PDA

View Full Version : Shocking news: Climate data altered to fit agenda



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

mattclary
12-12-2007, 08:11 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Accuses+IPCC+of+Falsifying+ Data/article9978.htm

jin choung
12-12-2007, 08:25 PM
meh,

bush's administration has been accused of doing all kinds of dubious number manipulation too. seems every side is accusing the other side of crooked weights and measures and villainous strategems and conspiracy.

so in a sea of false numbers, how does the ledger of reality actually balance out?

how can you know?

certainly not based on that link alone....

jin

jin choung
12-12-2007, 09:02 PM
and to add to the confusion:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_sc/arctic_melt

again, my point being, as a layman, how would YOU know. how would I know - if conspirators are breathing together?

jin

prospector
12-12-2007, 10:24 PM
Easy to tell
wherever the money goes, is the problem
If UN says it's so...it ain't

ted
12-12-2007, 10:52 PM
As you say Jin, that's why it's stupid to allow the "Chicken Little, the sky is falling" idiots force all sorts of damaging economic and social regulations on us. :thumbsdow

Slow, rational decisions need to be made. Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s being handled now.
I wish us all luck!

jin choung
12-13-2007, 12:43 AM
As you say Jin, that's why it's stupid to allow the "Chicken Little, the sky is falling" idiots force all sorts of damaging economic and social regulations on us. :thumbsdow

other side of that is - what if the sky really IS falling?

again, as a layman, you can't say. neither can i.

my point is that on technical issues like this, we (the laity) may as well be cattle for all the validity our opinions have.

and being driven by VESTED INTERESTS doesn't make our opinions MORE likely to be true.

if anything, it makes it LESS.... (i.e. conflict of interest)

you are of the opinion that slow and steady wins the race. you don't have any good reason to believe that. that is, you're not a scientist (in a field where evidently scientists can be in contention - i heard a story as well [on NPR of all places] where scientists related that they were being railroaded into saying climate points that they disagreed with).

i am not a scientist. we are not scientists.

my point is, even if you i us ran into the truth, how would YOU I US know? we can't.

like asking monkeys (or even the man on the street) if e=mc^2 holds water....

the proper, honest answer to MOST questions is "i don't know".

jin

DogBoy
12-13-2007, 02:00 AM
Easy to tell
wherever the money goes, is the problem
If UN says it's so...it ain't

You could say the same about the US administration. Your statement means nothing.
I'm with Jin, we don't know the truth of the matter, but I'd err on the side of caution.

inkpen3d
12-13-2007, 06:49 AM
I just wanted to bring to your collective attention the following BBC article on melting of the arctic ice sheet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm). In particular, click on the graphic "Arctic ice in retreat" two thirds of the way down the page where you can step through the area of ice coverage for the years 1980 to 2007 - it tells it's own story!

Okay, sea ice melt is not in itself going to contribute to increases in sea level, but you have to keep in mind that the Greenland ice sheet adjacent to this arctic ice is currently undergoing a massive increase in its rate of melting with huge surges in glacial outflow into the surrounding seas. If the Greenland ice sheet collapses, sea levels will rise by between 6 and 7 metres (see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4720536.stm). And, of course, there's a similar situation occurring with the antarctic ice sheets.

archijam
12-13-2007, 06:55 AM
Shocking news: People exagerate, cheat and even lie!

That does not make the subject matter irrelevant, untrue, or less troubling ...

Smoking kills. Guess how many false alarms, botched experiments and false data it took before they actually proved it?

j.

creativecontrol
12-13-2007, 07:02 AM
Of course it's all crap designed to make money for someone.

20 years ago the world was getting colder and everyone was scared the glaciers were going to overtake us.

It's just a popular band wagon right now.

I live in Canada. I run my car day and night trying to warm the world up :)

It's not working. This is the coldest winter in years.

Elmar Moelzer
12-13-2007, 07:31 AM
I think it is really hard for anyone to come to a good conclusion here.
There are many factors that play into global climate. Menkind is only one of them, the others are the "normal" way things go on this planet.
If you read up on ice ages and climate changes in history you can see that things have always been in motion.
Also, it is interesting to know that there is actually way less CO2 in the atmosphere than people generally think there is (it is only 0.038%).
Now of course this still contributes to the greenhouse effect, but it is nevertheless worth mentioning.
Some people say that if the ice shores break off the arctic ice and float southwards (they can be the size of Austria) they actually create an albedo effect that causes water to rain off as snow above them, increasing the wite area and making it actually colder... It might also affect the big streams of warm water in the oceans and make them colder too.
In addition to this, volcanic activity can cause lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to be released into the air. This can lead to both local and global climate effects.
I am not saying that one side is right and the other wrong, but I am saying that it is currently very hard to predict anything (especially for the general public), due to the complexity of the system and the huge amount of factors contributing to it.
CU
Elmar

mattclary
12-13-2007, 07:45 AM
Doesn't it make sense to figure out a baseline of where we SHOULD be at before we panic about where we are or where we are headed?

Regardless of what man is doing, can someone please tell me what the ideal climate is on this graph, and how long they expect we would be able to stay at that climate?

What if we were due for another ice age? That would be much worse than getting warmer.

The problem is, concern for climate change has become the religion (http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm) of those "too smart" to believe in a god.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

inkpen3d
12-13-2007, 08:17 AM
It's just a popular band wagon right now.

Well, ever since before I started my science degree course at university back in 1974, I've been following developments in the global warming debate - so it's by no means something new.

Why it appears to be a "popular band wagon" right now is because, almost at the last minute when it's too late, politicians, industry, the media, and the general public have suddenly woken up to the fact that something big is actually starting to happen and it can no longer be ignored. They can no longer bury their collective heads in the sand and pretend that the world is going to continue as it has always done so in the recent past (i.e. the last few thousand years).

People at the individual and the group level don't like change and are very resistant to it. They will do their utmost to deny that change is actually happening, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which, I am sad to say, there now is regarding CO2 emission based climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels.

There are various lobby groups (e.g. the oil, coal, and automobile industries to name but a few) that have a vested interest in casting doubt and disseminating misinformation on the subject of climate change - obviously because they want to protect their profits. They will try every trick in the book to pull the wool over the eyes of politicians and the general public who are largely ignorant of the facts.

Unfortunately, for everyone on this planet, there is now overwhelming evidence that a significant warming of the climate is in progress right now and that it is happening a lot faster and a lot sooner than even climatologists previously thought just a five years ago.

So, yes, you should be very worried indeed, because significant changes to the climate will occur well within in your lifetime and will have a major impact on food supply, health, and the geo-political stability of the world in which you live.

Verlon
12-13-2007, 08:19 AM
It gets back to the three basic kinds of liars in the world:
men, women, and statistics. Any one of them can be manipulated into saying what you want.

The knowledge, as Jin points out is so specialized and covers so much area, that I doubt ANYONE could know all of it. I think a large number of scientists are merely finding what they seek... If they are looking for alarming climate change numbers, they find them. If they seek 'everything is ok' numbers, the find those instead.

One side says the other has their head in the sand. The other side says the first guys are a bunch of 'chicken littles.' The truth is probably somewhere in between, but hard to say where exactly.

As I write this, I am searching for a more fuel efficient car not to reduce CO2 emmisions, but to reduce USD emmisions from my bank account.

THAT is environmental policy I understand. I use recylcle bins because they aren't much extra trouble. I don't drive all over town trying to recycle, and wonder about the overall efficiency of those that do.

Andyjaggy
12-13-2007, 08:25 AM
That's why you do as much research on both sides of any issue and then make a somewhat educated decision based on your research and gut instinct instead of just blindly believing everything you read or hear.

inkpen3d
12-13-2007, 08:36 AM
Regardless of what man is doing, can someone please tell me what the ideal climate is on this graph, and how long they expect we would be able to stay at that climate?

There is no "ideal" climate. We currently live in an interglacial period which started about 10,000 years ago. The "ideal" average temperature in our current context would be the one that which has existed for the past couple of thousands of years (even then there have been minor variations) during which time our current levels of civilisation have developed and flourished.

What is about to happen is a significant and rapid rise in average world temperature and it is this change that is going to have an impact world wide - not only on human civilisation, but also on plants and animals (many of which will be driven to extinction). Unfortunately, if the change is too rapid, neither human society, plants, or animals will be able to handle the transition unscathed.

gerry_g
12-13-2007, 08:38 AM
Gut instinct is all well and good but people had a hard time believing the world was anything other than flat once – "what do you mean its round, we'd all just roll of the sides" -

inkpen3d
12-13-2007, 10:14 AM
And hot off the press....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm

Exception
12-13-2007, 10:21 AM
It remains hilarious how conservative, uninformed and corrupted some areas of the world and some people are.
Global climate change has been accepted in places where it matters, whether some individuals that sit on their couch and flick through fox and cnn news channels like it or not. The more corrupted the place, the least likely for anyone to be able to have a decent conversation about this.

And it's so funny that some of these people in these particular places keep hammering away that it's all a scheme that would cost them money and is designed to pull their dollars out of their pockets. Me, mine, myself... it's impossible to even start arguing about such hopelessly uneducated, selfish, egocentric and simplistic fallacies. And it's always the same predictable ones.

Glendalough
12-13-2007, 10:25 AM
You guys who don't believe in Global Warming are just so wrong it's not even funny! Come back to this thread in 6 months or a year.

The latest NASA info says the arctic ice could melt completely in the summer of 2012, four years from now! Last year it was 2040 and the year before it was maybe not going to happen.

Glendalough
12-13-2007, 10:29 AM
This is on Fox News of all places which until recently denied any of this was happening at all.

"Scientists: 'Arctic Is Screaming,' Global Warming May Have Passed Tipping Point"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316501,00.html

inkpen3d
12-13-2007, 10:32 AM
The latest NASA info says the arctic ice could melt completely in the summer of 2012, four years from now! Last year it was 2040 and the year before it was maybe not going to happen.

If you carefully read this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
Professor Maslowski is quoted as saying:

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

This implies that even 2012 is looking rather optimistic and we could have an ice free arctic ocean before then!

hrgiger
12-13-2007, 11:35 AM
All I can say is, I hope Ohio is far enough inland...

Exception
12-13-2007, 12:42 PM
Doesn't it make sense to figure out a baseline of where we SHOULD be at before we panic about where we are or where we are headed?

Yes, it does, and people have.
Again, really, does anyone think that they can criticize the majority of the scientific research on this from their living room couch without doing actual research themselves?


Regardless of what man is doing, can someone please tell me what the ideal climate is on this graph, and how long they expect we would be able to stay at that climate?

No, and the reason that nobody can't is that the question itself is irrelevant. It is not and has never been about the direction of change (colder, warmer, whatever), but it is about the RATE of change. In most cases. But sometimes not. And why so confusing:? because it's complex. Not simple. Not one graph, not one PDF (and not one powerpoint presentation either).


What if we were due for another ice age? That would be much worse than getting warmer.

We are. In some places. Again, for the umpteenth time, global climate change is a collection of theories that deal with the (too) rapid transformation of the weather systems of our world, leading to permanent disruption of local climates, turbulent periods of weather conditions accompanied with natural disasters, and changes that are too fast for eco systems to adapt. So, it will get colder in some, and hotter in others. some places will see rising water levels, some will see lowering of them (kaspian sea etc). And so on.



The problem is, concern for climate change of those "too smart" to believe in a god.

No, the problem is too many cooks that don't know how to cook in the kitchen. Mankind has been trying to predict the weather on a local scale for eons, and it's a notoriously hard thing to do. We're reasonably good at it in terms of trends and larger scale development, but it's still an immensely complicated task. What makes anyone think they can criticize this without doing the actual research themselves is beyond me.

jin choung
12-13-2007, 01:42 PM
for all of you who feel passionately about this issue, my point is this:

"you're a moron"

not really but i wanted to get your attention.

my point is that you really don't know enough to say one way or the other. you believe what others have said but in a debate where reputable scientists are in argument, how can you weigh in?

clary,

so what do people who believe in God believe about the environment? that armageddon is just gonna wipe it all away anyway right?

jin

prospector
12-13-2007, 02:21 PM
So where is the 'written in stone' truth that humankind is causing anything?
And if there is none (which I haven't seen yet), why are people trying to steal my money to 'fix' something that we have no control over?

As for Greenland ice melt...do the math!!
Total world ocean coverage...361 million sq. kilometers
Iceland ice coverage (not counting water floating ice which does absolutly nothing to raise sea levels as it's already displaced it's weight) is 1,740,000 sq kilometers.

world coverage...wikapedia
greenland...latest reading 1998 Encylopedia Britannica


If you took the complete pile of ice and threw it in the ocean it wouldn't cover it
If you could slice the thickness in half and double the coverage it still wouldn't cover it.
Slice in half again, and still no coverage.
to reach 361 sq kilometers, you'd have to slice the thickness of the complete greenland ice pack 12 times to get the same coverage as the worlds oceans.
to a thickness of .005 kilometers.
a kilometer is 3280 feet thick (or long)
so .005 of a kilometer is 16 feet

A very very far cry from all the 'sky is falling' people

And that's if every drop went into the oceans and no inland seas, lakes, ponds, puddles formed ON greenland and held some of the water on land.
And because some drill cores went 3 km to bedrock ice and some went to 4.3 km deep, that shows there are large basins (1.3 km deep) that will hold water on land never to enter the sea.
So actual rise of oceans will be less than 16 feet.

Hopper
12-13-2007, 05:21 PM
Bah ... "Something" will happen, the world's population will wake up and make it all better, then just as everything is wonderful - we'll get nailed by giant space rock the size of Australia.

Not being pessimistic or anything... the glass is neither half empty nor half full. Any idiot can see that the glass is simply the wrong size. :D

warrenwc
12-13-2007, 06:23 PM
Not so long ago, there were lots of fertile farms in Greenland.
The Earth's climate is constantly changing & I for one doubt we can PURPOSELY
Alter it's course.
IF we have affected it, we have done so inadvertently & NO ONE knows which way it is going until it gets there.
Just MHO.:)

jin choung
12-13-2007, 07:28 PM
oh come on,

you don't believe in "nuclear winter"? we can totally change the climate if we really wanted to.

heck, terraforming as a concept DEPENDS on that ability.

jin

p.s. always thought nuclear winter is one way of combatting global warming. lots of conventional weapons that yield blasts comparable to smaller nukes.

we just need to agree on a big chunk of dirt to blow into the stratosphere and we're set. fyi, i have my opinions on what real estate belongs up there....

jcupp
12-13-2007, 07:33 PM
You guys who don't believe in Global Warming are just so wrong it's not even funny! Come back to this thread in 6 months or a year.

The latest NASA info says the arctic ice could melt completely in the summer of 2012, four years from now! Last year it was 2040 and the year before it was maybe not going to happen.

See Coming Ice Age
See No More Oil (round 1)
See Silent Spring
See Population Bomb
See Alar on the Apples
See Nuclear Holocaust
See Hole in the Ozone

Every few years someone comes up with some new thing That Is Going To Kill Us All(TM). The global warming "science" is so bad as to be laughable.

jin choung
12-13-2007, 08:16 PM
again, the honest position is one of "i don't know".

smugness in regards to things you don't know is stupidity.

jin

faulknermano
12-13-2007, 08:39 PM
but I'd err on the side of caution.

ditto on that, sir.

prospector
12-13-2007, 11:26 PM
i have my opinions on what real estate belongs up there....
you have opinions
I have volunteers

San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego
Chicago
Hollywood (they make better shows from Canada)
And possibly all of Broward county.

I figure 3 MOABs in each, then when the dust clears the land (after filling in the holes) are still usable for something.

ted
12-14-2007, 12:59 AM
Every few years someone comes up with some new thing That Is Going To Kill Us All(TM). The global warming "science" is so bad as to be laughable.

It would be laughable if we didn't constantly have the fanatics forcing damaging economic and social changes down out throats!

I'm not saying there is no global warming going on, just that we aren't going to change how the solar system changes and sun flares happen.
We aren't as smart as the solar system is powerful

Go ahead guys, have fun with that. I'm sure you think you're that significant.

jin choung
12-14-2007, 01:14 AM
It would be laughable if we didn't constantly have the fanatics forcing damaging economic and social changes down out throats!

I'm not saying there is no global warming going on, just that we aren't going to change how the solar system changes and sun flares happen.
We aren't as smart as the solar system is powerful

Go ahead guys, have fun with that. I'm sure you think you're that significant.

but you don't know enough about the issue to say jack about the matter.

also, the issue at hand is planetary. not solar system. unless you're saying that solar flares are the primary cause of global warming?

also, "we're not as smart" - yet. in 100 years we went from horse drawn buggies to super computers. imagine if humanity exists for another 100. howabout another 1000? just imagine 1000 more years of progress.

given enough time, we WILL be lords over all we survey.

jin

inkpen3d
12-14-2007, 06:49 AM
As for Greenland ice melt...do the math!!

Actually prospector I have just checked over your maths and you have got the calculation totally wrong!

Using your own figures for the surface area of the oceans (361 million square kilometres) and the ice coverage of Greenland (1.74 million square kilometres) and also taking your minimum figure for the ice thickness of 3km we can work out what the sea level rise would be if this volume of ice when melted were to be evenly distributed over the surface of the worlds oceans (neglecting the small decrease in volume that results when a given volume of ice turns to water):

Total volume of Greenland ice sheet, Vi = ice surface area x ice thickness
= 1.74 x 3 million cubic kilometres
therefore Vi = 5.22 million cubic kilometres

Depth of ice sheet melt water if distributed evenly over worlds oceans:
d = Vi / ocean surface area
therefore d = 5.22 / 361 = 0.01446 km

In other words about 14.5m (which in old fashion feet and inches is over 47 feet).

Using a more conservative figure for the average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet of 1.5km, the actual sea level rise if all this ice were to melt would be in the order of 7.25m (i.e. over 23 feet) and this figure agrees well with the those quoted in the articles I previously referenced in this thread.

Regards
Peter

Thomas M.
12-14-2007, 07:17 AM
As you say Jin, that's why it's stupid to allow the "Chicken Little, the sky is falling" idiots force all sorts of damaging economic and social regulations on us. :thumbsdow

Slow, rational decisions need to be made. Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s being handled now.
I wish us all luck!

Could there be anything slower than the effort of the current Bush administration to do something about the unbelievable amount of CO2 the U.S.A. produce? On the contrary, they try to stop any initiative to save this planet.

Ice ages come and go, so do some species on the earth, but never before at this pace. Nature will not be able to adopt at the current speed of climate changes. And we are a part of nature.

I wish us all luck when we are chewing coins and bank notes as the economic is coming along greatly, but not our food.

Cheers
Thomas

Verlon
12-14-2007, 07:25 AM
oh come on,

you don't believe in "nuclear winter"? we can totally change the climate if we really wanted to.

heck, terraforming as a concept DEPENDS on that ability.

jin

p.s. always thought nuclear winter is one way of combatting global warming. lots of conventional weapons that yield blasts comparable to smaller nukes.

we just need to agree on a big chunk of dirt to blow into the stratosphere and we're set. fyi, i have my opinions on what real estate belongs up there....


Actually read some stuff years ago by reputable scientists saying we didn't have anything NEAR a solid foundation for the concept of nuclear winter, but no one wanted to argue it because it would be like arguing FOR nuclear war....and no one wanted to be on THAT side.

*Pete*
12-14-2007, 08:12 AM
no matter if the sealevel would rise 5 or 14.5 meters..it would be a disaster in either case.

someone should count how much of worldpopulation are living at over 5 meter from the current sealevel, or 14.5 meters over the sealevel.
I know that for example Holland/Netherland, is mainly at sealevel and will sink under the rising sea far before it rises even to 5 meters, not to mention places like India and such.

