http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80423181652.htm
Greenhouse Gases, Carbon Dioxide and Methane, Rise Sharply in 2007
ScienceDaily
Thursday 24 April 2008
Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons. Additionally methane rose by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase. NOAA scientists released these and other preliminary findings today as part of an annual update to the agency's greenhouse gas index, which tracks data from 60 sites around the world.
The burning of coal, oil, and gas, known as fossil fuels, is the primary source of increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Earth's oceans, vegetation, and soils soak up half of these emissions. The rest stays in the air for centuries or longer. Twenty percent of the 2007 fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide are expected to remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, according to the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change.
Viewed another way, last year's carbon dioxide increase means 2.4 molecules of the gas were added to every million molecules of air, boosting the global concentration to nearly 385 parts per million (ppm). Pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels hovered around 280 ppm until 1850. Human activities pushed those levels up to 380 ppm by early 2006.
The rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentrations accelerated over recent decades along with fossil fuel emissions. Since 2000, annual increases of two ppm or more have been common, compared with 1.5 ppm per year in the 1980s and less than one ppm per year during the 1960s.
Methane levels rose last year for the first time since 1998. Methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there's far less of it in the atmosphere-about 1,800 parts per billion. When related climate affects are taken into account, methane's overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide.
Rapidly growing industrialization in Asia and rising wetland emissions in the Arctic and tropics are the most likely causes of the recent methane increase, said scientist Ed Dlugokencky from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory.
"We're on the lookout for the first sign of a methane release from thawing Arctic permafrost," said Dlugokencky. "It's too soon to tell whether last year's spike in emissions includes the start of such a trend."
Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, contains vast stores of carbon. Scientists are concerned that as the Arctic continues to warm and permafrost thaws, carbon could seep into the atmosphere in the form of methane, possibly fueling a cycle of carbon release and temperature rise.
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Science, Technology, Environment and Health
First there is no proof that global warming is man made. Global warming is a NATURAL change in the climate. Blaming man is scare tactics to get people to make irrational decisions based on junk science. Instead of wasting trillions on useless technology to stop global warming (which is impossible) the sensible thing would be to adapt to it. But don't believe me here's links to sources the press and politicians who control most of what is read and heard ignore.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Tuesday, 6 May 2008, 5:52 pm) 
First there is no proof that global warming is man made. Global warming is a NATURAL change in the climate. Blaming man is scare tactics to get people to make irrational decisions based on junk science. Instead of wasting trillions on useless technology to stop global warming (which is impossible) the sensible thing would be to adapt to it. But don't believe me here's links to sources the press and politicians who control most of what is read and heard ignore.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Dude, get with reality. The world is not flat, and global climate change is a reality!
Captain,
1. On what grounds is the unprecedented warming and correlating rise in CO2 and greenhouse gases considered "natural?"
2. What irrational decisions are people being scared into making?
3. On what grounds do you call it "junk science?" Don't you think sites like "globalwarminghoax" might be just the slightest bit biased? What "agenda" by contrast are climate scientists promoting?
4. What technology is being proposed that will cost "trillions?" Are corporations sponsoring this technology the ones funding the climate scientists research? No? Funny, because most of the deniers' research is being funded by corporations whose primary profits come from fossil fuel extraction.
5. How do you propose that people who can't afford to move to the Canadian and Scandinavian highlights "adapt" to warming? How are we going to adapt to a rise in Ocean levels that will displace a billion people over the next 200 years while population continues to grow? How will Third World countries "adapt" to losses in drinking water sources that will likely cause famine and war? Saying we will "adapt" is both callously ignorant and a logical fallacy.
1. On what grounds is the unprecedented warming and correlating rise in CO2 and greenhouse gases considered "natural?"
2. What irrational decisions are people being scared into making?
3. On what grounds do you call it "junk science?" Don't you think sites like "globalwarminghoax" might be just the slightest bit biased? What "agenda" by contrast are climate scientists promoting?
4. What technology is being proposed that will cost "trillions?" Are corporations sponsoring this technology the ones funding the climate scientists research? No? Funny, because most of the deniers' research is being funded by corporations whose primary profits come from fossil fuel extraction.
5. How do you propose that people who can't afford to move to the Canadian and Scandinavian highlights "adapt" to warming? How are we going to adapt to a rise in Ocean levels that will displace a billion people over the next 200 years while population continues to grow? How will Third World countries "adapt" to losses in drinking water sources that will likely cause famine and war? Saying we will "adapt" is both callously ignorant and a logical fallacy.
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Tuesday, 6 May 2008, 9:48 pm)
Dude, get with reality. The world is not flat, and global climate change is a reality!
QUOTE (Libertas @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 3:18 am)
Captain,
1. On what grounds is the unprecedented warming and correlating rise in CO2 and greenhouse gases considered "natural?"
2. What irrational decisions are people being scared into making?
3. On what grounds do you call it "junk science?" Don't you think sites like "globalwarminghoax" might be just the slightest bit biased? What "agenda" by contrast are climate scientists promoting?
4. What technology is being proposed that will cost "trillions?" Are corporations sponsoring this technology the ones funding the climate scientists research? No? Funny, because most of the deniers' research is being funded by corporations whose primary profits come from fossil fuel extraction.
5. How do you propose that people who can't afford to move to the Canadian and Scandinavian highlights "adapt" to warming? How are we going to adapt to a rise in Ocean levels that will displace a billion people over the next 200 years while population continues to grow? How will Third World countries "adapt" to losses in drinking water sources that will likely cause famine and war? Saying we will "adapt" is both callously ignorant and a logical fallacy.
1. On what grounds is the unprecedented warming and correlating rise in CO2 and greenhouse gases considered "natural?"
2. What irrational decisions are people being scared into making?
3. On what grounds do you call it "junk science?" Don't you think sites like "globalwarminghoax" might be just the slightest bit biased? What "agenda" by contrast are climate scientists promoting?
4. What technology is being proposed that will cost "trillions?" Are corporations sponsoring this technology the ones funding the climate scientists research? No? Funny, because most of the deniers' research is being funded by corporations whose primary profits come from fossil fuel extraction.
5. How do you propose that people who can't afford to move to the Canadian and Scandinavian highlights "adapt" to warming? How are we going to adapt to a rise in Ocean levels that will displace a billion people over the next 200 years while population continues to grow? How will Third World countries "adapt" to losses in drinking water sources that will likely cause famine and war? Saying we will "adapt" is both callously ignorant and a logical fallacy.
Global climate change may be real, it just isn't man made. Libertas, those organizations , media, and politicians promoting man made global warming are the biased ones. Good scientists have been fired or forced to retire early for speaking out. I think that's biased. Anyone who believes in MAN MADE global warming are the flat earthers and any dissent from the scientific community is not tolerated. That's why it's junk science. Alternative scientific viewpoints are ignored to promote the "consensus".
Carbon capture, carbon tax, the Kyoto treaty all will end up costing trillions, all in a useless effort to stop something that's natural and impossible to change.
Unless God chooses to stop climate change the only option is to adapt or perish. I think people ought to think about adapting. A good way to adapt is to move from vulnerable areas. Cursing the wind and sky (and man) does nothing but make an inevitable problem worse.
