Watercooler

So, not only are CO2 emissions actually contributing to climate change

Tags:
+
0 Votes
Locked

So, not only are CO2 emissions actually contributing to climate change

AnsuGisalas
And yes they really are...
But again, not only are they doing that, they're also increasing the acidity of the seas ... CO2 in aqueous dilution is H2CO3 : carbonic acid, like in your soda. Remember that scare experiment they showed you back in the day, where they left a milk tooth in a glass of soda overnight, and it was just gone the next day?
Turns out, same thing happens to the shells of many food-chain-starters in the seas. Entire food chains of marine life can be devastated.
Historically, when the oceans tank, they tank hard. It is well documented that marine mass extinctions can kill off almost all marine life, and have done so several times in the past.

But you know, if it's happened in the past with no human contribution, obviously we can find lots of reasons not to do anything about it now...
  • +
    2 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    {sarcasm}Don't you know it's all just a lot of poppycock, conjured up by left wing governments to scare people into accepting more taxation?

    I was in Victoria last weekend and ended up at IMax watching a show about the coral reefs and how they are destined to complete doom if we don't act now. Of course, I had my picket sign held high, stating how its all a ruse to charge more for gas and then tax it more and more each week. (it is true that people on the left wing prefer supporting anything that means more taxation, they LOVE paying taxes so much that they seek out such opportunities).

    Face it Ansu, mankind is here for eternity, the planet couldn't survive without us. We will simply adapt as needed, just like reptiles have over millions of years. Just look how well we've done and how much the planet benefited from us over the last 2000 years! I guess we can all take a bow and say "you're welcome!"{/sarcasm}

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Don't you know that the world ends on December 21 2012 at 12 Midday? The Mayans told us so and it's only a few days away now.

    Unfortunately I have to go to the Daughters Weeding a couple of weeks before the world ends so I have my work cut out for me. [/sarcasm]

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I'm gonna stand on my bosses desk and pi$$ on his head while laughing and waving the middle finger at him! Then I'm gonna smash all the computers, steal the petty cash and run out laughing hysterically! Gawd, only two weeks to go, I can't wait for my master plan to come to fruition.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    If the world ends then I'm off the hook for buying all those ridiculous Christmas gifts as well.

    what's a weeding? is that some sort of pot festival or something???? :)

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    It's what the Wifes daughter is doing on the 12-12-2012 claiming that after living witht he guy for 8 years is the right thing to do.

    I'm not so sure about that as if you look at the numbers 12, 12 and 12 and add them together you get her age.

    I think it's just an excuse for 2 months latter claiming that it's OK to come home and disturb me more than normal. Also seems that the M$ Spool Chockers leave a bit to be desired. :^0

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Maybe it will be lucky for them and I'm sure you wanted to get your yard cleaned up anyway. Sounds like shes still young enough to do it.

    AV :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    She's getting married a long way away and we have to drive 80 Kms to it. Apparently having Classic Fords they are going to a Historic Village and want "Trustworthy" people to drive their cars. Apparently the silly people consider me on of those and they want me to take the most expensive one so it doesn't get any damage. Silly People Really. [/maniacal laughter]

    Seems that I have to behave responsibly and they chose Wednesday to stop people bringing kids with them as they insist. Anyway the up side is other than being something I'm not I have nothing at all to do and I can not drive one of my "Wifes" Mercs, I have to drive a Big Yank Tank with airbag suspension and bounce it around. Only nice thing I can say about it is it's a lovely red color. Or maybe because the Edsel is the newest one that they have collected at the moment it's their most valuable car, so I'm not really sure what I'm driving but I do know that whichever one it is it's Left Hand Drive. That should be different.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    No driving that car 100 MPH (he he he). You have to behave yourself! What the heck is the Big Yank Tank with the left hand drive? Sounds like a challenge.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Are about the only way I can describe them they have masses of metal panels with nothing but metal and very big cars.

    The last Left Hand Drive that I drove was a Porsche GT2 or 3 not sure which and that most defiantly was not a Big car and it wasn't a road car either.

    Nice to drive none the less.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    And the Edsel back to the reception. Over all the Edsel is the easier car to drive as it doesn't have these stupid things like a folding steering wheel that needs to be moved to-wards the passenger side to get in and out.

    Of course the Bride was at home in the T Bird and wanted to drive herself there till her Lord and Master put his foot down and refused to give her the keys.

    Then I had to drive the Chrysler Cruiser back to their home from the reception and that was downright nasty to drive. The person who was supposed to drive the Edsel was involved in a collision getting to the set off point and the Groom had to go and pick her up and pay the Tow Truck to bring the bent car back to his place so he was somewhat reticent to allow her to drive after that. Apparently crashing a car 500 meters from their front door was not a way to impress the Cars Owner. :^0

    Unfortunately when I handed them over all where straight I don't think that they bent them after I left either. As all 3 where parked away in their slots and hidden.

    Over all the day went off without any real problems and now all I have to do is recover from the ordeal. People there even thought I was somehow involved with the bride and they kept calling me her father. I just replied No I'm her mothers husband.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    But that is all gonna change now after New York and New Jersey go after the federal government for $80 billion from FEMA to rebuild the states after Hurricane Sandy. Thats a huge chunk of change for one storm. I can't wait to see if Congress approves the money. Reminds me of this. Ha ha! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q

    You won't have to pay for it my dear Aidemzo, but all the US taxpayers are going to have to chip in and help rebuild. I see a new federal "disaster tax" coming on the horizon as we can all look forward to more bizarro weather in the future! Oooh! I bet the left wingers are getting chills up and down their collective legs at the very thought of a new tax right now!

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    "The Earth is gonna do okay. Humanity's phuqued, but the Earth will be just fine.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Whether it's a habitat that can sustain human life or not, it will keep on spinning. It's amazing that, over 14 billion years, life has gown and developed many times, on occasion wiped out by natural disaster. However, in just 2000 years, we can screw the whole lot up and make it all but uninhabitable for ourselves. Mankind is SO bloody dense!! We think we are clever for all our inventions, language etc. , in reality we are the worst thing that ever happened to the big blue ball. Then again, if we are wiped out in even another 1000 years, it's barely a blip in Earth's timeline. Mankind will just be a boil that the Earth had to lance in order to carry on.

    +
    1 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    But what about this subject?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=acLW1vFO-2Q

    I liked George because he was able to see the idiocy and hypocrisy in our lives and make us laugh when he pointed it out to us. Anybody who walked away from a Carlin show without thinking "Whoa. He was right about that..." wasn't paying attention or was offended because the truth cuts deep.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    The naysayers and denialists....are not here.

    Its like after years of saying "you're wrong", they just quietly say "guess you were right", and exit stage left.

    Call me hopelessly naiive, but if we can land a spacecraft on Mars by remote control, surely there can be technical solutions to help sort some of this out.

    The trick, of course, is to figure out how to come up with incentives to invest in technology solutions, and even models of industry/goverment partnership. since this problem is so big, expensive, and complicated to address that neither government nor industry can begin to solve it alone.

    The brains and capability of both NASA and the US Military Industrial Complex are what is needed, and both of these have some excess capacity at the moment. The next race to the Moon or War should be a race to protect the planet or a War on climate change. Turn swords into...windmills?

    And last but not least, there IS water on Mars, and it's not terribly hot there just yet.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    or prepared to do their own research but rely only on the BS out of the politicians and the other self abusers after money for BS. Sheet, Mount St Helen's did more greenhouse gas emissions that the whole human race did in 100,000 years, and there are a few volcanic eruptions each year with a few major ones every decade.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    The fact that greenhouse emissions are heavily effected by volcanoes is more of a reason to reduce further HUMAN impact on the globe. Look up the word: COMPOUND

    'Why should I, I am not the biggest part of the problem.' is exactly the mentality the world needs to get rid of.