Think of hurricane catarina, it sank New Orleans with the current sealevel, with 5-14.5 meter higher sealevel theres very few dry places on the planet.
I live safely in mountaineus Norway, you are all wellcome to visit me at my "beach apartment" and tie your boat to my balcony if you wish to...ill get the best of all of this...i get what everyone wants, better and warmer weather and to get to live by the beach. ;)
but thats in the future...now the weather sucks and the beach is...about 2 km away.

prospector
12-14-2007, 10:01 AM
inkpen3d

taking your minimum figure for the ice thickness
Not min depth...drill core depth....not min thickness of ice on greenland proper.
also NOT cubic....distance...not the same measurement

Also the 3 KM and 4.3 KM drillings show that there is some kind of basin tht would produce some sort and size of inland sea that could be figured out if I had a topo radar map of dirt depth under ice. And after figuring volume of water held in that basin, it could be removed from the numbers and forgotten about (it wouldn't go into the worlds oceans and becomes irrelevant) thereby decreasing even further the rise in water level.
But quite frankly, it's not worth the money spent to map it and figure it out.


Thomas M.


Ice ages come and go, so do some species on the earth, but never before at this pace
Acording to every theory of mass extinctions, (and there have been 5), they were quite quick.
If the asteroid theory is true then dinos died off in a matter of a few years.
Asteroid hits, dust blocks sun, most plants die within 2 years, no sunlight, no growth, most plant eating dinos then die within 1 year, starving to death, then meat eaters die when no carcasses of other dinos are left to eat, starving to death. They can't last hundreds of years with nothing to eat.
The iridium layers between mass extinctions are only a few years worth of time in thickness.
And then there is the extinction of the mastadons...found with mouthfulls of clover. Either they were all killed by some alien deathray or all had heart attacks in mid chew, or climate change was so quick they had no chance to move. Pick a theory you like best.

Either way, if they were eating clover, then not too long ago there was no ice there at all and greenland was ice free.
We are just going back to what it was like before (the cycle thingy) and we as humans can do nothing to change weather on a planetary scale. We are not that important in the big scheme of things.

inkpen3d
12-14-2007, 10:49 AM
Not min depth...drill core depth....not min thickness of ice on greenland proper.
Yes, I knew exactly what you were referring to in your original post, and I didn't say it was the minimum thickness of the ice sheet - just the minimum figure that you had quoted and which I assumed you had used in your own calculations!


also NOT cubic....distance...not the same measurement

I think you must be referring to the line "= 1.74 x 3 million cubic kilometres". Here we are multiplying an area (1.74 x 10^6 sq km) by a distance (3km) to obtain a volume (5.22 x 10^6 cubic km, or 5.22 million cubic km). I was not saying that it was 3 million cubic km, rather that the result of the multiplication would be in units of millions of cubic kilometers!

ted
12-14-2007, 11:16 AM
Did we not have oceans covering what are now deserts and visa-verse? Have we not had continents merge and separate?

And all this was before man, was it not?
We would be much wiser to adapt to the changes then to think we are smart enough to avoid it. Like move away from the waters edge. :)
All I'm saying is we need to be rational and not let the fanatics run wild.

Glendalough
12-14-2007, 12:36 PM
It would be laughable if we didn't constantly have the fanatics forcing damaging economic and social changes down out throats!

Who says there's going to be economic Hoo-Haa. Another flat earth preconception. Say if GM had been regulated to build high miles per gallon cars, maybe they wouldn't be going out of business now.

Say if the airlines hadn't been deregulated maybe there would have been no 9/11 with more staff on board. In the old days even people with guns on board had been overpowered. The last long haul flight I was on, there seemed to be less than 10 staff including the pilots.

These big corporations are just slobs even by their own admissions, that's the nature of their business, and like other slobs they need to be controlled. They can't even formulate what is in their own greedy best interests.

Don't know why people want to surrender everything they have and more (if they have children) on the alter of unproven and silly economic theories. And each year all classes of Americans just get poorer in the real intrinsic value of goods, services and income, the standard of living just keeps going down.

Signal to Noise
12-14-2007, 01:00 PM
So....how about those edge tools?

Matt
12-14-2007, 01:09 PM
My 2 Cents: Where all doomed and gonna die! Enjoy it while you can!

:D

prospector
12-14-2007, 02:49 PM
and I didn't say it was the minimum thickness of the ice sheet
Yep, ya did.....3rd line down

Which is how, global warming rumors get started..:D

prospector
12-14-2007, 02:52 PM
the standard of living just keeps going down.
nah, just means ya have to look harder for tax loopholes.

prospector
12-14-2007, 02:55 PM
And Matt is right, there is nothing here that was here when earth formed.
everything goes extinct. Just sit back and enjoy the ride while it lasts. There will be some other species to take your place.
Just quit making me spend money on stuff I don't want!!!!!
I don't want a go-cart for a car.....

Thomas M.
12-14-2007, 02:59 PM
You may be right, Prospector, but this time it our own fault and we are responsible, not some asteroid. That's what makes me sick. It's not happening by some accident or because the earth is moving differently through space. It's because of some greedy bastards, billions who don't care and Pentium ships using to much energy!

Cheers
Thomas

Andyjaggy
12-14-2007, 04:04 PM
Well according to recent papers I have read cows are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

I guess humans aren't to blame, although without us there would be far less cows, sooooooo, I guess it's still our fault.

inkpen3d
12-14-2007, 05:14 PM
Yep, ya did.....3rd line down

Which is how, global warming rumors get started..:D

Oh dear, semantics!

What I wrote was "and also taking your minimum figure for the ice thickness of 3km" meaning the minimum of the two values you supplied of 3km and 4.3km. If I had meant that this was the minimum thickness of the ice sheet I would have instead said "and also taking your figure for the minimum ice thickness of 3km". There's a subtle difference, which obviously got lost in translation. :D

Anyway, it's all hot air (pun intended) as we'll either get hit by asteroid 1999 AN10 in 2039, or get struck down by a H5N1 type bird flu pandemic, or get fried by a huge solar mass ejection, or irradiated by a nearby supernova, or the Yellowstone National Park super volcano erupting, or . . . ;)

shrox
12-14-2007, 05:32 PM
The sky is indeed falling, it will crush us, and in the process reveal a new sky, that will one day fall on those that will dwell beneath it.

RonGC
12-14-2007, 05:49 PM
Even if there is no global warming, we would still benefit by stopping our dumping of crap into our air, water and food supply.

Ron

parm
12-14-2007, 06:10 PM
All I'm saying is we need to be rational and not let the fanatics run wild.

Who are the fanatics?

The most rational course of action, in the circumstances. Would be, that we act with some restraint. When it comes to activities that impact on the environment.

The climate and ecosystems of our planet are very complex, and not well understood. So, yes. The consequences may not be as bad as predicted. But equally they could be much worse and more rapid than expected.

prospector
12-14-2007, 06:17 PM
although without us there would be far less cows,
But we ARE saving the planet then.
Because without us there would be millions and millions of Buffalo and as they are bigger, they release more gas.
Like an 18 wheeler and a volkswagon....
So I look at the good side of the equation.
Many humans = less buffalo = less gas = less warming
Many humans = more roads and parking lots = less erosion
Many humans = more cars = more need for oil = less oil in ground polluting it

OHHH, first car analogy :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

aurora
12-14-2007, 06:44 PM
The beauty (in a majorly grotesque way) is you can prove anything you want with statistics. Using the exact same data I can prove then A is better then B or that B is better then A, trust me I have been stuck in this every dilemma reporting test results to the FDA, EPA and other agencies.

The end answer regardless is that we are screwing things up, end of discussion. I have no idea when was the last time I saw perfectly clear skies even in the depth of the Colorado rockies. Even if the climate was not changing, which it is, it does act as a great fulcrum to get us to take responsibility of the mess we have made and fix our dear planet before so many SciFi movies become bedtime dreams instead of nightmares!

parm
12-14-2007, 06:49 PM
Well according to recent papers I have read cows are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

I guess humans aren't to blame, although without us there would be far less cows, sooooooo, I guess it's still our fault.

That's a perfect illustration of the predicament we find ourselves in :)

No one wants to be deprived of deep fried steaks and burgers. Right:thumbsup:

If you're worried about Methane as a greenhouse gas. You're right to be. It's about 20 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat.

Never mind Cows. There's an estimated 70 billion tonnes of it. Trapped in the permafrost of Siberia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1). And do you know what? About six years ago the permafrost started melting. After 11000 years of solid ice. Global warming is making it melt. Thus releasing Methane that causes more warming and faster melting. Siberia is set to become a 360 000 square mile shallow lake. And the Earth, a lot hotter than expected, a lot sooner.

I'd say delaying that a bit longer. Is worth dialing it back a bit on the CO2 emissions.

jin choung
12-14-2007, 10:35 PM
just a reminder:

HAVING SOMETHING AT STAKE DOES NOT MAKE YOU M O R E RELIABLE!

here is the defective thought process:

1. i have something to gain or lose.
2. THEREFORE, i'm going to think of a good way to rationalize a position that best advances my interest.

NOTE: there is no essential connection with truth or facts. the driving force is self interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ex. 1. a reader wrote into time or newsweek a few weeks ago. they went on this big tirade about how none of the writers opposing the war had children in the war. he did.

the implication being that (somehow) because he did, his position on the war was more... accurate?!?!? instead of more invested and less likely to see the big picture....

ex. 2. ex cia guy has been talking recently about waterboarding. he thinks it's torture NOW. interviewer asked him, why didn't you think it was torture before?

HIS ANSWER: we were scared and we REALLY NEEDED IT.

!!! his answer to why it wasn't torture was - "we needed it"!!!

and because of cognitive dissonance, it was somehow impossible for him to think then or say NOW that, yes, it's torture and we tortured because we needed to.

why can't the u.s. say something like, we need to, so we're gonna torture? and instead do all these acrobatics to say "we're not torturing"....

truth is THAT difficult to attain.... disgusting.

but it's a perfect example of how TRUTH itself is actually irrelevant to most people.

it's NOT about truth or facts or accuracy.

it's about MY CAUSE. MY GOOD. MY INTERESTS. and reshaping reality to be congruent.

the mind boggling thing to me is that people can't be honest. they can't simply say "something against my interest" is true but it's against my interest so i'm still gonna go against it. they have to create a lie to live with themselves.

ugh.

jin

jin choung
12-14-2007, 10:39 PM
The sky is indeed falling, it will crush us, and in the process reveal a new sky, that will one day fall on those that will dwell beneath it.

this is actually a good point.

THE EARTH DOESN'T NEED PROTECTING.

there WILL be a new sky. life will return to the earth. equilibrium will once again be attained.

it is the MOST DISINGENUOUS thing in the world to say that we are protecting the earth.

ecology is ESSENTIALLY for and about OUR OWN WELFARE. no altruism here.

after the cataclysmic event that wiped out the dominant life forms on the planet, the earth recovered and life thrived.

even if we "destroy the earth" it will bounce back. but like the dinosaurs, WE won't.

jin

meshpig
12-14-2007, 11:55 PM
I tend to agree with the notion that we are at the mercy of how the science is promulgated.

It's hugely complex but if you look at something like Abortion and it's opponents, science doesn't actually provide the ethical argument.

I guess all you can say is it took the better part of 100 years for science to prevail, but really it's common sense.


I like to think of the problem in terms of comparing public drinking fountains and "private" plastic drink bottles. With the former, the "State" piped water into public places... and the latter; the "State" permits Nestle to pipe free water into a plant and sell it for $3.

The "environment" in my mind is man-industry-nature.

M

*Pete*
12-15-2007, 02:42 AM
Jin, well said.

a little more than a hundred years ago, the smog was a killer in England...named fittingly as a mix of smoke and fog.
when it came for the first time, it was like a thick, badly smelling yellow fog that stayed for 3-4 days in London before going away...short time after the "results" were discovered...the deathrate in London had increased 400% during those few days.

Smog was the result of burning coal, for everything..industry, heating, what ever.
Soon after the connection between coal, smog and the increased deathrates were established the usage of coal was severely limited, the smog dissappeared for ever and the deathrate returned to normal.

i quess we were more responsible back then, a hundred years ago.


when nuclear weapons still were a fresh invention, both in USA and Sovjet soldiers practised attacking/defending at ground zero hours after the detonation of a nuke, the ground was still hot and the radiation was extreme...naturally, radiation was unheard of back then and all those soldiers died relatively soon after the incident, from sickeneses or diceases connected to radiation.

well...we learned from it, that is why nobody wants to use nukes today...i quess, back then, in the 1950's we were smarter than today.

today, we are facing a human footprint on the planet of a scale we never seen before, its huge and highly damaging, 99% of the scientists agree that we are playing a major part on the global heating, but still a large part of human population (australia, usa and china to name a few) choose to believe the 1% who say that this is not the case.

now, at the year of 2007, soon 2008, we are unable and not even willing to let go, or decrease our living standards untill the global heating will smack us in the face the same way as the smog and nuclear radiation did in the past.
we deserve a Katarina to sink New Orleans, we deserve rising Oceans to sink a large percentage of populated land...becouse sometimes, people have to feel the pain before understanding anything.
and what is even more stupid with all this denial and the "it will cost money/jobs) mentality, is that it is so incorrect as it can be...jobs will not be lost, jobs will be replaced..money will not be lost, money will be invested.

If your keyboard is not made of plastic, but of wood instead, or even metal..what have we lost?..nothing at all, but nature has gained (more headache for prospector if his keyboard is made of steel, but atleast the keyboard will be more durable and last his lifetime:thumbsup: ).

*Pete*
12-15-2007, 02:50 AM
..nothing...babbling removed.

JBT27
12-15-2007, 05:24 AM
this is actually a good point.

THE EARTH DOESN'T NEED PROTECTING.

there WILL be a new sky. life will return to the earth. equilibrium will once again be attained.

it is the MOST DISINGENUOUS thing in the world to say that we are protecting the earth.

ecology is ESSENTIALLY for and about OUR OWN WELFARE. no altruism here.

after the cataclysmic event that wiped out the dominant life forms on the planet, the earth recovered and life thrived.

even if we "destroy the earth" it will bounce back. but like the dinosaurs, WE won't.

jin

Jin writes alot of good stuff and sense in this thread - or rather, I have enjoyed reading it and appreciate the comments.....on the other hand, who the hell am I to say that Jin writes alot of sense? :) I don't know - I have no science background, I don't have the knowledge to assimilate enough facts from enough disciplines to make a valid interpretation, and I certainly could not do my own original research. And there's another problem with that: life's too short to be THAT smart, if 'smart' is the right word.

Which is where specialism comes in, and there is the root of it - it takes an awful lot of lifetimes to discover stuff, some unwittingly researching 'blind-alleys' decade after decade, others looking for something but finding something else that turns out to be ground-breaking. But all the way through, it's largely been about vested-interest.....it always is, at all levels, and until that changes, until the truth is regarded as sacrosanct and genuinely the most useful trigger for understanding and maybe resolving something, I'd say we are all well and truly stuffed :D

But then not for nothing is there that old saying that "The truth hurts." But then that applies to the secretive government justifying that the common good would be damaged by the truth, as well as the individual trying to hide something, who could be personally ruined if that truth leaked out. Tough call.

Julian.

jcupp
12-15-2007, 10:57 AM
Jin, well said.


...99% of the scientists agree that we are playing a major part on the global heating...

When was the last time an academic got a grant to debunk global warming? Follow the money. At one time 99% of scientists agreed that the sun (along with the rest of the universe) orbited the Earth. I'm just sayin.

A couple of interesting sites:

A humorous survey of temperature monitoring stations (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7.2)

General Debunking (http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html)

Exception
12-15-2007, 11:10 AM
When was the last time an academic got a grant to debunk global warming?

Ha, that's so rediculous.
A real scientist doesn't propose debunking or proving anything BEFOREHAND. That wouldn't be science now would it?
And the majority of proper science isn't performed by some rogue scientist trolling the streets for grants. It's performed by institutions with fixed budgets that go through cycles of research processes and build upon knowledge and experience gained through the years. These are the ones that laid down the foundations for global climate change because of what they observed, with subsequent research confirming the observations.
The rogue scientists who DO troll around for grants are the ones you can hire for any particular outcome. Every single 'debunking' of the general global climate change theory can be lead back to rogue scientists, not to proper institutions. Because in case you hadn't noticed, oil companies, car companies and virtually every other large business is willing to pay through the nose for a desired outcome in which they don't have to change anything. And in case you hadn't noticed, the business world is a hell of a lot more powerful than the science world in terms of economics. Just the fact that despite that they are unable to convince any major group of decision makers of their point of view is a much more powerful token than anything else. All the money in the world is NOt going to make it go away.

Some of the things said in this thread are a very simple proof of what I said before: if you don't know about science, and have not properly researched before, you have really no foundation or basis of judgment. It really is that simple.

And the argumentation that the earth will survive no matter what is indeed true, however it is a total fallacy of argumentation since the entire motivation of any species to keep on living and jump off a building right that minute is to flourish in a continued existence. If that is ignored, then why even argue? Why even continue living?
Thank goodness that even the worst of governments hold true to some standard of ethics, no matter how warped. If you can't even muster the intelligence to understand the very basic foundations of life, why even post here?
Because it costs you money? That's been talked over and so completely squashed so many times already that re-iterating it is simple proof of one's lack of understanding and ability to read, listen and learn.

parm
12-15-2007, 01:13 PM
A couple of interesting sites:

A humorous survey of temperature monitoring stations (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.7.2)

General Debunking (http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html)

I don't think those links contribute anything useful, or even sensible to the debate.

The author of the site at the second link. Presents two graphs. Intended to refute the correlation of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. When, in fact they do the opposite. They actually show a remarkable coincidence.

There is a lot of good information freely available. Unfortunately, the most useful stuff is lengthy and takes time to digest. Not easily understood by the layman. Luckily, some individuals have done a lot of the legwork for us.

A scientist named SPENCER R. WEART, ( Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA). Has done some serious research and put together a collection of essays. that cover the history and discovery of global warming, it's social impact. And a thorough overview, of the science and theory of climate change. No histrionics, just a very balanced and engaging survey.

For anyone genuinely interested in the topic. it really is well worth a bookmark.(you're unlikely to read it all in a single sitting).
It's very interesting, to follow the twists and turns, false clues and blind alleys that have dogged the path of this issue.

The site is called:

The Discovery of Global Warming (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents)

inkpen3d
12-15-2007, 02:03 PM
When was the last time an academic got a grant to debunk global warming? Follow the money.

Well, to answer your question, here are a few links to show where a lot of the funding has come from in the past:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/endangered-species/mg19426103.000-climate-change-sceptics-criticise-polar-bear-science.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

Also interesting reading is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

jin choung
12-15-2007, 04:04 PM
good. follow the money is completely valid. i believe it is the principle philosophy of the magazine "the economist"... most issues are understandable at essence if you understand how money relates to it.

and as i said, people tend to argue for what is in their good, not what is true.

so:

- WHO has something to gain by the "ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY" ?

- WHO has something to gain by DEBUNKING IT ?

so yes, by all means, let's follow the money then.

jin

archijam
12-15-2007, 04:38 PM
Jin.

I Can't Believe It's Not Butter (http://www.thekitchenoflove.com/kitchen/index.asp)!

ps. Check out the fabiograms.

jcupp
12-15-2007, 04:59 PM
I don't think those links contribute anything useful, or even sensible to the debate.


Except that those championing the theory of man made global warming are using data from monitoring stations such as these to "prove" their point. So I think that that the quality of the relevant data is, er, relevant.