Most of the scientists that speak out are independent or don't work for government agencies. Dissent isn't tolerated and the risk of being fired or retired early like I said is very real.
Most of these scientists have no "ax to grind" as far as having a conflict of interest based on who they work for. You can read their bios in the links I gave you.
It's a pity you didn't answer Libertas's points one by one, as they were presented. Maybe you saw that the weakness of your arguments would be to stark, thus your decision to blur the line.
Still, there are ways around that.
So say the BigOil shills, but lets see shall we....
As a matter of fact BuhCo ™ (sponsors of Corporate America ™) has gone out of its way tosuppress the science which contends that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the PRIMARY cause of accelerated global warming.
I think I'll just let that one stand as a testament to the level of argument and counter argument we may expect from you Cappi.
And anyway, it's funny, and we POACers do like a good laugh.
Ignored by whom? BigOil™? I think not. It strikes me that Global Warming deniers shout as loudly and as frequently as they can, and despite the huge amounts of cash they have backing them, they are, for the main part, ignored by the MSM because their science really is junk.
Here in the UK not to long ago a documentary aired on one of our main terrestrial channels (C4) called The Great Global Warming Swindle. As its title suggests its aim was to present scientific evidence that Global Warming science was/is a con. It failed - miserably. Why? Because it used junk science that was thoroughly debunked and was produced by one of questionable credentials.
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
I refer you here to Libertas's questions regarding HOW that adaptation is to take place, particularly for the poor and middle classes and for the third/developing world. I would add a question of my own: How much do you suggested/imagine this adaptation will cost? Trillions..? More..? Less..?
I'm no scientist, but I do know that science is by and large a game of theory and testable hypothesis. there are certain standards by which theories, etc, are measured. If they do not come up to the mark they are rejected. My guess is that it is not dissent that isn't being tolerated, it's poor science.
What say the scientists of the forum??
I can also research and not accept what I'm told at face value, but thanks for the invite! lol
Still, there are ways around that.
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 5:45 am)
Global climate change may be real, it just isn't man made.
So say the BigOil shills, but lets see shall we....
QUOTE
Libertas, those organizations , media, and politicians promoting man made global warming are the biased ones. Good scientists have been fired or forced to retire early for speaking out. I think that's biased.
As a matter of fact BuhCo ™ (sponsors of Corporate America ™) has gone out of its way tosuppress the science which contends that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the PRIMARY cause of accelerated global warming.
QUOTE
Anyone who believes in MAN MADE global warming are the flat earthers and any dissent from the scientific community is not tolerated. That's why it's junk science.
I think I'll just let that one stand as a testament to the level of argument and counter argument we may expect from you Cappi.
And anyway, it's funny, and we POACers do like a good laugh.
QUOTE
Alternative scientific viewpoints are ignored to promote the "consensus".
Ignored by whom? BigOil™? I think not. It strikes me that Global Warming deniers shout as loudly and as frequently as they can, and despite the huge amounts of cash they have backing them, they are, for the main part, ignored by the MSM because their science really is junk.
Here in the UK not to long ago a documentary aired on one of our main terrestrial channels (C4) called The Great Global Warming Swindle. As its title suggests its aim was to present scientific evidence that Global Warming science was/is a con. It failed - miserably. Why? Because it used junk science that was thoroughly debunked and was produced by one of questionable credentials.
QUOTE
Carbon capture, carbon tax, the Kyoto treaty all will end up costing trillions, all in a useless effort to stop something that's natural and impossible to change.
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
QUOTE
Unless God chooses to stop climate change the only option is to adapt or perish. I think people ought to think about adapting. A good way to adapt is to move from vulnerable areas. Cursing the wind and sky (and man) does nothing but make an inevitable problem worse.
I refer you here to Libertas's questions regarding HOW that adaptation is to take place, particularly for the poor and middle classes and for the third/developing world. I would add a question of my own: How much do you suggested/imagine this adaptation will cost? Trillions..? More..? Less..?
QUOTE
Most of the scientists that speak out are independent or don't work for government agencies. Dissent isn't tolerated and the risk of being fired or retired early like I said is very real.
I'm no scientist, but I do know that science is by and large a game of theory and testable hypothesis. there are certain standards by which theories, etc, are measured. If they do not come up to the mark they are rejected. My guess is that it is not dissent that isn't being tolerated, it's poor science.
What say the scientists of the forum??
QUOTE
Most of these scientists have no "ax to grind" as far as having a conflict of interest based on who they work for. You can read their bios in the links I gave you.
I can also research and not accept what I'm told at face value, but thanks for the invite! lol
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 2:45 am)
Global climate change may be real, it just isn't man made. Libertas, those organizations , media, and politicians promoting man made global warming are the biased ones. Good scientists have been fired or forced to retire early for speaking out. I think that's biased. Anyone who believes in MAN MADE global warming are the flat earthers and any dissent from the scientific community is not tolerated. That's why it's junk science. Alternative scientific viewpoints are ignored to promote the "consensus".
Carbon capture, carbon tax, the Kyoto treaty all will end up costing trillions, all in a useless effort to stop something that's natural and impossible to change.
Unless God chooses to stop climate change the only option is to adapt or perish. I think people ought to think about adapting. A good way to adapt is to move from vulnerable areas. Cursing the wind and sky (and man) does nothing but make an inevitable problem worse.
Most of the scientists that speak out are independent or don't work for government agencies. Dissent isn't tolerated and the risk of being fired or retired early like I said is very real.
Most of these scientists have no "ax to grind" as far as having a conflict of interest based on who they work for. You can read their bios in the links I gave you.
Carbon capture, carbon tax, the Kyoto treaty all will end up costing trillions, all in a useless effort to stop something that's natural and impossible to change.
Unless God chooses to stop climate change the only option is to adapt or perish. I think people ought to think about adapting. A good way to adapt is to move from vulnerable areas. Cursing the wind and sky (and man) does nothing but make an inevitable problem worse.
Most of the scientists that speak out are independent or don't work for government agencies. Dissent isn't tolerated and the risk of being fired or retired early like I said is very real.
Most of these scientists have no "ax to grind" as far as having a conflict of interest based on who they work for. You can read their bios in the links I gave you.
Let's suppose for just a moment that Global climate change is a natural event.
Would it hurt to curb our continued release of CO2 and other green house gasses? Would it hurt to promote other energy sources and the science that needs research? Would it hurt to drive smaller cars with better fuel economy? Would it hurt to do what we could, just in case you might be mistaken?
The fact that 99% of the planets climate scientists all agree that Global warming is real, and it's man made is a significant reality, and the fact that a very, very small percentage disagree with the vast majority, that makes it junk science?
Yeah, and Ron Paul has a glacers chance on earth of winning the presidency!
BTW, if there are trillions to be spent on this issue, then there are also trillions in possible profits to be made.
Just as you seem to prefer there be trillions spent, and profited on fossil fuels.
So say the BigOil shills, but lets see shall we....
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
These 19,000 scientists don't all work for Big Oil. Get real.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Nether do these 400 scientists.