    P.S. I NEVER listen to a word politicians say, but I also grew up exposed to science as opposed to faith.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    I've never said humans don't contribute in some way, we do that by breathing. I also agree we should make all reasonable efforts to clean up the environment from human and natural damage. I have consistently said it was all due to human activities, have also consistently said human activities are a very minor aspect, as proven by the people who've been studying this for decades. I've also been saying the politicians and political scientists who push this as an urgent item are total BS artists.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    We eat stuff, convert it to CO2, breathe it out, plants convert it to stuff, we eat stuff...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    If you haven't paid attention and clued in to me yet, I've been around these forums for well over a decade now. I have read your past comments and wholly agree with many of your views on the matter. The comment I had replied to may have been my own lack of comprehension but it just came across as if you were dismissing the concept because volcanoes do more damage than humans. Not to be corrective but also not to ignore the real issue, as SO MANY politicians do. It's not all about Co2 emissions either. Co2 is not the be all end all of global warming. Co2 is simply one of thousands of harmful gases that contribute to the problem. Politicians like to focus their junk science on Co2 emissions and make it a focus because it is such a harmless gas in most cases, that its very easy to downplay the significant effects on the amosphere.
    The one I'm most aware of and most concerned about personally, is CO. Carbon Monoxide is literally deadly to us. It is also the #1 most dangerous vehicle emission, which AirCare centres are most focused on testing for. With new cars emitting such low CO emissions, they are actually doing away with AirCare here for passenger vehicles as of next fall (FINALL!Y!!!). Unforutnately that takes SOME money out of my pocket too, nothing unmanageable though. Politicians and political scientists are a farce, lets replace POLITICIAN with 'Liar' and you get "Liars and Liar's scientists", which is MUCH more fitting.

    In Canada, we really do have a luxury of being exposed to REAL science and REAL global issues from a very young age. Schools promote science in a big way, there is little to no focus on politics or religion but a massive focus on science.

    Unfortunately, Canada, as a nation, sits at the very bottom of the list when it comes to our activity to reduce or stop greenhouse emissions and reducing our carbon footprint. In fact, we are merely a tiny step above Kazakhstan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This I find embarrassing as we are a nation so proud of its natural beauty, which people travel from all around the work to enjoy. We can do more and we MUST do more, we can do better and we MUST do better, it is something we must take responsibility for as individuals. The poblem is, people DON'T take responsibility as they just look at someone else and say how much worse they are...as always in today's most pathetic excuse for society. Nobody is willing to accept personal responsibility and thus nothing gets done. If the government steps in with some ridiculous solution and mandates action, then those same people get all ruffled and *****, while those who ARE actively doing their part, are imposed upon even more.

    So, forgive me if I misunderstood your comment, it certainly seemed as though you pointed a finger and concluded, 'we have nothing to worry about, compared to the effects volcanoes have'.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Finland has the same exact problem. Even though most of the power is low-impact hydro (no massive dams or anything), getting to carbon neutral is fekking hard when it's pitch dark and shilt cold for 5 months of the year.
    Paper industry, long as it lasts, has very bad carbon figures. Of course, it would be fair to make the end destination of that paper pick up the carbon tab, but Finland is on such a moral high horse that they can't bring themselves to argue strongly for the mitigation of the treaties.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Oh, dear. You're at it again.

    You know, it's an absolutely trivial task to read a few (proper, scholarly, peer-reviewed) papers on the gaseous emissions from the Mt St Helens eruption and compare that to the anthropogenic CO2 production.

    What it does is save you from looking like a complete muppet.

    I'd really appreciate it if you would STOP posting completely erroneous information in such a pedagogic fashion and then I wouldn't have to post in return.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    volcanoes both during passive periods and eruptions, and seen some of their estimates about the crap thrown out at Mount St Helens, Krakatoa, Pinatubo, Tambora, etc and the emissions like sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, etc they put out plus the more solid material and what it does to the area. They measure most of the stuff in millions or billions of tonnes of each type of material thrown out.

    Pinatubo put out over 20 million tonnes of CO2 in it's June 1991 eruption, how long does it take humans to produce that amount of CO2?

    Sorry mate, but the facts from the real experts support me, not you or the BS put out by the politicians and some faux scientists.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    if your value of 20MT is true, but it isn't. Estimates for the Pinatubo eruption are in the area of 0.04 to 0.05 GTonnes of CO2. Twice your estimate. Pinatubo was a VEI-6. I produce more CO2 in explosive dumps after a vindaloo curry.

    Humans produced well in excess of 30 GTonnes per annum CO2 in 2010. That's a factor of 700.

    Let's see if we can help your confusion! Pinatubo produced 40-50 MILLION tonnes of CO2 during the eruption. Humans produce over 30 BILLION tonnes of CO2 per annum.

    I'm not an expert but I was a scientist, so I check multiple sources and estimate the provenance, consistency and authority of the data. And then I read it - properly - and then I draw my own conclusions.

    Even VEI-7 eruptions like Krakatoa and Tambora, which occur one in a century, will only generate 0.1GTonnes. That's 100 MILLION.

    If we get a VEI-8 then we'll probably get a measurable CO2 increase in the atmosphere but CO2 will be the least of our worries.

    Suck it up.

    You know, I did originally say a week but I forgot what units I was working in... Goes to show that you really should check everything and trust no-one.

    +
    1 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    If it happens while I'm alive, I hope it's Yellowstone and not Toba. After one of those, I'd rather go fairly quickly than hang around and slowly waste away.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... in 10,000 years, give or take a few thousand. Plan accordingly; everyone should see Yellowstone at least once.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Could go tomorrow!

    BBC made a reasonable docudrama about a full-on Yellowstone eruption set in the near future - Supervolcano. Interestingly, Mexico closed the boder stopping US refugees. You can pick it up on Youtube. The first eruption cuts loose in Part 4.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    10,00 years or 10,000 minutes wouldn't make any difference. There's no problem, world ends in a few weeks anyway. Why not all just crack a beer and fugettabowdit !

    +
    0 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    Virtually all of it gets burnt, and turned into carbon dioxide. We're smoking up the planet at a pretty ferocious rate.

    Some geological events put our efforts to shame... like the formation of the Deccan Traps. That's where a third of India cracked open and poured out lava for thousands of years. All kinds of species went extinct for that one.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    and he was wrong.
    So much for not listening to **** coming out of politicians, huh?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    You and all of the other Climate Change dupes are ...... well, you're just that - dupes.

    Carry on with your self-indulgent circle jerk, ridiculing the "deniers", repeating the lies about anthropogenic global warming.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    This is a dupe who's just asking...

    I read an article in the London newspaper, The Guardian, which suggested that the phrase "Climate Change" was coined by the US Republican party some ten years ago.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

    Interesting. Please feel free to draw your own misconclusion about the article.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Hey, there are anthropogenic global warming / climate change dupes on both sides of the aisle.

    I don't care who coined the term "climate change", but it was advanced (some time after it was "coined") to further the deception and/or avoid admitting that the "global warming" claims were being proven wrong; the earth has been in a cooling cycle for a dozen years.

    Your article is from 2003. Okay, I'll call your 2003 article, and raise you a 1992 book, Earth in the Balance (retrieved just now from my very own book shelf).

    On page 61, Al Gore actually places part of the blame for the French Revolution on climate, when he says, "....... it seems clear that climate-induced suffering in France from 1783 through 1798 played a major role in worsening the political mood in which the French Revolution took place." (He cites some Benjamin Franklin letters about an unusually think fog in France at the time. Ooooookay......)

    "However, Gore goes on to say, "it seems just as clear that climate changes ........ Nonetheless, the effects of climate change on the political and social stability of civilization are powerful as we consider...... "

    And on page 73, "Of course, the history of climate change is also the history of human adaptation to climate change......." (Adapt, not cap and trade).

    So there you go, Neil. I think my 1992 book trumps your 2003 UK Guardian article.

    How can I be sure? Be sure of what? Climate change? Or anthropogenic climate change? If it's the former, I am sure that climate patterns change naturally all by themselves. If it's the latter, I don't need to be sure. Those making the claims need to be sure, which they are not.

    And their previous claims of doom and gloom have not even come close to coming true. Shall I quote from more of my books, Neil, about coastal cities being underwater in 25 years......... and so on...... ? Or should I pull out my Special Edition of National Geographic from 1984 when they predicted both environmental disasters AND the depletion of all of earth's oil supplies?

    Except, of course, on page 410 (as a grand conclusion) Al Gore, the father of the modern anthropogenic global warming / climate change scam, predicts that in the fall of 2012, an anthropogenic climate-change-induced storm will bear down on the coast of New Jersey wreaking havoc and destruction ...........