One of the interesting take away from that graph, that you must of missed, is that the atmospheric changes in CO2 concentrations trail changes in temp. by several hundred years. So I have a hard time drawing the conclusion that CO2 concentration causes increases in temp from this data.


Ha, that's so rediculous.(sic)...

Translation: My scientist are pure as the driven snow while yours are charlatans in the employ of the forces of evil :D

Come on now, you can't just argue that any scientist who disagrees with your favorite conclusion is "rogue"and therefore can be ignored!

You should also look into how science is funded at "proper institutions". The money comes from giant corporations who have a stake in the results, giant, usually left leaning, charitable foundations with agendas of their own or giant government or quasi-government groups with a stake in increasing their own power. Groups who don't care about the results don't drop the cash on research.

I thought that the scientific method was to formulate a hypothesis and then test it. With real data. The hypothesis presumably is something like: human generated CO2 is causing global average temperatures to increase.

To test this we need a good historical/geologic record of global average surface temperature A good historical/geologic record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And we need to be able to correct for all the other things that can cause variations in temp, like solar output. None of the current climate models do very well in this regard.

I personally don't think we've met those requirements well enough to start trashing economies. Not based on the sketchy conclusions that some climatologists have come to.

Here is another interesting link (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568)(sponsored my Exxon/Mobil no doubt)


Well, to answer your question, here are a few links to show where a lot of the funding has come from in the past:


And this cuts both ways:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=4053

Puguglybonehead
12-15-2007, 05:13 PM
This thread is unbelievably stupid! I thought that people who used 3D software were supposed to be somewhat intelligent. Denial, nothing else but. Global warming, due to air pollution, is a FACT, period! The Group Of Rome did studies on this back in the early `70s (when I was in high school). They did computer projections based on all kinds of factors, including alternative fuels, and the conclusions all said that it was only a matter of time before this would happen. I'm actually surprised things are not much worse already.

If you put 6 people in an elevator, chain-smoking cigarettes, how long do you think the air in there will stay breathable? Now, not counting coal plants, forest fires, gas turbines and volcanoes, just the number of automobiles alone (conservative estimates say there are currently 600,000,000 automobiles operating on Earth at the moment), how long will it take to get CO2 levels up to a point where they create a greenhouse effect? We're already there! Quit being a bunch of self-centered ostriches. If you think it's OK to keep going the way we are, then you are in complete denial.

The automobile/oil industry is responsible for this situation. The auto industry IS still the major cause of pollution on this planet, and there's really no need for it. It is very easy to create electric cars that weigh less than 400 lbs, and can go over 100 kph (fast enough for highway commuting). Without all the weight of a piston engine, and it's transmission, cooling system, fuel tank, etc, it really doesn't require all that much horsepower (or wattage) to reach respectable speeds. No new technology required. Ask anybody who works with brushless electric motors, or carbon fibre. It's easily do-able. All the means to change it all has been around for a long time. You're all very gullible if you believe otherwise.

Actually, for most people, you could simply live closer to your workplace and ride a bicycle. I always have.

jin choung
12-15-2007, 06:31 PM
again, the point that i keep making to each side that's passionate is:

YOU don't know.

YOU are not a scientist.

YOU are not doing 1st hand research.

YOU are at the mercy of second hand knowledge at BEST.

and when scientists are in argument YOU have nothing to valuably contribute.

and when i say YOU, i mean YOU! and ME! and EVERYONE in this forum who is not an environmental scientist.

when ANYONE here says that something is absolutely conclusively true, that means jacksh!t. a baby might as well be talking about why light is bright. any correct answer it gives will be the result of blind luck.

so some humility and honesty eh people?

jin

warrenwc
12-15-2007, 07:14 PM
My point exactly!
Even nuclear winter is a THEORY & environmental scientists are NOT all in agreement.
There are just too many factors involved to say with certainty what will cause significant changes(or what already has) & what those changes will be.
In the past six months I have read that;
A. The Sun is getting hotter(how did we do THAT?)
and
B. The Earth is heating up BECAUSE we have reduced pollution enough to let in more sunlight.
Everything in Climatology is theory & none of this is CERTAIN & PROVEN.

jin choung
12-15-2007, 07:17 PM
and even if it had, you wouldn't know it.

but then again, EVERYTHING is a theory. gravity is a theory. doesn't make a space shot to the moon any less real.

NOTHING is certain and proven. so that means nothing.

jin

jasonwestmas
12-15-2007, 07:20 PM
If you all die soon, 99% chance it won't be caused by massive flooding, huge ice storms or getting broiled by the sun. Little things are just as deadly. But I guess that depends on where you live.

Puguglybonehead
12-15-2007, 07:48 PM
You'll have to forgive my earlier rant. A long Saturday of breathing exhaust and solvent fumes, while servicing people's motorized addictions, had kind of gotten to me. Yes, I do work in the auto industry (the service end of it). So, even if climate change is just a theory, air pollution is pretty friggin' real (first hand knowledge here).

Glendalough
12-15-2007, 08:00 PM
...so some humility and honesty eh people?

jin

Think you better show some humility yourself Jin.

You've taken your point too far.

You do not have to be a scientist to work this one out. Your facts are a bit off. Scientists are not in argument. All the details may not be completely clear but do not have to be. Facts are facts and 'second hand knowledge' does not come into it, whatever it is you are trying to infer. (hope we're not just trying to win argument!)

Only the educated (or very shrewd) are capable of judging the legitimacy of scientific sources and that's what this is all about. The legitimacy of sources = 1st lesson in University

I'm with Puguglybonehead above when he says:

"I thought that people who used 3D software were supposed to be somewhat intelligent. Denial, nothing else but."

prospector
12-15-2007, 11:53 PM
B. The Earth is heating up BECAUSE we have reduced pollution enough to let in more sunlight.
Totally agree...we need to burn more.
MORE I TELLS YA !!!:D

prospector
12-16-2007, 12:00 AM
Well that was a good idea.
Burn everything till earth cools to 1850 levels (before the DEVIL car was invented) then stop burning
let temps rise to todays levels (at least 100 years) then we'll have another 100 years of tree growth to burn.
and just repeat...until eternity comes.

And if global warming people don't like that, then they REALLY don't want to fix the so called problem. They just like to whine over nothing.

There...that's an idea that will work 100%.
When do we start?
I got my lighter ready :thumbsup:

jin choung
12-16-2007, 01:57 AM
Think you better show some humility yourself Jin.

You've taken your point too far.

You do not have to be a scientist to work this one out. Your facts are a bit off. Scientists are not in argument. All the details may not be completely clear but do not have to be. Facts are facts and 'second hand knowledge' does not come into it, whatever it is you are trying to infer.

wrong word. i'm not "inferring" anything....

are you a scientist? how many years did you put into studying this subject? are you aware of ANY contrary studies than the ones that you hold to? how do you know there isn't? lots of things can be politically popular but false.

again, my contention is YOU don't know jack squat.

i don't know jack squat.

and it is not being UNHUMBLE to say that we're all ignorant of all the relevant scientific details and speaking out of our asssses when it comes to this.

as informed as you think you are, you are NOT qualified to have an opinion. and that is NOT taking my point too far. that IS my point.

jin

jin choung
12-16-2007, 01:59 AM
btw, i tend to think that it IS likely that we're messing up the environment.

i think nuclear winter is possible, i think something similar wiped out the dinosaurs and i think greenhouse gases can f us.

BUT

i hold those opinions loosely knowing i'm not an authority and can say NOTHING on the subject DEFINITIVELY. and i would think most of you are not phds on the subject and i trust you believe that your knowledge and those of a phd on the subject are in fact qualitatively and quantitavely different.

jin

parm
12-16-2007, 03:01 AM
Except that those championing the theory of man made global warming are using data from monitoring stations such as these to "prove" their point. So I think that that the quality of the relevant data is, er, relevant.

"Championing". Why polarize the debate?

There's no reason to take a stance on the matter. It makes no difference what you or I believe about it. This issue affects us all, regardless.

Scientists are telling us that the world is warming up. Which is leading to climate change and instability in the climate. The impacts of climate change are pretty serious. And if they can be avoided or reduced. Then they should be. And we are being asked, (at the moment). To take some fairly simple precautions, to slow the process down. If we are lucky reverse the trend.

I'm very surprised that you, (given you're natural skepticism), give any credence to the claims of that site. They are completely groundless.

There's no concrete indication of the ownership of those stations. Or even whether they're actually in use, (I doubt). They seem fairly random. Given their juxtaposition, were probably taken for comic affect. Inserted into the web-site with the claim added, that; Climate scientists are using them. No supporting evidence at all.

It's not very funny when people are prepared to accept this kind of rubbish. While confidently dismissing the findings and recommendations of scientists.

Look. Here's one page of the site I linked to earlier. In essay form it outlines the modern temperature trend (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm). It contains numerous links to supporting and source material.


One of the interesting take away from that graph, that you must of missed, is that the atmospheric changes in CO2 concentrations trail changes in temp. by several hundred years. So I have a hard time drawing the conclusion that CO2 concentration causes increases in temp from this data.

Look at the graph again. The two trends actually match very well indeed. CO2 does have a greenhouse effect when present in the atmosphere.

'Greenhouse Effect' an increase in temperature due to the build up of heat in the atmosphere.
Imagine a greenhouse the size of ten aircraft hangers. With all it's windows open and situated in the Canadian Tundra. Close all the windows at once. How long before you get a detectable temperature rise? Would you expect a time lag? What conclusion can be drawn from it? Glass is not a greenhouse material! Ludicrous!

Increased CO2 levels will also affect biological systems. Crops may benefit, but so will invasive weeds. The oceans will become more acidic, endangering coral reefs and likely harm fisheries. Currently atmospheric CO2 is about 30% higher than in the pre-industrial period, rising by a percent each year at an accelerating rate. See IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/) assessments and reports.

inkpen3d
12-16-2007, 07:09 AM
Latest news on arctic ice melting...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7141635.stm

archijam
12-16-2007, 07:34 AM
Latest news on arctic ice melting...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7141635.stm

Interesting article. Perhaps a better title would be:

Shocking news: Arctic Circle altered to fit agenda ;)

jcupp
12-16-2007, 08:44 AM
Scientists are telling us that the world is warming up. Which is leading to climate change and instability in the climate. The impacts of climate change are pretty serious. And if they can be avoided or reduced. Then they should be. And we are being asked, (at the moment). To take some fairly simple precautions, to slow the process down. If we are lucky reverse the trend...

...There's no concrete indication of the ownership of those stations. Or even whether they're actually in use, (I doubt). They seem fairly random. Given their juxtaposition, were probably taken for comic affect. Inserted into the web-site with the claim added, that; Climate scientists are using them. No supporting evidence at all...



But I see it like this:

Some scientists are telling us...Might be leading to instability of the climate. And this might be caused by human activity and not an increase in solar activity. And even if it is happening and is humankinds fault it can, or maybe can't be changed by massive destruction of world wide economies but in either case China and India get a pass.

Those of us who think the data is suspect, the conclusions incorrect and the prescriptions to fix the problem wouldn't work but would cause massive disruptions are not the ones living in a fantasy.

I'll link again to this site which has the most succinct, I've found, point by point analysis of the global warming data http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaundercf/index.html

Check them out yourself - temp monitoring stations with GPS coords:
http://www.surfacestations.org/



Latest news on arctic ice melting...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7141635.stm


Of course NASA now reports that Arctic ice is re-freezing at a record pace so maybe it's not quite time to panic.

prospector
12-16-2007, 08:49 AM
Or it could be..

Shocking news: BBC News reports altered to fit agenda

Which as we know is far more likely

prospector
12-16-2007, 09:10 AM
I like this...from BBC report

One of them, in the Beaufort Sea, saw a 3.3m-thick slab of perennial sea ice reduced to just half a metre. The slab lost some 70cm off the top and 2.2m off the bottom.

Now everyone says humans are culprit, but a deeper investigation proves otherwise.

If only 70cm were melted on top and 2.2 meters were melted from bottom, then that's proof humans are NOT responsable for ice melting and that FISH, WHALES and DOLPHINS are with their methane farts. And therefore to stop the dasterdly fish and underwater life from melting OUR ice, we need to thin their numbers to a less ice melting figure.


Yea, that's the ticket..

prospector
12-16-2007, 09:24 AM
And here is another 'fix' to the global ice melt rumor

We all know friction causes heat...proven scientific fact.

So...

Make it a world law that any vessel traveling on any body of water containing salt, shall have a speed limit of .5 Km per day.
Thereby reducing friction between the boat and the water, which in turn stops the oceans from heating up, which in turn stops the ice from melting from the underside.

Lightwolf
12-16-2007, 09:25 AM
The auto industry IS still the major cause of pollution on this planet, and there's really no need for it. It is very easy to create electric cars that weigh less than 400 lbs, and can go over 100 kph (fast enough for highway commuting).
There's a few problems here though.
Nothing comes close to a combustion engine in terms of converting energy into useable power.
There is also a problem about power loss when transmitting electricity (from the plant to the consumer, which might just be a charger in your car) as well as losses due to the storage.
Electric cars use more energy, a lot more actually, than combustion engine powered cars. The main advantage is that the power is generated elsewhere and only pollutes around the power plant and not the city.

Then again, the auto industry is responsible for not bringing more fuel efficient cars to market, i.e. a 3l per 100km car (78 mpg) can nowadays even be designed by an engineering student.

Cheers,
Mike

prospector
12-16-2007, 09:45 AM
the auto industry is responsible for not bringing more fuel efficient cars to market, i.e. a 3l per 100km car (78 mpg) can nowadays even be designed by an engineering student.
If there was a market for them...they would do it.

I don't want a 1 cyl motor powering my pickup truck.

parm
12-16-2007, 09:52 AM
There's a few problems here though.
Nothing comes close to a combustion engine in terms of converting energy into useable power.

The Bicycle :D

Lightwolf
12-16-2007, 09:53 AM
If there was a market for them...they would do it.

I don't want a 1 cyl motor powering my pickup truck.
Well, I'm driving a 4.6l (54mpg) car that does 160km/h (roughl 100mph) - four cylinders ;)
And it is neither state of the art nor new.

You're probably referring to cars with roughly 150mpg or so...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-16-2007, 09:55 AM
The Bicycle :D
You're almost right... except for the fact that it doesn't really create the energy, our body does (and it is very efficient).

Cheers,
Mike

parm
12-16-2007, 10:09 AM
I would like one of those cars that create energy :)

My bicycle also makes it's own electricity

inkpen3d
12-16-2007, 10:12 AM
I'll link again to this site which has the most succinct, I've found, point by point analysis of the global warming data http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaundercf/index.html

I'd just like to point out that the article you've referenced was put together for a school science project by a 15 year old girl called Kristen Byrnes of Portland, Maine. She is obviously not a qualified climatologist and has basically cherry-picked items from various sources to support a particular argument. Also some of her comments show a lack of in-depth understanding of the science behind what she is discussing. So I would caution against forming any strong conclusions or opinions based on the contents of this article. Having said that though, she's obviously put a lot of effort into the project and has to be commended for that.

Regards
Peter

kopperdrake
12-16-2007, 11:03 AM
Interesting debate. I agree that we can not know all the facts, no one can, not even all the specialists can know all the facts, hence their name 'specialists' - specialising in one or more area of scientific research. We can each bring our own thoughts to the table, lay them out and try and reach a collective conclusion. We hope that the specialists can lay out their findings for areas we could never know ourselves due to our ignorance (and I don't mean this in a derogatory way - just that we can't know everything).

For my part, I have realised that since a child in England I have seen more mosquitoes in recent years than before. Up to 7 years old I lived in southern Italy and knew all about mozzy bites, it was a relief to come to England and not fear them. Today in summer I need to spray myself against them.

I also remember winters with cold snaps and snow. Yes we still get cold snaps and snow, but they don't last as long. Insect eggs are surviving them better and leading to larger populations.

There's an interesting article in the Guardian here about people also noticing these trends:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1111254,00.html

Now there is nothing I can do to 'prove' these things, these are just the things *I* am laying on the table.

People in various parts of England this year can lay their findings on the table, people who saw inland floods where rivers couldn't hold the amount of rain dropped on us by freak storms. Sure some of that was to blame on the fact that the drains couldn't cope with the downpour, but the fact remains that the downpour happened.

People elsewhere in the world have their own personal experiences and thoughts to lay on the table for discussion.

This video I've linked below puts forward, in my opinion, a valid argument for erring on the side of caution. Of course, you're free to argue against what the majority of specialists are believing to be happening right now, but the choice of not doing anything, through ignorance, stubborness or whatever reason, *may* be to consign other people, if not yourself, to hardship and death. And if you think that something happening the other side of the world will not impact you sat at home then you really must have your head in the sand box.

http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&rel=1

If you haven't seen it already, it really is worth a watch.

Duncan.

parm
12-16-2007, 11:04 AM
Check them out yourself - temp monitoring stations with GPS coords:
http://www.surfacestations.org/

That is an an entirely different site to the previous one. With wholly more constructive purpose.

Did you go to the About (http://www.surfacestations.org/about.htm) page of that site. And follow the links on it. You should. They make for a very interesting read.

As for Kirstens, Magritte like way with graphs and statistics. As you wish.

I prefer peer reviewed papers, by people with credentials. Personally

Exception
12-16-2007, 11:58 AM
YOU are not a scientist.


Who here is a scientist or at least can make claim?
That'd be good to know.

I have MSc in front of my name. That means Master of Science.
That means that I know what I don't know.

For instance that a hypothesis that makes a judgment within itself is a complete faux-pas in science.

Parm, nice link to that history survey.

Exception
12-16-2007, 11:59 AM
You're almost right... except for the fact that it doesn't really create the energy, our body does (and it is very efficient).

Cheers,
Mike

Yes, our body, on a bicycle, does about 3000 mpg, when one converts the contents of a gallon of gas to calories.

Exception
12-16-2007, 12:08 PM
Nothing comes close to a combustion engine in terms of converting energy into useable power.

That would need a correction. Nothing comes close to convert gasoline to kinetic energy + heat. It's really not an efficient energy to motion converter. An internal combustion engine is about 20% efficient for kinetic energy. An electric motor is often more than 90% efficient. However, you need to make that electric energy first, so it's not that easy, but engine types pur sang, it's hard to beat the electric motor.

Puguglybonehead
12-16-2007, 12:33 PM
There's a few problems here though.
Nothing comes close to a combustion engine in terms of converting energy into useable power.

Um, excuse me? The internal combustion engine efficient? A human being on a bicycle is soo much more efficient than any engine can ever hope to be. The average competitive cyclist can easily reach speeds of 40 kph riding solo, and over 60 kph riding in a peleton with other cyclists. Do you know how much horsepower the average competitive cyclist generates? Only 1/7 hp (one-seventh-of-a-horsepower). That much speed on only one-seventh of a horsepower! No engine made can ever match that efficiency. Ever.


There is also a problem about power loss when transmitting electricity (from the plant to the consumer, which might just be a charger in your car) as well as losses due to the storage.

Power generation is a problem, no matter what. Hydo-electric, wave-power and wind-power seem to be the only alternative's to coal/oil/nuclear that have any hope of generating enough power. And they still have quite a significant environmental impact. Just look at what a wind farm can do to the population of migrating birds, for example. So, yeah, this is a big problem, no matter what we do.

Still, if more effort is made in improving power efficiency in all consumer appliances and vehicles, it will make a big difference. Just look at what an impact the development of the new super-bright LEDs has had. They are gradually replacing the light bulb in so many applications. Did you know that that new blue/white LED almost never got developed? There was originally only one semiconductor researcher working on this full-time. The semiconductor firm that he worked for, thought that his work was a waste of time. Until it paid off, that is.here (http://www.compoundsemi.com/documents/articles/news/3693.html)


Electric cars use more energy, a lot more actually, than combustion engine powered cars. The main advantage is that the power is generated elsewhere and only pollutes around the power plant and not the city.