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
Go to: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Read some alternative views and stop being part of the crowd just because it's in "fashion".
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
Common sense (which isn't very common now-days) will tell a reasonable person that all the taxes, technology, and treaties related to carbon will cost trillions.
I refer you here to Libertas's questions regarding HOW that adaptation is to take place, particularly for the poor and middle classes and for the third/developing world. I would add a question of my own: How much do you suggested/imagine this adaptation will cost? Trillions..? More..? Less..?
I suggest a first step would be for countries not threatened to loosen their immigration policies for countries that are. This would be a good area for non governmental organizations to help out helping people relocate. A good reason to contribute to these worthwhile organizations. I've got my checkbook out - how about you? Oh wait, governments around the world are deceiving people into believing they can fix things and no ones talking about relocating. Too bad.
I'm no scientist, but I do know that science is by and large a game of theory and testable hypothesis. there are certain standards by which theories, etc, are measured. If they do not come up to the mark they are rejected. My guess is that it is not dissent that isn't being tolerated, it's poor science.
No poor science isn't the reason their rejected. It's because science has been poisoned by becoming politicized. Good science that doesn't adhere to whatever is politically popular is shunned and ostracized.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
These 19,000 scientists don't all work for Big Oil. Get real.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Nether do these 400 scientists.
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
Go to: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Read some alternative views and stop being part of the crowd just because it's in "fashion".
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
Common sense (which isn't very common now-days) will tell a reasonable person that all the taxes, technology, and treaties related to carbon will cost trillions.
I refer you here to Libertas's questions regarding HOW that adaptation is to take place, particularly for the poor and middle classes and for the third/developing world. I would add a question of my own: How much do you suggested/imagine this adaptation will cost? Trillions..? More..? Less..?
I suggest a first step would be for countries not threatened to loosen their immigration policies for countries that are. This would be a good area for non governmental organizations to help out helping people relocate. A good reason to contribute to these worthwhile organizations. I've got my checkbook out - how about you? Oh wait, governments around the world are deceiving people into believing they can fix things and no ones talking about relocating. Too bad.
I'm no scientist, but I do know that science is by and large a game of theory and testable hypothesis. there are certain standards by which theories, etc, are measured. If they do not come up to the mark they are rejected. My guess is that it is not dissent that isn't being tolerated, it's poor science.
No poor science isn't the reason their rejected. It's because science has been poisoned by becoming politicized. Good science that doesn't adhere to whatever is politically popular is shunned and ostracized.
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 9:28 am)
Let's suppose for just a moment that Global climate change is a natural event.
Would it hurt to curb our continued release of CO2 and other green house gasses? Would it hurt to promote other energy sources and the science that needs research? Would it hurt to drive smaller cars with better fuel economy? Would it hurt to do what we could, just in case you might be mistaken?
Yes it would hurt. It's unnecessary. People will drive smaller cars as the price of gas goes up. Other energy sources are all more costly and less efficient. I'm just a poor man I haven't got the money to pay for these misadventures in alternative energy. Look how we screwed up food for everyone by promoting ethanol. (Captain Liberty)
The fact that 99% of the planets climate scientists all agree that Global warming is real, and it's man made is a significant reality, and the fact that a very, very small percentage disagree with the vast majority, that makes it junk science?
I would say most scientists disagree. The pro man made global warming lobby has control of the media and political power so they're more vocal. (Captain Liberty)
Yeah, and Ron Paul has a glacers chance on earth of winning the presidency!
BTW, if there are trillions to be spent on this issue, then there are also trillions in possible profits to be made.
Just as you seem to prefer there be trillions spent, and profited on fossil fuels.
And who is going to pay for all these profits for a technology we don't need. You and me. (Captain Liberty)
Would it hurt to curb our continued release of CO2 and other green house gasses? Would it hurt to promote other energy sources and the science that needs research? Would it hurt to drive smaller cars with better fuel economy? Would it hurt to do what we could, just in case you might be mistaken?
Yes it would hurt. It's unnecessary. People will drive smaller cars as the price of gas goes up. Other energy sources are all more costly and less efficient. I'm just a poor man I haven't got the money to pay for these misadventures in alternative energy. Look how we screwed up food for everyone by promoting ethanol. (Captain Liberty)
The fact that 99% of the planets climate scientists all agree that Global warming is real, and it's man made is a significant reality, and the fact that a very, very small percentage disagree with the vast majority, that makes it junk science?
I would say most scientists disagree. The pro man made global warming lobby has control of the media and political power so they're more vocal. (Captain Liberty)
Yeah, and Ron Paul has a glacers chance on earth of winning the presidency!
BTW, if there are trillions to be spent on this issue, then there are also trillions in possible profits to be made.
Just as you seem to prefer there be trillions spent, and profited on fossil fuels.
And who is going to pay for all these profits for a technology we don't need. You and me. (Captain Liberty)
QUOTE
Common sense (which isn't very common now-days)
You said it, not me...
by the way, do you believe that the elements (methane, Co2) do actually create a greenhouse effect? Or are all the figures on this fallacy?
If you don't dispute that, than how can you possibly say that we can't move to help the situation? Hey, if you want to write checks to groups that would help with relocation, I'm all for that - It would be better and more effective than using your money for campaign contributions to the Inhoffes of the world.
here's a pdf from the pew center for climate change. It's just one of thousands of referenced, resourced documents by independent researchers that explains, quite well, exactly what's going on. You can say God's doing it, but then again, you can say that about anything, and you'd be impossible to prove wrong... It's a cop-out. What happened to your mandate of stewardship of the earth?
edit to add: here's a link to a database of studies by year since 2000. if you want me to go looking around for stuff before 2000, let me know... the research goes back through the seventies.
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Tuesday, 6 May 2008, 7:52 pm)
First there is no proof that global warming is man made. Global warming is a NATURAL change in the climate. Blaming man is scare tactics to get people to make irrational decisions based on junk science. Instead of wasting trillions on useless technology to stop global warming (which is impossible) the sensible thing would be to adapt to it. But don't believe me here's links to sources the press and politicians who control most of what is read and heard ignore.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/blog/
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
I went to your fist link, and it's a petition - you're nuts if you think anyone here would sign something that rejects Kyoto.
I went to the second link, and I see that there are four hundred scientists that dissent. Their main arguments are 1)that this has happened before, long before we got here and 2)yeah, it's happening, but there's no need to worry - it's not as drastic as Gore says it is.
A couple of issues I'll raise. If you're citing these blurbs as your rationale, why would you worry about relocating people?
Also, If it's not man made, and it's something that's naturally occurring, why is it occurring? I see no alternate hypothesis of the mechanisms behind it. Is it not possible that in the past, natural circumstances mimicked the actions of man today? could it be that this has happened before because an earthquake or volcanic action released large amounts of methane and CO2? could it be said than that man is mimicking natural disasters of the past through the production of large quantities of these chemicals? I don't see how stating that it happened before we got here necessarily negates human causation.
I was going to ignore the last two links, because I figured I knew what I'd find there. I decided, however, to check them out just in case I was wrong. I wasn't. I would think that sites like these would have placed well sourced and referenced studies showing information at least as incontrovertible as the thousands of studies to the contrary prominently. They don't. They have tons of links that lead to more unqualified BS. I spent as much time as I felt able to on them, and couldn't find a single footnote or preliminary finding of a scientific study.