    (Hey, nobody around here has read the book, How do they know there's only 408 pages?)

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    To deny that the Earth's climate is, and has been, warming for several centuries is to deny observed data.
    To deny that, overall, the last 10 years have been the warmest years on record is also to deny observed data.
    To deny that humans could possibly have had an effect on the rate of warming is to ignore the output from our industrial society.

    The only things, Max that are still subject to scientific debate are a) what has humanity's effect been on the rate of warming, and; b) can we do anything to slow it or to mitigate the effects.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Have you not been paying attention, or are you just being obtuse?

    "a) what has humanity's effect been on the rate of warming?"

    Answer: Somewhere between very little and none, most likely leaning towards none.

    "b) can we do anything to slow it or to mitigate the effects.

    Because of the answer to the first, any answer to the second question is moot. As such, any answer would fall into the NO category.

    But you continue to avoid the most disturbing question:

    Has the progressive movement hijacked this and all environmental issues in order to advance their own political agenda?

    Answer: A resounding yes. And anyone who doesn't recognize it is either a fool and/or a dupe, or hasn't been paying attention. And there are those, of course, who realize it (although they might not acknowledge it) and they ride it for their own personal political reasons. I'm not sure which you are.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    None? You understand the environment and climate so well? Please, be so kind as to provide the scientific evidence on which you base your conclusion.

    Your question is only disturbing to you, Max, because anybody who is paying attention already knows that any group with a political agenda will hijack an issue to advance that agenda whenever possible. Witness the tea party and the national debt that doubled in eight years under a Republican President, but only became an issue when a Democrat was elected President.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I said, "......Somewhere between very little and none, most likely leaning towards none......"

    You can take from that whatever you'd like. But apparently, just like you take "no" government from my call for "less" government, you lie about what I said here, too.

    And you (you in the general sense) wonder why I spout off at people in my replies.

    Nick, you deserve "the link" for that one.

    But I still stick to what I believe: We contribute somewhere between very little and none, to any antroprogenic global warming and/or climate change, most likely leaning towards none - and I freely acknowledge that the majority of Americans have been duped so bad that they think I'm the looney tune. In reality, however, it is they who are the real looney tunes.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    That you are constantly running from my challenges; you don't answer my questions; you lie about what I say; and you are intellectually dishonest (at worst) or disingenuous (at best). You love to spout, but you can't support squat. (I know, a double-negative; but it works.)

    +
    0 Votes

    ...

    NickNielsen Moderator

    And you, Max, play the semantic sophist, tap dancing and hair-splitting when pinned down.

    You claim it doesn't exist. The vast majority of climate researchers would appear to disagree. www.upworthy.com/the-most-devastatingly-convincing-pie-chart-youve-ever-seen

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ... that you left-leaning, progressive, collectivist-type thinkers use in your lame attempt to discredit people who "CHALLENGE" your assertions. To "deny" presupposes the truth is being presented, something you and all the other environmental looney tunes riding the global warming band wagon haven't even come close to doing.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    Lame.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    you don't "challenge" anything. You just wave your hands and restate your unfounded street-man belief that the overwhelming majority of scientists are somehow mistaken, and that your lack of facts should trump their stacks of measurements.

    You're not a challenge... you're an ostrich with its head in a bush.

    +
    1 Votes
    JamesRL

    The most common usage I know of is "Holocaust denier". Those are the people who despite mountains of evidence (the Nazi regime were noted for being meticulous record keepers) from many sources, still deny that millions of Jews were killed in WWII.

    Max, I am in no way shape or form desparaging you, or comparing you to a Holocaust denier. But I do think there are times when denier is a valid term.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Or are you suggesting it is? If not, what's your point?

    It's clear to me that you took my exception to being called a "denier" and, for some reason, went off on a totally different tangent.

    The charge of being a "denier" has NO PLACE in the anthropogenic global warming / climate change debate. Or do you disagree?

    +
    0 Votes
    JamesRL

    ...was about the usage of the word denier in any context.

    I was simply pointing out that there are valid contexts for it.

    I don't believe that in the context of ANTHROPOGENIC warming/climate change, it should not be used. I do think there is sufficient evidence to show that climate change is happeneing at an accelerated rate. But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    The science is not in doubt... that's the strange thing here.
    Or is it a coincidence that the non-facts of the world's most powerful lobbies are being given a near-equal standing in this "we should all be open" thing that's going around.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The teaching of the Theory of Creation in science classes should be given equal parity with the Theory of Evolution, which is also just a 'theory'. The weight of evidence on the two sides - well, the total lack of evidence on one side - matters not one jot.

    And this before we add in the influence of those who don't wish to do anything to reduce the waste in the current lifestyles.

    You - we - are wasting our time.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    "But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly."
    I thought it felt out of place with the rest of your stance, since it sort of leaves things open that have been thoroughly closed :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Will they then let scientists modify Sunday School? :^0
    Theory : doesn't mean what creationists think it means.
    - meanwhile, Creationism is hardly even a hypothesis :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And I am debating with the believers who worship at the altar of environmentalism.

    They place 100 percent faith in that which has not been proven, nor can be proven; they have their Bishops who they blindly believe and follow; they believe in the doomsday prophecies being thrown around; they are spreading the word - evangelizing, if you will; they ridicule and criticize the "deniers", even to the point of demonization so they have their devil to blame for the sins of mankind; they even profess their own sins and perform their own penance as a form of repentance.

    And their messiah, Barack Hussein Obama (or the United Nations), will lead them to the Promised Land!

    Yep, it's just like a religion, Neil. And I'm shaking my head in disbelief at how otherwise intelligent people can be so duped into drinking the global warming kool-aid.

    +
    0 Votes
    JamesRL

    Where did I say "all of us"? I was very clear in expressing a personal opinion.

    I do think there is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing and warming. I do think there is evidence that man has contributed to this change. I do think there is room to debate whether man's contribution is the primary cause or the straw that broke the camel's back as it were.

    All I am suggesting is that there is room for debate here.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    It was that last sentence I found to be out of step with the rest of your stance: "But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly."

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    as I had no idea why emphasis went from Global Warming to Climate Change. No need to go off on one.

    And I know we haven't had a CC/GW/whatever discussion in a while, you and me, but I'm sure that you remember that you're not allowed even to quote Al Gore, let alone base your rant on his works. He is just one man and not widely recognised an an Authority over here and certainly not by me.

    As an afterthought on Gore, how different would your country be if it were not for the Bush chicanery in Florida?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Why do you think I did it?

    On the Gore/Bush/Florida thing, I dare not think of such an outcome - had Ralph Nader not ruined everything for Al Gore, costing him Florida and ultimately the presidency.

    People who "blame" Bush and/or the Supreme Court are blind to the real facts: Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election, not Bush, and certainly not the courts (while Ansu blames Fox News!).

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Absolutely there IS a reason to "go off on one" - that is, a side-discussion as to why the emphasis went from Global Warming to Climate Change. Unless, of course, you're trying to avoid the answers.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    What answers? What is the question?

    'Climate change' is much less frightening. So that's good for those who want to play down the seriousness of climate issues. It's also good for those who want to explain away the last several crap summers and cold winters in the UK. Win for both sides. everybody likes it!

    The correct term for what we are encountering and will see more of is "global climate change", anyway. Interesting times...

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    There are doctors who hold that the link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is not proven. They number about the same percentage as those climatologists who hold that there is no anthropogenic forcing of climate change.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I think you agree that the political class hijacking (see note) of the global warming / climate change discussion has, for the most part, convoluted just about any argument or any source, either in agreement or disagreement, and rendered any, so-called, conclusion moot. As such, it has no place in the political arena.

    I'll point out some scientist who hasn't jumped on the global warming / climate change bandwagon, and you (and others) simply ignore his argument in favor of discrediting and dismissing him for some other reason. (Example: What kind of legitimate scientist believes in God, for Christ's sake?)

    One such person, of course, is Professor William Gray of Colorado State University. We've spoken of him (and others) before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

    It's quite telling that NASA's James Hanson, Mr. Global Warming Scientist, has repeatedly turned down Dr. Gray's invitation to a public discussion and debate on the question in front of the University's student body. If you put their respective arguments, support, evidence, etc. side by side, Dr. Gray wins that debate hands down. And that's precisely the reason Dr. Hansen has refused to accept the invitation.

