBLKD (Reply 74):
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, not the politically motivated brainwashing crap that the extremists on both sides spout, but the actual truth.
Which is exactly what I'm trying to say here. My reply up thread isn't that I'm denying that we have an effect on our climate it is just that I'm not convinced that we are the only reason climate is changing. It could/can be mostly driven by natural variations in the climate. I'll say it again, what if this was a global cooling period and glaciers were advancing on cities like Seattle, Helsinki, or any other northern city? What would we do? We aren't 100% the cause of this, we're also not 0%.
It is certainly interesting to watch the definition of significance change whenever significant change caused or made by manking are pointed out. Alternatively, the term isn't even defined which makes it even easier to declare any change "insignificant": Just as an example:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): If we are responsible for 1% of a visible change, I don't think it's worth bothering with.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 7): At what % change would you be bothered with?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24):
I dunno. More than 10%? Depends on the cost.
___
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78): I have never heard anyone say that man does not affect the climate in any way whatsoever.
I don't even know where to start with that one... Google and "Global Warming is a lie" should be a good idea.
[Edited 2012-02-02 10:34:56]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 81, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
I have a quick question (not leading anyone down a "trap" question, I don't know myself.)
Which is true:
1: There are peer-reviewed sources that agree with human caused climate change
2: There are peer-reviewed sources that disagree with human caused climate change
3: Both
This answer should really clear things up. People from both sides can whip out graphs that can be presented to look good for an argument, but I'll leave the professional conclusions to the guys with PhDs. I do not doubt that there is corruption on both sides, I'm not looking at the extreme 10%s, I'm looking at what the average climatologist in the middle (80%) says
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 82, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1865 times:
The burden of proof has switched to anyone who understands the actual state of the science. As it did with heliocentricity and evolution, the overwhelming majority of evidence is now on the side of AGW. This is how science works.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 83, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1858 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 82):
Not sure what your point is. Volcanic eruptions have a net cooling effect.
Not exactly true. Volcanism is very complex on how it effects our climate. Sure, we have been thrown into little ice ages by huge events due to ash but the gasses emitted effect different parts of our atmosphere in opposing ways.
By comparing the climate simulations from the Pinatubo eruption, with and without aerosols, the researchers found that the climate model calculated a general cooling of the global troposphere, but yielded a clear winter warming pattern of surface air temperature over Northern Hemisphere continents. The temperature of the tropical lower stratosphere increased by 4 Kelvin (4°C) because of aerosol absorption of terrestrial longwave and solar near-infrared radiation. The model demonstrated that the direct radiative effect of volcanic aerosols causes general stratospheric heating and tropospheric cooling, with a tropospheric warming pattern in the winter.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 84, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1843 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 80): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
I have never heard anyone say that man does not affect the climate in any way whatsoever.
I don't even know where to start with that one... Google and "Global Warming is a lie" should be a good idea.
Global Warming as a business and racket, yes, I believe it is a lie, while global warming (without capitals) may well be happening. One does not disclude the other.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 82): the overwhelming majority of evidence is now on the side of AGW. This is how science works.
Permit me to disagree. Riddle me this: How many proponents of AGW who are scientists do not/would not benefit financially in any way from AGW, as far as research grants, speakerships, business interests go? Every one I hear of has a significant financial interest in keeping the issue alive.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 85, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1839 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 84): Global Warming as a business and racket, yes, I
Are you anti-business?
Global Warming supported are selling a product - people are buying..
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 86, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 87, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1808 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 86): Just because someone has come up with something people are foolish enough to buy does not mean I need to join them.
YES!.. free ewnterprise. people buy and sell what they please. Is this Russia?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 88, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 87): YES!.. free ewnterprise. people buy and sell what they please
Glad we agree. So why do you insist that we buy into AGW. We don't wanna.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 89, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1801 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):
Glad we agree. So why do you insist that we buy into AGW. We don't wanna.
Dont buy into it, great - but let the crazies keep selling it..
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 90, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57): I believe windy95 is correct here, being that Co2 makes up about 0.04% by volume of the atmosphere. And no, that's not 4 percent, that's 4 1/100th of a percent. Yea... Thats a big deal...
Parts per 100, not by volume, I think.
But if you cannot imagine that CO2 does have its effects, just take a look at a forest.
Besides, the amount of CO2 is just one criterion. Others are the wavelength of the radiation CO2 is opaque to, the amount of this radiation as well as the necessary shift of the border that separates the Stratosphere from the Troposphere. Or in other words: the climate sensitivity of CO2.
Or take a drug: when you throw in an Aspirin which contains 100 mg of ASS, those 100 mg will blow the headache of a 100 kg man away within perhaps 20 minutes. But when you count the ASS molecules and compare the number to all the molecules of the body, you might get the impression that Aspirin comes in homeopathic doses. But that's a wrong impression, just as the impression "400 parts of CO2 per million do nothing".
Quoting windy95 (Reply 63): The IPCC is a very real agenda-driven mis-use of climate data
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Sorry Windy, you don't have the *faintest* idea of what you have just posted, have you?
That graph does *not* show the temperature but the *anomalities*. And guess where those anomalities come from! How do you explain the rise in global temperatures? I look forward to hearing from. You could of course ask the guys at the Hadley Center of the MET.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 91, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1785 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 90): But if you cannot imagine that CO2 does have its effects, just take a look at a forest.
Can you elaborate a little more than that? I'm not arguing that CO2 doesn't have an effect, but I'm a forester I'd be interested to see your rationale outside of "look at a forest".
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 93, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 92): canoecarrier, plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.
I get that, I was just making sure where I knew you were going with that argument.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 94, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1756 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 84): Riddle me this: How many proponents of AGW who are scientists do not/would not benefit financially in any way from AGW, as far as research grants, speakerships, business interests go?
Let's just say if you are a scientist who discovers that mainstream climatology is fundamentally wrong and you can bring sound evidence that fulfills scientific standards, you're a made man. Research grants will come flooding in, everyone will listen to you, and you'll be a Nobel Prize winner in the making. Hint: that can't be it.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 95, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1749 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 93): I was just making sure where I knew you were going with that argument.
That's okay, didn't wish to sound patronizing.
By the way, those challenging the climate sensibility of CO2 and the mostly man-made reasons for global climate change would need a ... well: model.
A model that explains why climate is changing and why carbon dioxide isn't the main force behind it. Only, such a model doesn't exists. Pressure groups like Heartland or Cfact spare no efforts to dispute climate science but never came up with an alternative model.
Quoting Rara (Reply 94): Let's just say if you are a scientist who discovers that mainstream climatology is fundamentally wrong and you can bring sound evidence that fulfills scientific standards, you're a made man.
Bingo!
Besides, it money was the main issue, scientists would simply say: "We see a problem in globel climate change, but we do not have a clue how the explain the phenomenon. Can we have some more money?"
Instead they say, "we see a problem and know very well why it exists. Can we have some more money?" Not very bright when you want more funds.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 96, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1742 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 94):
Let's just say if you are a scientist who discovers that mainstream climatology is fundamentally wrong and you can bring sound evidence that fulfills scientific standards, you're a made man. Research grants will come flooding in, everyone will listen to you, and you'll be a Nobel Prize winner in the making. Hint: that can't be it.
Wrong. You will be pilloried as a pariah, evidence buried as long as possible. You will likely lose any job you have at X University. You don't seem to understand the atmosphere the AGW crowd has developed. "Deniers" as you call them are often treated like heretics in front of the Spanish Inquisition (although fortunately we haven't had any barbeques - yet).
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 97, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 84): Global Warming as a business and racket, yes, I believe it is a lie, while global warming (without capitals) may well be happening. One does not disclude the other.
Weird. Making money by trying to begin solving a problem is wrong, but making much more money by pretending that the problem doesn't exist is fine? I'd like to see a comparison between the profits generated by the renewable energy industry (a "racket", in your words) and those of the fossil fuel industry... the scale of that graph would probably have to be logarithmic.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 96): You will be pilloried as a pariah, evidence buried as long as possible. You will likely lose any job you have at X University.
Do you have any... evidence of that happening? It's a pretty serious accusation.
[Edited 2012-02-02 14:18:53]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 98, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1736 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 96): Wrong. You will be pilloried as a pariah, evidence buried as long as possible. You will likely lose any job you have at X University.
Not if you really come with with arguments that actually hold some water.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 96): You don't seem to understand the atmosphere the AGW crowd has developed.
At best you are confusing cause and effect. If the atmosphere is really that brutal, it is directed at pressure groups like the "Heartland Institute" or denier's arguments that have been rebutted numerous times and *still* pop up in every third sunday issue of xy broadsheet.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
No, that isn't even close to my answer. My questions is why Dreadnought find it reasonable to do everything he complains about other doing.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 77): Environmentalism IS a religion, they just haven't come to terms with this fact. The whole carbon-trading scheme is no different than paying for your indulgences back during the Roman Empire.
It is to some, but not to most. But it is no better on the other side.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 77): I put the environmentalist in the same camp as the Christian fundamentalist, Israeli hard-liners and Islamist. They ALL want to use the power of the government to push their agenda and penalize non-believers.
Using a rather broad brush. Makes me think you have a lot in common with them.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 77): Mother nature has her own agenda and so there is no point in me living under dim fluorescent lighting, driving a small, uncomfortable, underpowered car and taking a shower once a week to feel good about myself. I don't need to give money to a Church to feel good about myself or deny myself booze and bacon to feel good about myself.
Those are the extremists. And with those I mean the people who suggest that is what it takes AND the people who suggest that is what it will mean. We have been able to maintain electrical production and cutting down on SO2. I see no reason why we can't do the same with CO2.
The burden is on whoever makes a statement. Please display the science backing up your statement.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 81): This answer should really clear things up. People from both sides can whip out graphs that can be presented to look good for an argument, but I'll leave the professional conclusions to the guys with PhDs. I do not doubt that there is corruption on both sides, I'm not looking at the extreme 10%s, I'm looking at what the average climatologist in the middle (80%) says
Quoting Rara (Reply 94): Let's just say if you are a scientist who discovers that mainstream climatology is fundamentally wrong and you can bring sound evidence that fulfills scientific standards, you're a made man. Research grants will come flooding in, everyone will listen to you, and you'll be a Nobel Prize winner in the making. Hint: that can't be it.
Or you just research something else.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 96): Wrong. You will be pilloried as a pariah, evidence buried as long as possible. You will likely lose any job you have at X University. You don't seem to understand the atmosphere the AGW crowd has developed. "Deniers" as you call them are often treated like heretics in front of the Spanish Inquisition (although fortunately we haven't had any barbeques - yet).
Yet I see more of that being directed at anyone who thinks keeping CO2 levels down is a good idea.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 84): Riddle me this: How many proponents of AGW who are scientists do not/would not benefit financially in any way from AGW, as far as research grants, speakerships, business interests go? Every one I hear of has a significant financial interest in keeping the issue alive.
Everybody gets paid for their work in some way. But it's hard to believe there wouldn't be ample funding available for anybody who challenged AGW who was able to provide robust science. Seems to me the vested interests in proving AGW are dwarfed by the vested interests in disproving it. Pretty sure you'd get a few bucks from the oil and coal industries for a start.
And please don't use the word "envirotard"- it is utterly classless.
Quoting cmf (Reply 99): Yet I see more of that being directed at anyone who thinks keeping CO2 levels down is a good idea.
Indeed. But the anti-AGW argument is hinged on maintaining a sense of victimhood, as are all the anti-science movements these days. Look at the anti-MMR movement for evidence of that.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 101, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1692 times:
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 100): Everybody gets paid for their work in some way. But it's hard to believe there wouldn't be ample funding available for anybody who challenged AGW who was able to provide robust science. Seems to me the vested interests in proving AGW are dwarfed by the vested interests in disproving it. Pretty sure you'd get a few bucks from the oil and coal industries for a start.
I think the oil and coal companies' donations are dwarfed by the financial interests who want to see carbon trading come through (eg Goldman Sachs basically owns the carbon trading exchange in Chicago - they stand to make mountains of money), or General Electric who make all the wind and tidal turbines.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 100): And please don't use the word "envirotard"- it is utterly classless.