Where's the beef, Libby?
Oh yeah, its on a factory farm, spewing out methane, causing global warming.
Where's the beef, Libby?
Oh yeah, its on a factory farm, spewing out methane, causing global warming.
QUOTE
Let's suppose for just a moment that Global climate change is a natural event.
Would it hurt to curb our continued release of CO2 and other green house gasses? Would it hurt to promote other energy sources and the science that needs research? Would it hurt to drive smaller cars with better fuel economy? Would it hurt to do what we could, just in case you might be mistaken?
Yes it would hurt. It's unnecessary. People will drive smaller cars as the price of gas goes up. Other energy sources are all more costly and less efficient. I'm just a poor man I haven't got the money to pay for these misadventures in alternative energy. Look how we screwed up food for everyone by promoting ethanol. (Captain Liberty)
Who would be hurt? Making money on new technology is a bad thing? Worse than making money on old technology taht is KNOWN to be dirty and not effecient?
Poor man, you're gonna buy gas burning cars and trucks, you're gonna buy gas and diesel to power those vehicles. Money spent. Why not spend that money in ways that won't harm the planet, AND will save you money?
Sorry Capn, but that argument is very weak and exceptionally short sighted.
The fact that 99% of the planets climate scientists all agree that Global warming is real, and it's man made is a significant reality, and the fact that a very, very small percentage disagree with the vast majority, that makes it junk science?
I would say most scientists disagree. The pro man made global warming lobby has control of the media and political power so they're more vocal. (Captain Liberty)
You woudl say? Would you care to TRY and back that claim up with ANYTHING resembling truth and facts?? Pro-man mane global climate change has control of everything, because it's a fact, in spite of yuour head in teh sand denial!
Yeah, and Ron Paul has a glacers chance on earth of winning the presidency!
BTW, if there are trillions to be spent on this issue, then there are also trillions in possible profits to be made.
Just as you seem to prefer there be trillions spent, and profited on fossil fuels.
And who is going to pay for all these profits for a technology we don't need. You and me. (Captain Liberty)
You're going to pay for technology one way or another. Either your support the dinasaur technology, or you want a better future. The world is not flat. Wake up. Head towards the future and you will NOT fall off the edge!
Would it hurt to curb our continued release of CO2 and other green house gasses? Would it hurt to promote other energy sources and the science that needs research? Would it hurt to drive smaller cars with better fuel economy? Would it hurt to do what we could, just in case you might be mistaken?
Yes it would hurt. It's unnecessary. People will drive smaller cars as the price of gas goes up. Other energy sources are all more costly and less efficient. I'm just a poor man I haven't got the money to pay for these misadventures in alternative energy. Look how we screwed up food for everyone by promoting ethanol. (Captain Liberty)
Who would be hurt? Making money on new technology is a bad thing? Worse than making money on old technology taht is KNOWN to be dirty and not effecient?
Poor man, you're gonna buy gas burning cars and trucks, you're gonna buy gas and diesel to power those vehicles. Money spent. Why not spend that money in ways that won't harm the planet, AND will save you money?
Sorry Capn, but that argument is very weak and exceptionally short sighted.
The fact that 99% of the planets climate scientists all agree that Global warming is real, and it's man made is a significant reality, and the fact that a very, very small percentage disagree with the vast majority, that makes it junk science?
I would say most scientists disagree. The pro man made global warming lobby has control of the media and political power so they're more vocal. (Captain Liberty)
You woudl say? Would you care to TRY and back that claim up with ANYTHING resembling truth and facts?? Pro-man mane global climate change has control of everything, because it's a fact, in spite of yuour head in teh sand denial!
Yeah, and Ron Paul has a glacers chance on earth of winning the presidency!
BTW, if there are trillions to be spent on this issue, then there are also trillions in possible profits to be made.
Just as you seem to prefer there be trillions spent, and profited on fossil fuels.
And who is going to pay for all these profits for a technology we don't need. You and me. (Captain Liberty)
You're going to pay for technology one way or another. Either your support the dinasaur technology, or you want a better future. The world is not flat. Wake up. Head towards the future and you will NOT fall off the edge!
Cap'n,
Never in my 3 years on this forum have I ever seen an argument being proposed with fewer facts and honest information. Your argument is as weak as can be because you have provided ZERO credible and substantive evidence to back up your claim, other than that you simply don't like change!
If Al Gore was to say that Sex with women was groovy, all you conservatives would deny the fact simply because Al Gore said it!
You people are stuck to the talking crap like flies on sticky paper.
You people are stuck to the talking crap like flies on sticky paper.
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 9:40 am)
So say the BigOil shills, but lets see shall we....
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
These 19,000 scientists don't all work for Big Oil. Get real.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Nether do these 400 scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
These 19,000 scientists don't all work for Big Oil. Get real.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Nether do these 400 scientists.
Petition:
QUOTE
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Followed by: "This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists."
Pity those 19,000 'scientists' aren't listed anywhere at that link, because I'm willing to bet there'd be names like S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery on it.
A little on the spot research into one of the names mentioned on the site, the man who organised that petition on behalf of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Frederick Seitz, reveals that his name fits right alongside Fred Singer regarding his work shilling for Big Tobacco ™. Unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view) the Origan Institute of Science and Medicine, for whom Seitz did much of his Global Warming research , does not see fit to disclose the sources of its funding. Can't say I'm altogether surprised by this secrecy.
QUOTE
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
Go to: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Read some alternative views and stop being part of the crowd just because it's in "fashion".
Go to: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Read some alternative views and stop being part of the crowd just because it's in "fashion".
Hey now, I resent that! they don't call me sheepish for nothing!
Hint #1: Get to know the person to whom you are addressing your comments before starting with the assumptions.
Hint #2: Alternative news tends to be my focus. Being 'in fashion' tends not to.
Glad we've cleared that up! Phew! Almost got labelled one of the crowd there!
QUOTE
Please provide facts, figures and science, etc. Thanks.
Common sense (which isn't very common now-days) will tell a reasonable person that all the taxes, technology, and treaties related to carbon will cost trillions.
Common sense (which isn't very common now-days) will tell a reasonable person that all the taxes, technology, and treaties related to carbon will cost trillions.
Ah,but you see, I was after fact and figures. Maybe I'm lacking in the 'common sense' department, but it seems you, Cappie, are lacking in the facts and figures department.
I realise that you'll probably think I'm being entirely unreasonable to repeat my request, but repeat it I will.
Will it cost more to prevent catasrophic climate change than to relocate millions of humans and animals to more hospitable parts of the planet?
Or do you you think greenhouse gas emissions have no impact at all on climate change????
QUOTE
I refer you here to Libertas's questions regarding HOW that adaptation is to take place, particularly for the poor and middle classes and for the third/developing world. I would add a question of my own: How much do you suggested/imagine this adaptation will cost? Trillions..? More..? Less..?