You must be looking at some awfully primitive (or just plain bad) electric car designs. Properly designed, electric cars can use small (and therfore light) brushless motors, mounted at each hub. Very little power loss in transfer. No need for a transmission or transaxle. The motors can easily be controlled electronically. Lithium ion batteries are pretty efficient storage, and keep on getting better with each generation of development. Make the whole car as a composite monocoque (hell, my local fiberglass supply sells carbon fiber in several different forms). Design the average car for 2 people (most commuters still drive solo). It'll be light and fast and won't need a lot of horsepower. You could even build it with a pedal assist, just like all the velomobiles that have been developed in Germany and Holland. None of this is waiting on undeveloped technology, just on close-minded, brainwashed people to wake up.


Then again, the auto industry is responsible for not bringing more fuel efficient cars to market, i.e. a 3l per 100km car (78 mpg) can nowadays even be designed by an engineering student.

Cheers,
Mike

That much I'll agree with.

jin choung
12-16-2007, 12:37 PM
Who here is a scientist or at least can make claim?
That'd be good to know.

I have MSc in front of my name. That means Master of Science.
That means that I know what I don't know.

For instance that a hypothesis that makes a judgment within itself is a complete faux-pas in science.

Parm, nice link to that history survey.

haha...

ok, you brought it up so i'll bite: master of science in what field of study?

again, if it doesn't pertain to climate, i'm gonna say that along with the rest of us, you should know that you don't know a great deal about climate.

jin

jin choung
12-16-2007, 12:38 PM
everybody who vociferously denies man made climate change:

do what someone else earlier suggested - follow the money.

who GAINS from stricter environmental protection policies?

jin

Puguglybonehead
12-16-2007, 12:48 PM
You're almost right... except for the fact that it doesn't really create the energy, our body does (and it is very efficient).

Cheers,
Mike

Oops, my apologies, Lightwolf. I guess I'm already preaching to the converted. :o

Lightwolf
12-16-2007, 01:19 PM
You must be looking at some awfully primitive (or just plain bad) electric car designs. Properly designed, electric cars can use small (and therfore light) brushless motors, mounted at each hub. Very little power loss in transfer. No need for a transmission or transaxle. The motors can easily be controlled electronically. Lithium ion batteries are pretty efficient storage, and keep on getting better with each generation of development.
The problem is getting the energy to the car first. Up/downconversion of currents plus long distance transport of electricity still cause a fairly big loss.
You're other points are just as valid for conventional cars (the ones I didn't quote).

The problem isn't the vehicle but the source of power. And don't get me started on hybrids...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-16-2007, 01:20 PM
Oops, my apologies, Lightwolf. I guess I'm already preaching to the converted. :o
Lol... you are actually ;) Unfortunately there's plenty of sensible technology that's been available for decades that never made it to the market.

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
12-16-2007, 01:26 PM
ok, you brought it up so i'll bite: master of science in what field of study?

again, if it doesn't pertain to climate, i'm gonna say that along with the rest of us, you should know that you don't know a great deal about climate.


Like I said, I know what I don't know. :)
Having a Master of Science prepares one at the very least for a proper understanding of the scientific process, regardless of the field of study.

Once you understand that, you'll understand that you can't just shoot from the hip, like most people do, about scientific discovery and research. Which is exactly what you've been saying. So we seem to agree on something :)

(To answer your question, ID engineering (MSc (Delft Uni of Technology)) and currently architecture as well as sustainable design & ecology (MArch, Yale S.O Architecture and S.O. Forestry). Which pertains to climate in parts. Which taught me even more about what I don't know :))

Age old saying, for some what they don't understand appears to be easy. for some what they don't understand seems hard. The more you educate yourself, the more you'll see that the things that seemed easy when you were stilll uneducated are hard, and those that seemed hard are usually easy. Climate is not easy. Ooohhh, no it is not. (edit: that's not specifically directed at you, just a general observation)

ted
12-16-2007, 04:15 PM
If my tire is flat and the mechanic says I need a new engine, I don't need a mechanics degree to say NO to spending the money on an engine replacement. :hey:

When the "educated" group of 6000 scientists factually stated, "man is responsible for Global Warming", it became obvious they have an agenda. More money for years worth of grants is partly to blame no doubt. :D

NO scientific study claims "absolute" statements like that. If they said "man is 89% or 15% responsible, I might give them some credibility. But yet the world gives them a pass and wants to make decisions based on this flawed group. :thumbsdow

Don't get me wrong, I do not doubt we are in a stage of warming. And I'm NOT saying we are not partly responsible.
Just doubtful that I need to crush my SUV and haul my trailer with a bike! :D

Exception
12-16-2007, 04:31 PM
If my tire is flat and the mechanic says I need a new engine, I don't need a mechanics degree to say NO to spending the money on an engine replacement. :hey:

Are you suggesting the climate and our ecosystems have a comparable complexity to your car?
Are you serious?


When the "educated" group of 6000 scientists factually stated, "man is responsible for Global Warming", it became obvious they have an agenda. More money for years worth of grants is partly to blame no doubt.

Seriously.
Which '6000' scientists?
Show me the research document where you get this quote from.
Like I said before, the majority of science does not run on grants.

Again (broken record), who do you think has more money? A philantropic organization concerned with eco welfare or Exxon-Mobil?
Where do you base your assumptions on?
On some article on an opinion page in some random magazine? On what you and your friends have been talking about? On a particular news network?
these are serious questions. Where have you gotten the information that you base your opinion on?
Do you see that it does not make sense in terms of plain logic?


NO scientific study claims "absolute" statements like that. If they said "man is 89% or 15% responsible, I might give them some credibility. But yet the world gives them a pass and wants to make decisions based on this flawed group.

Who or what is this flawed group?
Where did 'they' get a pass?
And do you really think any believable research document actually makes single line statements?


Don't get me wrong, I do not doubt we are in a stage of warming. And I'm NOT saying we are not partly responsible.
Just doubtful that I need to crush my SUV and haul my trailer with a bike! :D

That is a whole other debate.
You, and you live in the US, most likely do not even have a choice but to use a car. That is due to the us's appaling public transportation. And if you did have the choice, I wouldn't blame you to avoid a US bus or subway because they are dirty, dangerous, infested with nasty people, loud, slow and obnoxious. Second, the road system in the US has so many potholes and badly paved roads that driving something that does not have big though suspension is not such a great idea. However, that does not mean your SUV is not party responsible for the problem. Because, could you have chosen another car that would have fulfilled these requirements, that does not affect the environment in such an adverse way? If so (and I'm sure there is), why not choose this alternative?
Ask yourself why. You'll probably come up with an interesting answer.

It's interesting because most of us, like perhaps yourself, see the need for change, but are reluctant to change ourselves. change is not easy. But it is possible. And it starts at home. But we can't be personally responsible for every single itty bitty thing, and check everything against X many websites to see if it's the 'best'. That'd be impossible. Thus, it should be necessary, if this is in our collective interest, to regulate that, so we all have easy access to these choices.
But that is not likely to happen in the US. Venture lobbyists would throw out such an idea in seconds. Thus, do you take on a little bit of that responsibility yourself, or fo you shrug and leave the issue for a later generation?

These are not simple questions, and they can't be answered right or wrong. They're ethical questions that are notoriously difficult.

*Pete*
12-16-2007, 04:43 PM
When the "educated" group of 6000 scientists factually stated, "man is responsible for Global Warming", it became obvious they have an agenda. More money for years worth of grants is partly to blame no doubt. :D

NO scientific study claims "absolute" statements like that. If they said "man is 89% or 15% responsible, I might give them some credibility

so, there are 6000 scientist going for the money that comes with future research on the climate subject, and then there are a dozen of honest working, scientists backed by oilcompanies who say the truth about the scam, made by the 6000.

i will not get into the argument about if we are, or are not, warming up the planet or not, but i will try to add some logic into this discussion.
1# scientists have plenty of work..be they researching new cosmetics, better cars or climate changes, scientists are a rare breed and will never run out of work.
so the theory of them clinging into the climate only becouse of the money is imho, silly.
2# when scientists opposing climate change are mainly funded by those who would loose mostly if the climate change and its danger is taken seriously, they loose credibility...and when most of the things they say are proved wrong over and over again, such as the sun warming up (sun has been stable for a long time now), even if the sun could potentially be causing the warming up of the planet, it is obviously not doing so at the moment any more than it did ten years ago...loss of credibility.
3# we do not know things, we on the forum..but when those 6000 who know manage to convince everyone, including the US goverment, that global warming is manmade (partly), what do you base your doubts on?

and finally.....whether man is causing 15 or 86 % of the warming, it is an ongoing debate that will be difficult to find an answer on, but as an example...volcanoes pollute 100 times less than humans in the world, yearly.
how much nature pollutes as a total, counting everything from cows to volcanoes is impossible...but when the co2 levels in the atmosphere have doubled since it was first measured, you just cant blame it all on nature, as it didnt increase its co2 release the same much as humans have done.

ted
12-16-2007, 10:38 PM
Exception, No, the climate and universal evolution is more complex then my car. Just saying I don't believe the level of concern is in line with the facts and earth’s history.
BY ALL MEANS, Feel free to believe what you want. I'm not trying to change you. Why do people get so upset with what many of us believe? :thumbsup:

I should have known. NBC claimed it was a group of 6,000 scientists. I couldn't find anything more then 600 to 1,500 on the internet. They probably “accidently” added an extra 0. :thumbsdow
At least 2 Networks reported the finding was that "Man is responsible for Global Warming". I listen carefully to how they worded it. There goes the media again misinforming the public either for ratings or worse??? :thumbsdow

And No, my SUV is the only thing that will haul my production trailer, horse trailer, and utility trailer. I can't tell you how often rude people stop me and scold me for driving that big SUV. What’s that about? :screwy:

Why can't we believe what we want and you believe what you want? What happened to tolerance?
Peace everyone.

jcupp
12-17-2007, 12:25 AM
CO2 concentrations pre-civilization 180 to 400ppm (if you can trust the ice cores); CO2 concentrations now 385ppm - doesn't look like a doubling to me, looks like in the normal range. Look it up yourself.

Ice core samples may not be an accurate way to determine CO2 levels: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/12433)

I'll also point out that the Earths orbit varies slightly and it wobbles on it's axis a little. Could this effect climate? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing)

I linked Kristen Byrnes' web site because she is 15. You don't have to be a climatologist to call BS. And keep in mind the politicians world wide making policy on these matters are certainly not rocket scientists.

The total increase in global temp. is 0.6 degrees for the 20th century (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/education/factsheets/planet.html). 0.25 degrees of that is attributable to solar variability (SK Solanki "Solar variability and climate change" - Astronomy and Geophysics vol. 43, 5: 5.09-5.13) And 0.35 degrees can be attributed to urban heat island effect and other land use changes (Kalanay, Euginia and Ming Cai "Impact of urbanization and land use on climate", Nature 423 May 29, 2003: 523-31) that leaves, ah, by my calculations, 0.0 degrees left over that can be attributed to increases in CO2 concentrations. <== Notice peer reviewed sources.

So I'll keep my SUV thank you very much. (Well, actually I drive a Hyundai Elantra but I drive it a lot:)

jin choung
12-17-2007, 01:07 AM
When the "educated" group of 6000 scientists factually stated, "man is responsible for Global Warming", it became obvious they have an agenda. More money for years worth of grants is partly to blame no doubt. :D

tell me how you're gonna address this issue then:

if you're not going to listen to the scientists, who are you going to listen to?

politicians?

yourself?

mechanic?

who?

follow up:

WHY do you believe what you do? that suvs and such are NOT the problem? because it's "inconvenient"? : ) WHERE does your "gut feeling" come from?

jin

prospector
12-17-2007, 01:50 AM
NBC claimed
Aren't they the same 'news' people that intentionally blew up a truck, and then said that trucks could blow up on their own? And intentionally scared everyone?
The same 'news' that screamed that the ice ages were coming again in the 70's ?
The same 'news' people that said the earth would run out of oil in 20 years, and now we find a deposit that you could fit IRAN into off Florida...that we can't use because of anti human endevor enviromentalists, but China and Mexico and Cuba can drill all they want?

That the 'news' people you are refering to?

inkpen3d
12-17-2007, 06:24 AM
Having a Master of Science prepares one at the very least for a proper understanding of the scientific process, regardless of the field of study.


Couldn't have put it better myself! :thumbsup:

Regards
Peter
Combined Honours Degree in Biochemistry & Physiology (Leeds University, UK)

Exception
12-17-2007, 08:21 AM
Exception, No, the climate and universal evolution is more complex then my car. Just saying I don't believe the level of concern is in line with the facts and earth’s history.
BY ALL MEANS, Feel free to believe what you want. I'm not trying to change you. Why do people get so upset with what many of us believe? :thumbsup:

Mostly, I guess, because those beliefs influence decision making and voting behavior, so they do matter indeed. They also influence individual's patterns of roaming the planet, so a persons beliefs directly influence the environment we all live in (also called the 'commons').
Look up an article called 'tragedy of the commons'. It's quite an interesting read and forms a basis of large parts of the ethical debate concerning these issues. It's written in 1968, so this is nothing of what many would believe to be a 'current trend'.



I should have known. NBC claimed it was a group of 6,000 scientists. I couldn't find anything more then 600 to 1,500 on the internet. They probably “accidently” added an extra 0. :thumbsdow
At least 2 Networks reported the finding was that "Man is responsible for Global Warming". I listen carefully to how they worded it. There goes the media again misinforming the public either for ratings or worse??? :thumbsdow

I'm sorry for saying this, but US news, no matter which way they're leaning, isn't exactly known for its accuracy, depth, fairness and unbiased delivery.


Why can't we believe what we want and you believe what you want? What happened to tolerance?
Peace everyone.

Yes we can, but if your beliefs influence the commons, everyone sharing that commons has a right, and in my opinion a duty, to defend that commons. Which is really what we're doing here. A few people argue for an unmitigated consumption of the commons, claiming it is their 'right' to pollute what belongs and is shared by all living things on this world, but even a slight investigation into this issue will reveal that that holds no reason nor even any value in the current state of debate. This get exacerbated by the fact that it is not western society that gets hit the hardest by our own decisions, it's those places that cannot afford to protect themselves with water cleani9ng plants, airconditioning, expensive irrigation systems and erosion control measures, such as third world and developing countres. People are dying there. Not 'going to' die, but actually already dying. Once you've been confronted with that, a direct result of the way the wester society operates, you'll start to infuse some emotion in your argumentation (whether that's correct or not is another matter :) )
If I see someone dumping waste in a river, I will certainly stop them. If a person throws his batteries into some bushes, I'll address him on it. If a person drives an unnecessarily large vehicle, he should not be surprised to be confronted with that. I can't look into your particular situation, so you'll have to make that decision for yourself, but the kind and size of trucks I can see driving around the united states do not exist anywhere else in the world, and they seem to get by just fine without them.

CMT
12-17-2007, 08:36 AM
everybody who vociferously denies man made climate change:

do what someone else earlier suggested - follow the money.

who GAINS from stricter environmental protection policies?

jin

The countries that don't have strict environmental policies which attract the big companies and factories. Less pollution regulations, less hassle (and money needed) to comply.


i hold those opinions loosely knowing i'm not an authority and can say NOTHING on the subject DEFINITIVELY. and i would think most of you are not phds on the subject and i trust you believe that your knowledge and those of a phd on the subject are in fact qualitatively and quantitavely different.


Don't tell me you buy into the media's claim about those 6000 scientists. You, Mr. Conspiracy? I wonder how many scientists they interviewed before they reached the 6000th one that agreed with what they wanted them to agree with?

I never trust the media and their statistics especially when it has a history of skewing the truth. But, I agree with you that we are influencing the environment in a negative way. I just can't be sure of how much. Why are the ice caps receding at the rate they are? Is it shrinking at a rate faster than if we humans weren't even on the planet? Is it a natural warming? I don't know for sure.


tell me how you're gonna address this issue then:

if you're not going to listen to the scientists, who are you going to listen to?

politicians?

yourself?

mechanic?

who?

follow up:

WHY do you believe what you do? that suvs and such are NOT the problem? because it's "inconvenient"? : ) WHERE does your "gut feeling" come from?

jin

Like you said, "You don't know jack squat." All we can do is read what we can and form our opinions. So why are you demanding the reasoning behind someone else's opinion?

inkpen3d
12-17-2007, 08:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&rel=1

If you haven't seen it already, it really is worth a watch.

Duncan.

Well if any of you haven't watched this yet, you really should. It's an excellent and rather amusing short video that explores the risk management arguments surrounding climate change.

Good find kopperdrake!:thumbsup:

Exception
12-17-2007, 09:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&rel=1

Well if any of you haven't watched this yet, you really should. It's an excellent and rather amusing short video that explores the risk management arguments surrounding climate change.

Good find kopperdrake!:thumbsup:

Ugh totally missed that.
End of the debate! :)

Limbus
12-17-2007, 10:12 AM
everybody who vociferously denies man made climate change:

do what someone else earlier suggested - follow the money.

who GAINS from stricter environmental protection policies?

jin

Maybe you need to ask: Who gains from less strict environmental protection policies?
There are alot of studies who calculate the money loss due to the climate change so I would say that everybody gains from stricter environmental policies. Well, maybe not all those oil companys that are funding certain politicians which still pretend that climate change is not happening but then those also belive that the earth was created in 7 days. So I would trust the scientist.

prospector
12-17-2007, 10:25 AM
so I would say that everybody gains from stricter environmental policies
wrong...it increases product costs, so everyone looses.
Someone has to pay for all the extra equipment to produce anything with anti human endeavor practices in place.

ted
12-17-2007, 10:39 AM
I'm sorry for saying this, but US news, no matter which way they're leaning, isn't exactly known for its accuracy, depth, fairness and unbiased delivery.

If a person drives an unnecessarily large vehicle, he should not be surprised to be confronted with that.

At least we agree the media are panic driving machines! :) Just today, ( on NBC), I heard the total money requested to "FIX" global warming is 26 TRILLION dollars! Yes, 26 Trillion! Guess who's going to be asked to pay the most, YES, the USA and my increased tax dollars.

Your next point, why should someone be able to get in my face and be rude because I have a need for my SUV?
They don't, just like I try and be civil here, if we ask for opinions, we should be able to share without insult. If I'm on the street minding my own business, they have no right since they don't know me. But yet they want to tell me what to do.

Limbus
12-17-2007, 10:43 AM
wrong...it increases product costs, so everyone looses.
Someone has to pay for all the extra equipment to produce anything with anti human endeavor practices in place.

Well, smarter people than you and me have calculated that the climate change will cost billions upon billions and will seriously damage the world economy. And that will be much more expensive than a stricter environmental policies But even if if does not happen (which by now no serious scientist believes) stricter environmental policies will not damage everyone. It might be shocking for you but there are companys out there who produce airfilters, solar collectors, cleaner cars etc... and they are actually making money with it. Same goes for more traditional economys like building companys. They would actually do better if houses around the world would be properly insulated. This would actually provide new jobs.

Lightwolf
12-17-2007, 10:47 AM
Guess who's going to be asked to pay the most, YES, the USA and my increased tax dollars.
Well, hey, that's how capitalism works. You purchase goods (damage to the environment) - you pay for it. If the ressource is scarce you pay more.
"Pay per pollute" so to say, nothing wrong with that. And that's even without taking climate change into account.

Cheers,
Mike

CMT
12-17-2007, 11:10 AM
Fact is... the climate IS warming up.