You're right. I'll start using envirotrendalist. It's more accurate anyway.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 100): Indeed. But the anti-AGW argument is hinged on maintaining a sense of victimhood
Huh?
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 102, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 101): I think the oil and coal companies' donations are dwarfed by the financial interests who want to see carbon trading come through (eg Goldman Sachs basically owns the carbon trading exchange in Chicago - they stand to make mountains of money), or General Electric who make all the wind and tidal turbines.
But you're arguing that a scientist on the other side could not find any funding. Regardless of what you say above, that's obviously not true. The oil and gas industry has more than enough money to fund the cost of such research (and frequently does, in fact).
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 101): You're right. I'll start using envirotrendalist. It's more accurate anyway.
I can live with that. And I do agree with you that people go too far in obsessing over minor changes people are supposed to make to their lives. It's pretty clear that getting people to change their behavior when the threat is so nebulous is impossible. That's why I have no problem driving a Mustang, and taking 20 flights a year etc. My problem is not with those who disagree that we have to do anything about AGW, merely with those who attempt to distort the science by claiming it isn't happening.
The plucky dissenter, who dares to stand up to the big bad status quo; it's a narrative that gets repeated time and time again. It's an easy way to dismiss the scientific evidence.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 103, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1680 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 84): Riddle me this: How many proponents of AGW who are scientists do not/would not benefit financially in any way from AGW, as far as research grants, speakerships, business interests go? Every one I hear of has a significant financial interest in keeping the issue alive.
Charles, you'd do well to learn a little bit more about the process behind receiving grant money. As stated above, the simple fact is, there is money available for anyone who has valid scientific reasoning for an idea, whether pro- or anti-AGW. You and others have erroneously painted the entire scientific community (or at least the majority of climatologists) as a cult only interested in supporting its own, without an ounce of scientific or personal integrity. It's a positively laughable notion that the average climatologist stands to make any significant monetary gain for dishonest research (or any research, for that matter). Most climate scientists' research will continue independently of the politics of global warming. Data series will continue to grow, papers furthering our understanding of our climate, including the effects of greenhouse gases, will continue, even if it was magically decided global warming/climate change was not caused by man.
The beat goes on. At first, the "deniers" argued the Earth wasn't warming. Then, it was the Earth is warming, but it's not man-made. And we're now in-between that stage, and the, "the science says the warming is heavily influenced by man, but only because it's a scientific conspiracy" stage. Eventually, we'll get to the part where all but a few stragglers agree that the Earth is warming and it's heavily influenced by man based on credible science, but it's too late or not worth it to do anything. That's the future of this debate, because the truth is, the people who stand the most to lose are not companies like Goldman Sachs or General Electric who have plenty of other investments, but oil and gas companies whose very existence depends on the status quo of a fossil fuel economy.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 104, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1657 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 62): ...this from a man who doesn't even know how to type "CO2" correctly. Sorry, but if you want to lecture people, please do get at least some facts right.
Wow. Just because I didn't take the time to subscript the "2" doesn't mean I'm factually wrong. Usually, when such technicalities are used, that's just a diversion because there is no way to make your point using facts. Since you're so concerned about it, why don't you pick out each and every instance that someone here called it CO2 and ask the mods to delete the post because they are factually wrong and don't know what they are talking about. Wanna try that? Please. Bet 99% of this thread gets deleted.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 103): The beat goes on. At first, the "deniers" argued the Earth wasn't warming. Then, it was the Earth is warming, but it's not man-made. And we're now in-between that stage, and the, "the science says the warming is heavily influenced by man, but only because it's a scientific conspiracy" stage.
Humm, you're really going there? Deniers are the ones changing their story?
Let's see. 70's-80's, it was Global Cooling.
80's-90's it was Global Warming.
90's-now. It's now known as Global Climate Change.
Remind us again who again is changing the names to fit the current stage?
[Edited 2012-02-02 19:09:46]
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 105, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
I find it interesting that Al Gore took only 1 class in college in Climate Science and suddenly he became an 'expert' and has won a Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar award and Emmy award and a Grammy award for his knowledge on the environment.
BTW, I voted for Gore and I maintain that he would have been a better President than those crooks at Dubya & Co who stole the election from Al Gore.
If Gore had became President, the Republican Congress would have called President Gore out on the floor on this whole Global Warming hype and put an end to this non-sense 10 years ago.
Quoting cmf (Reply 99): No, that isn't even close to my answer.
It was the correct answer. You just didn't like it.
Moving on...
Quoting cmf (Reply 99): It is to some, but not to most.
Careful how you use the word "most".
Quoting cmf (Reply 99): Using a rather broad brush. Makes me think you have a lot in common with them.
In my almost 12 years posting at this site, I have never preached about how other people should live. If you have to insult and call people names then you probably don't have much of a point to be taken seriously.
Well they're the one's in power and in the driver's seat on 'climate change' legislation. Only the government has the ability to enforce an environmentalist lifestyle. That would be extremely intrusive and heavy-handed.
AustinAllison From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 106, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
Let's not forget that global cooling was apparently happening from the 40's to the 70's. These 'scientists' have been wrong before, and it's not out of the question that they could be wrong here.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 107, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 104): Let's see. 70's-80's, it was Global Cooling.
Wrong. Not even close to being factually correct. The vast majority of scientists in the 70s were warning of warming. The global cooling scare was derived from news articles like the 1974 Time article and 1975 Newsweek article, and a few scientific articles.
Again, not even close to being correct. The IPCC was created in 1988 (the CC stands for "Climate Change"), the 1992 conference in Rio was called the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It's not like "global warming" has gone anywhere. It's just one component of climate change, and the preferred terminology to reflect that.
Any more tired, overused, incorrect talking points you'd like me to set straight for you? That is, of course, until the next time you have this conversation with someone, and put that selective memory to good use again.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 108, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1607 times:
Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 106): Let's not forget that global cooling was apparently happening from the 40's to the 70's. These 'scientists' have been wrong before, and it's not out of the question that they could be wrong here.
Damn those "scientists" for "improving" their climate models and being "willing" to question their previous "findings".
They would have my "respect" if they just picked a "position" out of pure dogmatism and stuck to it regardless of what the "evidence" says.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 109, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1576 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 107): The vast majority of scientists in the 70s were warning of warming.
That was because of disco....
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 108): Damn those "scientists" for "improving" their climate models and being "willing" to question their previous "findings".
I fully support scientific research and making their findings as long as they're aren't passing new laws, new taxes, new fines, new restrictions and telling me what kind of light bulb to use and what kind of car to drive.
which would stand for Cobalt, if not for the "2" you added. That's why I pointed it out; if I went into an A vs B argument in the civil aviation forum, talked about a Boeing A320 and berated people for
nobody would take me seriously either. As for the subscripted numbers, I imagine that they are omitted because people don't know the HTML tags needed for them.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 105): If you have to insult and call people names then you probably don't have much of a point to be taken seriously.
That's a good point! I had asked you about your opinion on this one:
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 111, posted (3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1553 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 110): which would stand for Cobalt, if not for the "2" you added. That's why I pointed it out; if I went into an A vs B argument in the civil aviation forum, talked about a Boeing A320 and berated people for
Agaain. Soo wwhat? i mmade aa typingg missttake. Peopple miisspell wwords alll daay loong andd itt doessnt takke awway fromm thhe truuth. Ooookkay?
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 90): Sorry Windy, you don't have the *faintest* idea of what you have just posted, have you?
I maintain that details are, in FACT, important - unless of course the philosophy is that faith in a "she'll be right" sort of scenario is more important than scientific FACTS.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
There you are, conclusive proof (by your own definition) of global warming. The line goes up and the graph is labelled "temperature", among other things.
[Edited 2012-02-03 05:45:03]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 115, posted (3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1517 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 113): Not much of a trend either way over 33 years.
Since you show us that graph for the second time in this thread already: what about it? There is a 33-year average (which is already much higher than the 100 years average, but the graph doesn't show that), and the temperatures go from mostly below average to mostly above average. Also, some joker drew what looks like a sine function over it. What exactly are you telling us here? Temperatures rise, thanks, we knew that already.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 116, posted (3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1503 times:
No-one really knows who first said "There are lies, damned lies and there are statistics." Mark Twain attributed a similar remark to Benjamin Disraeli but a book that I studied for university many years ago was titled "How to Lie with Statistics." It was a very clever reading of how you make anything you like appear to be true by careful manipulation and presentation of data and graphs.
Truncated baselines, hiding the labels of axes, careful selection of periods...The means of constructing proof of an opinion were apparently limitless. So graphs without context are meaningless.
One of the graphs presented in this forum suggests that the global temperature has been much lower than is typically required for many crops to grow and which would kill (or at least render inert) many vexatious insects. No explanation was presented accompanying the graph but we are supposed to conclude that it is evidence of something.
Just out of interest, did you read the label on the far left? It says "T(emperature) Departure from '81-'10 Avg. (deg. C.)". That is pretty clever indeed, see reply no. 116 for the reason.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 116): One of the graphs presented in this forum suggests that the global temperature has been much lower than is typically required for many crops to grow and which would kill (or at least render inert) many vexatious insects.
Might it be in reply no. 73?
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 118, posted (3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 109): I fully support scientific research and making their findings as long as they're aren't passing new laws, new taxes, new fines, new restrictions and telling me what kind of light bulb to use and what kind of car to drive.
Politicians do that, not scientists. I agree that they're scumbags driven by special interest groups and whatever lobbying money they can scrape up in their dirty paws. I agree that many laws passed as a result of our increased understanding of AGW are ludicrous overreactions.
If you want to attack those politicians that's fine- but leave the scientists out of the firing line unless you can find holes in their method.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 105): In my almost 12 years posting at this site, I have never preached about how other people should live. If you have to insult and call people names then you probably don't have much of a point to be taken seriously.
You used Christian fundamentalist, Israeli hard-liners and Islamist. That means your point should not be taken seriously then.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 105): Well they're the one's in power and in the driver's seat on 'climate change' legislation. Only the government has the ability to enforce an environmentalist lifestyle. That would be extremely intrusive and heavy-handed.
We should all be damn happy about the environmentalist lifestyle. Without it we would still have smog in every city, rivers and oceans would be sewage dumps and so on. MOST (again deliberately selected) environmentalists are nothing like what you pictured in your post. It has been proven that being environmentally conscious isn't an end to all the things we take for granted. Actually many of the things we do take for granted are related to environmental movements. Despite that each time some people (and companies) paint doom and gloom scenarios and claim there is no need.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 121, posted (3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 120): We should all be damn happy about the environmentalist lifestyle. Without it we would still have smog in every city, rivers and oceans would be sewage dumps and so on. MOST (again deliberately selected) environmentalists are nothing like what you pictured in your post. It has been proven that being environmentally conscious isn't an end to all the things we take for granted. Actually many of the things we do take for granted are related to environmental movements. Despite that each time some people (and companies) paint doom and gloom scenarios and claim there is no need.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 122, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 109): I fully support scientific research and making their findings as long as they're aren't passing new laws, new taxes, new fines, new restrictions and telling me what kind of light bulb to use and what kind of car to drive.
What the hell do you think all of the global warming research has been? Yet it doesn't seem to matter an ounce to you, because you don't like the implications.
*facepalm* You genuinely have zero idea how to read and understand a graph, don't you?
Quoting aloges (Reply 114): There you are, conclusive proof (by your own definition) of global warming.
Quoting cmf (Reply 120): Still barking at the wrong tree. The issue is condemning name calling and painting things black and white while doing exactly that in all posts.
ding, ding, ding! We have a winner
Quoting cmf (Reply 120): We should all be damn happy about the environmentalist lifestyle. Without it we would still have smog in every city, rivers and oceans would be sewage dumps and so on. MOST (again deliberately selected) environmentalists are nothing like what you pictured in your post. It has been proven that being environmentally conscious isn't an end to all the things we take for granted. Actually many of the things we do take for granted are related to environmental movements. Despite that each time some people (and companies) paint doom and gloom scenarios and claim there is no need.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 123, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1339 times:
Yes. I don't have any response because I haven't had time to read it. Not going to comment if I haven't read it. Maybe if I have enough time to read it this weekend I will. But being that I had to work and the Superbowl is tomorrow, I'm guessing it's not in the cards. I will say this however, if Time and Newsweek was all the basis of the fake global cooling fear, what makes them right about all the global warming fear they are spreading today? Just askin'.