I suggest a first step would be for countries not threatened to loosen their immigration policies for countries that are. This would be a good area for non governmental organizations to help out helping people relocate. A good reason to contribute to these worthwhile organizations. I've got my checkbook out - how about you? Oh wait, governments around the world are deceiving people into believing they can fix things and no ones talking about relocating. Too bad.
I suggest a first step would be for countries not threatened to loosen their immigration policies for countries that are. This would be a good area for non governmental organizations to help out helping people relocate. A good reason to contribute to these worthwhile organizations. I've got my checkbook out - how about you? Oh wait, governments around the world are deceiving people into believing they can fix things and no ones talking about relocating. Too bad.
OK Captain common sense (sorry, couldn't resist! lol), how likely do you think it is that those countries open, or even soften, their boarders? Seem to remember reading some things about Boarder fences being erected to keep migrant workers out of America. Do you suppose that will change when those migrant workers bring their entire families?
QUOTE
I've got my checkbook out - how about you?
I'll refrain from giving you that hearty pat on the back you're obviously craving, as you seem to have that base well and truly covered yourself.
Hint #3: I pick the charities I support and they know who they are.
QUOTE
I'm no scientist, but I do know that science is by and large a game of theory and testable hypothesis. there are certain standards by which theories, etc, are measured. If they do not come up to the mark they are rejected. My guess is that it is not dissent that isn't being tolerated, it's poor science.
No poor science isn't the reason their rejected. It's because science has been poisoned by becoming politicized. Good science that doesn't adhere to whatever is politically popular is shunned and ostracized.
No poor science isn't the reason their rejected. It's because science has been poisoned by becoming politicized. Good science that doesn't adhere to whatever is politically popular is shunned and ostracized.
Ummmm. K....
Edit: Sorry, my mistake there IS a list of signatories of that petition at the link! Do apologise.
well, here we go...
The first step towards being banned for intellectual dishonesty is dropping unsubstantiated talking points without backing them up...
six posts without comment in an hour and a half. I hope for your sake, Libby, you're putting together some decent research, otherwise your two cents won't be accepted by this truth-vending machine much longer.
The first step towards being banned for intellectual dishonesty is dropping unsubstantiated talking points without backing them up...
six posts without comment in an hour and a half. I hope for your sake, Libby, you're putting together some decent research, otherwise your two cents won't be accepted by this truth-vending machine much longer.
QUOTE (seuss @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 11:33 am)
Where's the beef, Libby?
Oh yeah, its on a factory farm, spewing out methane, causing global warming.
Oh yeah, its on a factory farm, spewing out methane, causing global warming.
A very good point, very well made.
QUOTE
Would it hurt to curb our continued release of CO2 and other green house gasses? Would it hurt to promote other energy sources and the science that needs research? Would it hurt to drive smaller cars with better fuel economy? Would it hurt to do what we could, just in case you might be mistaken?
Yes it would hurt. It's unnecessary. People will drive smaller cars as the price of gas goes up. Other energy sources are all more costly and less efficient. I'm just a poor man I haven't got the money to pay for these misadventures in alternative energy. Look how we screwed up food for everyone by promoting ethanol. (Captain Liberty)
Yes it would hurt. It's unnecessary. People will drive smaller cars as the price of gas goes up. Other energy sources are all more costly and less efficient. I'm just a poor man I haven't got the money to pay for these misadventures in alternative energy. Look how we screwed up food for everyone by promoting ethanol. (Captain Liberty)
Ever hear of little thing called peak oil Captain common-sense?
Ooops! 
QUOTE (karen @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 11:31 am)
A very good point, very well made.
Thanks Karen. I know it's bad form to laugh at one's own jokes, but I couldn't help myself while writing it.
QUOTE
I'm no scientist, but I do know that science is by and large a game of theory and testable hypothesis. there are certain standards by which theories, etc, are measured. If they do not come up to the mark they are rejected. My guess is that it is not dissent that isn't being tolerated, it's poor science.
No poor science isn't the reason their rejected. It's because science has been poisoned by becoming politicized. Good science that doesn't adhere to whatever is politically popular is shunned and ostracized.
No poor science isn't the reason their rejected. It's because science has been poisoned by becoming politicized. Good science that doesn't adhere to whatever is politically popular is shunned and ostracized.
Lemme guess, intelligent design is GOOD science, yes?
Cap'n, you really better start coming up with something real. YOur assretion that we are stupid, or that we don't bother to read opposing viewpoints simply because we disagree with you, is extremly weak.
The very best you have had to offer, are links to incredibly biased and emotional links.
You have yet to provide ANYTHING that proves a single emotional thing you have said.
You choose instead to disregard the preponderance of real science. I'm left to assume that you must be waiting for the second coming, and you'll be whisked off to heaven, leaving the problems to the rest of us. Good luck with that!
what's with the oopses?
QUOTE (seuss @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 2:47 pm)
what's with the oopses?
I hit reply by mistake - was aiming for 'edit'. Sky just wants to be fashionable, like me and 'the crowd' I think.
QUOTE (karen @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 1:50 pm)
I hit reply by mistake - was aiming for 'edit'. Sky just wants to be fashionable, like me and 'the crowd' I think.
If the "crowd" is a group of well educated, scientificly backed people with the worlds health and safety at heart, then oops!
QUOTE (karen @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 12:50 pm)
I hit reply by mistake - was aiming for 'edit'. Sky just wants to be fashionable, like me and 'the crowd' I think.
I fixed my oops s:/neener
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 1:59 pm)
I fixed my oops s:/neener
ok, fine then... you're NOT a part of THE "crowd"
QUOTE (seuss @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 3:06 pm)
ok, fine then... you're NOT a part of THE "crowd"
Post redacted.
Sorry, can't think of anything funny to say. - But it is the end of along day here!
QUOTE (karen @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 3:09 pm)
Post redacted.
Sorry, can't think of anything funny to say. - But it is the end of along day here!
Sorry, can't think of anything funny to say. - But it is the end of along day here!
nighty night, kazz...
sleep well, have good dreams, and in the morning, when you wake up, remember you have the world in your hands.
QUOTE (seuss @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 3:13 pm)
nighty night, kazz...
sleep well, have good dreams, and in the morning, when you wake up, remember you have the world in your hands.
sleep well, have good dreams, and in the morning, when you wake up, remember you have the world in your hands.
Thanks Brian! That's some nice sentiment there.
I wasn't going to bed yet, but after that how can I not!
- Actually, the idea of curling up with a good book does sound quite nice. Good night folks. xxx
It's always nice to hear from the pro-pollution lobby, isn't it?
You know, back when the rural electrification act was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up energy prices. Yet here we are today, with electricity in all 50 states. You know, back when the abolition movement was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up agricultural prices. Yet here we are today, without slaves or child labor and everything is fine. During the labor movement the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would bankrupt industry. Yet the only consequence was the birth of the middle class. Oh wingnuts, is there no progress you won't fight against?
I suppose all I'd like to ask our new visitor is: Can you please show me one instance where a country has switched over to renewable clean energy and it has had an adverse effect on their economy? I don't care if global warming is the biggest lie in history, the green energy movement is a huge economic opportunity for our economy as well as national security.