    It's all a bunch of crap, Neil; and I actually think you are beginning to realize it.

    Note: Political class extends beyond self-serving politicians, and includes self-serving media, self-serving pundits, bloggers with a sense of self-importance, self-serving voters, self-serving authors, self-serving carbon credit peddlers, environmental wackos, etc.......

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I refer you to my link.

    I would never in any way discredit or dismiss the research of a scientist that believed in any deity as quite a number do believe. Although, for example, if an avowed creationist were to publish on evolution, then I might reserve the right to hold on to a pinch of salt

    As for one on one debates, some are good at it and some aren't.

    Edited to add: Between one and three percent of the US population is believed to be atheist so, by definition, the other ninety-plus percent believe in a deity or deities. I don't ever recollect disregarding the output of *all* US science.

    I do, however, take on board the fact that over forty percent of the US population are delusional to the point that they believe in Biblical Creation. That does make me inclined to the idea that there isn't a lot of point in trying to get the US to do anything about their lifestyle. When something considerably larger than Sandy slaps you up the side of the head you (the US) will just put it down to God's Will and hunker down, waiting for Armageddon and the End Times.

    Insha'Allah

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Go to - tropical dot atmos dot colostate dot edu slash forecasts slash. Under the news section, he has an excellent paper about Hurricane Sandy. He concludes that Hurricane Sandy was not caused by anthropogenic global warming, rather it was because of Thermohaline Circulation. There is a lot of historical hurricane data that is very interesting as well.

    A storm like Hurricane Sandy is rare, but there have been several almost equally destructive hurricanes to hit New York City in the past such as the Hurricane of 1821. This is the link - history1800s dot about dot com slash od slash crimesanddisasters slash a slash Hurricane-of-1821 dot htm.

    I don't think CO2 emissions were an issue then, yet that was quite a freak storm as well, though it hit at low tide. Hurricane Sandy hit at high tide and during a full moon making it the perfect storm.

    My conclusion is that CO2 may not be the real culprit here. It may contribute to GW/CC in some way, but historical data suggests that storms like this occur whether you have CO2 present in the atmosphere or not.

    AV

    PS: Sorry about the crazy links. I can't seem to post this with them. There is no w w w in them.

    +
    1 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    A individual Storm or Weather Event as such can not be put down to Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever you prefer to call it, what Global Warming Theory says is that the Storms will get more intense but long before that starts the existing storms will become more frequent.

    So what was a once in a 100 year storm or at least a Storm of the same intensity as a Once in a 100 Year Storm will happen more often. Storms of that Intensity will be more common and instead of once in 100 years they may develop to once in 50 years or depending on how much warmer the atmosphere gets more common.

    Blizzards will also get more common and may even be colder as the Energy that drives the Weather has more energy so things get more intense.

    For Instance in 1974 Brisbane Australia experienced a once in 100 year Weather Event which led to massive flooding. The previous event which actually was worse in the amount of water dropped and spread across the flood plain which is where Brisbane is located was more severe but had less of an impact on people simply because there where fewer of them directly impacted but it was severe enough to leave a Destroyer 300 feet away from the river when the waters receded and resulted in a massive engining project to return it to the water where it could be repaired. That occurred in 1893 so the 1974 floods where about due though a few years early to what statistics said could happen.

    In 2011 Brisbane again experienced severe flooding despite massive Flood Mitigation work being done and the construction and subsequent enlargement of a new dam since 1974 to supposedly stop massive waves of water running down the Brisbane River from it's catchment.

    In 1974 the flooding was relatively localized to the South Eastern Corner of Queensland and only adversely impacted on those communities on the Brisbane River Flood Plain.

    In 2011 the flooding was no where near as severe in the depths of water involved but it was much more severe from the point of view that it was 90% of Queensland that was impacted by flooding not just the South Eastern Corner and the flood waters ranged all the way up the east coast and through most of the inland areas. That is something that has not happened in our Recorded History but that in itself doesn't mean a lot as Australia is a very young country with records not going back all that far mostly no more than 100 years or so. That gives you some idea of just how severe the 1893 Floods in Brisbane actually where to a relatively newly established settlement.

    But the point is that the Trend is getting shorter 81 years between the 1893 to 1974 Flooding event and 37 years to the next major flood event in 2011.

    That in itself may not be of any importance because there is not the Historical Records to tell us if this is a common event the flooding and that we have just been lucky or that it is getting to be a more common occurrence.

    What we need to do is look at older parts of the world where Accurate Records have been kept for much longer periods of time and see if there is a correlation of these events getting closer and closer together. Of course depending on where that place is there may be more than just floods to take into account.

    Things like areas in the Higher Latitudes could be subject to flooding and major snow falls which have to be taken together where as places in the Tropics and Sub Tropics are very unlikely to have any Snow Falls so flooding from Severe Storms is a more likely occurrence.

    There has yet to be an Planet Scientist who has claimed that any storm is the result of Global Warming that is restricted to Politicians and Media who go for the easy answer and do not rely on Science to sprout their ramblings so every storm can be attributed to other naturally occurring events. For that matter every Severe and any other storm can be contributed to Natural Events in the Atmosphere generating that Severe Weather Event, so you do not look at the actual storms but the frequency of them and that unfortunately can only be done after the event so the only way to prove that Global Warming or whatever you chose to call it is happening is after it has occurred and the Higher Temps have been recorded for many years along with the frequency of Severe Weather Events.

    This is not something that happens quickly as the Planet moves to a different Time to Humans and what to us is an extremely long time is nothing but the blink of an eye to the Planet. The entire history of Humanity is but a very short time to the Planet and currently our records are not nearly far enough back to provide the required proof that some people demand.

    With all Science there are those who accept it and those who deny it. A very good example of that happened within the last year where a Group of Scientists who where terrified of the Hadron Collider tried to get a Court Injunction to prevent any experiment that may have produced mini Black Holes. They argued that any Mini Black Hole that may be produced would not blink out of existence but continue to grow till it ate the planet and solar system.

    The same thing happened before the first Atomic Bomb Test where a group of Scientist who where more conservative than those working on the Manhattan Project tried to prevent the first test arguing that once the Reaction started it would continue and destroy the planet. They reasoned that once the Chain Reaction started it would be self perpetuating and could never run out of energy to cause it to cease happening.

    Also some people reasoned that because Internal Combustion Engines where powered by Explosions that the Internal Combustion Engine was an inherently dangerous thing and would be exploding all over the place causing untold death and destruction.

    None of those 3 examples where anywhere near as bad as some people claimed that they would be and the Mass Hysteria that they generated is still with us today and rears it's head more often than many people accept.

    The bottom line is that all Science is the Observation and Recording of Events and that is all that Science can ever be.

    Now for some indisputable Fact the World is going to end at 12.00 PM December 21 2012. That is the Belief of a very advanced race that Inhabited the Southern Americas and who simply disappeared. As it is on the Internet and I read it there it must be true because no one would place lies or untruths on the Internet would they?

    But the real message here is it's not what one or some people believe will happen, means that it is going to happen just that they believe that it will.

    Sometimes that's not a bad thing and sometimes it is a terrible thing. So we need to keep in mind that everything that we experience Good or Bad will only ever be proven after it is a Indisputable Fact.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Nobody is saying that GC causes weather.
    Obviously, having an atmosphere + Eartch revolving around its axis + Earth orbiting the sun is what causes weather.
    GC modifies weather.


    So, you have to ask: why is Dr. Gray making a straw man attack?

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Col, some people are more trusting of politicians and media than I am. I don't believe anything they say because their ultimate goal is to find a way to make money from it. If they can convince enough people that GW is man-made, and they have, it will justify a new Carbon Tax that everyone will happily pay for the rest of their lives or as long as they can keep the man-made GW story going.