But then again, if all you global warming people had their way, the Superbowl would be cancelled. I mean look at all the global warming that's going to occur from this game. Flights, cars, hotel rooms, lights, food, halftime shows, radio row, etc, etc, etc.
Hey, you going to watch it Longhorn? Really? You are? Humm. What are you going to use to watch it? A big screen? Or our you going to fire up your car and go to a bar and watch multiple TVs? What about all the extra food you cook. And all the extra drinks you keep cool? Wow. You're going to contribute big time to global climate change tomorrow over something as stupid as a football game.
I figured since you were so convinced that Global Warming was going to kill the planet you would get on your bike and pedal to Indianapolis and protest it. I guess it's not that important to you. Or is it, as usual, those on the left want to tell me how to live my life while you continue yours as normal.
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 124, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
Well I'm closer than neutral than any of the extremes, but I don't think 95% of "global warming people" want this. Instead of the extreme measures you've listed, they advocate common sense measures such as better fuel efficiency and more emphasis in alternate fuels to help stop our current trajectory. But I don't think you honestly believe most of them want the things you listed
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 125, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1315 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 124): But I don't think you honestly believe most of them want the things you listed
No. They don't want the things I listed stopped. That's my point. They want to tell YOU, but not THEM, what to drive, or what temperature to keep YOUR house, and not theirs, or what light bulbs to use, etc. I can go on and on about what the Global Warming people want us to do to make *them* happy. Those are everyday way's of life for each and everyone of us.
However, when it comes to splurging on such things as Football games, Times Square at New Years, Las Vegas, and every other energy consuming event happens thats just fine. Really, again, if the earth is going to implode like these people claim it is, then the day I have to be told what temperature my house has to be set at or the smart grid is going to turn my A/C off, is the day we need to cut out all the extra stuff that needs not to happen for us to survive as a human race.
Please, don't take this wrong, but I wouldn't call you neutral on Global Warming. I'd call you clueless. You seriously need to spend some time learning what the environmentalists are doing to you and your family. From taking away your freedoms, to taxing us and keeping us middle class or below, to continuing to keeping us dependent on foreign sources of oil (i.e. Keystone pipeline) which risks our entire national security.
All this based on one big lie. And if you ask, how can I be sure that I'm right? Their solution, 100% of the time, is to fix the problem by taxing those who don't comply. Coal fired plant? Sure, but you're going to be taxed. Big SUV? Sure, but you're going to be taxed. Gas Guzzler? Sure, but you're going to be taxed. Etc, Etc, Etc.
Think about that for a minute.
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 126, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 125): , if the earth is going to implode like these people claim it is,
They don't.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 125): They want to tell YOU, but not THEM, what to drive, or what temperature to keep YOUR house, and not theirs, or what light bulbs to use, etc.
And it gets even worse: They tell you not to dispose your old car tires in a forest, and not to wash your paint down the sink! Imagine how they steel your freedom!
But when they provide you with tips on how to reduce your annual carbon footprint from 12 tons down to say: eight, you screem bloody murder.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 125): Their solution, 100% of the time, is to fix the problem by taxing those who don't comply.
No! Their solution is to minimize the emission of greenhouse gases. One way to achieve that is to make environmentally friendly products cheaper and gaz guzzlers more expensive. And yes, I did think about that for a minute, actually for a lot longer.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 127, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 123): what makes them right about all the global warming fear they are spreading today? Just askin'.
Because this time what they're printing actually jells with the science.
Hell no. I hate the hell out of both of those teams. I can't really think of a worse Super Bowl, to be honest. Maybe if the Eagles were in it.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 123): But then again, if all you global warming people had their way, the Superbowl would be cancelled. I mean look at all the global warming that's going to occur from this game. Flights, cars, hotel rooms, lights, food, halftime shows, radio row, etc, etc, etc.
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that, simply because there's much bigger fish to fry. Believe it or not, most environmentalists aren't out there trying to destroy every facet of your life. Most of us aren't suggesting we all go live off the grid in tents. I know that's hard for you to grasp, since you've already decided they don't align with your political beliefs, and have sought out to sensationalize them with the hopes of discrediting them.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 128, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1233 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 80): So "envirotards" is fine by you? You didn't include it in your list.
Dreadnought's comment wasn't aimed at other members here in the forum. I was pointing out those that attempted to 'shut down the discussion' by insulting other members with a different opinion.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 118): I agree that many laws passed as a result of our increased understanding of AGW are ludicrous overreactions.
Some laws are good such as recycling plastic, glass, metals, etc as well as proper disposal of used motor oil, ban on asbestos. Efforts to prevent forest fires. Smokey The Bear had it right. I can get behind and support those laws. It's that in recent years, they've become overzealous and have imposed laws that closely monitor and control our daily lives and hands more power over to the government.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 118): If you want to attack those politicians that's fine- but leave the scientists out of the firing line unless you can find holes in their method.
Very true.
The politicians want power, the scientist want the funding. I support the work that scientist do but please don't force your findings down my throat.
I'm sure they have good intentions but some of us just don't care that much and don't want to participate.
Our doctors tell us all the time what we should and should not drink. Doesn't mean that we're always going to abide by their recommendations even though we are well aware of their expert advice.
Heck, some of the heaviest drinkers I know are doctors & nurses. I've seen dentist with missing teeth.
Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to combat 'climate change' yet his electricity bills at his mansion is 5 times higher than your average person and his private jet leaves a much higher carbon footprint than your average person.
I'm with Woodsy Owl. I give a hoot, I don't pollute.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 122): What the hell do you think all of the global warming research has been? Yet it doesn't seem to matter an ounce to you, because you don't like the implications.
I didn't ask for the research in the first place so yes, it doesn't mean an ounce to me.
I really hoped that these political, religious/scientific discussions could avoid making personal attacks but it seems like you can't resist. So if you want to go there, let's go there.
Explain to us how you can preach about Climate Change yet you fly all over the world in jet aircraft and have earned elite status with One World ..., or was it Star Alliance? (just going by what you told me on your stop over here in Bangkok)
Regardless of what my opinion is on 'climate change', it seems as though you're leaving a much bigger carbon footprint than I am and a larger carbon footprint than most people. I don't like to start fights and I enjoy reading about your travels and hearing about the different airlines and the service they provide on various routes. Please continue to enjoy your air travels but please spare us the pontificating of climate change.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 129, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 126): And it gets even worse: They tell you not to dispose your old car tires in a forest, and not to wash your paint down the sink! Imagine how they steel your freedom!
But when they provide you with tips on how to reduce your annual carbon footprint from 12 tons down to say: eight, you screem bloody murder.
Those are two different animals. Disposing of trash and other pollutions that poison our lakes, streams and land is horrible. Dumping oil in lakes kills fish, that can be proven. I'm all for stopping that and recycling. People who litter and dump should be fined to the maximum punishment.
But tell me how throwing my trash out a car window that ends up in a stream then a lake affects global warming. It doesn't. I recycle all I can and I do applaud environmental clean up of all trash. But it has nothing to do with this farce called Global Warming.
I scream bloody murder because increasing my carbon footprint does nothing but help the earth. More carbon means more plant food. The more the plants grow the greener the earth is. It's all natural. The earth has this remarkable power to overcome and heal everything remarkably well. Extra carbon included.
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11547 posts, RR: 27 Reply 130, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 122): Yet it doesn't seem to matter an ounce to you, because you don't like the implications.
Exactly! I don't care! I don't want to care, I don't want other people to care, I don't want other people to try and convince me to care, and I refuse to feel guilty for not caring.
I like fast cars and I won't drive an overgrown golf cart because I don't care about CO2 emissions.
I won't buy carbon offsets because I don't care about climate change.
I won't shit in a bucket of sawdust because I don't care about saving water.
I won't drag my own bags to the store because that would be a pain and I don't care about whatever bad things plastic bags do.
I won't ride a bike everywhere, or anywhere really, because it's slow and you get sweaty and you're out in the elements...
I won't toss banana peels in my backyard to rot because it smells bad and I'd much rather have them smell bad in the places we designate as the places to send things that smell bad. (landfills, not trailer parks)
I won't wash my garbage and risk cutting my finger off so I can recycle it because I have enough stuff that actually needs to be washed.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 131, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 129): More carbon means more plant food. The more the plants grow the greener the earth is. It's all natural. The earth has this remarkable power to overcome and heal everything remarkably well. Extra carbon included.
I'm no scientist, but extra CO2 does NOT help plants grow more. They only take in so much, any excess just stays in the air. I believe even if we turned off all technology there would still be excess CO2 to go around
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 132, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1214 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): I didn't ask for the research in the first place so yes, it doesn't mean an ounce to me.
I really hoped that these political, religious/scientific discussions could avoid making personal attacks but it seems like you can't resist. So if you want to go there, let's go there.
Explain to us how you can preach about Climate Change yet you fly all over the world in jet aircraft and have earned elite status with One World ..., or was it Star Alliance? (just going by what you told me on your stop over here in Bangkok)
Regardless of what my opinion is on 'climate change', it seems as though you're leaving a much bigger carbon footprint than I am and a larger carbon footprint than most people. I don't like to start fights and I enjoy reading about your travels and hearing about the different airlines and the service they provide on various routes. Please continue to enjoy your air travels but please spare us the pontificating of climate change.
As always Larry, it's not what THEY do, it's what YOU do that kills the earth. Geeze. Freakin Elite Status, then he comes here preaching about Global Warming. If I had time to find one of those "owned" pictures now would be the moment to post it. Heck, how ANYONE here on an AVIATION BASED WEBSITE can believe in this tripe is beyond me. Over and over and over, we hear from these people who insist we drive hybrids and control our electrical use while they fly around the world in first class. Love to hear them defend that.
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 133, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1202 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 132): As always Larry, it's not what THEY do, it's what YOU do that kills the earth.
Ooops, I forgot!
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 132): Geeze. Freakin Elite Status, then he comes here preaching about Global Warming.
I fly frequently too but I haven't earned elite status with Star Alliance but I have earned enough Royal Orchid miles with Thai Airways for an upgrade on international or a free round-trip domestic. It's tough earning miles with TG and I'll have to bite the bullet and pay for my BKK-LAX very soon since they're ending the non-stop and selling their A340-500 to Hugo Chavez.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 132): If I had time to find one of those "owned" pictures now would be the moment to post it.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, RR: 51 Reply 134, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1189 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): Dreadnought's comment wasn't aimed at other members here in the forum.
Neither were the comments you pointed out, or at least one of them. I know this because I made one of them:
Quoting aloges (Reply 31): There are still a few self-proclaimed scientists who claim that evolution does not and never did occur. While they should of course retain the right to make fools of themselves in public,
"They", not "you". Sorry, but your indignation is ill-directed.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 129): I scream bloody murder because increasing my carbon footprint does nothing but help the earth. More carbon means more plant food. The more the plants grow the greener the earth is. It's all natural. The earth has this remarkable power to overcome and heal everything remarkably well. Extra carbon included.
So it's a good thing that nobody is killing off the very plants that are taking up all the "carbon" (you mean carbon dioxide, btw)... oh, wait.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 135, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1190 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): I really hoped that these political, religious/scientific discussions could avoid making personal attacks but it seems like you can't resist. So if you want to go there, let's go there.
I don't see what I wrote to you has a personal attack. I simply stated that you don't seem to care an ounce what the scientists actually say. That's not an attack, it's your prerogative and that's fine. But you seem to be on a crusade against the science, while simultaneously saying you respect the science, and I don't understand that. There's a difference between arguing the science from a position of zero authority and arguing what the appropriate policy implications, if any, should be. I can't remember the last time I suggested any form of policy implication, because I think that is a much grayer area, and open to a lot of compromise. The science of climate change is, to most on here, an emotional, rather than logical/fact-driven argument. If you as an individual don't want to believe in the science, fine. But when you start using red herring arguments to "support" your conclusions, you continue to perpetuate a dialogue based on misinformation.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): Regardless of what my opinion is on 'climate change', it seems as though you're leaving a much bigger carbon footprint than I am and a larger carbon footprint than most people. I don't like to start fights and I enjoy reading about your travels and hearing about the different airlines and the service they provide on various routes. Please continue to enjoy your air travels but please spare us the pontificating of climate change.