Yep. But the solution to how to fix it lies with the reason behind WHY it's warming up. If it's as simple as reducing or eliminating the pollutants we create, then it's a relatively easy problem to solve (although a very hard solution to implement). If it's a natural warming cycle of the earth or whatever, then we have a MUCH bigger problem. Because then we don't really know that whatever solution we implement will be better or worse for the environment over the long haul, or even if it SHOULD be "fixed". There's been at least 4 known ice ages. Were they part of a natural cycle of the planet?

prospector
12-17-2007, 11:41 AM
Well, smarter people than you and me have calculated that the climate change will cost billions upon billions and will seriously damage the world economy.
That's because they believe that little ol' man can actually influence weather on a global scale, which I have seen no undeniable positive proof that we are.
So all that money cost is most likely pulling numbers from thin air.

And if it is a natural cycle, which the planet has gone thru many times since it's birth, then no matter the amount of money will stop anything and therefore is a total waste of expenditure.

As soon as someone can prove that this or that factory is causing this or that particular piece of ice to melt, or that car that just went by is causing a certain co2 particle to warm the earth, I might believe man is doing something.

Science (real science) should be able to PROVE that or else all is just pie-in-the-sky thinking.

Exception
12-17-2007, 11:54 AM
At least we agree the media are panic driving machines! :) Just today, ( on NBC), I heard the total money requested to "FIX" global warming is 26 TRILLION dollars! Yes, 26 Trillion! Guess who's going to be asked to pay the most, YES, the USA and my increased tax dollars.

Actually, the US is doing much less per capita than most other western countries, so why are you complaining? You should really come off your high horse draped with stars and stripes before someone quotes an embarrassing figure. For the biggest polluting, the US provides the least assistance.
Also, the idea that saving resources and being more responsible necessarily costing money is yet again wrong in most cases.

Changing policy does not cost anyone money, that saving energy SAVES you money, that properly calculating externalized costs isn't suddenly costing you more but you are just realizing it and that being more efficient in general has always saved people money, time and energy.

Anyway, the idea that being more responsible costing YOU the AMERICAN TAXPAYER money is so bafflingly ignorant that I won't even warrant it with a decent debate. Fix that war that's costing you half your taxes first. Then we'll talk.


Your next point, why should someone be able to get in my face and be rude because I have a need for my SUV?

I perfectly addressed that.


They don't, just like I try and be civil here, if we ask for opinions, we should be able to share without insult. If I'm on the street minding my own business, they have no right since they don't know me. But yet they want to tell me what to do.

I didn't insult you, and I said 'unnecessarily large'. So, if you can defend why it needs to be so large and so energy consuming and polluting, then, alright, fine with me. If not, then I ask you why I should be breathing your excessive fumes, whole ecosystems be burdened with that decision and future generations be robbed of opportunities just because you like big trucks?

If your neighbor would be burning tires in his yard every day just because he likes to but its costing the neighborhood their health, they need to paint their houses and wear masks outside, keep their children and pets indoors and see all the trees die around them, would you not give him a hard time about it? That's just an exaggerated version of someone driving a large truck unnecessarily.

Did you read that article yet?



Science (real science) should be able to PROVE that or else all is just pie-in-the-sky thinking.

Science has never been able to 'prove' anything irrefutably. Even gravity is not proven.
This just continues to lay bare your incapacity for basic scientific understanding.

__________________

prospector
12-17-2007, 01:15 PM
Well, mankind DID create the ozone holes and apparently WE did (or are) repairing the problem. It is working. So apparently mankind CAN affect things on a global scale when we choose to.
We did? It is?

There was never any proof positive we did anything. There was some speculation, there was some some experiments done with hairspray and freon stuff, but nothing to point to a particular area of the hole was caused by any special can of spray.

And there was never any proof positive that anything we did actually helped anything.

Might it have been it was only a cycle to begin with and we came thru it and all was going to be well, anyways?
There is just as good a chance it was that as was the human touch thing.

Andyjaggy
12-17-2007, 01:17 PM
I recently replaced all the lights in my apartment with the energy efficient bulbs. It cost me about 50 bucks but it made me feel like I was part of the solution :D 20% of the nations power consumption, if everyone replaced their 100 year old technology bulbs with new ones we could save a lot of power.

I actually think there should be a mandate to do this, I go in the hardware store and the majority of bulbs are still old 100 watt incandescents.... why? Because people are too lazy to spend a little extra money? Because manufactures are too lazy to shift to a newer and better technology? Beats me.

inkpen3d
12-17-2007, 01:49 PM
Actually, I think Prospector is just taking the urine, and mischievously winding us all up!:D
I mean, no intelligent person would come out with half the statements that he has if he wasn't actually just out to pull our collective legs.:)

parm
12-17-2007, 02:13 PM
wrong...it increases product costs, so everyone looses.
Someone has to pay for all the extra equipment to produce anything with anti human endeavor practices in place.

Turn off lights you're not using. Don't leave appliances on standby. Use your car less. Cycle to work etc. You'll soon find that you're saving money.

It's not much to ask, as a contribution to reducing Carbon emissions. It makes sense to recognise your responsibilities now, and co-operate. Before legislation forces the issue. Ultimately if people are not able to regulate themselves. They will be regulated. With taxes and financial disincentives, along the lines of the polluter pays.

prospector
12-17-2007, 02:32 PM
IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT MANKIND CREATED THE OZONE HOLEs. Understand? PROVEN.
And what made the Ozone holes before man invented all that stuff that only then caused ozone holes?
Ya see there were ALL of this stuff going on BEFORE mankind...
So who can we blame them on...aliens?
And if you blame them on earth natural causes..again I ask where is it proven that man caused 100% of it..50% of it..25% of it...even 1% of it.

that goes for Ozone holes..global warming....extinctions....and anything else supposidly caused by a small species on the face of this speck of dust in this little point in the universe

archijam
12-17-2007, 02:52 PM
Some people just got a case of the "It's not my problem" -'s ..

It goes along with the "Every-one else is doing it, why can't I?" -'s, the "Why should I pay more just because I earn more?" 's and of course the automatic gainsay of whatever 'popular' opinion happens to be at the time.

Sad, but human nature.

prospector
12-17-2007, 03:01 PM
So there was NEVER ever in the history of this planet from formation till now an Ozone hole????
Is that what your saying has been proven?
Do you have a scientist name, cuz I for one would like to see THOSE studies.
because short of having a time machine, there is no way to prove it.
The ice on antartica does not go back in time to the formation of the planet.

I don't blame anything on mankind because I have never seen any proof positive that we are doing anything that may also be a natural cause or natural cycle.

I don't believe it as there is or has not been ANY PROOF POSITIVE that we do any percentage of anything.
exactly what percentage of global warming is supposedly our fault? And why are we not spending only enough to fix that instead of the whole problem. Some may be natural causes...why should we worry about that?? It's NATURAL....

Exception
12-17-2007, 03:12 PM
So there was NEVER ever in the history of this planet from formation till now an Ozone hole????

Phew you're really behind the times arn't you.

Here, let us explain it in baby talk.
From formation of earth until industrial revolution: no ozone holes.
Industrial revolution: Big ozone hole.
Mankind radically bans all CFKs worldwide in a collective unprecedented gesture of international cooperation: Smaller ozone hole.

And getting smaller.

Here's a hint: Do some reading. Do some research. I'm sure you've been told that before. Makes you look less... um... well... ignorant.



I don't believe it as there is or has not been ANY PROOF POSITIVE that we do any percentage of anything.

And you don't read, and only selectively answer posts, and go around riling everyone up and in general be ignorant about everything by failing to have a proper reasoned debate, and insulting people that genuinely try to add something to the conversation by just repeating the same dumb thing over and over again that previous posters have responded tot conclusively time and time again.

You might be purposefully pushing peoples buttons but you manage to just make me, and several other people, angry and upset. I'm always really sorry we have people that intentionally do that in our midst.
I'm trying to ignore it to remain civil but it's really not that easy.

People are dying and there's always someone that saying killing other people and creatures is fine as long as they don't touch their wallet.

prospector
12-17-2007, 03:32 PM
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

Hardly my friends but will use their numbers anyway, tho they may be biased.

map 1 shows temps over last 140 years. We have gone from -.4 to +.3 from average aver that time
.7 degrees in 140 years

did you get that?
.7 degree rise


in second map is temp changes over 1000 years

gone from the lowest point at -.5 to now of =.1
an change of .6 of a degree
.6 degree rise

and in 1200, 1300, 1350, the temp was almost as it is now.

with a temp change from then of only .15 degrees
.15 degree rise

Well that was WAY WAY before the devils chariots (cars).
Now what do you suppose made those changes???
Could it have been natural causes?

And we can see that in the last 1000 years there have been ups and downs...long before cars, planes and the wrong lightbulbs.
So pick any point in time at a high temp and compare to today.
what point in todays temps are from natural causes ????
.1 difference? point 2,3,4 difference?
What proof is there that says we directly cause .2 or .4 or even .
00001 degree rise?
Maps from UN, so definatly not a friend of buisness....
Where does the human part start and Natural causes end ??

parm
12-17-2007, 03:33 PM
I don't believe it as there is or has not been ANY PROOF POSITIVE that we do any percentage of anything.
exactly what percentage of global warming is supposedly our fault? And why are we not spending only enough to fix that instead of the whole problem. Some may be natural causes...why should we worry about that?? It's NATURAL....

Instead of relying on feeling or gut instinct. And asking for simplistic explanations, for a very complex issue. Why not read up about it yourself?


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm)

prospector
12-17-2007, 03:37 PM
not trying to rile anyone...just looking for proof positive of mankinds absolut percentage of anything..
and ya still didn't point out the scientist that says there was never at anytime in Earths history an ozone hole.

CMT
12-17-2007, 03:41 PM
Seems like it's not quite proven yet.... There's still recent research being done on it. Some that contradict the popular opinion....

Article from September (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html)

There is never certainty in science....

CMT
12-17-2007, 03:55 PM
Well, to be more precise, it seems that the chemistry involved isn't quite correct. They still maintain that CFCs are one of the reasons for Ozone loss. But they can't explain where 60% of the ozone depletion is coming from.

parm
12-17-2007, 04:06 PM
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

and in 1200, 1300, 1350, the temp was almost as it is now.

Er. No. It doesn't look like that at all


And we can see that in the last 1000 years there have been ups and downs...long before cars, planes and the wrong lightbulbs.

The past 1000 years is, on balance fairly even. Certainly it's consistantly parallel and below the baseline of 0. Any fluctuations on that time line, are short lived and quite small. Up until the mid 1800's. When the trend has been steadily and continuously upwards. And from 1980 on. Has continued upwards at a steadily increasing rate. That's basically over a century of continuous temperature rise.


What proof is there that says we directly cause .2 or .4 or even .
00001 degree rise?

The significance of these graphs is that. The sudden change to an upward trend in global temperature. After a thousand years of relative stability. Coincides with the large scale industrial activity of Man.

prospector
12-17-2007, 04:08 PM
Read the whole report and the findings were as I say..
Way way at the bottom is this 1 sentence;

It was less reassuring to notice what the climate had looked like in certain ancient times when CO2 had stood at a high level... a level that humanity would eventually reach if we went on burning all available oil and coal. The Earth had been virtually a different planet, with tropical forests near the poles and sea levels a hundred meters higher.

So we are in fact going thru a natural course. just as it was in earth history...long long before devil cars.
And we are not even at that point where tropical forests are at the poles.
So the question remains
exactly what part of this natural cycle is mankinds part.
We were not there last time so who did it then?????
Aliens? Dinosaur farts?

prospector
12-17-2007, 04:29 PM
Seems like it's not quite proven yet....
well that won't fly.
It goes against everything they have tried to force on us.

prospector
12-17-2007, 04:33 PM
OHHhhh
so it's ther RATE that counts...

So a guy driving a hybrid and me in a hummer drive each to the year 2010.
I get there first then he gets there.
there is a rain forest at the poles
does it matter how fast we got there? It' gonna be that way anyways.
Just as before
a natural event

parm
12-17-2007, 04:37 PM
Read the whole report and the findings were as I say..
Way way at the bottom is this 1 sentence;

I have. I provided a link to it and others post 82.



So we are in fact going thru a natural course. just as it was in earth history...long long before devil cars.
And we are not even at that point where tropical forests are at the poles.
So the question remains
exactly what part of this natural cycle is mankinds part.
We were not there last time so who did it then?????
Aliens? Dinosaur farts?

That is the interpretation you choose to make. And a perverse one it is too.

The point being made by that statement is. That human activity is rapidly driving atmospheric CO2 levels. To a point where we know, (from historical geological records), to be inclement for most of life as it exists on the planet today. The road to establishing 'mankind's part of this natural cycle'. Has been a difficult one. And has involved some very clever and elaborate science. As you would realise. If you would actually, as I have said before read up on it

prospector
12-17-2007, 04:50 PM
I HAVE READ IT.
AND UNDERSTAND IT.

The earth has been warm and cold thruout it's cycle...since the planet formed
Warm spells and cold spells
since forever

BUT what part is caused by humans?????
There were NO HUMANS in previous ones.
And the cycle we are in now, which part of the degree rise is human caused??
.1 degree? .2 degrees? 2 degrees?

WHAT??

ANd if we get to rain forests at the poles slow, or we get there fast, exactly what will be the difference?
There will be rain forests at the poles either way.
It's happened before and so it will happen again.
It's a NATURAL event.
maby not speed but end result IS.
Melting of the poles....natural... caused by nature
we can do nothing to stop it.....just maby...maby ...MABY slow it down
and by what? 100 years? The amount of time cars have been around?

kopperdrake
12-17-2007, 04:52 PM
So there was NEVER ever in the history of this planet from formation till now an Ozone hole????
Is that what your saying has been proven?
Do you have a scientist name, cuz I for one would like to see THOSE studies.
because short of having a time machine, there is no way to prove it.
The ice on antartica does not go back in time to the formation of the planet.

Oh my dude, you seriously seem to have the wrong end of the stick!

It is totally irrelevant whether there has been a hole in the ozone layer in the past. If there was then chances are it probably had ramifications as disastrous for the Earth's inhabitants then as we're likely to see this time around.

As a note, today's *growing* hole is mainly caused by manmade chemicals containing chlorine, though also other chemicals such as those containing bromine, some halogen compounds and nitrogen oxides. Chlorine based chemicals such as CFCs you've no doubt heard about, Nitorgen Oxides are a byproduct of things such as aircraft emissions.

You seem to think we're going through a natural process? There is very little of this planet that is natural anymore, what was once a planet full of vegetation for enough time to lay down coal reserves is gradually being levelled flat. Our lovely English countryside is practically 100% man-made, much of Europe being the same. Then look at what is happening in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia - we have less than 50% of our world forest left - we are losing over 23 million acres a year to logging!

Even if, as you say, we're going through a 'natural' process, the speed of the process is not natural, unless you count sudden changes such as cometary impacts. The planet will no doubt survive, but we will not, and I for one would hate to see mankind survive for less time than some great big lizard.

It will be the ultimate irony that the only species with the intellligence to learn to rub two sticks together becomes extinct through the end result of that practiced intelligence.

If we stick our merry individual heads up our arses and pretend we have no part to play in the future of this planet on behalf of our kids and theirs then it's bye bye humans, plus any other species we drag down with us.

kopperdrake
12-17-2007, 05:01 PM
map 1 shows temps over last 140 years. We have gone from -.4 to +.3 from average aver that time
.7 degrees in 140 years

did you get that?
.7 degree rise


in second map is temp changes over 1000 years

gone from the lowest point at -.5 to now of =.1
an change of .6 of a degree
.6 degree rise

Wow - only 0.6 degress in 1,000 years, oh, but pretty much *all* of that 0.6 degrees happened in the last 140 years reading that graph.

Oh yes, and the conclusion on that page lower down..."Nevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries."

0.7 degrees doesn't seem much, but extrapolating an average reading from that first graph implies 0.4 degrees in about 40 years, so let's call it a round degree a year at current rates with absolutely no other external effect. That gives us a degree a year, so only another 2,000 years before England hits 50 degrees during summer.

Well dandy, I'm alright then :rolleyes:

prospector
12-17-2007, 05:15 PM
your math is wrong

it's .4 degrees in 40 years
4 tenths of a degree in 40 years
so 1 degree is 100 years
not a degree a year

prospector
12-17-2007, 05:24 PM
THAT's what the difference is.
AHHH now I get it

We as humans are so powerful that we can change the climate of a planet, but we can't move people over the course of 100 years.

So even tho that would be 1 or 2 generations to come, we can't say all new houses must be built a no less than 100 feet above sea level for any future housing, which costs us nothing in taxes to fix anything.
Costs nothing extra in product costs for global warming fighting machinery.
costs nothing extra in alternate energy crap forced down our throats.

I :bowdown: to your superior thinking

prospector
12-17-2007, 05:35 PM
The rate of change is dramatically increased
I know what it is (the rate of change that is).

What is the normal rate? How do you know it's increased?
What if this cycle is suppose to be 1 degree a year?
.5 degree a year?

What is the true normal rate?
Do scientists actually know what the exact rate of warming is suppose to be?
Has there been any time in history of the planet it has been this fast?

Just questions that must have proof positive before I can believe in any of this mumbo jumbo

I mean we have heard all this before (but opposite) during global cooling scare

Exception
12-17-2007, 06:11 PM
OHHhhh
so it's ther RATE that counts...


Post 46 of OT thread (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=604792&highlight=rate#post604792)in which you participated thoroughly:
I specifically mention that it is the RATE of change that matters.

Post 56: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=604832&highlight=rate#post604832)I specifically mention RATE

RATE is specifically talked about in that thread, THIRTEEN TIMES in which you actively participated, and even have the last post.

Of this thread:
Post 8: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=629973&highlight=rate#post629973) Inkpen3D first mentions RATE in conjunction with ice melting

Post 24: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=630173&highlight=rate#post630173) I mention it is specifically about the RATE of change not the absolute levels

Post 82: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=631174&highlight=rate#post631174) Parm mentions the accelerated RATE of change

Post 117: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=631539&highlight=rate#post631539) CMT asks questions pertaining to the RATE of events.


Post 125: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=631578&highlight=rate#post631578)Megalodon AGAIN states specifically that it is about the RATE of change


Post 149: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=631738&highlight=rate#post631738) Megalodon again stipulates it is about the RATE of change

Post 151: (http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?p=631743&highlight=rate#post631743)You finally engage the RATE of change and pretend as if this is the first time you've heard of it.

Even though it was specifically mentioned FIVE times in the course of this discussion, and over thirteen times in the other thread you actively participated in, you pretend only now to have heard of it the first time at post 151.
You are wasting the time of intelligent educated people. To me this is proof you are purposefully unwilling to read, learn and listen. You're an insult to this conversation.
Sorry but it needs to be said.
I'm out!

prospector
12-17-2007, 06:20 PM
I know how many time rate has been brought up.
But what is the rate suppose to be? No one mentions that.
If it wasn't for man making global warming...just what IS the temperature SUPPOSE to be on this day, Dec 16th 2007 ?

All those 6000 scientists that agree with global warming should at least know the answer to that small question.

prospector
12-17-2007, 06:27 PM
Here is my point in a nutshell.
In the 70's we were told that global cooling was coming so all kinds of laws were passed, all kinds of regulations were passed all kinds of regulations were passed....and for no reason
We were lied to by enviromentalists just to stop humans from doing anything.
It never got global cooling...it never got cooling..it never got anything but people rich off gov't grants.

So we know for sure they lied.

NOW they say global warming is coming.


They cried wolf once and screwed everyone.