    There are still scientists on both sides of the GW acceleration issue, but nothing I've seen convinces me that man-made GW is an indisputable fact. What is indisputable is that politicians and the media will work together to achieve the ultimate goal, a Carbon Tax on everyone.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    What is going to make more money for your politicians in the short term. That you, the US, continues with your current lifestyle (which you won't, by the way) or that you all conserve a bit, recycle a bit and just use less without having to be coerced. God forbid that you should reduce your consumption of energy down to that of, say, the UK or Germany and have to face the lack, the squalor and barbarity of our lives. It would only be a small reduction - a paltry 50%. The latter would obviously make money for your politicians but I'm damned if I can work out how.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Neil, the politicians will make money no matter what the American people do. If we continue on our current path of maximum consumption, short term they have Cap and Trade and possibly a Carbon Tax. If we cut down on use and move to the new *green* technologies, we will pay through the nose for those new technologies. Heck, maybe they'll create a new *Green tax*.

    The thing to understand about America is we never cut down and politicians know that. Though there are some of us who use less because we're more prudent, most people will continue down their current path and just pay more. If by some chance we all did cut down and start conserving without adopting new technologies, no problem, they'll just raise the price. Politicians never lose.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Don't bother what pollerticians say.
    Look at the science in stead.
    99.7 % of peer-reviewed articles support and corroborate AGCC.
    There aren't people on both sides, you can't really say that.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Now I know to most, The Guardian, sounds like a real London Newspaper but reeeeeaaaly? The Guardian? News? Granted it's better than The Daily Mirror (minus the page 3 boobies) but a "news"paper?

    Guardian is always good for learning the latest gossip about the monarchy and unveiling the truth behind crooked politicians though.

    LOL! That's like all the Americans who buy into Jerry Springer, Aliens and UFO's stored in Area51, The Enquirer etc.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    It's not News of the World.

    The Guardian is slightly better than that now demised rag.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    That's the SUN, one of Rupert Murdoch's rags.

    I just happened across the article, nine years on, and thought it made a lot of sense.

    Still do, despite you dissing the Guardian. You've been in forrin parts for too long, I think you're mixing up the Guardian and the Telegraph.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    As I work globally again now, I get papers from all over. Most I read online but I need print copies of a few too. Usually two or three days behind though. I never bothered with the Mirror, though I guess they dropped page 3 girls years ago.

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    in the early 1990s, the Guardian and the Telegraph were about equally good as news purveyors, and at a higher standard than the SF Chronicle. The Guardian was somewhat socialist (it printed Doonesbury) and, as alas since the 1970s has often been associated with that standpoint, somewhat secular-inhumanist, whilst the Telegraph was somewhat conservative. Perhaps things have changed since then.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Permafrost melts and the oceans rise in the next few days and causes the end of Life as we know it on December 21 2012 you'll be OK because there will be no one left to say I Told You So and you'll not be around to say Sorry will you?

    I look at things this way the climate is getting hotter the sea levels are rising that is indisputable so it's in Humanities Best Interests to make sure that we stop things from getting over the top and killing us all. It really doesn't matter what is causing it to happen but in our own self interests we need to stop it if or we can or die trying.

    There is currently a lot of untrapped water on the planet which was locked up in the poles during the last Ice Age where the ice was over 1 Kilometer Deep on both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres Poles. What's currently left is rapidly disappearing and we really do not want the consequences of it all disappearing or the changes that it will bring with it.

    Currently if all Electricity Supplies where stopped in your country for a fortnight things would all but collapse if Global Warming causes the Food Supply to be adversely affected things would be far worse for Society as we know it and it really doesn't matter how high the Tax Rate in the US is everyone is going to be adversely affected.

    Currently your country has Mass Die Offs of Old Trees which it can not explain and the Temp has only increased buy a really small amount. If it goes up three times the current increase in the next 100 years there will be nothing left and that is what is predicted without taking into account the Permafrost melting.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Everything you say is disputable, Colin. Everything. Just because you make an assertion, it doesn't make it true.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    But when a preponderance of evidence points to a certain conclusion, only a fool ignores the evidence.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I never said anything about science being disputable, indisputable, or anything in-between.

    I suggested that everything Colin says is disputable.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    The Temp is getting hotter.

    Not in dispute with any sane person though they and you have argued why it is happening.

    Ocean Levels rising

    Again not in dispute because it's getting hotter.

    The depth of Ice over the Poles in the last Ice Age isn't in dispute either.

    So what's disputable?

    If you where referring to the Comment about the end of the earth they you should listen to the AU Prime Minister who gave a speech on this issue yesterday though at the moment there is no video available but I'll post one when it does become available.

    Well actually as the End of the World is Nigh I'll only be able to post the link if it is put up before the December 21 2012. After all it's not going to be possible to post after that is it?

    Col :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    What if the last post on TR was REALLY Dec.20th and the Mayan's actually WERE right? Here's us disputing global warming, presidential candidates, world affairs and politics, wars all over the world for one reason or another, but everyone shares the tongue in cheek snicker about the Mayan end of the world.

    I don't think there are enough eggs in the world for everyone's faces. That would be absolutely hysterical! We focused on the wrong issue all along, and 'poof' no more mankind!

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    If you can not laugh at things you'll go crazy.

    Now I wonder if the TR Servers will survive the December 21 2012 deadline.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Scientists spend our tax dollars trying to debunk previous conclusions, prove findings inconclusive etc. The whole idea behind science is that we don't know about everything, in fact we often prove things incorrect that were deemed correct many years before, that's just what science is. Scientists love to be proven wrong, then they have more work to do, more grants to spend etc. Then again, that is SO much better than a mindset that simply says "no" (lol, computer says 'no') and doesn't seek a better conclusion. Many people say GW is BS, fair enough, I'm open to that (in fact it would be great if it was BS) but they chalk it up to, the world will do it's thing, it's much bigger than us and we can't control it.

    To me, that's as much of a cop out as saying "No, I can' t explain why, but God has his ways" when people counter religion with science.

    If scientists said, "religion is a farce, science has it's ways of making things happen, don't pretend to understand it, just believe" Sure, LOL, that'll work!

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    You mean the peer-reviewed research?
    Whereas the average lifespan of "research" on your side seems to be three months in public, until it's proven fallacious, and then an eternity in the steaming undergrowth of people who don't grok science.

  • +
    2 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    {sarcasm}Don't you know it's all just a lot of poppycock, conjured up by left wing governments to scare people into accepting more taxation?

    I was in Victoria last weekend and ended up at IMax watching a show about the coral reefs and how they are destined to complete doom if we don't act now. Of course, I had my picket sign held high, stating how its all a ruse to charge more for gas and then tax it more and more each week. (it is true that people on the left wing prefer supporting anything that means more taxation, they LOVE paying taxes so much that they seek out such opportunities).

    Face it Ansu, mankind is here for eternity, the planet couldn't survive without us. We will simply adapt as needed, just like reptiles have over millions of years. Just look how well we've done and how much the planet benefited from us over the last 2000 years! I guess we can all take a bow and say "you're welcome!"{/sarcasm}

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Don't you know that the world ends on December 21 2012 at 12 Midday? The Mayans told us so and it's only a few days away now.

    Unfortunately I have to go to the Daughters Weeding a couple of weeks before the world ends so I have my work cut out for me. [/sarcasm]

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I'm gonna stand on my bosses desk and pi$$ on his head while laughing and waving the middle finger at him! Then I'm gonna smash all the computers, steal the petty cash and run out laughing hysterically! Gawd, only two weeks to go, I can't wait for my master plan to come to fruition.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    If the world ends then I'm off the hook for buying all those ridiculous Christmas gifts as well.

    what's a weeding? is that some sort of pot festival or something???? :)

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    It's what the Wifes daughter is doing on the 12-12-2012 claiming that after living witht he guy for 8 years is the right thing to do.

    I'm not so sure about that as if you look at the numbers 12, 12 and 12 and add them together you get her age.

    I think it's just an excuse for 2 months latter claiming that it's OK to come home and disturb me more than normal. Also seems that the M$ Spool Chockers leave a bit to be desired. :^0

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Maybe it will be lucky for them and I'm sure you wanted to get your yard cleaned up anyway. Sounds like shes still young enough to do it.