I'm glad you enjoy hearing about my travels, and I had a fantastic time with you in Bangkok. And yes, this year I have left an enormous carbon footprint. I understand that, and if I was preaching about how everyone should live off the grid, it'd be incredibly hypocritical. I fully acknowledge there are things I could do better, and I'm in the process of changing my lifestyle to be much more environmentally conscious now that I have more stability. The difference is, I'm not suggesting or arguing anything of the sort. I don't believe humans individually need to take drastic measures to change. I don't think air travel has to stop. I don't think everyone should have to drive a hybrid. My issue is, until the "debate" about the science is "settled," there will continue to be a massive impediment to making any meaningful change, because it requires a large-scale paradigm shift towards more R&D. Transportation in general can be made to have a negligible environmental impact, but it will require a much greater effort toward developing and implementing new technologies. I hate saying this, because I believe it's a cop-out for people to ignore their own contributions to the problem (of which I do contribute [more than] my share), but the fact that I traveled the world this year is irrelevant on a large scale. The positive difference I can and will make in the future, even if based on nothing more than who I vote for (which it won't be), will more than make up for any lifestyle choices in my past.
And that's fine. You're entitled to be apathetic, and all I can say is I don't agree. When it comes to politics, you and I don't see eye to eye, but for our differences, one thing I don't see you doing is coming on threads like these and speaking about that which you know little as if you were an expert. If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize, but it seems to me like to you, you couldn't be bothered whether climate change is happening, because either way, it won't affect you or your lifestyle. If so, while I consider it misguided, at least you keep it to yourself and don't use misinformation to try and affect others.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 132): it's not what THEY do, it's what YOU do that kills the earth
Fundamentally, there are some blacks and whites associated with this type of argument. The fact is, yes, Al Gore has been hypocritical, particularly when it comes to his house. I believe he has since changed to all green power, but most here would argue that he could certainly reduce his overall energy usage (as I could, and plan to). But at the same time, the difference he's making on a large scale by bringing greater awareness to the issue far outweighs the negatives which exist. In contrast to you, whom I respect for taking small steps to reduce your own footprint, but simultaneously wage war on the only mechanisms in place to make large scale changes.
You be the judge of which is worse for the environment.
Let's split the difference and just call it Oklahoma.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 129): I scream bloody murder because increasing my carbon footprint does nothing but help the earth. More carbon means more plant food. The more the plants grow the greener the earth is. It's all natural. The earth has this remarkable power to overcome and heal everything remarkably well. Extra carbon included.
This right here is what I'm talking about-you clearly have absolutely no understanding of the science, yet espouse it as fact.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): have earned elite status with One World
I had no status this year. I did a few years ago, with oneworld.
Bottom line, if you guys want to judge me for flying frequently and arguing global warming science on an airplane message board, fine. I have my issues, just like anyone else, but when push comes to shove, I would have no problem supporting the notion that I am doing more good than harm in the grand scheme of things. And I would certainly argue that the campaign of misinformation that I see so many in here spreading is the most fundamentally detrimental thing to environmental progress, even if you lived entirely off the grid individually.
To be on a crusade, I would have to "care" a great deal which I don't.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 135): while simultaneously saying you respect the science, and I don't understand that.
There are a lot of things I respect but I don't want to own. I respect tigers but do I want to own one?
I respect a well groomed show dog but do I want to own one? Absolutely not.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 135): I'm glad you enjoy hearing about my travels, and I had a fantastic time with you in Bangkok. A
Me too! Let's do that again more often!
I went back to that Indian restaurant last weekend. I still haven't found a better Indian restaurant in town yet.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 135): And yes, this year I have left an enormous carbon footprint. I understand that, and if I was preaching about how everyone should live off the grid, it'd be incredibly hypocritical. I fully acknowledge there are things I could do better, and I'm in the process of changing my lifestyle to be much more environmentally conscious now that I have more stability.
Oh come on it's not that serious. Stop beating up on yourself.
No need to change your lifestyle.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 135): Bottom line, if you guys want to judge me for flying frequently and arguing global warming science on an airplane message board, fine. I have my issues, just like anyone else, but when push comes to shove, I would have no problem supporting the notion that I am doing more good than harm in the grand scheme of things.
No please spend more money!
The airlines need it!
Since you're in Texas and a member of One World, fly American Airlines as much as you can! They need the revenue and I'd hate to see the silver jets go or get gobbled up by Delta.
People with the means to travel should do so because the airline industry is hurting for business. I'd much rather see you flying 1st. class trans-Pacific than living in the dark and taking a crap in a wooden bucket.
That doesn't help anyone.
If more people fly and spend money, everyone wins! The airlines make money, the pilots and F/A make money, the unions are happy, service improve, more aircraft are ordered, more tax revenue is generated and scientist can earn more funding! It's a win win situation!
I'd love to see the day when a solar panel the size of a compact disc can power a city the size of New York for a month.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 137, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1166 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): Me too! Let's do that again more often!
But hey, since I went to your place, next one's on me in Austin!
Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): To be on a crusade, I would have to "care" a great deal which I don't.
Fair enough. It sure seems like you do, though, since you frequently participate in these threads. Perhaps I misinterpreted that to mean you cared.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): There are a lot of things I respect but I don't want to own.
Understandable. Consider this, though: IF, global warming is both real and caused by man, shouldn't we as humanity (especially those in first world countries) bear some responsibility and make a serious attempt to change for the betterment of the future?
Maybe some people just don't care about that, but it's important to me, and it's something I'll continue to fight for.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): No please spend more money!
The airlines need it!
Since you're in Texas and a member of One World, fly American Airlines as much as you can! They need the revenue and I'd hate to see the silver jets go or get gobbled up by Delta.
People with the means to travel should do so because the airline industry is hurting for business. I'd much rather see you flying 1st. class trans-Pacific than living in the dark and taking a crap in a wooden bucket.
That doesn't help anyone.
If more people fly and spend money, everyone wins! The airlines make money, the pilots and F/A make money, the unions are happy, service improve, more aircraft are ordered, more tax revenue is generated and scientist can earn more funding! It's a win win situation!
As aviation enthusiasts, this is something we can all agree on.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 136): I'd love to see the day when a solar panel the size of a compact disc can power a city the size of New York for a month.
As would I. The problem is, to even begin approaching technology of this sort, we really do need to place a stronger emphasis on the R&D for these types of alternative energies. And as long as the status quo is in place, this simply won't be a priority. There's too much money entrenched in the status quo to make even minor headway in this area as long as we have the dependency on fossil fuels that we do.
I suppose that is the crux of my argument. By blindly arguing against the science (note: I firmly believe there is a difference between healthy scientific inquiry and arguing for arguments sake, and most of what I see is the latter), we continue to indefinitely postpone what will ultimately need to happen anyway (getting off the fossil fuel standard).
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 138, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1163 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 137): But hey, since I went to your place, next one's on me in Austin!
I suppose I could do a trip thought Texas. I owe Sccutler a visit anyway.
Just can't let any of my ex's see me. All my ex's lives in Texas.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 137): IF, global warming is both real and caused by man, shouldn't we as humanity (especially those in first world countries) bear some responsibility and make a serious attempt to change for the betterment of the future?
It's the "IF" part that has many people skeptical. Scientist at least agree that most CO2 is emitted by Mother Nature. Volcanoes, forest fires (many of which comes from lightening strikes) and of course cows. Scientist can't agree if CO2 is a pollutant.
Eyjafjallajökull set back all environmentalist efforts by 40 years in just one eruption. It was a reminder of how powerless we really are as humans to have any effect on what Mother nature decides to do.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 137): As would I. The problem is, to even begin approaching technology of this sort, we really do need to place a stronger emphasis on the R&D for these types of alternative energies. And as long as the status quo is in place, this simply won't be a priority. There's too much money entrenched in the status quo to make even minor headway in this area as long as we have the dependency on fossil fuels that we do.
I think there is a HUGE incentive to come up with cleaner energy and it doesn't involve government. I wouldn't blame the 'status quo'. Just imagine being able to buy your own solar panel the size of a compact disc to power your house for a year. You just go to your nearest 7-Eleven or Target and buy one and place it somewhere on your house and your power is set for the entire year. I think that would be awesome. I wouldn't blame the coal & oil companies for lack of such technology.
If scientist can develop such technology, that would be incredible and I'd support it 100%.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 130): Exactly! I don't care! I don't want to care, I don't want other people to care, I don't want other people to try and convince me to care, and I refuse to feel guilty for not caring.
This is why I always welcome your voice in these threads. What you say sounds outrageous, and yet I think it's deeply representative of almost everyone in our society, myself included.
Unlike GuitrThree et.al., I can't feign ignorance. I know that I'm part of a lifestyle that is extremely harmful for the world we live in, and will negatively affect future generations and disadvantaged people. And yet I can't stop. I consume, I fly, I buy tropical fruits, I use a smartphone, and so on.
I spent a lot of time thinking about possible solutions for the ecological problem, and I haven't found any. The first step is acknowledgement - even in the form of indifference. As I wrote above, that gives us something to work with.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 140, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 129): Disposing of trash and other pollutions that poison our lakes, streams and land is horrible. Dumping oil in lakes kills fish,
Funny thing. It once was considered absolutely fine because lakes and land can take unlimited amounts without problems. A generation later...
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 130): I like fast cars and I won't drive an overgrown golf cart because I don't care about CO2 emissions.
You're not asked to give up the car. You're asked to fuel it differently while getting the same performance.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): Dreadnought's comment wasn't aimed at other members here in the forum.
He and many others have a long history of using derogatory terms about anyone interested in saving environment. That it isn't better on the other side is not an excuse for doing and condemning at the same time.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 138): It's the "IF" part that has many people skeptical. Scientist at least agree that most CO2 is emitted by Mother Nature. Volcanoes, forest fires (many of which comes from lightening strikes) and of course cows. Scientist can't agree if CO2 is a pollutant.
Eyjafjallajökull set back all environmentalist efforts by 40 years in just one eruption. It was a reminder of how powerless we really are as humans to have any effect on what Mother nature decides to do.
There is no question about a certain amount of CO2 is needed. But as just about everything else it is about keeping it in balance. With almost everything there are upper and lower limits. Some desalination plants must add pollutants to the water or it becomes toxic when drinking as an extreme example.
Eyjafjallajökull is a bad example for your point as it emitted less CO2 than was removed by grounding planes.
However, the point about volcanoes in general is valid. The point is that those eruptions are inside the balance of acceptable CO2 levels. When we generate more CO2 emission than we remove we consume part of that balance and thus there will be no space left for volcanoes and other large single natural events.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 138): I think there is a HUGE incentive to come up with cleaner energy and it doesn't involve government.
It absolutely involves government. Anyone with historical knowledge knows industry do not design for clean by themselves. It may be a byproduct but that is it.
Quoting Rara (Reply 139): I can't feign ignorance. I know that I'm part of a lifestyle that is extremely harmful for the world we live in, and will negatively affect future generations and disadvantaged people. And yet I can't stop. I consume, I fly, I buy tropical fruits, I use a smartphone, and so on.
It is not about stopping the use of all those things. It is about doing them smarter. Take sewage plants as an example. It is hard to say the cost of them have have made it too expensive to flush toilets and companies are still competitive.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 141, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1100 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 138): Just can't let any of my ex's see me. All my ex's lives in Texas.
I am sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that. I don't know you or your history so it is unfair to laugh. I just had this image of you tearing down the street with six women in hot pursuit, waving machetes and wanting to perform cosmetic surgery.
I am certainly with you when it comes to the idea of cheap, self-install panels to generate electricity. Until recently the Government of Australia was subsidising people who chose to install solar panels and thermal insulation. People who produced too much energy to supply there own needs can even sell the surplus into the grid. Both these schemes allowed people to lower there energy bills, partly by insulation against heat and cold requiring less use of air conditioning, etc and partly by generating their own clean energy.
Unfortunately, because of a greater than anticipated demand the budget was blown out leading to the solar panel rebate being ended and dodgy installers saw the end of the thermal insulation rebate scheme.