You know, back when the rural electrification act was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up energy prices. Yet here we are today, with electricity in all 50 states. You know, back when the abolition movement was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up agricultural prices. Yet here we are today, without slaves or child labor and everything is fine. During the labor movement the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would bankrupt industry. Yet the only consequence was the birth of the middle class. Oh wingnuts, is there no progress you won't fight against?
I suppose all I'd like to ask our new visitor is: Can you please show me one instance where a country has switched over to renewable clean energy and it has had an adverse effect on their economy? I don't care if global warming is the biggest lie in history, the green energy movement is a huge economic opportunity for our economy as well as national security.
QUOTE (POAC @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 3:02 pm)
It's always nice to hear from the pro-pollution lobby, isn't it?
You know, back when the rural electrification act was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up energy prices. Yet here we are today, with electricity in all 50 states. You know, back when the abolition movement was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up agricultural prices. Yet here we are today, without slaves or child labor and everything is fine. During the labor movement the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would bankrupt industry. Yet the only consequence was the birth of the middle class. Oh wingnuts, is there no progress you won't fight against?
I suppose all I'd like to ask our new visitor is: Can you please show me one instance where a country has switched over to renewable clean energy and it has had an adverse effect on their economy? I don't care if global warming is the biggest lie in history, the green energy movement is a huge economic opportunity for our economy as well as national security.
You know, back when the rural electrification act was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up energy prices. Yet here we are today, with electricity in all 50 states. You know, back when the abolition movement was being debated, the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would ruin the economy and drive up agricultural prices. Yet here we are today, without slaves or child labor and everything is fine. During the labor movement the conservative pro-industry types fought it, saying that it would bankrupt industry. Yet the only consequence was the birth of the middle class. Oh wingnuts, is there no progress you won't fight against?
I suppose all I'd like to ask our new visitor is: Can you please show me one instance where a country has switched over to renewable clean energy and it has had an adverse effect on their economy? I don't care if global warming is the biggest lie in history, the green energy movement is a huge economic opportunity for our economy as well as national security.
hear hear!
Even if you don't buy into the ecological aspect, can you accept the economic opportunities?
Let me attempt to clarify:
Do you believe that CO2, Methane, water vapor, and other gases do NOT in fact cause the greenhouse effect?
Or do you simply believe that human output of these gases is insufficient to cause global warming?
Do you believe that CO2, Methane, water vapor, and other gases do NOT in fact cause the greenhouse effect?
Or do you simply believe that human output of these gases is insufficient to cause global warming?
QUOTE (Libertas @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 8:48 pm)
Let me attempt to clarify:
Do you believe that CO2, Methane, water vapor, and other gases do NOT in fact cause the greenhouse effect?
Or do you simply believe that human output of these gases is insufficient to cause global warming?
Do you believe that CO2, Methane, water vapor, and other gases do NOT in fact cause the greenhouse effect?
Or do you simply believe that human output of these gases is insufficient to cause global warming?
I know the climate is warming. Just in my lifetime the winters are much drier and warmer here in Michigan. When I was a child a blizzard that would dump 36" of snow in a couple days would happen a couple times a winter like clockwork. People would be ice fishing on the lakes in December. The ice would be thick enough you could drive a car out on the lake. This was in southern Michigan. The last 4 or 5 winters the ice never froze enough on the lakes to even walk on. If we get 4" of snow at once people think that's a lot. And I now live a lot further north than when I was a kid. I joke to people we'll soon be able to grow palm trees here. I don't need a scientist or some white paper to tell me global warming is real. I have my own memories to tell me that. I also know the earth goes through periodic warming and cooling cycles. No one knows how long this one will continue. Things could start getting cooler again next year, or not for a thousand years. This just happens to be the first warming cycle that's happened in the modern age. It's a very disruptive but completely natural event. I feel man is much too insignificant to have this dramatic an impact on the planet. After all most of the planet is sparsly populated and not even industrialized. Anyway here's a peer reviewed paper disputing man made global warming. Warning it's a very long and complicated read. I myself only read part of it and not being a scientist I gleened what I could from it. A lot of it was over my head. I would much rather read things written in laymans terms.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
QUOTE
I feel man is much too insignificant to have this dramatic an impact on the planet. After all most of the planet is sparsly populated and not even industrialized.
CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer.
EPIC FAIL. Thanks for playin'.
QUOTE
I also know the earth goes through periodic warming and cooling cycles. No one knows how long this one will continue. Things could start getting cooler again next year, or not for a thousand years. This just happens to be the first warming cycle that's happened in the modern age. It's a very disruptive but completely natural event. I feel man is much too insignificant to have this dramatic an impact on the planet.
So you FEEL that man is too insignificant to cause change, but you have personal, anecdotal evidence that the Earth is warming, but you somehow KNOW the Earth goes through warming cycles, despite this:
QUOTE
myself only read part of it and not being a scientist I gleened what I could from it. A lot of it was over my head. I would much rather read things written in laymans terms.
So basically, you don't understand the science that people arguing in favor of anthropogenic global warming are proposing, but you personally take it on faith that the other side is right because you can read their arguments and they make you feel better.
QUOTE (Libertas @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 1:06 am)
So you FEEL that man is too insignificant to cause change, but you have personal, anecdotal evidence that the Earth is warming, but you somehow KNOW the Earth goes through warming cycles, despite this:
So basically, you don't understand the science that people arguing in favor of anthropogenic global warming are proposing, but you personally take it on faith that the other side is right because you can read their arguments and they make you feel better.
So basically, you don't understand the science that people arguing in favor of anthropogenic global warming are proposing, but you personally take it on faith that the other side is right because you can read their arguments and they make you feel better.
Yes I learned about earths warming and cooling cycles in school science class. Since news shows are really entertainment they glomb onto anything emotional like a dog with a bone. And there are plenty of angles to play up the emotional factors in man made global warming. It's tailor made for entertainment shows like the news. Just plain old global warming isn't nearly as newsworthy because there is no villain. No bad guy wearing a black hat to blame. In other words it's not "entertaining" enough. News shows are hardly the repository of truthfulness and wisdom. I get my news from the internet a much more balanced and unbiased source that cares little for entertaining people. With the internet I can look at both sides of an issue and come to my own conclusions based on fact, not fear, paranoia and hysteria. There are plenty of facts out there arguing against man made global warming written in layman's terms that I can understand. The internet is my "myth buster".
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 4:36 am)
Yes I learned about earths warming and cooling cycles in school science class. Since news shows are really entertainment they glomb onto anything emotional like a dog with a bone. And there are plenty of angles to play up the emotional factors in man made global warming. It's tailor made for entertainment shows like the news. Just plain old global warming isn't nearly as newsworthy because there is no villain. No bad guy wearing a black hat to blame. In other words it's not "entertaining" enough. News shows are hardly the repository of truthfulness and wisdom. I get my news from the internet a much more balanced and unbiased source that cares little for entertaining people. With the internet I can look at both sides of an issue and come to my own conclusions based on fact, not fear, paranoia and hysteria. There are plenty of facts out there arguing against man made global warming written in layman's terms that I can understand. The internet is my "myth buster".
ROTFLMFAO!!!
talk about entertainment!