    AV :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    She's getting married a long way away and we have to drive 80 Kms to it. Apparently having Classic Fords they are going to a Historic Village and want "Trustworthy" people to drive their cars. Apparently the silly people consider me on of those and they want me to take the most expensive one so it doesn't get any damage. Silly People Really. [/maniacal laughter]

    Seems that I have to behave responsibly and they chose Wednesday to stop people bringing kids with them as they insist. Anyway the up side is other than being something I'm not I have nothing at all to do and I can not drive one of my "Wifes" Mercs, I have to drive a Big Yank Tank with airbag suspension and bounce it around. Only nice thing I can say about it is it's a lovely red color. Or maybe because the Edsel is the newest one that they have collected at the moment it's their most valuable car, so I'm not really sure what I'm driving but I do know that whichever one it is it's Left Hand Drive. That should be different.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    No driving that car 100 MPH (he he he). You have to behave yourself! What the heck is the Big Yank Tank with the left hand drive? Sounds like a challenge.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Are about the only way I can describe them they have masses of metal panels with nothing but metal and very big cars.

    The last Left Hand Drive that I drove was a Porsche GT2 or 3 not sure which and that most defiantly was not a Big car and it wasn't a road car either.

    Nice to drive none the less.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    And the Edsel back to the reception. Over all the Edsel is the easier car to drive as it doesn't have these stupid things like a folding steering wheel that needs to be moved to-wards the passenger side to get in and out.

    Of course the Bride was at home in the T Bird and wanted to drive herself there till her Lord and Master put his foot down and refused to give her the keys.

    Then I had to drive the Chrysler Cruiser back to their home from the reception and that was downright nasty to drive. The person who was supposed to drive the Edsel was involved in a collision getting to the set off point and the Groom had to go and pick her up and pay the Tow Truck to bring the bent car back to his place so he was somewhat reticent to allow her to drive after that. Apparently crashing a car 500 meters from their front door was not a way to impress the Cars Owner. :^0

    Unfortunately when I handed them over all where straight I don't think that they bent them after I left either. As all 3 where parked away in their slots and hidden.

    Over all the day went off without any real problems and now all I have to do is recover from the ordeal. People there even thought I was somehow involved with the bride and they kept calling me her father. I just replied No I'm her mothers husband.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    But that is all gonna change now after New York and New Jersey go after the federal government for $80 billion from FEMA to rebuild the states after Hurricane Sandy. Thats a huge chunk of change for one storm. I can't wait to see if Congress approves the money. Reminds me of this. Ha ha! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q

    You won't have to pay for it my dear Aidemzo, but all the US taxpayers are going to have to chip in and help rebuild. I see a new federal "disaster tax" coming on the horizon as we can all look forward to more bizarro weather in the future! Oooh! I bet the left wingers are getting chills up and down their collective legs at the very thought of a new tax right now!

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    "The Earth is gonna do okay. Humanity's phuqued, but the Earth will be just fine.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Whether it's a habitat that can sustain human life or not, it will keep on spinning. It's amazing that, over 14 billion years, life has gown and developed many times, on occasion wiped out by natural disaster. However, in just 2000 years, we can screw the whole lot up and make it all but uninhabitable for ourselves. Mankind is SO bloody dense!! We think we are clever for all our inventions, language etc. , in reality we are the worst thing that ever happened to the big blue ball. Then again, if we are wiped out in even another 1000 years, it's barely a blip in Earth's timeline. Mankind will just be a boil that the Earth had to lance in order to carry on.

    +
    1 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    But what about this subject?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=acLW1vFO-2Q

    I liked George because he was able to see the idiocy and hypocrisy in our lives and make us laugh when he pointed it out to us. Anybody who walked away from a Carlin show without thinking "Whoa. He was right about that..." wasn't paying attention or was offended because the truth cuts deep.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    The naysayers and denialists....are not here.

    Its like after years of saying "you're wrong", they just quietly say "guess you were right", and exit stage left.

    Call me hopelessly naiive, but if we can land a spacecraft on Mars by remote control, surely there can be technical solutions to help sort some of this out.

    The trick, of course, is to figure out how to come up with incentives to invest in technology solutions, and even models of industry/goverment partnership. since this problem is so big, expensive, and complicated to address that neither government nor industry can begin to solve it alone.

    The brains and capability of both NASA and the US Military Industrial Complex are what is needed, and both of these have some excess capacity at the moment. The next race to the Moon or War should be a race to protect the planet or a War on climate change. Turn swords into...windmills?

    And last but not least, there IS water on Mars, and it's not terribly hot there just yet.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    or prepared to do their own research but rely only on the BS out of the politicians and the other self abusers after money for BS. Sheet, Mount St Helen's did more greenhouse gas emissions that the whole human race did in 100,000 years, and there are a few volcanic eruptions each year with a few major ones every decade.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    The fact that greenhouse emissions are heavily effected by volcanoes is more of a reason to reduce further HUMAN impact on the globe. Look up the word: COMPOUND

    'Why should I, I am not the biggest part of the problem.' is exactly the mentality the world needs to get rid of.

    P.S. I NEVER listen to a word politicians say, but I also grew up exposed to science as opposed to faith.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    I've never said humans don't contribute in some way, we do that by breathing. I also agree we should make all reasonable efforts to clean up the environment from human and natural damage. I have consistently said it was all due to human activities, have also consistently said human activities are a very minor aspect, as proven by the people who've been studying this for decades. I've also been saying the politicians and political scientists who push this as an urgent item are total BS artists.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    We eat stuff, convert it to CO2, breathe it out, plants convert it to stuff, we eat stuff...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    If you haven't paid attention and clued in to me yet, I've been around these forums for well over a decade now. I have read your past comments and wholly agree with many of your views on the matter. The comment I had replied to may have been my own lack of comprehension but it just came across as if you were dismissing the concept because volcanoes do more damage than humans. Not to be corrective but also not to ignore the real issue, as SO MANY politicians do. It's not all about Co2 emissions either. Co2 is not the be all end all of global warming. Co2 is simply one of thousands of harmful gases that contribute to the problem. Politicians like to focus their junk science on Co2 emissions and make it a focus because it is such a harmless gas in most cases, that its very easy to downplay the significant effects on the amosphere.
    The one I'm most aware of and most concerned about personally, is CO. Carbon Monoxide is literally deadly to us. It is also the #1 most dangerous vehicle emission, which AirCare centres are most focused on testing for. With new cars emitting such low CO emissions, they are actually doing away with AirCare here for passenger vehicles as of next fall (FINALL!Y!!!). Unforutnately that takes SOME money out of my pocket too, nothing unmanageable though. Politicians and political scientists are a farce, lets replace POLITICIAN with 'Liar' and you get "Liars and Liar's scientists", which is MUCH more fitting.

    In Canada, we really do have a luxury of being exposed to REAL science and REAL global issues from a very young age. Schools promote science in a big way, there is little to no focus on politics or religion but a massive focus on science.

    Unfortunately, Canada, as a nation, sits at the very bottom of the list when it comes to our activity to reduce or stop greenhouse emissions and reducing our carbon footprint. In fact, we are merely a tiny step above Kazakhstan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This I find embarrassing as we are a nation so proud of its natural beauty, which people travel from all around the work to enjoy. We can do more and we MUST do more, we can do better and we MUST do better, it is something we must take responsibility for as individuals. The poblem is, people DON'T take responsibility as they just look at someone else and say how much worse they are...as always in today's most pathetic excuse for society. Nobody is willing to accept personal responsibility and thus nothing gets done. If the government steps in with some ridiculous solution and mandates action, then those same people get all ruffled and *****, while those who ARE actively doing their part, are imposed upon even more.

    So, forgive me if I misunderstood your comment, it certainly seemed as though you pointed a finger and concluded, 'we have nothing to worry about, compared to the effects volcanoes have'.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Finland has the same exact problem. Even though most of the power is low-impact hydro (no massive dams or anything), getting to carbon neutral is fekking hard when it's pitch dark and shilt cold for 5 months of the year.
    Paper industry, long as it lasts, has very bad carbon figures. Of course, it would be fair to make the end destination of that paper pick up the carbon tab, but Finland is on such a moral high horse that they can't bring themselves to argue strongly for the mitigation of the treaties.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Oh, dear. You're at it again.

    You know, it's an absolutely trivial task to read a few (proper, scholarly, peer-reviewed) papers on the gaseous emissions from the Mt St Helens eruption and compare that to the anthropogenic CO2 production.

    What it does is save you from looking like a complete muppet.