On an earlier point, to an extent you may already be dictated to when it comes to buying cars and light bulbs. Many countries have design rules for the manufacture of cars that are quite separate from any environmental considerations and in some countries light bulbs of certain types are no longer available because most people aren't buying them. The manufacturers decided it wasn't worth making them for the "three" people who still wanted the old type. I don't know if any country has actually banned production of cars that consume more than a certain number of gallons per mile, but several have introduced laws requiring efficiency ratings to be displayed. Emission standards are another matter. Some countries have even introduced subsidies to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars. But as a car aficionado, you probably know more about that than I do.
One more point: industry will only ever do anything of its own initiative if there is a financial gain. I can't keep track of the number of incidents that have occurred involving toxic spills in rivers, emissions into the atmosphere and so on where industry hasn't stated that they had acted completely within environmental law - in other words, they saw no reason to do anything more than the bare minimum. If the law did not specifically say don't pollute they thought it acceptable to do so. And I am not talking about a small operator in a third world country. I have heard the same from Australian countries operating overseas, despite knowing that they would have to abide by higher standards in Australia. Sadly, self-regulation all too often means no regulation.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 142, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1084 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 140):
It is not about stopping the use of all those things. It is about doing them smarter. Take sewage plants as an example. It is hard to say the cost of them have have made it too expensive to flush toilets and companies are still competitive.
Absolute - yet we have been getting smarter and more efficient for centuries now, and yet our total resource consumption and emissions have only ever gone up. Efficiency is a great thing in itself, but it's not a mechanism for reducing total emissions. This may be for another thread though.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 143, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1068 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 142): Efficiency is a great thing in itself, but it's not a mechanism for reducing total emissions.
Very good point because efficiency and improvements in science have allowed for population growth both as a result of being able to to produce more at lower cost and because people are now living longer. Population growth, combined with ever increasing demand for things we don't necessarily need but want, results in whatever efficiency gains being lost, maybe?
Should we therefore reduce our efforts to be more efficient in the use of resources? I don't think so.
What we are seeing is that social changes often lag behind productive changes. Yet over time we can see that as societies become both productively efficient and socially efficient they reduce their natural increase in population. This isn't immediate because there are all sorts of countervailing tendencies: grandma wants a grandchild, the church frowns on contraception, abortion may be considered immoral, industries relocate to areas where environmental controls are more lax, etc. But over time these barriers can be reduced if there is a will.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 144, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1068 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 129): But tell me how throwing my trash out a car window that ends up in a stream then a lake affects global warming.
As you said it doesn't affect global warming. But carbon dioxide, although not a pollutant per se, helps to damage the natural environment just like littering. How so?
1) Every source of man made CO2 (and those are only true emissions apart from volcanoes which we cannot control. Then again, volcanoes make up 1/100 of all CO2 emissions) emmitt other gases as well and those are often toxic. So as soon as you start limiting the emission of carbon dioxide, you are reducing other emissions as well.
2) Nearly one third of man-made CO2 goes into the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid. This is called ocean acidification, which poses a thread to various marine life forms. Effects can already be seen.
3) Climate change will affect those parts of the world the hardest that have contributed comparatively little. Climate change will destroy farmland, cause migration (one island has already been evacuated due to rising sea levels, expelling 1,000 people) and cause the extinction of various species.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 129): But it has nothing to do with this farce called Global Warming.
You sound pretty arrogant when you say global warming was a farce when it is easily recognizeable that you don't know what this is all about. I would call myself a layman in this regard, and even I am better informed.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131): I'm no scientist, but extra CO2 does NOT help plants grow more. They only take in so much, any excess just stays in the air. I believe even if we turned off all technology there would still be excess CO2 to go around
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 145, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1059 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 140): He and many others have a long history of using derogatory terms about anyone interested in saving environment.
Let's make something a bit clearer.
I'm all for PROTECTING the environment. I am for MINIMIZING OUR IMPACT on the environment. I am in favor of measures that punish those who dump their garbage (or worse, toxic waste) in inappropriate manners. I am in favor of measures that push people to rethink their choices, such as increasing the tax on gasoline - as long as there are reasonable alternatives.
But when people talk about "saving" the environment, "saving" the planet, I generally see them as kooks, wackos, and idealistic dreamers on the same level as the 60's Free Love hippies. They are guilty of a massive exaggeration, intended to tug at the strings of emotionally-driven people.
The fact of the matter is that the planet, and the environment, will continue long, long after we are all dust. Look at all the massive stone construction from the Greek, Roman and Egyptian civilizations - only a couple of thousand years later, very little remains, and only if a) protected in a museum or b) it is so massive that parts have not eroded away yet. In 10-20,000 years, there will be nothing left of the Great Pyramids. That is a blink of an eye.
People worry about paving too much of the landscape (especially in Europe). Ever see what happens to a road out in the boonies if it is not maintained for a few years? The grass starts growing right through it, and after a century or so it will be as if the road has never been.
We could blow up every nuclear weapon on earth, irradiate the whole planet, and cause a thousand-year nuclear winter, and within a few millennae, life will be back, the skies will be clear, and radiation faded away into nothing. Unless the sun decides to crank up the heat a little bit and toast us all to cinders, or some other thing completely out of our control.
We can't save the planet or the environment any more than we can put a real, long-lasting dent in it (which we can't). Let's admit that Environmentalists are acting out of self interest. They act in order to 1) Feel morally and intellectually superior over others, 2) to prevent changes to their little worlds which they seem comfortable with. Global Warming might make some equatorial areas too hot for comfort but can also make millions of square miles of northern Canada and Russia suitable for farming and habitation. What's the big deal? What are you afraid of? Surely you did not expect Galveston and Miami to perpetually remain as prime beachfront real estate forever? Seas and shores have changed forever, and they will continue to do so.
The "save the planet" types commit the ultimate sin of arrogance. We know that the world has changed in shape and climate since the beginning. They think that mankind can raise their hands and say "Stop Changing!".
Once again, I am all for environmental controls, simply because wasteful usage of resources and turning the places where we live into a dump is stupid. But don't feed me some bullsh&t about "saving the environment".
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
Absolutely true. The planet does not and can not be saved by human beings. We might spend all our time worrying about it only to see a giant asteroid collide with it and poof, end of humans and a few other species.
But your entire argument rest upon a) it's not happening any time soon and b) it's not touching me.
This is false on both counts. Firstly, as I and others have shown some populations are already affected by rising tides, inundation of previously arable land, salt infiltration rending agriculture no longer viable. You may be happy to dismiss this because it doesn't affect you personally but it is happening. The fact that there have been changes in the past does not negate real changes taking place now.
Secondly, the fact that it is happening means that those affected are seeking alternatives. If they can no longer live as they previously could, they need to move somewhere else. Guess what, there's a problem. How many countries have open borders? How many countries put all sorts of barriers in the way of population movements? People may be seeking safe refuge from wars and persecution but there are still those (even on A.net) who advocate blowing them out of the water.
Thirdly, if areas of land previously suitable for agriculture are taken out of production will this not affect global prices of food? You may counter that by then you will be dead, but this is a major concern for those who are not.
Now it may be that societies less affected will be generous and open their doors. It may be that improved efficiency in other areas allow pressures on food prices to be reduced. But if people deny that there is a problem to begin with, how likely is that?
Non of these arguments are emotional. They are based on facts. But facts by themselves are meaningless. It is what you intend to do once appraised of the facts that is important. You can pretend that it is not happening or you can address the consequences. Yes, we can wait and see what happens if we unleash a nuclear holocaust as you suggest. I'd rather prevent one if I can because I rather like my family.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 147, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1034 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145): Once again, I am all for environmental controls, simply because wasteful usage of resources and turning the places where we live into a dump is stupid. But don't feed me some bullsh&t about "saving the environment".
kooks
wackos
idealistic dreamers
Free Love hippies
Nice collection by someone objecting to name calling.
I'm happy you now claim to be for protecting the environment. I do not understand how you can make a distinction between protecting and saving. It is about keeping it habitable to us.
Now that you have stated you're for protecting the environment what is the issue with keeping CO2 emissions down? We have alternatives.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 148, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 994 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
Nice collection by someone objecting to name calling.
Did I object?
Quoting cmf (Reply 147): I do not understand how you can make a distinction between protecting and saving. It is about keeping it habitable to us.
Ah, "It is about keeping it habitable to us". So screw mother nature, we want to shape it in the way we like it - perpetually the same, is that it? Which is it? Protect the planet, or protect ourselves? I thought I explained the difference quite well above.
Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
Now that you have stated you're for protecting the environment what is the issue with keeping CO2 emissions down? We have alternatives.
While I don't mind using techniques to limit our CO2 emissions, I find that the whole carbon trading thing is a scam, and the idea of shutting down our cheapest and most plentiful source of energy in spite of all the scrubbers etc demanded, is stupid. Sure, let's make our people suffer in order to improve the World's CO2 concentration by 0.000001%.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 146):
This is false on both counts. Firstly, as I and others have shown some populations are already affected by rising tides, inundation of previously arable land, salt infiltration rending agriculture no longer viable.
Which most likely would have happened anyway. Mother Nature's a bitch.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
starbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 466 posts, RR: 4 Reply 150, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 146): This is false on both counts. Firstly, as I and others have shown some populations are already affected by rising tides, inundation of previously arable land, salt infiltration rending agriculture no longer viable. You may be happy to dismiss this because it doesn't affect you personally but it is happening. The fact that there have been changes in the past does not negate real changes taking place now.
Funny, this has been happening for centuries, when climates and such changed, people moved. This is documented throughout history, nothing new here. We cannot expect the earth to stay the way that WE want it to be just because we now live on the beach in a really nice house, or now where we live is turning into a desert. This is why people kept migrating and moving throughout the last several thousand years.
We are not going to stop the changes, like Dreadnought says, lets stop people from polluting and such, but the rest is just arrogance.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 151, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 970 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 149): You would need a model to explain those occurences, but the only existing model is that of (mostly) anthropogenic climate change.
And the only model for how the earth came to be 200 years ago was Adam and Eve, or similar stories (my favorite is that the universe was barfed out by the Great Spaghetti Monster after a particularly filling meal). It doesn't mean they were right either.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2522 posts, RR: 47 Reply 152, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 955 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 151): And the only model for how the earth came to be 200 years ago was Adam and Eve, or similar stories (my favorite is that the universe was barfed out by the Great Spaghetti Monster after a particularly filling meal). It doesn't mean they were right either.
Really? I thought the universe was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure!
It is generally regarded as a bad idea anyways, made many people very angry.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 153, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 955 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 139): Unlike GuitrThree et.al., I can't feign ignorance. I know that I'm part of a lifestyle that is extremely harmful for the world we live in, and will negatively affect future generations and disadvantaged people. And yet I can't stop. I consume, I fly, I buy tropical fruits, I use a smartphone, and so on.
Honestly I think the solution can be achieved without you having to give up flying, tropical fruits, and other luxuries. It's hard to hear the common sense approaches when the extreme 10% on each side is saying "F the environment" or "get rid of all technology" but really if we all recycled more, turned off electricity when we aren't using it, pursue better MPG cars and alternate energies, I think we can reduce whatever impact we have without significantly altering our lives. And the funny thing is, most people believing in AGW think the solution should be un-dramatic and simple, and most people against AGW are more than willing to do this simple steps. More or less, I know issues like cap and trade are controversial, but a big percentage of our impact can be reduced simply and easily IMO
Protect the planet so we can continue living here.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 148): I find that the whole carbon trading thing is a scam,
That is your prerogative. I find it to be one of the smartest ways to implement a cap.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 148): Sure, let's make our people suffer in order to improve the World's CO2 concentration by 0.000001%
Much bigger difference and in practical no suffering. Just being smarter and during the transition period paying a bit more. Long term I believe we will save money by switching away from oil dominance.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 153): onestly I think the solution can be achieved without you having to give up flying, tropical fruits, and other luxuries. It's hard to hear the common sense approaches when the extreme 10% on each side is saying "F the environment" or "get rid of all technology"
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11547 posts, RR: 27 Reply 155, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 909 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 135): I apologize, but it seems to me like to you, you couldn't be bothered whether climate change is happening, because either way, it won't affect you or your lifestyle.
It doesn't bother me enough to actually go out of my way to do anything about it.