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 5:36 am)
I get my news from the internet a much more balanced and unbiased source that cares little for entertaining people. With the internet I can look at both sides of an issue and come to my own conclusions based on fact, not fear, paranoia and hysteria. There are plenty of facts out there arguing against man made global warming written in layman's terms that I can understand. The internet is my "myth buster".
I too get my news from the internet and know just how easy it is to read only those sources that support my already made-up mind. That 's why I make it a point to read contrasting views.
You say there is plenty of information n the internet that supports your premiss that Global Warming is entirely natural and not at all impacted by human activity, and that many of these sources present their 'science' n layman's terms that you can understand. Can't argue with that. The facts speak clearly for themselves. Those sites do indeed exist. So do the sites which present the counter-arguments, and sites which compare and contrast the arguments. And sites whch claim the earth is just 6,000 years old....
It strikes me that you are investing your time and energy (no pun intended) in finding information that sits comfortably with your chosen life-style. After all, if it ain't broke we don't have to go out of our way to fix it. How very convenient.
So why don't you try reading something that counters your standpoint, so that, if nothing else, you can actually make better informed arguments? It doesn't have to come from the MSM. Try this very thorough debunking of climate change scepticism from The Atlantic Free Press.
When you came to this thread your arguments were in regard to the economic impact of tackling climate change (which, no matter what side of the fence you're on, still needs to be tackled).
There is no doubt (or maybe there is???) that you will be personally economically impacted by peak oil, peak gas and peak coal. The days of abundant, cheap energy are over.
Don't you think, therefore, economically speaking, that it would be wise to find alternatives to those, arguably extremely harmful, energy sources in order to provide or future energy needs when all the oils been burned?
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 5:36 am)
Yes I learned about earths warming and cooling cycles in school science class. Since news shows are really entertainment they glomb onto anything emotional like a dog with a bone. And there are plenty of angles to play up the emotional factors in man made global warming. It's tailor made for entertainment shows like the news. Just plain old global warming isn't nearly as newsworthy because there is no villain. No bad guy wearing a black hat to blame. In other words it's not "entertaining" enough. News shows are hardly the repository of truthfulness and wisdom. I get my news from the internet a much more balanced and unbiased source that cares little for entertaining people. With the internet I can look at both sides of an issue and come to my own conclusions based on fact, not fear, paranoia and hysteria. There are plenty of facts out there arguing against man made global warming written in layman's terms that I can understand. The internet is my "myth buster".
did the internet tell you that co2 & methane DON'T cause a greenhouse effect? its a simple question that's been asked in one way or another at least 3 times by now...
QUOTE (seuss @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 6:39 am)
did the internet tell you that co2 & methane DON'T cause a greenhouse effect? its a simple question that's been asked in one way or another at least 3 times by now...
Her's a link to a peer reviewed paper that explains why global warming is not man made. It's a long and complicated paper, one that went right over my head. But you might be able to understand it. Here's the link:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 9:03 am)
Her's a link to a peer reviewed paper that explains why global warming is not man made. It's a long and complicated paper, one that went right over my head. But you might be able to understand it. Here's the link:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
interesting paper... possibly the reason why these people don't see the issue as drastic is because they don't include the "global dimming" phenomena, that is most deffinately man-made. I did see them mention "particulate blockage of the sun" in passing, but they neglected to mention that this, while reducing the overall temperature, also interferes with photons causing evaporation, screwing up the water cycle.
this documentary (less than an hour long) explains it pretty well:
(start with miute forty, if you want the quick version)
QUOTE (Captain Liberty @ Wednesday, 7 May 2008, 8:06 pm)
I know the climate is warming. Just in my lifetime the winters are much drier and warmer here in Michigan. When I was a child a blizzard that would dump 36" of snow in a couple days would happen a couple times a winter like clockwork. People would be ice fishing on the lakes in December. The ice would be thick enough you could drive a car out on the lake. This was in southern Michigan. The last 4 or 5 winters the ice never froze enough on the lakes to even walk on. If we get 4" of snow at once people think that's a lot. And I now live a lot further north than when I was a kid. I joke to people we'll soon be able to grow palm trees here. I don't need a scientist or some white paper to tell me global warming is real. I have my own memories to tell me that. I also know the earth goes through periodic warming and cooling cycles. No one knows how long this one will continue. Things could start getting cooler again next year, or not for a thousand years. This just happens to be the first warming cycle that's happened in the modern age. It's a very disruptive but completely natural event. I feel man is much too insignificant to have this dramatic an impact on the planet. After all most of the planet is sparsly populated and not even industrialized. Anyway here's a peer reviewed paper disputing man made global warming. Warning it's a very long and complicated read. I myself only read part of it and not being a scientist I gleened what I could from it. A lot of it was over my head. I would much rather read things written in laymans terms.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
All of your "science" is based on your personal feelings?
Did you know that as a result of global climate change, some places on the earth will be wetter and warmer, while other places will be drier and colder, and in generally all mixed up?
Do you realize that when they refer to the aspect of global warming, (which is just one aspect of global climate change) that when they talk about a temperature rise, that's a degree or two, averaged out over the entire planet?
Do you realize that the gasses that cause global warming, and climate change, are now at their highest levels, possibly in the history of the planet going back hundreds of thousands of years? (Data from air samples trapped several miles deep in antarctic ice)
And what if your "feeling" about global warming is wrong, are you really willing to play chicken with the futures of our grand children?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080427/sc_nm/...hVIKVUBGA5pl88F
Human warming hobbles ancient climate cycle
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent Sun Apr 27, 1:07 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Before humans began burning fossil fuels, there was an eons-long balance between carbon dioxide emissions and Earth's ability to absorb them, but now the planet can't keep up, scientists said on Sunday.
The finding, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, relies on ancient Antarctic ice bubbles that contain air samples going back 610,000 years.
Climate scientists for the last 25 years or so have suggested that some kind of natural mechanism regulates our planet's temperature and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those skeptical about human influence on global warming point to this as the cause for recent climate change.
This research is likely the first observable evidence for this natural mechanism.
This mechanism, known as "feedback," has been thrown out of whack by a steep rise in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum for the last 200 years or so, said Richard Zeebe, a co-author of the report.
"These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change ... that we're going to see in the next several hundred years," Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. "Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium."
In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.
This antique excess carbon dioxide -- a powerful greenhouse gas -- was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical. In the end, it was washed downhill into oceans and buried in deep sea sediments, Zeebe said.
14,000 TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE
Zeebe analyzed carbon dioxide that had been captured in Antarctic ice, and by figuring out how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at various points in time, he and his co-author determined that it waxed and waned along with the world's temperature.
"When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age," he said. And while Earth's temperature fell during ice ages and rose during so-called interglacial periods between them, the planet's mean temperature has been going slowly down for about 600,000 years.
The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air.
Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.
That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.
And it appears to be speeding up: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.
The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years.
"This is a time period that we can hardly imagine," he said. "They are way too slow to help us to restore the balance that we have now basically distorted in a very short period of time."
Human warming hobbles ancient climate cycle
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent Sun Apr 27, 1:07 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Before humans began burning fossil fuels, there was an eons-long balance between carbon dioxide emissions and Earth's ability to absorb them, but now the planet can't keep up, scientists said on Sunday.