    I'd really appreciate it if you would STOP posting completely erroneous information in such a pedagogic fashion and then I wouldn't have to post in return.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    volcanoes both during passive periods and eruptions, and seen some of their estimates about the crap thrown out at Mount St Helens, Krakatoa, Pinatubo, Tambora, etc and the emissions like sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, etc they put out plus the more solid material and what it does to the area. They measure most of the stuff in millions or billions of tonnes of each type of material thrown out.

    Pinatubo put out over 20 million tonnes of CO2 in it's June 1991 eruption, how long does it take humans to produce that amount of CO2?

    Sorry mate, but the facts from the real experts support me, not you or the BS put out by the politicians and some faux scientists.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    if your value of 20MT is true, but it isn't. Estimates for the Pinatubo eruption are in the area of 0.04 to 0.05 GTonnes of CO2. Twice your estimate. Pinatubo was a VEI-6. I produce more CO2 in explosive dumps after a vindaloo curry.

    Humans produced well in excess of 30 GTonnes per annum CO2 in 2010. That's a factor of 700.

    Let's see if we can help your confusion! Pinatubo produced 40-50 MILLION tonnes of CO2 during the eruption. Humans produce over 30 BILLION tonnes of CO2 per annum.

    I'm not an expert but I was a scientist, so I check multiple sources and estimate the provenance, consistency and authority of the data. And then I read it - properly - and then I draw my own conclusions.

    Even VEI-7 eruptions like Krakatoa and Tambora, which occur one in a century, will only generate 0.1GTonnes. That's 100 MILLION.

    If we get a VEI-8 then we'll probably get a measurable CO2 increase in the atmosphere but CO2 will be the least of our worries.

    Suck it up.

    You know, I did originally say a week but I forgot what units I was working in... Goes to show that you really should check everything and trust no-one.

    +
    1 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    If it happens while I'm alive, I hope it's Yellowstone and not Toba. After one of those, I'd rather go fairly quickly than hang around and slowly waste away.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... in 10,000 years, give or take a few thousand. Plan accordingly; everyone should see Yellowstone at least once.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Could go tomorrow!

    BBC made a reasonable docudrama about a full-on Yellowstone eruption set in the near future - Supervolcano. Interestingly, Mexico closed the boder stopping US refugees. You can pick it up on Youtube. The first eruption cuts loose in Part 4.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    10,00 years or 10,000 minutes wouldn't make any difference. There's no problem, world ends in a few weeks anyway. Why not all just crack a beer and fugettabowdit !

    +
    0 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    Virtually all of it gets burnt, and turned into carbon dioxide. We're smoking up the planet at a pretty ferocious rate.

    Some geological events put our efforts to shame... like the formation of the Deccan Traps. That's where a third of India cracked open and poured out lava for thousands of years. All kinds of species went extinct for that one.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    and he was wrong.
    So much for not listening to **** coming out of politicians, huh?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    You and all of the other Climate Change dupes are ...... well, you're just that - dupes.

    Carry on with your self-indulgent circle jerk, ridiculing the "deniers", repeating the lies about anthropogenic global warming.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    This is a dupe who's just asking...

    I read an article in the London newspaper, The Guardian, which suggested that the phrase "Climate Change" was coined by the US Republican party some ten years ago.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

    Interesting. Please feel free to draw your own misconclusion about the article.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Hey, there are anthropogenic global warming / climate change dupes on both sides of the aisle.

    I don't care who coined the term "climate change", but it was advanced (some time after it was "coined") to further the deception and/or avoid admitting that the "global warming" claims were being proven wrong; the earth has been in a cooling cycle for a dozen years.

    Your article is from 2003. Okay, I'll call your 2003 article, and raise you a 1992 book, Earth in the Balance (retrieved just now from my very own book shelf).

    On page 61, Al Gore actually places part of the blame for the French Revolution on climate, when he says, "....... it seems clear that climate-induced suffering in France from 1783 through 1798 played a major role in worsening the political mood in which the French Revolution took place." (He cites some Benjamin Franklin letters about an unusually think fog in France at the time. Ooooookay......)

    "However, Gore goes on to say, "it seems just as clear that climate changes ........ Nonetheless, the effects of climate change on the political and social stability of civilization are powerful as we consider...... "

    And on page 73, "Of course, the history of climate change is also the history of human adaptation to climate change......." (Adapt, not cap and trade).

    So there you go, Neil. I think my 1992 book trumps your 2003 UK Guardian article.

    How can I be sure? Be sure of what? Climate change? Or anthropogenic climate change? If it's the former, I am sure that climate patterns change naturally all by themselves. If it's the latter, I don't need to be sure. Those making the claims need to be sure, which they are not.

    And their previous claims of doom and gloom have not even come close to coming true. Shall I quote from more of my books, Neil, about coastal cities being underwater in 25 years......... and so on...... ? Or should I pull out my Special Edition of National Geographic from 1984 when they predicted both environmental disasters AND the depletion of all of earth's oil supplies?

    Except, of course, on page 410 (as a grand conclusion) Al Gore, the father of the modern anthropogenic global warming / climate change scam, predicts that in the fall of 2012, an anthropogenic climate-change-induced storm will bear down on the coast of New Jersey wreaking havoc and destruction ...........

    (Hey, nobody around here has read the book, How do they know there's only 408 pages?)

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    To deny that the Earth's climate is, and has been, warming for several centuries is to deny observed data.
    To deny that, overall, the last 10 years have been the warmest years on record is also to deny observed data.
    To deny that humans could possibly have had an effect on the rate of warming is to ignore the output from our industrial society.

    The only things, Max that are still subject to scientific debate are a) what has humanity's effect been on the rate of warming, and; b) can we do anything to slow it or to mitigate the effects.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Have you not been paying attention, or are you just being obtuse?

    "a) what has humanity's effect been on the rate of warming?"

    Answer: Somewhere between very little and none, most likely leaning towards none.

    "b) can we do anything to slow it or to mitigate the effects.

    Because of the answer to the first, any answer to the second question is moot. As such, any answer would fall into the NO category.

    But you continue to avoid the most disturbing question:

    Has the progressive movement hijacked this and all environmental issues in order to advance their own political agenda?

    Answer: A resounding yes. And anyone who doesn't recognize it is either a fool and/or a dupe, or hasn't been paying attention. And there are those, of course, who realize it (although they might not acknowledge it) and they ride it for their own personal political reasons. I'm not sure which you are.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    None? You understand the environment and climate so well? Please, be so kind as to provide the scientific evidence on which you base your conclusion.

    Your question is only disturbing to you, Max, because anybody who is paying attention already knows that any group with a political agenda will hijack an issue to advance that agenda whenever possible. Witness the tea party and the national debt that doubled in eight years under a Republican President, but only became an issue when a Democrat was elected President.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I said, "......Somewhere between very little and none, most likely leaning towards none......"

    You can take from that whatever you'd like. But apparently, just like you take "no" government from my call for "less" government, you lie about what I said here, too.

    And you (you in the general sense) wonder why I spout off at people in my replies.

    Nick, you deserve "the link" for that one.

    But I still stick to what I believe: We contribute somewhere between very little and none, to any antroprogenic global warming and/or climate change, most likely leaning towards none - and I freely acknowledge that the majority of Americans have been duped so bad that they think I'm the looney tune. In reality, however, it is they who are the real looney tunes.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    That you are constantly running from my challenges; you don't answer my questions; you lie about what I say; and you are intellectually dishonest (at worst) or disingenuous (at best). You love to spout, but you can't support squat. (I know, a double-negative; but it works.)

    +
    0 Votes

    ...

    NickNielsen Moderator

    And you, Max, play the semantic sophist, tap dancing and hair-splitting when pinned down.

    You claim it doesn't exist. The vast majority of climate researchers would appear to disagree. www.upworthy.com/the-most-devastatingly-convincing-pie-chart-youve-ever-seen

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ... that you left-leaning, progressive, collectivist-type thinkers use in your lame attempt to discredit people who "CHALLENGE" your assertions. To "deny" presupposes the truth is being presented, something you and all the other environmental looney tunes riding the global warming band wagon haven't even come close to doing.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    Lame.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    you don't "challenge" anything. You just wave your hands and restate your unfounded street-man belief that the overwhelming majority of scientists are somehow mistaken, and that your lack of facts should trump their stacks of measurements.

    You're not a challenge... you're an ostrich with its head in a bush.