Quoting cmf (Reply 140): . You're asked to fuel it differently while getting the same performance.
I'd much rather have the same efficiency and better performance. Unfortunately, the government is not willing to let me have that choice in some cases.
CAFE laws are absolutely stupid and should be removed immediately. If you want to spend less on your commute or sleep better at night knowing you're helping the environment then by all means go for it. But don't try and force me to do the same.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 156, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 896 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 155): I'd much rather have the same efficiency and better performance. Unfortunately, the government is not willing to let me have that choice in some cases.
Electric can give you both. Sadly private industry is not ready to provide it at good price and over long distances.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 157, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 875 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 156): Electric can give you both. Sadly private industry is not ready to provide it at good price and over long distances.
You're blaming physics on private Industry? And if you think the government can do better, I can show you a Trabant, a Ghiguli or a Lada.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 158, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 855 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 141): I am sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that. I don't know you or your history so it is unfair to laugh. I just had this image of you tearing down the street with six women in hot pursuit, waving machetes and wanting to perform cosmetic surgery.
LOL!
Quoting cmf (Reply 140): It absolutely involves government. Anyone with historical knowledge knows industry do not design for clean by themselves. It may be a byproduct but that is it.
Perhaps I should have rephrased my sentence.
Government shouldn't punish existing technology in the hope of developing another technology. President Obama is on record saying that his policies would have bankrupted any new coal power plant and would levy new fines & penalties
against existing coal mines and those cost would "skyrocket" and be passed on to consumers.
Luckily the Democratic controlled Congress blocked his foolish idea.
There are much better ways to fund and develop advancing solar technology.
I think reduced tuition for students willing to take challenging courses in physics & advanced math is a what needs to be done to encourage students to go in to high skilled professions that can develop such technology. It's not there yet but it will eventually get there.
Quoting cmf (Reply 140): However, the point about volcanoes in general is valid. The point is that those eruptions are inside the balance of acceptable CO2 levels.
So you're implying that Mother Nature is capable of volcanic eruptions 'outside' the balance of what man decided was 'acceptable' CO2 levels?
How do you make her pay up if she violated this law?
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 141): I am certainly with you when it comes to the idea of cheap, self-install panels to generate electricity. Until recently the Government of Australia was subsidising people who chose to install solar panels and thermal insulation. People who produced too much energy to supply there own needs can even sell the surplus into the grid. Both these schemes allowed people to lower there energy bills, partly by insulation against heat and cold requiring less use of air conditioning, etc and partly by generating their own clean energy.
Sounds like a good idea and step in the right direction.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 141): On an earlier point, to an extent you may already be dictated to when it comes to buying cars and light bulbs. Many countries have design rules for the manufacture of cars that are quite separate from any environmental considerations and in some countries light bulbs of certain types are no longer available because most people aren't buying them. The manufacturers decided it wasn't worth making them for the "three" people who still wanted the old type.
I'm stocking up here in Thailand on incandescent light bulbs. They're still sold here but not used as much as in the United States. It's really sad to see such nice hotels, condos and restaurants using these CFL. They make the nicest of places look cheap, poorly maintained, run-down and industrial. The locals aren't concerned about saving the planet, they're doing it because its cheap. That is fine on the low end but I've seen some of the most expensive places do it as well and it looks cheap. I got rid of all the CFL in my condo when I moved in and went back to the incandescent and the place looks a million times better. It brings out the fine texture in the wooden cabinets and hard wood floors and the marble counter-top. The CFLs made the place look dim and cheap.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145): The fact of the matter is that the planet, and the environment, will continue long, long after we are all dust. Look at all the massive stone construction from the Greek, Roman and Egyptian civilizations - only a couple of thousand years later, very little remains, and only if a) protected in a museum or b) it is so massive that parts have not eroded away yet. In 10-20,000 years, there will be nothing left of the Great Pyramids. That is a blink of an eye.
We are at a much greater risk of letting our civilization be destroyed by another creeping threat but I wont go in to full detail because it would only start a flame war that would go off topic. I'll just say this much, we've been getting plenty of warning signs and the biggest one was on 9/11......
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145): People worry about paving too much of the landscape (especially in Europe). Ever see what happens to a road out in the boonies if it is not maintained for a few years? The grass starts growing right through it, and after a century or so it will be as if the road has never been.
Doesn't even take that long. Many streets I rode my bicycle on as a kid in Gary, Indiana are completely gone. Swimming pools I used to swim in now have trees growing out of them.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145): We can't save the planet or the environment any more than we can put a real, long-lasting dent in it (which we can't). Let's admit that Environmentalists are acting out of self interest. They act in order to 1) Feel morally and intellectually superior over others, 2) to prevent changes to their little worlds which they seem comfortable with.
It seems as though the environmentalist are trying to establish a new state sponsored religion.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 155): CAFE laws are absolutely stupid and should be removed immediately.
Quoting cmf (Reply 156): Electric can give you both. Sadly private industry is not ready to provide it at good price and over long distances.
Don't get mad at private industry. Get mad at the consumer that isn't willing to pay up to $100,000 for a car that does about the same as a car for $18,000.
dc9northwest From Romania, joined Feb 2007, 1177 posts, RR: 2 Reply 159, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 849 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 158): I think reduced tuition for students willing to take challenging courses in physics & advanced math is a what needs to be done to encourage students to go in to high skilled professions that can develop such technology.
I have to agree with that. I'm biased though, taking courses in physics and math. Grad school is technically free, but the stipend isn't really enough to live comfortably on. The pay in the Netherlands, for instance, is more competitive (granted, it's also a bit more expensive to live there) and you're considered an employee rather than a student, giving you more rights.
But I don't see what typical physics and math I learn have to do with climate change and investigating what's going on--they're much too abstract.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 158): That is fine on the low end but I've seen some of the most expensive places do it as well and it looks cheap. I got rid of all the CFL in my condo when I moved in and went back to the incandescent and the place looks a million times better.
It does look cheap. I can't stand fluorescent lighting myself. Reminds me of cheap run-down motels in TV shows. The incandescent bulbs' light looks more natural--more yellow, like the Sun, therefore it's better suited to working, etc, IMO. But it's more expensive (over time) and that makes all the difference I guess...
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 160, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 841 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 157): You're blaming physics on private Industry? And if you think the government can do better, I can show you a Trabant, a Ghiguli or a Lada.
Blaming physics? Government? Get a grip.
I am convinced we will have great performing electrical cars competitive with petrol cars of that period one day and while I don't think it will be this or next year I do think it will be soon.
I did not blame physics and suggest you stop making up what I blame... Stupid attempts at trying to suggest I want government as producer belong in the same trash bin.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 161, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 842 times:
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 159): I have to agree with that. I'm biased though, taking courses in physics and math. Grad school is technically free, but the stipend isn't really enough to live comfortably on. The pay in the Netherlands, for instance, is more competitive (granted, it's also a bit more expensive to live there) and you're considered an employee rather than a student, giving you more rights.
Tuition cost in the United States can be very expensive and I think a lot of students are discouraged to go. Even with grants, scholarships and loans, it can be very costly. There is a lot of talent and people with great ideas that can be developed.
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 159): But I don't see what typical physics and math I learn have to do with climate change and investigating what's going on--they're much too abstract.
The technology that goes in to making solar requires a lot of skill. Same for nuclear, natural gas and all other sources of energy.
Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 159): It does look cheap. I can't stand fluorescent lighting myself. Reminds me of cheap run-down motels in TV shows. The incandescent bulbs' light looks more natural--more yellow, like the Sun, therefore it's better suited to working, etc, IMO. But it's more expensive (over time) and that makes all the difference I guess...
I can understand if someone is trying to save a buck but when I see it at 5-star hotels, high-end residences that have condos starting at half a million dollars shouldn't be cutting corners and trying to save a buck.
I never liked CLFs for the bad lighting. Then I started doing some research on them
Congressman Ted Poe told me everything I needed to know about CFLs.
Yep he's a wing-nut hillbilly but he was spot on with these CLFs.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11547 posts, RR: 27 Reply 162, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 834 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 156): Electric can give you both.
...only if you don't drive far, don't care to do it quickly, don't mind dragging heavy batteries along with you, don't mind waiting hours between trips and are willing to pay more for the privilege.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 163, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 831 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 158): I think reduced tuition for students willing to take challenging courses in physics & advanced math is a what needs to be done to encourage students to go in to high skilled professions that can develop such technology. It's not there yet but it will eventually get there.
Supporting development of technology is one of the best things countries can do to help them to better future. Tuition is just one of many thngs.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 158): There are much better ways to fund and develop advancing solar technology.
You said government should not punish existing technology. Don't agree with that because when you support new technology that means you make it more difficult for existing, i.e. a form of punishment. I do however agree there are better way to support development of better energy sources and improving existing. While I do think solar power will have a place I expect it to be small.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 158): So you're implying that Mother Nature is capable of volcanic eruptions 'outside' the balance of what man decided was 'acceptable' CO2 levels?
How do you make her pay up if she violated this law?
"She violated the law"? Your barking at the wrong tree.
Take air or almost anything created by multiple components. For each component you will find upper and lower concentrations for it to behave as desired.
CO2 concentration in air is constantly changing, that is natural. As long as it stays within the limits nothing adverse happens. Problem is that if something pushes it close to a limit then there is very small margin before you get outside the limits. That is why it is a problem if human created CO2 emissions pushes it towards the upper limit. There is nothing left to handle the volcano. Stay balanced.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 158): Don't get mad at private industry. Get mad at the consumer that isn't willing to pay up to $100,000 for a car that does about the same as a car for $18,000.
I'm not mad at industry and I'm not mad at consumers. I just stated industry is not ready. The new Tesla model is taking a big step forward.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 164, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 833 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 162): ...only if you don't drive far, don't care to do it quickly, don't mind dragging heavy batteries along with you, don't mind waiting hours between trips and are willing to pay more for the privilege.
Hmm, one may wonder why you excluded the part of my statement where I said just that.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
dc9northwest From Romania, joined Feb 2007, 1177 posts, RR: 2 Reply 165, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 820 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 161): The technology that goes in to making solar requires a lot of skill. Same for nuclear, natural gas and all other sources of energy.
I'm a big fan of nuclear power. Unfortunately, due to Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island everyone assumes it's inherently dangerous. Well, you're dealing with a lot of radioactivity... That's why you need safety protocols and smart people working there though, and not Homer Simpson. LOL.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 161): Tuition cost in the United States can be very expensive and I think a lot of students are discouraged to go. Even with grants, scholarships and loans, it can be very costly. There is a lot of talent and people with great ideas that can be developed.
Yes, that's very true, tuition can be outrageous. I go to one of the most expensive schools in the US. Luckily I've received some financial aid and luckily for me, I won't have much debt when I graduate.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 166, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 820 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 163): You said government should not punish existing technology. Don't agree with that because when you support new technology that means you make it more difficult for existing,
You don't have to punish existing technology to attempt to develop new technology. If the new technology is successful, THEN the old technology will die out. Simple as that.
When President Kennedy pushed for development is space exploration, he didn't push legislation that punished land transportation and land development.
Quoting cmf (Reply 163): CO2 concentration in air is constantly changing, that is natural.
...or maybe some people need to find a new hobby or something else to worry about.
Quoting cmf (Reply 163): The new Tesla model is taking a big step forward.
Kudos to Tesla for picking up a lot of laid-off GM workers at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA.
Although not my style of vehicle, they are an American car brand and based in the San Francisco Bay Area so I do have a bias in their favor.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 167, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 800 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 158):
So you're implying that Mother Nature is capable of volcanic eruptions 'outside' the balance of what man decided was 'acceptable' CO2 levels?
"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.", said Paracelsus. It's not hard to grasp, come on. Without CO2, there would be no life. Volcanic eruptions emitting some CO2, fine. Humans emitting 100 times (!) as much every year -> apparently not fine.
If you drink 2 liters of water every day, try trinking 200 liters. You'll die. Is it because water is evil? No, it's just too much of a good thing. That should be within anyone's grasp, surely?
Nuclear power is wonderful as long as everything works. Problem is the consequences when things go wrong. Three mile island was well contained so isn't an example of the problems. Tjernobyl and much more Fukushima are. I do not think we can handle a Fukushima every 20 years.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 166): ...or maybe some people need to find a new hobby or something else to worry about.