Why jump on thier bandwagon again?
Why take anything they or thier scientists say as gospel?
Why can't they prove positive anything they say?

ted
12-17-2007, 06:51 PM
Yeah... our government has been soooo efficient with New Orleans.

Excuse me, that was a massive failure of the citizens more than the government. And before you jump my arse, I have relatives down there.
Anyone who still is not on their feet has too big of an arse and should get off it! :D

ted
12-17-2007, 06:58 PM
NOW they say global warming is coming.
They cried wolf once and screwed everyone.
Why jump on thier bandwagon again?
Why take anything they or thier scientists say as gospel?
Why can't they prove positive anything they say?

Thank God you get it Prospector! :thumbsup: I sometimes wonder if people just follow the PC bandwagon like lemmings or if they think they are hip by pretending to be PC.

Either way, I don't think 26 trillion should be spent on this crud. If they do, let them pull it from their pocket. Not yours and mine. :thumbsup:

jasonwestmas
12-17-2007, 07:03 PM
From what little I've read, prospector is saying that there is no real proof that the rate at which the temperature rises and falls is NOT a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with humans. As odd as that may sound, he isn't saying it isn't getting hotter in the world at a faster rate. I don't think anyone can deny that.

I honestly don't know what to think, I'm not a scientist and I don't know any I can trust.

prospector
12-17-2007, 08:44 PM
It will be VERY interesting IF it is proven that we are warming up and sea levels do rise.
And what would that prove?
I'm not saying it's NOT warming, I'm saying we have nothing what so ever to do with it.
So it warms...It's done it before and it will do it again some time in the far distant future.
It's natural.

And from any answer I have seen, even the rate is natural.
So I think the rate is natural and can easily be proven.
A pot of water starts to warm, the first few dozen degrees in temp are slow to get there, then the rate gets faster and faster till it finally boils.
And anyone can test that with a meat thermometer in a pot of water. So rates mean nothing if you don't have a base to compare to.
So I've proven my point of contention..As water warms the rate of warmth gets faster. And it's natural. It's like 6th grade science.

So I ask again..
What is the temp suppose to be in actual degrees if man had no influence on weather ?
And where do you get that exact temp chart?
What rate is the temp suppose to rise?
a hundredth of a degree a year? a tenth of a degree ? 10 degrees ?

One of those supposed scientists would surely have figured THAT out if they can say the rate is faster. They must know what exact rate IS natural and what temp it was SUPPOSE to be today.

Cmon, if you don't have a baseline to measure from, how do you know if your ahead or behind?

And the global cooling crowd joyed in pointing out record cold temps to prove their point. But we are STILL putting up record cold temps around the globe today, even in the midst of supposed global warming.

Ivan D. Young
12-17-2007, 09:17 PM
Does anyone know where info about how volcanic activity changes the enviroment? Krakatoa, erupts fairly regularly every couple centuries and that seems to cool the planet off dramatically. The last eruption was in the 1860's or 1870's and the planet has been warming since then. I am not sure if major volcanic activity is even accounted for in climate change discussion.

IgnusFast
12-17-2007, 09:44 PM
All I can add to this discussion is a fact:

Pollution == Bad

Whether or not Global Warming is a natural trend, natural trend accelerated by human behavior, or a purely human force.

Even if the effects of pollution are expensive to fix, shouldn't we at least try?

Puguglybonehead
12-17-2007, 09:48 PM
In the 70's we were told that global cooling was coming

:ohmy: Where the hell did you hear this? I was around in the 70s and I never heard the term 'global cooling'. What were ya smokin', bud? The only thing that was hyped in the 70's was the 'energy crisis'. Everyone was in a panic about the shortage of new oil reserves. Never any 'global cooling'.

prospector
12-17-2007, 10:07 PM
That's because your in Canada and cooling wasn't an issue for you :D :D

Puguglybonehead
12-17-2007, 10:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So this is where they got the idea for that cheezy movie, "The Day After Tomorrow"? Interesting theory, but it still didn't make the popular media at all. Not one news broadcast or newspaper article that I can remember seeing. Environmentalists were already talking about 'global warming' by then. (to anyone who was actually paying attention to science then) I remember geography classes at school in 1974, where we were discussing the possibility of global warming and the possibility of climate change due to pollution.

prospector
12-17-2007, 10:23 PM
the RATE at which the earth is warming is FASTER than has EVER been recorded.
ever recorded does not mean EVER
therefore we could be in a 100,000 year cycle, a million year cycle, or a 100 million year cycle.
So the scientists could be pulling numbers from thin air.
As the first thermometer came 414 years ago to get accurate measurements, anything before that is pure conjecture and suspect.

So we have to base everything mankind does on such a small space of time compared to the full time of the planet ?

not for me

prospector
12-17-2007, 10:27 PM
So this is where they got the idea for that cheezy movie, "The Day After Tomorrow"?
Indeed
we were almost being told thru newscasts that we could wake up to frozen lakes and rivers, with glaciers just bearing down on our houses like tanks going thru watermellon patches.
And they had scientists to back up those claims

Puguglybonehead
12-17-2007, 10:34 PM
I think they mean by "ever recorded" as 'based on fossil records'. Hence, quoting statistics that go back 1000s of years. As to how accurate or reliable that data is? hmmm... can't say, not being schooled in that particular field, myself.

Puguglybonehead
12-17-2007, 10:42 PM
Indeed
we were almost being told thru newscasts that we could wake up to frozen lakes and rivers, with glaciers just bearing down on our houses like tanks going thru watermellon patches.
And they had scientists to back up those claims

Sounds like The National Enquirer had taken over your media......oh oh, maybe they're still there. :D

ted
12-17-2007, 10:55 PM
Sounds like The National Enquirer had taken over your media

I started in broadcast in 1976. Unfortunately I've watched as the major networks who used to mock the National Enquirer, eventually moved to mimic them. :thumbsdow

At least we all agree that the media has lost all credibility.

parm
12-18-2007, 12:40 AM
So I ask again..
What is the temp suppose to be in actual degrees if man had no influence on weather ?
And where do you get that exact temp chart?
What rate is the temp suppose to rise?
a hundredth of a degree a year? a tenth of a degree ? 10 degrees ?

Do you remember these Graphs (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm) That you linked?

Well the strong clue to your question. Lies in the thousand year part before 1860 and industrialisation. It is very clear. That we are otherwise fortunate. To be living in a very stable and clement period, of the Earths climatic history.

Climate science is not trivial. And it's not possible to give easy answers. Especially by non-scientists in forum posts. To understand what is involved better. More extensive reading is necessary. Try this Climate change (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents) Then come back to the discussion in a couple of weeks.

archijam
12-18-2007, 01:20 AM
So even tho that would be 1 or 2 generations to come, we can't say all new houses must be built a no less than 100 feet above sea level for any future housing, which costs us nothing in taxes to fix anything.
Costs nothing extra in product costs for global warming fighting machinery.
costs nothing extra in alternate energy crap forced down our throats.

I stayed in a residential area in holland 6m below sea level. Shall the dutch build a dike 100feet above sea level too ?

I expect moving a city costs nothing as well in your world view...

Half of southeast asia's cities are below the 100 feet level.

Nice 'reasoning' there ...

prospector
12-18-2007, 02:00 AM
other countries are not my problem

And I say that because;
weather man causes global warming or it is natural, it will still melt the caps, just as it has done before.
The seas will rise...just as they have done before.
lands will go away....just as they have done before.

there is no stopping it
we cannot stop the planet from warming unless we do any of the suggestions I mentioned earlier.
If you believe we are speeding it up (which I don't), then all we have contributed is 100 or so years to the speedup (since cars have been around) so instead of getting ice free in 200 years we get there in 100.
I see no biggie in that. Unless someone waits till the last year (like they waited till the last hour in New Orleans), there is plenty of time.

BUT I do not want to pay for others, there should be some personable responsability taken by everyone.

So if you believe in this hoodoo voodoo, you have been warned and it's up to you to stay or go.
Not you personally but people in general. They should all know that this theory is being put forth and they should do what they need to do. They have time to do it.
they have the choice.

*Pete*
12-18-2007, 03:33 AM
Either way, I don't think 26 trillion should be spent on this crud. If they do, let them pull it from their pocket. Not yours and mine. :thumbsup:

Great, some people have a good understanding of economics i see.
you dont, obviously.

the money used, will not be spent, but invested..how is that? ill explain.

If your house has a roof that is leaking and letting water in when it rains, you could repair this leak for, say...100 dollars.
it is still relatively easy thing to do, doesnt take too much time or effort and the damage to your house is only the leaking roof that you are now about to repar.

now, thinking that a leaking roof is ok, as long you dont have your sofa or tv just under it, you leave to be.
soon, after a year or so with a leaking roof, the floor the water has been dripping into has started to rot.
it stinks, its bad for your health and the floor sometimes feels like it will break, naturally..this is a direct threat to your sofa and tv, becouse of the floor breaks your sofa and tv will fall down with it.
but now, instead of spening the 100 dollar to fix the roof, you will also have to pay for the much more expensive repairing of the floor.

so, no matter what, you will have to pay..and the 26 trillion is cheap, compared to how it will be in ten years, or twenty.


now you might want to say "but i will loose my job at the car factory, oil refinery, polluting workplace"...rest at ease, you wont..the car factory will simply change into producing cars that are better for the climate, oilrefinery will always be needed for, among many other things, plastics.
and the polluting workplace will be transformed into a nonpolluting workplace.
your son/wife/daughter might get a job within the emerging jobs that will rise specifically in order to repair the nature, or to provide cleaner electricity, or what ever.

so in short...old jobs will be transformed, new jobs will be created, 26 trillion will be invested in order to save 126 trillion in the near future.
do you know how much money is "spent" on commercials every year, or cosmetics? what about the weapons industry? or tobaco/alcohol industry?..do you think that 26 trillion is really a lot of money?

repair the leak on your roof now, before it will force you to repair it together with all the additional costs.

kopperdrake
12-18-2007, 03:38 AM
your math is wrong

it's .4 degrees in 40 years
4 tenths of a degree in 40 years
so 1 degree is 100 years
not a degree a year

Actuall it's my spelling that's wrong (I forgot to write '100' and not '1') - the end result, a 50 degree English summer in 2,000 years is correct as stated.

*Pete*
12-18-2007, 03:41 AM
BUT I do not want to pay for others, there should be some personable responsability taken by everyone.


you must be kidding...all the world is ready to pay for the damages and to start repairing, only USA doesnt want to take part.

USA got embarrased publicly, much like you managed to embarras the sovjets during to Cuba crisis, by one of the smallest nations in the world...New Papua Guinea.
the spokesman for that nation told USA "if you are not willing to lead, get out of the way", resulting in a wild booing against USA by everyone, including the press that is supposed to be neutral.

nobody is asking USA to pay for others, but to take responsibility and pay for their OWN part.

inkpen3d
12-18-2007, 04:40 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7148137.stm

Also, pay attention to the "See also" links on the right hand side of that page.

Regards
Peter

BeeVee
12-18-2007, 06:52 AM
This video I've linked below puts forward, in my opinion, a valid argument for erring on the side of caution. Of course, you're free to argue against what the majority of specialists are believing to be happening right now, but the choice of not doing anything, through ignorance, stubborness or whatever reason, *may* be to consign other people, if not yourself, to hardship and death. And if you think that something happening the other side of the world will not impact you sat at home then you really must have your head in the sand box.

http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&rel=1

If you haven't seen it already, it really is worth a watch.


Superb vid Duncan and one everyone should watch. It should end the debate because as the guy says it's not about whether Earth survives, it will. It's about whether we survive as well, which is surely more important to us right now.

B

Limbus
12-18-2007, 07:09 AM
And what would that prove?
I'm not saying it's NOT warming, I'm saying we have nothing what so ever to do with it.
So it warms...It's done it before and it will do it again some time in the far distant future.
It's natural.


Now where is the fail save proof of that? Or for any of your other "facts" that you poulled out from somewhere? Oh you don't have it? Somehow I am not surprised. But keep up inventing reasons why YOU dont need to change your way of living.

inkpen3d
12-18-2007, 08:45 AM
Returning to the risk management aspect of the global warming debate (see Kopperdrake's reference to the video http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&rel=1), mankind currently stands at a crucial juncture in its existence on the planet.

Past civilisations (e.g. the Egyptian, Roman, Chinese, and Mayan empires, to name but a few) have each attained a peak of development and regional dominance and then, over a fairly short period of time, have crumbled. The only testament to their achievements being a few archaeological remains and perhaps some art or literature if that too survives the ravages of time. The reasons behind the demise of these civilisations are many and varied but, by today’s standards, they are fairly mundane (over-farming, invasion, over-stretching of central government control through too rapid expansion, local climatic changes, and so on). I expect most of the ordinary people living during the heyday of any one of these great civilisations would have been astounded to know that all around them would one day cease to exist. What is common to all these collapses of civilisation is an almost inevitable plunge into a “dark-age” with the associated loss of infrastructure, culture and knowledge.

The major difference between these past civilisations and the situation that we currently find ourselves in is that we all live in a highly interconnected and interdependent global economy. Unfortunately, our growth in culture, science, technology and, more importantly, population, have not been matched by a similar growth in geo-political stability or environmental management. Indeed, both are now stressed more so than at any other time in the short history of mankind. Any major event (e.g. rapid climate change, pandemic, etc) that threatens the current geo-political/environmental "status quo" might be the one event that plunges the world into chaos and the subsequent descent into a second “dark age”.

So what, I hear you say. Surely, mankind will eventually pick itself up, dust itself off, and start all over again just like our ancestors did before!

Unfortunately, next time round it will not be so easy; and in fact, there may never be a “next time”.

And here's the reason:

Since the industrial revolution we have systematically plundered our planet, stripping it of all the easily accessible resources such as coal, oil, metal ores, minerals, etc. Now people living in a future “dark-age” scenario will not have access to the sophisticated technology that we have developed over the years to extract and process these increasingly scarce or difficult to access resources. They will therefore be unable to jump-start themselves out of the technological rut that they find now themselves in - even if they knew what they wanted to do in the first place! [See footnote below.]

So, the question is, do we want to risk the full effects of rapid climate change with the possible collapse of our global civilisation? Because if we just sit back and do nothing and the worst does happen, then it will probably be a one-way ticket - an inevitable slide down to scratching a miserable living in the soil. If we loose everything now, that’s it, for good. Basically, mankind would have had its one big chance and it would have failed!

Regards
Peter

[Historically, information has proven itself to be a very fragile commodity, and this is increasingly true today as we store more and more in various electronic formats. How do you access information stored on a computer hard-drive or DVD if you don’t have the equipment, let alone the electricity to power it? Books and manuscripts fair a little better and some may last a few centuries - if not used by some peasant to start a cooking fire!]

prospector
12-18-2007, 09:02 AM
Don't you people ever look for the good things in anything?
Just doom and gloom..
No wonder you are always sad..

There is always a flip side ya know.

archijam
12-18-2007, 09:17 AM
Don't you people ever look for the good things in anything?
Just doom and gloom..
No wonder you are always sad..

There is always a flip side ya know.

The only thing 'gloomy' about this thread is flipant attitudes, of which yours is (a loud) one. On the contrary, some of the other posts here are extremely positive indeed. :)

The fact that people might actually take lessening of our industrial impact on the environment is a joy to hear ...

ted
12-18-2007, 10:33 AM
repair the leak on your roof now, before it will force you to repair it together with all the additional costs.

Good analogy. I like using them. The flaw here is we still have the major issue.
I simply disagree that we can make a significant difference in the evolution of earth and the solar system. Feel free to believe anything you want.

I do agree that we should recycle resources and use less when possible. I'm all for protecting our natural resources and animal habitat.
I just don't think we need to throw out existing technology and go back to riding bikes and using candles. Use the technology we have and enjoy it.
How many of you have cell phones and computers? Do you know how bad they are for the environment? Are you getting rid of them? I thought not. :D

I don't think people have the right to tell me I must ride a bike or drive a Prius. I don't think people should tell me I can't ride my horse in the mountains, I don't think people should tell me I can't hunt for food or sport.
I see nothing wrong with drilling for more oil here in the US while we merge to solar, wind and other renewable resources.

People have just become so pompous telling others what they should do, think and be. That's when I start having a problem with "opinions". Do what you want and make contributions to the causes you want. My God, it's simple.
Oh yeh, stop telling me I can't say Merry CHRISTmas! God bless us all. :thumbsup:

Limbus
12-18-2007, 10:55 AM
I simply disagree that we can make a significant difference in the evolution of earth and the solar system[/B]. Feel free to believe anything you want.

It's pretty ignorant to just disagree with all the facts pointing in the direction of man made climate change.


I do agree that we should recycle resources and use less when possible. I'm all for protecting our natural resources and animal habitat.And still you claim that you need to drive an SUV. Nobody needs to drive an SUV.


I just don't think we need to throw out existing technology and go back to riding bikes and using candles. Use the technology we have and enjoy it. Nobody wants us to go back to just riding bikes and using candels. But how about driving a car with technology from this century? How about not using standby on all electronics? How about insulating houses properly so there is much less need for AC and heating? How about using low energy lightbulbs? How about actually using some high-tech to lower energy consumption and polution?


I don't think people have the right to tell me I must ride a bike or drive a Prius. I don't think people should tell me I can't ride my horse in the mountains, I don't think people should tell me I can't hunt for food or sport.
You cant claim to think that we should "use less when possible" and still drive a SUV. That is absolutely redicoulous and ignorant.


I see nothing wrong with drilling for more oil here in the US while we merge to solar, wind and other renewable resources. No surprise here.

*Pete*
12-18-2007, 11:06 AM
I see nothing wrong with drilling for more oil here in the US while we merge to solar, wind and other renewable resources.


of course its not a problem..oil in itself is not a pollutant, it becomes a pollutant if released to the sea, or when burned.
Oil is naturally needed for most renewable energy sources, in the form of plastic for example, or simply as...well, oil.
Even electrical cars will be needing oil....so, sure, drill for more oil, the world needs it.

all we are asking for, is that you dont needlessly waste it, burn it or pollute with it, when there are other alternatives that you could use instead.

Today i read a small article about a car that does 450 km/hm, accelerates to 200 km/h in 10 seconds and consumes as much fuel as a normal, modern, small family car.....so, it is possible to improve even combustion engine cars to the extreme, if there is a will behind it.

jcupp
12-18-2007, 11:24 AM
You all have lost your minds:)


Greenpeace says sea level to rise 34.6 INCHES (less than 1 meter) during this century (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/impacts/sea_level_rise) not 100 feet.

Ozone holes are a moot point. CFCs in spray cans were banned 20 years ago, in refrigerants etc. 11 years ago.

Science isn't done by consensus, it really doesn't matter if "most" climatologists believe in man made global warming and I'm not even convinced that is true. What matters is the science good and my opinion is that it is not. Wikipedia on the controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy) Especial note the concerns that funding has dried up for any 'counter' research.

Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html) has an article about the controversy. A few paragraphs to note:

...He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938...

Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years...

...average temperatures in Greenland have been falling at the rather steep rate of 2.2 degrees Celsius since 1987...

The more you look at climate change the less certain you should be about what is happening and why. The natural cycles in question are complicated, not well understood and our data is very incomplete. We are unable to predict the weather a week out accurately so why should one trust climate predictions 100 or more years out.

Some here are arguing that if everyone took simple measures like taking the bus or using florescent lights (mmm mercury) we could stop global warming. But that is not what the environmental lobby is suggesting. If actually implemented, the 50% CO2 emission reductions they want would cripple the economies of industrialized nations.