The finding, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, relies on ancient Antarctic ice bubbles that contain air samples going back 610,000 years.
Climate scientists for the last 25 years or so have suggested that some kind of natural mechanism regulates our planet's temperature and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those skeptical about human influence on global warming point to this as the cause for recent climate change.
This research is likely the first observable evidence for this natural mechanism.
This mechanism, known as "feedback," has been thrown out of whack by a steep rise in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum for the last 200 years or so, said Richard Zeebe, a co-author of the report.
"These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change ... that we're going to see in the next several hundred years," Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. "Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium."
In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.
This antique excess carbon dioxide -- a powerful greenhouse gas -- was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical. In the end, it was washed downhill into oceans and buried in deep sea sediments, Zeebe said.
14,000 TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE
Zeebe analyzed carbon dioxide that had been captured in Antarctic ice, and by figuring out how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at various points in time, he and his co-author determined that it waxed and waned along with the world's temperature.
"When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age," he said. And while Earth's temperature fell during ice ages and rose during so-called interglacial periods between them, the planet's mean temperature has been going slowly down for about 600,000 years.
The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air.
Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.
That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.
And it appears to be speeding up: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.
The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years.
"This is a time period that we can hardly imagine," he said. "They are way too slow to help us to restore the balance that we have now basically distorted in a very short period of time."
FYI, we aren't gonna "educate" this flat earther.
He doesn't want to know the truth about these things. Clearly if he did, then we wouldn't be trying to educate the guy.
He doesn't want to know the truth about these things. Clearly if he did, then we wouldn't be trying to educate the guy.
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 12:00 pm)
FYI, we aren't gonna "educate" this flat earther.
He doesn't want to know the truth about these things. Clearly if he did, then we wouldn't be trying to educate the guy.
He doesn't want to know the truth about these things. Clearly if he did, then we wouldn't be trying to educate the guy.
I'd be happy for him to educate me Sky, if only he had the facts and the science to do so.
So, how about it Cappie? Please debunk the article I've just posted and make it so I can drive again! Please!!!
And when you've done that, maybe you can convince me that the cheap oil will last forever!
All those scientists who supposedly question the science behind global warming? Yeah, not so much
http://tinyurl.com/5p2p8f
http://tinyurl.com/5p2p8f
QUOTE (POAC @ Thursday, 8 May 2008, 12:43 pm)
All those scientists who supposedly question the science behind global warming? Yeah, not so much
http://tinyurl.com/5p2p8f
http://tinyurl.com/5p2p8f
Didn't you know that that scientist was pressured by the vast infotainment "big science" corporatocracy to say that he thinks warming is real? They threatened him with multiple wet - noodle lashinging and fingernails on a chalk board to make sure he came out publically to contend that his stolen research which was twisted and taken out of context didn't actually support the flat earth theory...
QUOTE
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds.
Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The OISM website says it has "six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." The only paid staff person, however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute on a regular basis.
other faculty members are:
Dr. Jane Orient, a physician in Tucson, Arizona, heads the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons[1], an organization that says it works for "less socialism" in medicine.
Carl Boehme, a computer consultant with an address in Boise, Idaho, is listed as the OISM's "Professor of Electrical Engineering."
The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ
The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds.
Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The OISM website says it has "six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." The only paid staff person, however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute on a regular basis.
other faculty members are:
Dr. Jane Orient, a physician in Tucson, Arizona, heads the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons[1], an organization that says it works for "less socialism" in medicine.
Carl Boehme, a computer consultant with an address in Boise, Idaho, is listed as the OISM's "Professor of Electrical Engineering."
The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ce_and_Medicine
While I appreciate your enthusiasm over the paper being "peer reviewed" Captain Liberty, here's something you should know:
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program.
New Oregon Petition Promoter "Not Sufficiently Rational" to Advise Tobacco Industry
http://tinyurl.com/5j9m2f
Global warming denialism
http://tinyurl.com/4rn4we
19,000 scientists doubt warming? I doubt that
BTW,
http://tinyurl.com/5j9m2f
QUOTE
"It's pathetic that they're so desperate to show that any scientist supports their position that they're even contacting random graduate students in tangentially and unrelated fields." - Sean Lake, graduate student in the UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Global warming denialism
http://tinyurl.com/4rn4we
QUOTE
Included in the fat envelope was an article entitled, “Environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide,” which appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Let me say that again: It appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. What do reviewers know for this journal know about atmospheric physics? I trust my doctor to give me advice on blood pressure and diet, but I wouldn't trust him to review a paper on atmospheric physics.
19,000 scientists doubt warming? I doubt that
QUOTE
That's a lot of scientists. It certainly gives the impression that most -- or at least many -- experts don't think global warming is a serious problem. But what the press release doesn't say is that this petition was circulated a decade ago, before many recent, highly authoritative reports showing that the scientific consensus is now overwhelmingly that industry is in fact causing global warming, and it's a big problem.
Nor does the press release reveal that this petition came from a fringe group called the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, which has been criticized by mainstream scientists.
“They are totally discounted by anyone serious," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "And there are no signers who have any standing as experts on the global climate.”
A website run by climate scientists calls the Oregon group the “Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey.” This scientific group, called RealClimate, says the petition has been “highly criticized” because it’s full of “errors.”
The real consensus of scientists is not reflected by the Oregon Institute. It is reflected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international scientific organization with more than 2,500 scientists from 130 countries that recently won the Nobel Prize.
A survey of more than 900 peer-reviewed articles on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 found that not a single one challenged the fact that human industry is playing a role in global warming, according to research by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego.
In his book, The Weather Makers, author Tim Flannery described a well-funded propaganda effort by industry lobbying groups to try to convince journalists and the public that scientists are still debating whether global warming is real. That debate is over, but many in the public doesn't know it yet because of doubt manufactured by industries with billions at stake in avoiding regulation, Flannery writes.
Nor does the press release reveal that this petition came from a fringe group called the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, which has been criticized by mainstream scientists.
“They are totally discounted by anyone serious," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "And there are no signers who have any standing as experts on the global climate.”
A website run by climate scientists calls the Oregon group the “Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey.” This scientific group, called RealClimate, says the petition has been “highly criticized” because it’s full of “errors.”
The real consensus of scientists is not reflected by the Oregon Institute. It is reflected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international scientific organization with more than 2,500 scientists from 130 countries that recently won the Nobel Prize.
A survey of more than 900 peer-reviewed articles on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 found that not a single one challenged the fact that human industry is playing a role in global warming, according to research by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego.
In his book, The Weather Makers, author Tim Flannery described a well-funded propaganda effort by industry lobbying groups to try to convince journalists and the public that scientists are still debating whether global warming is real. That debate is over, but many in the public doesn't know it yet because of doubt manufactured by industries with billions at stake in avoiding regulation, Flannery writes.
BTW,
QUOTE
The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls.
lookslike you're beginning to believe in the "vast infotainment "big science" corporatocracy" conspiracy... look how much evidence you've uncovered!
pwnd. Thread over.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.