Some should spend some time with a book. our air is naturally just under 21% oxygen and just over 78% nitrogen. What do you think will happen if the oxygen concentration increases significant? Why do you think they stopped pure oxygen in the Apollo program...
Quoting Superfly (Reply 170): But volcanoes aren't Mother Nature's's only source of CO2.
I think you're worrying too much about nothing.
Volume of emissions is not a problem when there are sinks taking care of them. When there isn't enough sinks concentration increase and soon enough things start to work differently. Basic chemistry.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 173, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 742 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 170):
I think you're worrying too much about nothing.
I think you're running out of arguments, mate.
Anyway, by all means enjoy your life, we all do. Maybe one day you'll find to strength to admit that you just care about your own convenience, like BMI727, Dreadnought etc. have done, instead of these rather hapless attempts to find holes in the reasoning of people who are ten times smarter and more informed than you and I.
4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2708 posts, RR: 12 Reply 175, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 743 times:
I really try to avoid these threads because they are so frustrating, but I'll chime in with a suggestion I've had before.
I'm just a 46 year old non-republican, non-Fox, non-Limbaugh, non-Big Oil, lifelong science nut who believes the concept of catastrophic AGW is a bunch of poo based on shaky data being put into shaky models by shaky climate scientists with shaky ethics coming to shaky conclusions using shaky grant money. Which has duped millions of well intentioned people into being distracted by the all powerful CO2 theory (pleeeeease forgive me for the non subscript 2, I beg you!) and away from more pressing environmental issues. I'd no more believe the "Trust me, these models are robust... " Hockey Stick Team than a bunch of geologists who declare that their robust models indicate that without us funding giant staples of gold costing trillions of dollars to bind our fault lines, we are dooming our children.
I'm actually, other than that heresy, what most people consider an earth loving environmentalist despite reflexive assumptions that paint me the opposite. We need to find alternative sources of energy (nuclear, solar, tidal?) and soon and we need to be as efficient as we can reasonably be with our current fossil fuel source.
Which brings me to that suggestion. Instead of Exxon et al reporting record profits and snickering that it is going to research, take them out of the equation. Impose a tax on fossil fuel, call it a research incentive tax, that would either be used to fund research projects or even one multibillion dollar pot for whoever finally, I don't know, masters cold fusion with salt water or otherwise frees us of fossil fuels and their merchants around the world. Even truly efficient and cost effective solar would be such a plus.
I don't speak for Dreadnought and others (and I would certainly never say "envirotards", which yeah, that definitely erodes the credibility of all skeptics such as myself), but those who doubt CO2 (oops, no subscript again, I'm so very very sorry!!) as a major pollutant or earth destroying greenhouse supergas do not equate with those who dump environmental toxins at will and who are bent on destroying the planet. And Dreadnought and Windy95, despite my distaste for Limbaughesque echoes and the use of "envirotards", both make excellent points which are being ignored in the rush for mob justice from the "Save The Planet" crowd.
Demonizing CO2 (hooray for subscripts!) is a feel good gesture that as far as the climate is concerned, is almost entirely useless.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 176, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 705 times:
I'll take you at your word, and it's always nice to hear about people caring about the environment and supporting greater investments in R&D for alternative energies, but when it comes to the global warming argument, I haven't seen any compelling support for your theories of conspiracy.
Let's eliminate for a second the radical 10% from both ends of the spectrum (people like Michael Mann, Phil Jones et al. on one end, and people like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen et al. from the other). Those 20% have a vested interest beyond just the science, because they've become (sometimes political) figureheads for their respective sides. That leaves us with the middle 80%, who, for the most part, are just normal people trying to earn a living while doing what they've been trained to do. No ethical issues, no great financial incentive to lie, no nothing. Just your average science nerds. Every metric or study that's been done on the degree of consensus shows that the overwhelming majority of that middle 80% sides more with the Manns and Joneses than the Spencers and Lindzens.
I ask you, who are we to start declaring a massive conspiracy when a sizable majority of people trained to do this work support the basic premises? Is this not why we have scientists, and indeed, science in general? To answer the questions that most people don't have the knowledge/training to figure out themselves.
In this discussion, I really think people need to invoke Occam's razor more. This would, without question, be the single largest conspiracy in human history. Hundreds of thousands of scientists either directly involved in the conspiracy, or duped by their peers, who, generally, can't communicate well with people outside the scientific realm (most people won't argue scientists often struggle to communicate in layman's terms). Are these really the kinds of people who could pull something like this off? It would be a truly global, multi-generational conspiracy.
From among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one (source: Wikipedia)
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 177, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 709 times:
Quoting 4holer (Reply 175): I don't speak for Dreadnought and others (and I would certainly never say "envirotards", which yeah, that definitely erodes the credibility of all skeptics such as myself), but those who doubt CO2 (oops, no subscript again, I'm so very very sorry!!) as a major pollutant or earth destroying greenhouse supergas do not equate with those who dump environmental toxins at will and who are bent on destroying the planet. And Dreadnought and Windy95, despite my distaste for Limbaughesque echoes and the use of "envirotards", both make excellent points which are being ignored in the rush for mob justice from the "Save The Planet" crowd.
I have sworn off the term and now use the term "envirotrendalist".
Quote: One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off
The science was hyped. The book started hitting the bookshops today and has already hit no. 1 on the Amazon.de list for environment books. Indications show that it will climb very high in the overall bestseller charts. It’s published by a renowned publishing house and is now sending shock waves through the German climate science establishment. The first printing will produce 20,000 copies. I expect they will sell out rather quickly.
Today Germany’s national tabloid Bild (which has a whopping circulation of 16 million) devoted half of page 2 on an article called:
THE CO2 LIE
Renowned team of scientists claim the climate catastrophe is fear-mongering by politics“
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 100): Seems to me the vested interests in proving AGW are dwarfed by the vested interests in disproving it. Pretty sure you'd get a few bucks from the oil and coal industries for a start.
The "interests" with the most money to gain/lose in all this are governments. The building evidence is that rising CO2 has little warming effect in real terms regardless of the amount of the gas emitted. That there is a “saturation level”. If that’s true, and indications are it is, then there’s a) no justification for limiting emissions and b) certainly no justification to tax them.
That, of course, is where politics enter the picture. Governments like the idea of literally creating a tax out of thin air, especially given the current financial condition of most states. Consequently, governments are more likely to fund science that supports their desired conclusion – and it seems that in this case there were plenty who were willing to comply (especially, as Patrick J. Michael has noted, when that gravy train amounts to $103 billion in grants).
I'm not saying that we should return to the good old days of smoggy skies, but I will remind everyone that we made huge progress in cleaning up the skies and land over the past several decades without resorting to cap & trade, carbon taxes etc. At that point, we have ceased to have environmental laws which exist to help keep the environment clean, and instead have given governments a way to tax us to death. Government is short on funds? Just tighten the emissions standards to some absurd amount and watch the taxes come in. And if anyon complains, call them "deniers".
[Edited 2012-02-07 11:44:29]
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 178, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 706 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 176): hat leaves us with the middle 80%, who, for the most part, are just normal people trying to earn a living while doing what they've been trained to do. No ethical issues, no great financial incentive to lie, no nothing. Just your average science nerds.
This is what ultimately got me. Forget Al Gore, forget governments, forget those obscure scientists with vested interests (in both sides.) I don't think I've ever seen a study against AGW that wasn't in some way backed by an oil company or something. Fact is, almost all of the research I've seen has been peered reviewed by Joe Scientist. If the AGW conspiracy is that far reaching and convincing (what, 98% of climatologists?) to lie, then we have wayyyyy bigger problems. Like "wow a US government missile strike on the WTC seems feasible now" kind of conspiracies. I doubt governments that can hardly run their economies can orchestrate such a large, multinational conspiracy among climatologists in an effort to sell carbon credits. Aren't there easier ways to rip us off???
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 179, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 700 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 178): Like "wow a US government missile strike on the WTC seems feasible now" kind of conspiracies. I doubt governments that can hardly run their economies can orchestrate such a large, multinational conspiracy among climatologists in an effort to sell carbon credits.
Indeed. It's odd how those who seem to believe the government is so incompetent are also those most likely to believe they are capable of a massive coverup.
They couldn't even keep it a secret that Clinton got a BJ, never mind orchestrating a conspiracy among almost every climatologist in the world.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 180, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 687 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 177): One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist,
Prof. Varenholt does have his merits, but he's not really a "green activist" , and I would not call him "one of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement". He's a chemist who has worked for the Hamburg Senate Committe on Environment among other places, until Shell employed him after the Brent Spar PR-desaster. He is now one of RWE's manager, one of Germany's biggest electric power companies.
I think (not really sure!) he's also a member of EIKE (address: PO Box 110111 in Jena), a pseudoscientific arm of Cfact Europe (PO Box 110111 in Jena), a pressure group 'promoting TRUE environmental protection' opposing pro-environment laws.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 177): He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
No, he has not found "hundreds of errors", because there are only two (or one and a half, depending on how you count errors) which can both be found in "Working Group II Report: 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability'" (900+ pages). The reports of the other two working groups, "The Physical Science Basis" (Working Group 1 - another 900+ pages) do not contain any errors I have ever heard of.
As for "brushed them aside": Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute of Climatology has published excerps of their correspondence, and after reading those it is at least very, very questionable if the climatologists have brushed his arguments away or if it was the other way around. At the very least we can say that Prof. Varenholt wasn't exactly respectful.
To my knowledge, Prof. Varenholt believes that the current warmig is caused by the sun. But he fails to explain, why Earth is warming, but not all the other planets of our solar system. He also fails to explain, why night temperatures are actually faster raising than day temperatures.
He also believes that twice the amount of CO2 would raise the global temperature by only one degree Celsius. But does not fit with the data from various institutes from all around the globe.
Thirdly: he says (publically) Earth would follow a natural cycle and therefore cool down before temperatures will raise again. Prof. Rahmstorf then (publically) offered a bet worth a month's salary which Prof. Varenholt (publically) brushed aside, saying he would "not play 'Find the Lady'"! That wasn't only typically brusque but also smart as it is now clear that Prof. Varenholt would have lost the bet.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 181, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 685 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 177): but I will remind everyone that we made huge progress in cleaning up the skies and land over the past several decades without resorting to cap & trade, carbon taxes etc.
Ah! Not true. Our advances in cleaning up the environment were due to this exact mechanism that you mentioned. It was recognized that industries create negative externalities: they cause costs by polluting the environment, but they will not have to bear the costs themselves, instead the community as a whole will bear them. The solution is to re-internalize these costs, for instance with Pigovian taxes. Cap & trade is simply a very much advanced internalization mechanism. So yes, the progress you mentioned was very much achieved with the tools that you argue against.
GuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 10 Reply 182, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 607 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 135): This right here is what I'm talking about-you clearly have absolutely no understanding of the science, yet espouse it as fact.
Really. So you're claiming plants don't use CO2 to live and grow? Ok. And I have no understanding. I guess all of those on your side who run around spouting the idea of planting more trees and making more green spaces are clueless too. Good to know.
Seriously people. I love how you believers in Global Warming deny everything from false facts, such as polar bears dying off and in reality, their population is growing, to the scandal known as the lies of the email from the Climatic Research Unit, to the fact that these scientist get paid to try to prove global warming, all while forgetting the fact that the earths climate has been changing since day one. Remember, if these scientists suddenly believe global warming is a farce, they are out of a well paying job. But, really, thats not their main interest, right? No.
I will admit, this is one provable type of human caused global warming. And I won't even call it global. I'll call it local, and that's the warming effect that buildings and streets and sidewalks have on downtown areas. Yes, the warming of the day is held in the concrete and asphalt and other surfaces which cool down slowly, and keeping urban areas warmer than normal.
However, there is no real fix for this. Yes, you can plant grass and trees on the tops of the buildings and plant green areas, but the square footage of these areas simply don't make up for the hard surfaces areas. Or, we can build everything underground I guess.
That being said. Does that change the temperature of a farm 50 miles away? Nope. Does it get better if I drive a Smart car instead of a Suburban? Nope. Does it make a difference if we shut off the coal fired plant and use windmills? No.