So I'll summarize one more time:

1) Not all climatologists agree that humans are causing global warming.
2) The temperature increases observed over the past couple of decades are not unprecedented.
3)The climate runs in cycles, it is always changing.
4) Increases of a few parts per million in the concentration of CO2 have not been unequivocally shown to cause atmospheric temperatures to rise.
5) Predictions of the future climate are based on computer models that can't even predict the present from past data.
6) Historical climate data is at best incomplete; at worst fraudulent.
7) You can't trust journalists to get the story right. It doesn't matter if they are from the Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times or CBS News

*Pete*
12-18-2007, 12:07 PM
Some here are arguing that if everyone took simple measures like taking the bus or using florescent lights (mmm mercury) we could stop global warming. But that is not what the environmental lobby is suggesting. If actually implemented, the 50% CO2 emission reductions they want would cripple the economies of industrialized nations.


heh...i never would say that using buses or another type of lights, would save us from the doom.
much more is needed, but it doesnt have to be an overnight change either...it is not secret that we do waste lots of resources today, on a huge scale, in the weatlhy Norway you will find 2-3 year old 50" flatscreen plasma tv's thrown away as garbage simply becouse a never model arrived on the market.
is that really necessary?...in my opinion its so wastefull and thoughtless behaviour that it should be criminal, its our lifestyle that is messed up.

sorting that out, would perhaps affect a few percentage of the manmade pollution.
more important is to research and invest in new technology such as more effective engines for cars, be they electrical, combustion or hybrid.
it is important to limit the (needless) pollution as much as possible by for example doing as Norway plans to do...pumping co2 into oil deposits, which will increase the pressure there allowing us to get up even more oil from the same well...so, more oil harvested and loads of co2 safely removed.

now..you mention the ambition to cut down pollution 50%..i find it laughable, as the main thing enviromentalists being fighting for is to stop the increase of the pollution..as it is simply increasing year after year, not decreasing...not even decreasing 5%, 50% is a dream we might never see in our lifetime.

as for cripling the economies...you should read on the theories of Schumpeter (economist) and how economical crises are beneficial for the global ecomonomy.
in the world of capitalism, he who invests in new technology first, usually wins...so, if for example Ford will have an image of being a pollutant, and Volvo gets an image of being enviromentally friendly...people (enviromentalists, a growing number of people) will actually pay more for the Volvo.
this will force Ford to compete.

havent you noticed how MCDonalds is trying hard, as is pretty succesfull, in getting an image of healthy fast food company...(MCsalat).

my point is, scientists have succeeded already, in many ways..even if some goverments are slow to follow, but we are already scared enough by the enviromental threat to choose more enviromental solutions..notice the dislike against SUVs here, a growing number of us will eventually turn all companies to try to be enviromentally friendly...forced by the main tool in capitalism, competition.

so as i mentioned, more will be needed in order to deal with pollution, but we are getting there, with or without politicians..we wil get there.
and in the end..politicians will follow up with harder restrictions against pollution by the industry and so on.

this is also one of the reasons i cant stand people who are arguing against improving of the climate...they are simply making the progress slower.

Limbus
12-18-2007, 12:19 PM
Ozone holes are a moot point. CFCs in spray cans were banned 20 years ago, in refrigerants etc. 11 years ago.Which proves that we can change things if we want to.


So I'll summarize one more time:

1) Not all climatologists agree that humans are causing global warming.
The large majority of the scientists do.
ANd if presentet with the choise to trust George Bushs judgement or the scientists judgement I will go with the scientists.


2) The temperature increases observed over the past couple of decades are not unprecedented.
Tha rate of change is.


3)The climate runs in cycles, it is always changing.
4) Increases of a few parts per million in the concentration of CO2 have not been unequivocally shown to cause atmospheric temperatures to rise.
5) Predictions of the future climate are based on computer models that can't even predict the present from past data.
6) Historical climate data is at best incomplete; at worst fraudulent.
Its not the question if the scientists are 100% right. If we would only believe things that are 100% proven we could not believe in anything. Its a question of risk management. http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=mF_anaVcCXg&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D77366%26page%3D3&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/mF_anaVcCXg/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskLXeZaKfzGs7rUQxxUmZyj5&
Watch the video posted earlier here,




7) You can't trust journalists to get the story right. It doesn't matter if they are from the Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times or CBS News
I would trust politicians and lobby groups much less than journalists. But how about trusting the scientific consens that climate change is happening.

*Pete*
12-18-2007, 12:29 PM
Its not the question if the scientists are 100% right. If we would only believe things that are 100% proven we could not believe in anything. Its a question of risk management. http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=mF_anaVcCXg&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D77366%26page%3D3&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/mF_anaVcCXg/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskLXeZaKfzGs7rUQxxUmZyj5&
Watch the video posted earlier here,


that video rocks......everyone should see it!!

basically it explains what happens if we act, and are wrong about Global warming, or if we dont act and are right about Global warming.:thumbsup:

parm
12-18-2007, 12:57 PM
What matters is the science good and my opinion is that it is not.

Justify that.

prospector
12-18-2007, 01:49 PM
jcupp
doesn't matter what you show.
No matter how much the same or worse it was in the past as now, it does not count.
There was no enviromentalist to scare anyone, so it's a moot point.
If enviromentalist can't lie about it, it does not exist.

You can see by 1 answer to your points that scientists don't have to be right, just agree with the right side and make it sound like they are right to the lambs in the populas.

This is all about making the industrialized nations the same as 3rd world nations, so everyone will feel the same.
Pure and simple
Just look at the Kyoto treaty.

Same as the PETA people
Snowy owl was SUPPOSE to only be able to live in virgin forests, so when ya prove there are no such thing as a virgin forest (ie, been here since the formation of the earth or even 10,000 years ago), they change the wording to 'Old growth', and when you prove they can live anywhere (like a K-Mart sign), they say something else
the panic excuses never end

oh yea
Merry Christmas

spec24
12-18-2007, 01:51 PM
Excuse me, that was a massive failure of the citizens more than the government. And before you jump my arse, I have relatives down there.
Anyone who still is not on their feet has too big of an arse and should get off it! :D

here here Ted. Any time I hear someone talk about "our gov't" should do this or that, especially when it comes to New Orleans it sickens me. You don't wait for your gov't to show up and save your *** when a natural disaster is coming, you save your own ***. When is this nanny-nation going to wise up?

spec24
12-18-2007, 02:10 PM
All I can add to this discussion is a fact:

Pollution == Bad

Whether or not Global Warming is a natural trend, natural trend accelerated by human behavior, or a purely human force.

Even if the effects of pollution are expensive to fix, shouldn't we at least try?

the real debate is just exactly how and where money should be spent. If you're a leftist you will throw money at the source and make things worse (history shows this to be true). The idea that fuel efficient cars are going to help is dubious at best, as people often drive more when they are spending less on gas (it doesn't matter if the gas is cheaper or you're getting more per gallon). The real way to cut down on emissions is to hit people's wallets. Even people who claim to be big environmentalists don't practive what they preach. They drive their cars more, fly more, use more electronic gadgets (I don't know where the idea that all these gadgets doesn't take a ****-load of energy to produce came from). People love to bash others while never looking at themselves - like telling people who drive SUV's they're killing all of us, and then live in 4000sq ft homes, use computers day and night, crank the AC. Fact is we're all guilty if you're going to blame someone. We all use poducts that take enormous amounts of energy to produce - even your damn bicycles. You know how much energy it takes to operate a blast furnace to melt steel? But no one wants to give any of their **** up, they just want the other guy to give his **** up. There are people who live minimalist lives because of this and they want you to give up your computer (this is just an example). But none of you will do it because that effects you! But make Joe Blow give up his SUV; the hypocrits are all for that.

12-18-2007, 02:14 PM
jcupp


This is all about making the industrialized nations the same as 3rd world nations, so everyone will feel the same.
Pure and simple
Just look at the Kyoto treaty.



********. It's about setting an example so that as those third world nations begin industrializing for themselves and not just as slave nodes to our own economy, they don't add even further to the problem. And FYI this is not just about the bloody ozone layer or melting polar ice. It's about responsible use of our own technology both in our own back yard and in the yards of the other nations who use it. This includes the methods used to produce the very food we eat and the water we drink too.

Pretty sure you wouldn't be posting such ignorant, selfish crap here if you had to filter the pollutants out of your own drinking water every day, or if your kids were born with mutations caused directly by soil and water pollutants dumped into the ecosystem by industrialization. The picture is much bigger than the little finger paint job you present here. Ignorance is bliss though innit?

Andyjaggy
12-18-2007, 02:15 PM
the real debate is just exactly how and where money should be spent. If you're a leftist you will throw money at the source and make things worse (history shows this to be true). The idea that fuel efficient cars are going to help is dubious at best, as people often drive more when they are spending less on gas (it doesn't matter if the gas is cheaper or you're getting more per gallon). The real way to cut down on emissions is to hit people's wallets. Even people who claim to be big environmentalists don't practive what they preach. They drive their cars more, fly more, use more electronic gadgets (I don't know where the idea that all these gadgets doesn't take a ****-load of energy to produce came from). People love to bash others while never looking at themselves - like telling people who drive SUV's they're killing all of us, and then live in 4000sq ft homes, use computers day and night, crank the AC. Fact is we're all guilty if you're going to blame someone. We all use poducts that take enormous amounts of energy to produce - even your damn bicycles. You know how much energy it takes to operate a blast furnace to melt steel? But no one wants to give any of their **** up, they just want the other guy to give his **** up. There are people who live minimalist lives because of this and they want you to give up your computer (this is just an example). But none of you will do it because that effects you! But make Joe Blow give up his SUV; the hypocrits are all for that.

So the question is what are you doing then? Or are you saying you are as guilty as any of us?

Iain
12-18-2007, 02:31 PM
This is all about making the industrialized nations the same as 3rd world nations, so everyone will feel the same.
Pure and simple
Just look at the Kyoto treaty.


I can't think of a more embarrasingly paranoid world view than this.
What's so terrible about redressing some of the imbalance of fortune in the world, the only determining factor of which is where we happen to be born?

If we are-to any extent-responsible for exacerbating, for example, the devastating droughts in Africa, wouldn't it be right to try and do something about it? Even if we're not, wouldn't it still be the natural thing to do?

Very few people with any conscience or social awareness will condone the arrogant, "I'm alright, why should I help them?" attitude you seem to revel in.

prospector
12-18-2007, 02:33 PM
********.
OK, my bad

It's about making the US into a 3rd world country.

Limbus
12-18-2007, 02:51 PM
This is all about making the industrialized nations the same as 3rd world nations, so everyone will feel the same.
Pure and simple
Just look at the Kyoto treaty.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Germany emmits about 1/2 of the CO2 the USA emitts per person. Now german is hardly a 3rd world country. So how will reducing the CO2 emmission in the US turn it into a 3rd world country?

Exception
12-18-2007, 02:55 PM
It's about making the US into a 3rd world country.

It already is. The richest 3rd world country in the world. That's what we call the US back where I'm from.
Your comments alone prove that the education system of the US is certainly 3rd world.

That reminds me... why on earth did I join that group of savages in the first place?

Iain
12-18-2007, 03:01 PM
Germany emmits about 1/2 of the CO2 the USA emitts per person. Now german is hardly a 3rd world country. So how will reducing the CO2 emmission in the US turn it into a 3rd world country?

Because it's a commy plot.

Didn't you learn anything from McCarthy?

Limbus
12-18-2007, 03:02 PM
the real debate is just exactly how and where money should be spent. If you're a leftist you will throw money at the source and make things worse (history shows this to be true).
Oh sure. Its all a left wing conspiracy. Do you have any facts that will support this?



The idea that fuel efficient cars are going to help is dubious at best, as people often drive more when they are spending less on gas (it doesn't matter if the gas is cheaper or you're getting more per gallon). The real way to cut down on emissions is to hit people's wallets.

So the gas prices and car taxes should be raised? That will surely lead to more fuel efficient cars on the market.


Even people who claim to be big environmentalists don't practive what they preach. They drive their cars more, fly more, use more electronic gadgets (I don't know where the idea that all these gadgets doesn't take a ****-load of energy to produce came from).

Please backup your opinion with facts.


People love to bash others while never looking at themselves - like telling people who drive SUV's they're killing all of us, and then live in 4000sq ft homes, use computers day and night, crank the AC. Fact is we're all guilty if you're going to blame someone. We all use poducts that take enormous amounts of energy to produce - even your damn bicycles. You know how much energy it takes to operate a blast furnace to melt steel?

No facts here either. But you are surely aware that producing a bike does need much less energy than producing an SUV or any car. And we are not even talking about riding/driving it yet.


But no one wants to give any of their **** up, they just want the other guy to give his **** up. There are people who live minimalist lives because of this and they want you to give up your computer (this is just an example). But none of you will do it because that effects you! But make Joe Blow give up his SUV; the hypocrits are all for that.

More accusations and still not a single fact.
In this thread it was claimed that ther is a need to drive a SUV. That is just ridiculous. And BTW my car needs around 1,5 Gallons per 100km and its not small or uncomfortable and its fast too.

prospector
12-18-2007, 03:26 PM
Oh sure. Its all a left wing conspiracy. Do you have any facts that will support this?
Pick ANY gov't program.
In '65 there was 'the Great society'...was suppose to eliminate being poor
So far we've put 6 trillion into it...we STILL have poor
It would have been cheeper to give each a million dollars and be done with it back then.


That will surely lead to more fuel efficient cars on the market.
not necessarily, but lots of less people driving as poor won't be able to pay extra money.


Please backup your opinion with facts.
Shall we start with the enviro pope? Al Gore


And BTW my car needs around 1,5 Gallons per 100km and its not small or uncomfortable and its fast too.
Can it tow a 40' 5th wheel like my pickup? a 20' 5th wheel? a trailer with a riding mower?
Can it go where my Jeep will go? Will I be able to stick my 60" plasma in the back and still hold 4 people?

Andyjaggy
12-18-2007, 03:29 PM
To claim that no one needs an SUV is ridiculous. Do most people that have one need one. No probably not, but to claim that no one has a practical use and need for one is ignorant thinking.

IMI
12-18-2007, 03:31 PM
I love that! :thumbsup:

You're absolutely right. Here we are the richest nation (or one of the richest nations) in the world and our education system is pathetic. Although it's also the environment too. There are many factors as to why kids in the USA are not as intelligent as kids in other countries. Apparently the young in other nations WANT to learn as opposed to most kids here feel they HAVE to learn. It's too bad. The fall of the Roman empire.... :(


You can't make the broad sweeping statement that our education system is pathetic. I know you didn't say it, but you seem to have agreed with it. It seems to be very pathetic in some locations, and very good in others. The US is a pretty big country.
Of course, it certainly would help if the money earmarked for education actually WENT TO education. Lottery revenue is supposed to do that in, I think, most states, if not all... but it doesn't, not to the extent it's supposed to.
And they could pay teachers more. I'm all for capitalism, but it's a little strange to hear of teachers of public school elementary students who are just barely making a living, and parents have to send their kids to private schools to keep them safer and to get them schooled better.
Can't blame it all on the education system though, when our society promotes mindless entertainment to the point where it's such a distraction, and smart kids are encouraged to not appear smart, lest they get ostracized by their peers, and teen idols are cokehead party animals, heroin-overdosing rock stars, and rappers encouraging gang violence and promoting the lifestyle of the inner city drug lords.
Parents also have a certain responsibility for educating their children, but alot of them are just as distracted.

parm
12-18-2007, 03:45 PM
Can it tow a 40' 5th wheel like my pickup? a 20' 5th wheel? a trailer with a riding mower?
Can it go where my Jeep will go? Will I be able to stick my 60" plasma in the back and still hold 4 people?

What's a 40' 5th wheel?

IMI
12-18-2007, 03:56 PM
To claim that no one needs an SUV is ridiculous. Do most people that have one need one. No probably not, but to claim that no one has a practical use and need for one is ignorant thinking.

Yes, I'd emphatically agree with that!

I love the way the concept of "need" get thrown around by certain political mindsets: If you think you NEED that SUV, it's impractical, and you're being selfish.
I once used my Ford Explorer to pull a woman out of some mud she was stuck in. She was mighty happy I came along with it. I didn't ask her political affiliation, but I left the scene hoping she was a far left liberal type. :D

IMI
12-18-2007, 04:09 PM
Things are definitely alot different. When I was in school, you didn't even think about dropping out. Now it seems, it's no big deal.

Andyjaggy
12-18-2007, 04:10 PM
Yes, I'd emphatically agree with that!

I love the way the concept of "need" get thrown around by certain political mindsets: If you think you NEED that SUV, it's impractical, and you're being selfish.
I once used my Ford Explorer to pull a woman out of some mud she was stuck in. She was mighty happy I came along with it. I didn't ask her political affiliation, but I left the scene hoping she was a far left liberal type. :D

Yeah, it's easy to judge others and assume they have no need for one if you don't. Especially for people who live in the city. Try living where I do and still say that no one has a need for one.

I'll admit about 50% of the "need" is for entertainment, 4 wheeling, camping, jeeping, basically playing around in the outdoors. However there is another 50% of people who actually "need" one.

I'll admit however that even then a lot of the SUVs and trucks are on the excessive side. Being far more massive and excessive then the person actually needs. I'll also admit that a lot of people have a huge SUV they have never used for its intended purpose.

Still just remember that some people actually need one.

ted
12-18-2007, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE=Iain]
What's so terrible about redressing some of the imbalance of fortune in the world, the only determining factor of which is where we happen to be born?QUOTE]

Nothing as long as YOU do it and DON'T force others to give an amount that YOU see fit.
I already give and donate to organizations I believe in.
What makes you or anyone else the decision maker of re-distribution of wealth?
Seriously, I'm not picking on you, just curious why society feels the need and the right to take from the "so-called" rich and give to the poor? I constantly hear this argument. If it's mine, earned or born to, why does it make me obligated to give some away? Yeh, it's nice, but manditory? Come on.

jcupp
12-18-2007, 04:15 PM
Justify that.

Are you not paying attention? See my posts 30, 64, 70, 85, 112 and 201.

Also take a look at this:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

You know guys just 'cause you keep repeating the same bogus stuff over and over doesn't make it true. I've explained that the "all scientist' BS is just that, BS. Once again GIGO - bad data, flawed studies, incorrect assumptions and politicized conclusions are bad science no matter how many are in on the scam.

I've linked to others who share my opinion, shown how dissenting opinions are quashed and linked to actual scientific studies that disprove many of your claims but all I get is "but...but...people with degrees say so". That particular logical fallacy is called Appeal to Authority and it holds no water. Then you all try to impeach my sources with ad hominem attacks, another popular logical fallacy.

Oh and that "Hockey Stick" temp graph that someone posted a while back has been pretty well discredited:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/

ted
12-18-2007, 04:16 PM
In this thread it was claimed that ther is a need to drive a SUV. That is just ridiculous.

Again, rude people telling others what they do and don't need without knowing that I DO need an SUV. I'm sure others can say you don't need that car. Are you going to give it up? I thought not. :D

IMI
12-18-2007, 04:19 PM
I'll admit however that even then a lot of the SUVs and trucks are on the excessive side. Being far more massive and excessive then the person actually needs. I'll also admit that a lot of people have a huge SUV they have never used for its intended purpose.


I'd agree with that, too. There's a 17 year old kid living down the street from me with a brand new Hummer his parents bought for him. I have never seen it dirty, never seen any camping equipment around their place. What I have seen is him cruising around in it with the stereo blasting. it's a status symbol, and I'd venture to say the kid will never use it for anything other than that.
I sure would make good use of it though. ;)
Hey, I don't feel a need to justify owning an Explorer one little bit. it's a great vehicle, and there have been many many times I've needed it for hauling stuff around, not to mention for getting into those hard to reach places.
People who tell me I don't need it I say, fine, whatever. I also don't need you to tell me what I need. ;)

Lightwolf
12-18-2007, 04:19 PM
Still just remember that some people actually need one.
Just look at the current range on the market. Only a fraction of them are utility vehicles.