There is no way of changing peoples mind on this. I look at the past, because history will always tell the future. You want to believe that a small change in a small percent of a certain gas that is a very minimal concentration in the earths atmosphere will cause global warming that will lead to the death of most living animals, devastating floods, destruction, and as some claim, earthquakes and volcanoes? You go right ahead. I'm not buying into the politics of paying more in taxes and fines because Al Gore says so. You can be that fool.
The CURE for Liberalism is COMMON SENSE! GuitrThree you ask? A STAR to BNA I live under! (Now GuitrFour)
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 183, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 582 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): So you're claiming plants don't use CO2 to live and grow?
No, I'm saying that your implication that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will mean a more suitable atmosphere for additional plant growth is categorically false.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): to the fact that these scientist get paid to try to prove global warming,
Let me get this straight, you're using the fact these are paid professionals as a proof of conspiracy?
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): all while forgetting the fact that the earths climate has been changing since day one.
Not a single climate scientist is forgetting that. Only someone who doesn't understand the science or the scientific questions of this discussion could make such a statement.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): Remember, if these scientists suddenly believe global warming is a farce, they are out of a well paying job.
I see where you were going with that statement earlier. Also mind-numbingly wrong. The field of climatology doesn't begin and end with climate change. All of these people will continue to do research, and continue to get research money after it becomes unnecessary to do further research to "prove" the science (never mind the fact science, by its nature, cannot "prove" anything).
"Scientists" who work for oil companies, on the other hand. I wonder what incentive they might have.
Ahh, the good old urban heat island myth again. It should be telling you something that all of these points you bring up are so easy to debunk. It's because they've been used ad infinitum by people like you, and they're just as wrong now as they were when they were first perpetuated.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): I'm not buying into the politics of paying more in taxes and fines because Al Gore says so.
And herein lies the problem (ignoring your obsession with Al Gore for a minute): you don't like the political implications. You don't like that acknowledging a problem means admitting that political policies you've supported are wrong, and need to be changed. Unless of course you really don't care about the future you leave your relatives, in which case, this is all a moot point anyway. My hunch is, if that were the case, you wouldn't spend as much time fighting it as you do (see BMI727's approach). You desperately don't want it to be the case, because then you'd have to reconsider some of your ideologies.
Bottom line, if you don't want such condescension from me and others when you attempt to argue, you'd do well to have a better understanding of what's being argued. Like I said before, you take things that you've heard other people say (Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh etc...), and take them as gospel without using any initiative to find out if they're actually correct.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 184, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 581 times:
Wow. Again, ignore the extremes on each side. I dislike Al Gore as much as you do. Look at the random climatologists that have nothing to gain, what do most of them say? Forget the oil company funded scientists, forget Al Gore and those cap-and-trade-ists, of course you will get biased information. Don't hate one extreme and slip into the other.
And no, more CO2 doesn't equal better plant growth. If "X" is the amount of CO2 the plants currently need to grow and you magically double the amount of CO2 in the air, the plants will still consume only "X"
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 185, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 560 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 184):
And no, more CO2 doesn't equal better plant growth. If "X" is the amount of CO2 the plants currently need to grow and you magically double the amount of CO2 in the air, the plants will still consume only "X"
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1166 posts, RR: 1 Reply 186, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 547 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 123): However, when it comes to splurging on such things as Football games, Times Square at New Years, Las Vegas, and every other energy consuming event happens thats just fine. Really, again, if the earth is going to implode like these people claim it is, then the day I have to be told what temperature my house has to be set at or the smart grid is going to turn my A/C off, is the day we need to cut out all the extra stuff that needs not to happen for us to survive as a human race.
So its all or nothing? Its like saying "Well if I cant drive at 100mph past the school I may as well sell my car"
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145): Once again, I am all for environmental controls, simply because wasteful usage of resources and turning the places where we live into a dump is stupid. But don't feed me some bullsh&t about "saving the environment".
So which is it? saving environment or not? So you don't want trash in your back garden but for someone in bangladesh to have their back garden submerged under the sea is fine?
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): So you're claiming plants don't use CO2 to live and grow?
People need to eat sugars and fats to survive, no sugars and no fats and you will die, however that does not mean the more you eat the more healthy you become.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 187, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 538 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): such as polar bears dying off and in reality, their population is growing
Please prove the population is growing.
The reality is that the total population is poorly known. Of the groups of polar bears that have been followed well enough to tell how they are changing only one is increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. But that is not enough to make firm conclusions.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): Remember, if these scientists suddenly believe global warming is a farce, they are out of a well paying job. But, really, thats not their main interest, right? No
This argument is coming back over and over but it never gets defended. a) Please explain why those scientists wouldn't be able to get well paying jobs with whatever it is decided to research instead. b) Please explain why the same argument does not apply to the scientists founded by the industries who have most to lose.
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): There is no way of changing peoples mind on this.
Isn't there? Seems to me that as time goes by more and more take global warming serious.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 2141 posts, RR: 6 Reply 188, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 529 times:
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): Seriously people. I love how you believers in Global Warming deny everything from false facts, such as polar bears dying off and in reality, their population is growing,
Also the Ice caps are above their combined average and a new study shows no ice melt in the Himalayas. Toss in 10 plus years of no rising temps and 2 plus years of the sea level falling and the whole scam is tumbling down.
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 182): to the scandal known as the lies of the email from the Climatic Research Unit,
The amount of deceit and lies by this group of "scientists" is stunning.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 183): No, I'm saying that your implication that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will mean a more suitable atmosphere for additional plant growth is categorically false.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 189, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 510 times:
Jesus, windy, where the hell do you find these websites?
The difference between you and I is, I know junk science when I see it. Plain and simple. The "evidence" you provide is as shaky as the San Andreas Fault. You continue to cling to absurd "theories" while the best resources you can find supporting them are on websites like plantsneedco2.org. Here's a hint: if you find a website title like that, take it with a bag of salt.
Anyway, thanks for the laugh. I do enjoy your contributions to these discussions, because if this is the best you can do, anyone with a brain can see which side is correct.
Cheers,
Cameron
Edit: I just had to come back and mention one more thing. You know that paper you posted (this one: http://shawnotto.com/downloads/UHI_FINAL.pdf ), it concludes that there is NO UHI! You didn't even bother to read it, did you?! And if you did, you clearly didn't understand it:
-"We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19 ± 0.19 °C/100yr. This is not statistically consistent with prior estimates, but it does verify that the effect is very small, and almost insignificant on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950 in the land average from figure 5A)."
-"The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change"
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 190, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 494 times:
I respect your opinion and hard work, but can you find peer reviewed sources instead? You and I know that the MSM is notoriously untrustworthy, and also, anyone can just make up a site. Maybe your sites have links to peer reviewed material
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 51 Reply 191, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 489 times:
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 453 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 191): the two CO2 website he provided are both being bankrolled by oil companies.
In the interest of scientific rigor I should point out that that in itself does not disqualify them from merit, although naturally it suggests further investigation may be in order. Corporations and interests tend to fund the studies that favor them, but they will still fund those studies if the science turns out to be right. It's dangerous to dismiss studies and sources funded by special interest groups entirely though- they can still tell you something useful if interpreted correctly.
What disqualifies these specific sources from merit is the utter lack of scientific method or credible peer-review evident in them. That's a much better reason to discount them.
(N.B. the one exception is the Telegraph newspaper, which I can tell you from 20 years of reading can be discounted entirely without even passing an eye over it.)
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 193, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 446 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 189):
Edit: rotfl I just had to come back and mention one more thing. You know that paper you posted (this one: http://shawnotto.com/downloads/UHI_FINAL.pdf ), it concludes that there is NO UHI! You didn't even bother to read it, did you?! And if you did, you clearly didn't understand it:
Hahaha, yeah By chance, that was the first link I clicked on, because the URL looked sort of.... you know, legit. Scanned the conclusion, thought "why the hell would he post that?" and after that didn't even check the rest. Windy, you're the gift that keeps on giving..
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1945 posts, RR: 9 Reply 194, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 431 times:
Quoting 4holer (Reply 175): I really try to avoid these threads because they are so frustrating,
Same here but against my better judgement, I'll weigh in on this one.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 188): a new study shows no ice melt in the Himalayas.
allow me to explain. One of the effects of warmer temperatures is increased evaporation from the oceans. That moisture-laden air bumps into a high mountain range such as the Himalaya, rises, cools and dumps it's contents as precipitation. Since the altitudes in the Himalaya are so high, this precip is in the form of snow, which year over year compresses to ice becoming what we call glaciers. And because of increased snowfall (directly resulting from the aforementioned warmer temps) the Himalayan glaciers are indeed advancing. But the vast majority of the world's glaciers are receding or disappearing entirely (see Mt Kiliminjaro or Glacier National Park in the USA). And I don't need some fancy study to tell me that, just my two eyeballs when climbing on Mt Rainier or hiking the Swiss Alps
So is climate change real? Heck yeah. Is it part of a natural cycle or caused by human activity? My guess is a lot of the former and a little of the latter, but I sure wouldn't bet my paycheck on being right. If we could make a difference (don't know if we can or not) I can't see it happening because to have enough of an impact to slow down the trend, we'd have to take some pretty draconian steps and I just can't see the majority of the world buying off on those steps. Of course some brand new technology may come along and radically change the whole paradigm (try Googling "new energy movement" or "free energy" to see some of the more extreme concepts out there) and then all bets are off.
4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2708 posts, RR: 12 Reply 195, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 421 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 194): allow me to explain. One of the effects of warmer temperatures is increased evaporation from the oceans. That moisture-laden air bumps into a high mountain range such as the Himalaya, rises, cools and dumps it's contents as precipitation. Since the altitudes in the Himalaya are so high, this precip is in the form of snow, which year over year compresses to ice becoming what we call glaciers. And because of increased snowfall (directly resulting from the aforementioned warmer temps) the Himalayan glaciers are indeed advancing. But the vast majority of the world's glaciers are receding or disappearing entirely (see Mt Kiliminjaro or Glacier National Park in the USA). And I don't need some fancy study to tell me that, just my two eyeballs when climbing on Mt Rainier or hiking the Swiss Alps
So is climate change real? Heck yeah. Is it part of a natural cycle or caused by human activity? My guess is a lot of the former and a little of the latter, but I sure wouldn't bet my paycheck on being right. If we could make a difference (don't know if we can or not) I can't see it happening because to have enough of an impact to slow down the trend, we'd have to take some pretty draconian steps and I just can't see the majority of the world buying off on those steps. Of course some brand new technology may come along and radically change the whole paradigm (try Googling "new energy movement" or "free energy" to see some of the more extreme concepts out there) and then all bets are off.
Well put. I would also add that to complicate the glacier equation, in some cases (ie, Kilimanjaro) man can indeed cause glacial retreat not thru CO2 emissions but land use change/deforestation and its effect on precipitation and humidity...
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 192): Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 191):the two CO2 website he provided are both being bankrolled by oil companies.
In the interest of scientific rigor I should point out that that in itself does not disqualify them from merit, although naturally it suggests further investigation may be in order. Corporations and interests tend to fund the studies that favor them, but they will still fund those studies if the science turns out to be right. It's dangerous to dismiss studies and sources funded by special interest groups entirely though- they can still tell you something useful if interpreted correctly.
Thank you for mentioning this. I was thinking about this today. Science is either valid or it is not.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 7589 posts, 
, 5640 posts, 
From Romania, joined Feb 2007, 1177 posts, 
But you're right, it is screwed up, where's all my snow in Chicago in January? We've barely had 10 inches. I think it's because our weathermen are global warming deniers. No, that's definitely it.
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 1639 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 2766 posts, 
From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 2141 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, 
Sorry, but if you want to lecture people, please do get at least some facts right.
From Grenada, joined May 2001, 5029 posts, 
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that, simply because there's much bigger fish to fry. Believe it or not, most environmentalists aren't out there trying to destroy every facet of your life. Most of us aren't suggesting we all go live off the grid in tents. I know that's hard for you to grasp, since you've already decided they don't align with your political beliefs, and have sought out to sensationalize them with the hopes of discrediting them. 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2522 posts, 
Get a grip.
I just had to come back and mention one more thing. You know that paper you posted (this one: 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1945 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