Cheers,
Mike

Ulven
12-18-2007, 04:20 PM
So what, if anything, do people here do to cut their emissions?
I use public transport/bike only, turn off electrical appliances properly (not on standby), turn off lights in a room when I exit it, insulated the house a bit better and leave the heating a bit lower than I did before. The bills have certainly been reduced, and it's not particularly difficult to keep up, it's just habit, so even if it all turns out to be a big red consipiracy of doom as some suggest... I'll pay a bit less on my electricity bill. Win/win :)

Andyjaggy
12-18-2007, 04:23 PM
I think we should improve our train systems in the US. I read a paper that a train can effectively haul some insane number of tons with some insanely low number of gallons of gas (yes I know trains don't run on gas) At any rate they are remarkably effective for moving lots of stuff.

Of coarse then we have to build tracks everywhere and that would freak the environmentalists out. Guess we just can't win.

IMI
12-18-2007, 04:26 PM
Of coarse then we have to build tracks everywhere and that would freak the environmentalists out. Guess we just can't win.

We could also build alot more nuclear power plants, but that tends to freak out the environmentalists as well. ;)

jcupp
12-18-2007, 04:32 PM
I don't do anything to cut my CO2 emissions, but I do have an energy efficient house heated with a combination of passive solar, wood from my 20 acre forest and fossil fuel. Most of my lights are florescent because it keeps my electric bill low and I drive a small car because I'm cheap and would rather buy bourbon than gasoline with my money. I recycle to do may part to keep the local landfill as small as possible. Nut I don't sweat the CO2.

Glendalough
12-18-2007, 04:57 PM
...
...My God, it's simple.
Oh yeh, stop telling me I can't say Merry CHRISTmas! God bless us all. :thumbsup:

Well Ted, it's the frying pan into the fire, if you are claiming to be a Christian here. You will be held to an even higher standard than the PC crowd that you are scorning.

Doesn't the good book say something about harder to get to heaven than drive an SUV through the eye of a needle? We in the West are immensely rich and powerful compared to the unfortunate races of the world, Our Brothers. Don't think God is going to be happy with second best. In fact, never were people in such a position to do good as the privileged citizens of the west. Not talking about money, but the power to influence, the power to effect other people's aspirations.

If we can send people to the moon, don't see why we have to wimp out on designing new car engines. As far as money is concerned, it is only a means to an end.

Imagine if the Lone Ranger suddenly announced it was costing too much money to clean up the country! Yet this is the very icon we would all like to emulate, that is, being honest and reducing it to the simplest form. In England it is Robin Hood, so taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't irrelevant. In fact this is what what life is all about, isn't it?

Not trying to preach, but this has shifted to an ethical question.

IMI
12-18-2007, 04:57 PM
Same here. Though even "back then" in the 60's for me going to school was still a chore. Although if I had the opportunity to do it all over again... :)


I liked school, especially high school. That was in the late 70's/early 80's. I know I was definitely in the minority, but I actually enjoyed my classes, and did pretty well as a result.
My dad was huge on education and always wanted to see my assignments and check my homework. I never quite finished "school" until I moved out. ;)

Puguglybonehead
12-18-2007, 06:08 PM
OK, my bad

It's about making the US into a 3rd world country.

You guys are so far in debt at the moment, you're already headed there. Thank your current government for that.

prospector
12-18-2007, 06:29 PM
What's a 40' 5th wheel?

Here is 35 footer, mines 40'
Loads on a hitch in the bed of a pickup truck.

ted
12-18-2007, 06:29 PM
Well Ted, it's the frying pan into the fire, if you are claiming to be a Christian here. You will be held to an even higher standard than the PC crowd that you are scorning.

I've tried to make it clear I'm not scorning anyone and in fact encourage people to save, conserve and give to charities. It's a good thing. I think most of us agree on this.

What irks me is when someone tells me to live up/down to their standards or I’m somehow wrong, uneducated, a moron or worse.
If they live in a home with no power, walk everywhere and are self sufficient and don't rely on any companies products, I'll respect their right to tell me I'm wrong. Otherwise it's rude and arrogant to think you know what is right for someone else.

parm
12-18-2007, 06:34 PM
Are you not paying attention? See my posts 30, 64, 70, 85, 112 and 201............

Oh and that "Hockey Stick" temp graph that someone posted a while back has been pretty well discredited:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/

Of course I'm paying attention. I've dutifully perused every one of your links. And all the links within them.

The question should really be leveled at yourself. Because, having read them thoroughly. I get the distinct impression that you have not.

For example. the second in the group of three URL s you linked above, (post 228). Very good. You should read it, and the links within it. Especially the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science.

Really. I have to thank you for that. It's a real gem. And for anyone confused about the whole issue. It's part of a series of articles in the 'New Scientist' magazine. Outlining 26 of the most common climate myths and misconceptions. Ideal for those who want a more succinct overview. It's far more balanced, informed and well written. Than a bunch of blogs, by pseudo researchers and anti- scientists. Here it is:

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

parm
12-18-2007, 06:51 PM
Here is 35 footer, mines 40'

Good God! It's a caravan. A forty foot caravan.

Do you have those specially built? Or are they fairly common place in the states?

I don't think there's many roads, in the countryside of the British Isles. That one of those would fit down. It's twice as long as my house.

prospector
12-18-2007, 07:06 PM
You guys are so far in debt at the moment,
What? You must be kidding
Latest figures 2004
Percent of GDP/debt ratio percent

US..........-4.07%
France.....-3.75%
Germany..-3.70%
Italy.......-3.25%
So close to all others here
BUT
Japan......-7.57%

And here is a interesting line in the report that bears mentioning since we have slashed so many taxes.

This data is from 2004, the year of the largest US federal deficit on record. Since that time, the size of the deficit has been cut, nearly in half.

Freom CIA Databook
So we are not doing bad...thank you very much

Need even lower taxes

Glendalough
12-18-2007, 07:06 PM
I think we should improve our train systems in the US. I read a paper that a train can effectively haul some insane number of tons with some insanely low number of gallons of gas (yes I know trains don't run on gas) At any rate they are remarkably effective for moving lots of stuff.

Of coarse then we have to build tracks everywhere and that would freak the environmentalists out. Guess we just can't win.

Yes, this is a good idea imho. Trains in america carry more freight than they ever did and there are lines pretty much everywhere as well.

There's the famous 'Silver Streak' train of the 1930's which did over a thousand miles at an average speed of 78 mph and did a stretch at 112mph. This all on 400 gallons of diesel and a 600 hp engine. This all happened almost 80 years ago and is a good indicator at how wasteful and inefficient modern automotive transport is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Zephyr

prospector
12-18-2007, 07:08 PM
Do you have those specially built? Or are they fairly common place in the states?
No they're common..needed for weekend getaways

prospector
12-18-2007, 07:10 PM
This all happened almost 80 years ago and is a good indicator at how wasteful and inefficient modern automotive transport is.
But try to get a train to all the stores in your downtown area.
Trucks...the only efficent way to go

Glendalough
12-18-2007, 07:19 PM
But try to get a train to all the stores in your downtown area.
Trucks...the only efficent way to go

We've been through this all before.

Bring the stores to the railway track and then you can drive downtown in comfort and peace (@55mph) without being assaulted by 40 ton semis (these driven by poor mortals on an 80 hour week).

Andyjaggy
12-18-2007, 07:26 PM
Good God! It's a caravan. A forty foot caravan.

Do you have those specially built? Or are they fairly common place in the states?

I don't think there's many roads, in the countryside of the British Isles. That one of those would fit down. It's twice as long as my house.

Very common here. I never cared for them myself. I prefer to throw a tent on my back, hike somewhere and rough it.

jcupp
12-18-2007, 07:32 PM
For example. the second in the group of three URL s you linked above, (post 228). Very good. You should read it, and the links within it. Especially the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science.


From the first link: "At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series. "

From the second link:"It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming."

From the third: "This flaw in methodology was also highlighted by Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon (Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004) and led to a retraction by Mann (and Scott Rutherford) in the Journal of Geophysical Research (June 2004). In this article they admit to underestimating the temperature variations indicated by the proxy data since 1400 by more than one-third, which explains why their previous work failed to track the Little Ice Age. While admitting this error, Mann and Rutherford fail to recognize the extent to which it undermines their historical reconstruction and its relation to present temperature trends."

So in peer reviewed journals actual scientists have a problem with Mann's hockey stick graph. They have problems with both the data and the methodology. so I stand by my opinion that it is discredited. Once again bad science.

jcupp
12-18-2007, 07:40 PM
Good God! It's a caravan. A forty foot caravan...


God bless America :thumbsup:

ted
12-18-2007, 08:53 PM
While I like disappearing in the woods for days with just a pack, I would never be without a trailer or motor home.
We’ve had our most memorable Family moments on the road, at the ocean or in the hills with our RV.
RV’s make it soooo much easier with a family. Just ask my wife! :thumbsup:

prospector
12-18-2007, 10:19 PM
megalodon

. Typos are one thing, but constant misspellings are another.
Are you making fun of my overly pudgy fingers on this tiny keyboard?????

prospector
12-18-2007, 10:22 PM
:D just kidding:D :thumbsup:
I probably SHOULD use spell check so I can find where I hit 2 keys.
Will try better in future

there spell checker said all was coolk

prospector
12-18-2007, 10:22 PM
DANG IT....cool
not coolk

DogBoy
12-19-2007, 01:07 AM
OK, my bad

It's about making the US into a 3rd world country.

Oh god! It is all a conspiracy to destroy the U$? :D :D :D

Now I know you are only taking the pi$$ :thumbsup:

Iain
12-19-2007, 01:20 AM
Never mind co2 emmissions. What about fluoridation? Have you ever seen a communist drink water?

Ripper to Mandrake:"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?"

Watch Dr Strangelove. It'll cure all your paranoid communist anxieties. :D

Limbus
12-19-2007, 01:53 AM
To claim that no one needs an SUV is ridiculous. Do most people that have one need one. No probably not, but to claim that no one has a practical use and need for one is ignorant thinking.

Fact is that most SUVs are not made for Offroad use. They dont have the proper suspension, brakes, gears etc...
There are people who need offraod capable vehicles but not SUVs and I would guess that those who actually need it are far less than 1%. The abslout majority of SUV owners dont need them.

Iain
12-19-2007, 01:58 AM
Fact is that most SUVs are not made for Offroad use. They dont have the proper suspension, brakes, gears etc...
There are people who need offraod capable vehicles but not SUVs and I would guess that those who actually need it are far less than 1%. The abslout majority of SUV owners dont need them.

What you mean all those well dressed ladies who drop their kids off at school in their BMW X5's don't then go across the fields on the 600m trip home? Strange....

Limbus
12-19-2007, 02:00 AM
What you mean all those well dressed ladies who drop their kids off at school in their BMW X5's don't then go across the fields on the 600m trip home? Strange....
Shocking, I know. :D

prospector
12-19-2007, 02:09 AM
need offraod capable vehicles but not SUVs
So we can't have nice looking 4 wheel drive cars to go offroad? They can only be pickups? Any car with 4 WD can be used off road, or in snow country on the roads, or on wet roads, or even on dry roads going to construction sites.
Not all 4WDs are trucks or Jeeps. We do like SPORTY UTILITY VEHICHLES.
We do need to go in less than ideal conditions, tho we may not climb mountains or forge rivers with them.
Now I don't own a SUV, I have a F-350 with big 6 inch exhaust pipes coming off some nice chromy headers so my big 7+ liter diesel can breath that's 4WD, and I also have a jeep, of which both are over 20 years old so I don't have to have all that emission crap bogging me down.
But I see SUVs everywhere I go so they are needed by people.

prospector
12-19-2007, 02:14 AM
Oh Yea, because they are deisel, I don't have to have them smogged, which saves me that stupid Calif smog fee.
More for the tank of fuel. :thumbsup:

Limbus
12-19-2007, 02:15 AM
But I see SUVs everywhere I go so they are needed by people.

Now that is what I call preschool logic.

colkai
12-19-2007, 03:07 AM
I watched the last Ep of "Power of the planet" last night.
The presenter pointed the same argument as the guy in the video about seeing it purely from a risk managment POV.

Save the planet? Nah, she'll be just fine, she's suffered worse things than this pesky "newbie" species humans. No matter the damage we do, give her a million years or so and she'll have recovered, adapted, and a new species will be dominant.

It ain't about saving the planet, it's about being selfish and keeping the planet habitable and pleasant for us to live on. Sure, we can survive rising temps and sea levels and constant crazy weather.

Ask youself this though, would you rather live in a house with bad or no heating, damp, rot, sludge in the taps and roach infestations, or a clean, warm, dry comfortable place?

As the guy in the video says, how much money does every person spend per year on car, house, personal insurance? Which you do in the hope you never ever have to claim on it. So thats all of us then, keeping companies afloat and very wealthy and NOT wanting anything from it. Heck, I'd wager most people don't donate anywhere near that amount to charity, but we do it anyway.

I'm selfish, I want a place I can live pleasantly, mind you, when the worst hits, at least I'll be dead N gone and it's all your children and grandchildren who'll suffer so I suppose that all good. Better your children than me eh? :devil:

Mind you, not so sure they'll have fond memories of you if you had the chance to fix things for them and their offspring and you didn't.

How many parents go on about kids leaving their rooms in a mess, well, this little blue planet of ours is our "room" and it'll be a long time before we find anywhere else habitable, assuming there is anywhere out there that is.

colkai
12-19-2007, 03:14 AM
Good God! It's a caravan. A forty foot caravan.

Do you have those specially built? Or are they fairly common place in the states?

I don't think there's many roads, in the countryside of the British Isles. That one of those would fit down. It's twice as long as my house.
Ain't it the truth, my static sited van is only 28 feet fer gawds sake.

Can you imagine trying to get that thing through the Welsh valleys? :D

Wish I had the money to have that amount of stuff (not that I would - it seems a tad excessive). But a big sUV, one of them 40 foot "trailers", 60" plasma screens. Sheesh, I could probably live for a few years simply on the cost of them alone.

I guess life is VERY good in the USA - why perchance they don't want any cutbacks. Gawd knows what they'd make of our 2-up / 2-down terraced houses! :p ;)


Now that is what I call preschool logic.
my dad is bigger than your dad ;)

StereoMike
12-19-2007, 04:13 AM
Maybe there's some misunderstanding on SUVs.
By comparing the English and German Wikipedia entry I made out some differences in perception of this type of car. It seems that in the U.S. SUV is almost synonymous with '4WD' or 'offroad vehicle'.
In Europe (at least Gemany) an SUV is seldom considered a practical offroad capable 'tow my home' vehicle. There's an awareness, that these cars won't see dirt in their whole lifetime (after all you get everywhere by autobahn, no need to go offroad). I assume most people here think of a Porsche Cayenne or VW Touareg when you speak about SUVs.
So when we talk about SUVs, we speak in fact about (in your culture) crossover SUVs or soft-roaders. And these are meant to "drive like a car", without real offroad capability (you'd drive your Porsche into the mud? I guess not), not the towing abilities you had in the trucks etc.
After all, when Limbus and others from this region speak about SUVs, they talk in fact about cars, that look like offroaders, but can't go offroad, guzzle lots of gas, drive like a limousine, can't tow your 40' caravan and are just one thing: A way to show the world how much money you have (or at least how careless you want to spend it).

btw. funny to see the ignorance of many of our fellow U.S. wavers... your administration did a great job :thumbsup:

mike

*Pete*
12-19-2007, 04:48 AM
We do like SPORTY UTILITY VEHICHLES.

A bicycle is more sporty, by every sence of the word.
Using it will without exception give you a healthier and sportier body, while a vehicle, no matter the design, size or shape of it..does the opposite.

I think Ted mentioned earlier that unless we are using bicycles and/or collective transportation, he sees no need to change his views.
well..I am using a bicycle for my transportation needs during the summer, and collective transportation in the winters...the few times i need to bring in some furniture from IKEA, ill ask either friends with cars, or IKEA customer service to bring them to me...the need for transportation of goods too large for bicycle or buses, occurs a few times a year.

So, i show an example...but will Ted follow?..nah, like USA and its administration you will look at the other guy, china in this case and point the finger saying "but but but...he/she/they does it, why shouldnt we/i?", allowing China to use the same arguments back at you.

its simply lack of will, admit it..its not about belief or lack of example.
life is simply too comfortable to change it.

this arguing about whether or not we are heading towards disaster is insane.
common for all of us on this forum is, or should be:
1# we have an insurance against theft, fire, life, injuries.
2# those of us who have a car, also has airbags, seatbelts etc etc.
3# those of us who have kids, teach them not to talk to/follow/trust strangers.

the list can go on...but you see that its all about precautions, most likely none of us will ever experience that our house burns down, experience burglary, a car accident or that our children get abused by the wrong type of people.
still we are prepared for those incidents the best way we can be, just in case.
If nothing ever happens, we will have lost money on the insurance and the extra cost of the cars, we also have made our children more suspicios and afraid than need be.
but we take our chances becouse if there eventually would be a situation where we will need the insurance, airbag or that our kids get away from childabusers becouse of them following out warnings..it will be all worth it.

Global warming is exactly the same...take your precautions now, its not too expensive yet, not too late yet...but if you do nothing, we might end up in a situation where we loose everything.

colkai
12-19-2007, 05:48 AM
...we take our chances becouse if there eventually would be a situation where we will need the insurance, airbag or that our kids get away from childabusers becouse of them following out warnings..it will be all worth it.

Global warming is exactly the same...take your precautions now, its not too expensive yet, not too late yet...but if you do nothing, we might end up in a situation where we loose everything.

Very well put, as the video clearly stated, it's about risk and "what if", why, when we live MOST of our lives hedging our bets against "what if", some folks are unwilling to do so to keep this planet more "human friendly" is rather perplexing.

As to lowering our "carbon footprint" (by the Gods how I hate that phrase), let's face it, most of us would buy energy saving bulbs, not because they "help save the planet" or reduce emmissions. We do so because they last longer, work out cheaper in the long run and cut down our fuel bills.

We've switched at home and there is a visible saving in our bills, after all 100W 'std' vs 30W 'energy saver' - it ain't rocket science to see we are cutting our outgoings for lighting by over 60%.
For some reason though, people think this is a BAD thing, as if htey are denying themselves. Hey, anything that gives me a bit of extra cash at the end of the year I'll take ta muchly! Spend it on 'important' things like whisky then! :p

*Pete*
12-19-2007, 06:03 AM
yeah...using 30w bulbs instead of 100w bulbs is not much different than using an econimical car instead of a monster SUV...neither will give you the much desired "image" effect, but both will save your wallet and our common climate.

and the reason people should go for the climate friendly option is becouse it is more often than not, much cheaper.
and actually...a fine example with the lightbulbs..the more people will start using them, the more of them will be produced, further lowering the prices.
Capitalism can be incredibly usefull instrument for dealing with global warming...after all, its all about supply vs demand, and when (if ever) we demand cleaner solutions, we will force companies to deliver them to us..be it cars or lightbulbs.

jcupp
12-19-2007, 06:33 AM
Interesting that you omit other OPPOSING relevant points from that very same article.

You see my point all along has been these questions are not settled and that there are opposing viewpoints in the scientific community. But I won't make the mistake of linking to an even slightly balanced source again :)

And what about my other links? Any comments?

BeeVee
12-19-2007, 06:47 AM
What about the YouTube vid that's been linked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg) to many times? Have you watched that? It shifts the focus completely to the risk management side and appeals to our self-interest.

B