    +
    1 Votes
    JamesRL

    The most common usage I know of is "Holocaust denier". Those are the people who despite mountains of evidence (the Nazi regime were noted for being meticulous record keepers) from many sources, still deny that millions of Jews were killed in WWII.

    Max, I am in no way shape or form desparaging you, or comparing you to a Holocaust denier. But I do think there are times when denier is a valid term.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Or are you suggesting it is? If not, what's your point?

    It's clear to me that you took my exception to being called a "denier" and, for some reason, went off on a totally different tangent.

    The charge of being a "denier" has NO PLACE in the anthropogenic global warming / climate change debate. Or do you disagree?

    +
    0 Votes
    JamesRL

    ...was about the usage of the word denier in any context.

    I was simply pointing out that there are valid contexts for it.

    I don't believe that in the context of ANTHROPOGENIC warming/climate change, it should not be used. I do think there is sufficient evidence to show that climate change is happeneing at an accelerated rate. But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    The science is not in doubt... that's the strange thing here.
    Or is it a coincidence that the non-facts of the world's most powerful lobbies are being given a near-equal standing in this "we should all be open" thing that's going around.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The teaching of the Theory of Creation in science classes should be given equal parity with the Theory of Evolution, which is also just a 'theory'. The weight of evidence on the two sides - well, the total lack of evidence on one side - matters not one jot.

    And this before we add in the influence of those who don't wish to do anything to reduce the waste in the current lifestyles.

    You - we - are wasting our time.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    "But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly."
    I thought it felt out of place with the rest of your stance, since it sort of leaves things open that have been thoroughly closed :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Will they then let scientists modify Sunday School? :^0
    Theory : doesn't mean what creationists think it means.
    - meanwhile, Creationism is hardly even a hypothesis :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And I am debating with the believers who worship at the altar of environmentalism.

    They place 100 percent faith in that which has not been proven, nor can be proven; they have their Bishops who they blindly believe and follow; they believe in the doomsday prophecies being thrown around; they are spreading the word - evangelizing, if you will; they ridicule and criticize the "deniers", even to the point of demonization so they have their devil to blame for the sins of mankind; they even profess their own sins and perform their own penance as a form of repentance.

    And their messiah, Barack Hussein Obama (or the United Nations), will lead them to the Promised Land!

    Yep, it's just like a religion, Neil. And I'm shaking my head in disbelief at how otherwise intelligent people can be so duped into drinking the global warming kool-aid.

    +
    0 Votes
    JamesRL

    Where did I say "all of us"? I was very clear in expressing a personal opinion.

    I do think there is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing and warming. I do think there is evidence that man has contributed to this change. I do think there is room to debate whether man's contribution is the primary cause or the straw that broke the camel's back as it were.

    All I am suggesting is that there is room for debate here.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    It was that last sentence I found to be out of step with the rest of your stance: "But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly."

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    as I had no idea why emphasis went from Global Warming to Climate Change. No need to go off on one.

    And I know we haven't had a CC/GW/whatever discussion in a while, you and me, but I'm sure that you remember that you're not allowed even to quote Al Gore, let alone base your rant on his works. He is just one man and not widely recognised an an Authority over here and certainly not by me.

    As an afterthought on Gore, how different would your country be if it were not for the Bush chicanery in Florida?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Why do you think I did it?

    On the Gore/Bush/Florida thing, I dare not think of such an outcome - had Ralph Nader not ruined everything for Al Gore, costing him Florida and ultimately the presidency.

    People who "blame" Bush and/or the Supreme Court are blind to the real facts: Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election, not Bush, and certainly not the courts (while Ansu blames Fox News!).

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Absolutely there IS a reason to "go off on one" - that is, a side-discussion as to why the emphasis went from Global Warming to Climate Change. Unless, of course, you're trying to avoid the answers.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    What answers? What is the question?

    'Climate change' is much less frightening. So that's good for those who want to play down the seriousness of climate issues. It's also good for those who want to explain away the last several crap summers and cold winters in the UK. Win for both sides. everybody likes it!

    The correct term for what we are encountering and will see more of is "global climate change", anyway. Interesting times...

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    There are doctors who hold that the link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is not proven. They number about the same percentage as those climatologists who hold that there is no anthropogenic forcing of climate change.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I think you agree that the political class hijacking (see note) of the global warming / climate change discussion has, for the most part, convoluted just about any argument or any source, either in agreement or disagreement, and rendered any, so-called, conclusion moot. As such, it has no place in the political arena.

    I'll point out some scientist who hasn't jumped on the global warming / climate change bandwagon, and you (and others) simply ignore his argument in favor of discrediting and dismissing him for some other reason. (Example: What kind of legitimate scientist believes in God, for Christ's sake?)

    One such person, of course, is Professor William Gray of Colorado State University. We've spoken of him (and others) before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

    It's quite telling that NASA's James Hanson, Mr. Global Warming Scientist, has repeatedly turned down Dr. Gray's invitation to a public discussion and debate on the question in front of the University's student body. If you put their respective arguments, support, evidence, etc. side by side, Dr. Gray wins that debate hands down. And that's precisely the reason Dr. Hansen has refused to accept the invitation.

    It's all a bunch of crap, Neil; and I actually think you are beginning to realize it.

    Note: Political class extends beyond self-serving politicians, and includes self-serving media, self-serving pundits, bloggers with a sense of self-importance, self-serving voters, self-serving authors, self-serving carbon credit peddlers, environmental wackos, etc.......

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I refer you to my link.

    I would never in any way discredit or dismiss the research of a scientist that believed in any deity as quite a number do believe. Although, for example, if an avowed creationist were to publish on evolution, then I might reserve the right to hold on to a pinch of salt

    As for one on one debates, some are good at it and some aren't.

    Edited to add: Between one and three percent of the US population is believed to be atheist so, by definition, the other ninety-plus percent believe in a deity or deities. I don't ever recollect disregarding the output of *all* US science.

    I do, however, take on board the fact that over forty percent of the US population are delusional to the point that they believe in Biblical Creation. That does make me inclined to the idea that there isn't a lot of point in trying to get the US to do anything about their lifestyle. When something considerably larger than Sandy slaps you up the side of the head you (the US) will just put it down to God's Will and hunker down, waiting for Armageddon and the End Times.

    Insha'Allah

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Go to - tropical dot atmos dot colostate dot edu slash forecasts slash. Under the news section, he has an excellent paper about Hurricane Sandy. He concludes that Hurricane Sandy was not caused by anthropogenic global warming, rather it was because of Thermohaline Circulation. There is a lot of historical hurricane data that is very interesting as well.

    A storm like Hurricane Sandy is rare, but there have been several almost equally destructive hurricanes to hit New York City in the past such as the Hurricane of 1821. This is the link - history1800s dot about dot com slash od slash crimesanddisasters slash a slash Hurricane-of-1821 dot htm.

    I don't think CO2 emissions were an issue then, yet that was quite a freak storm as well, though it hit at low tide. Hurricane Sandy hit at high tide and during a full moon making it the perfect storm.

    My conclusion is that CO2 may not be the real culprit here. It may contribute to GW/CC in some way, but historical data suggests that storms like this occur whether you have CO2 present in the atmosphere or not.

    AV

    PS: Sorry about the crazy links. I can't seem to post this with them. There is no w w w in them.

    +
    1 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    A individual Storm or Weather Event as such can not be put down to Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever you prefer to call it, what Global Warming Theory says is that the Storms will get more intense but long before that starts the existing storms will become more frequent.

    So what was a once in a 100 year storm or at least a Storm of the same intensity as a Once in a 100 Year Storm will happen more often. Storms of that Intensity will be more common and instead of once in 100 years they may develop to once in 50 years or depending on how much warmer the atmosphere gets more common.

    Blizzards will also get more common and may even be colder as the Energy that drives the Weather has more energy so things get more intense.

    For Instance in 1974 Brisbane Australia experienced a once in 100 year Weather Event which led to massive flooding. The previous event which actually was worse in the amount of water dropped and spread across the flood plain which is where Brisbane is located was more severe but had less of an impact on people simply because there where fewer of them directly impacted but it was severe enough to leave a Destroyer 300 feet away from the river when the waters receded and resulted in a massive engining project to return it to the water where it could be repaired. That occurred in 1893 so the 1974 floods where about due though a few years early to what statistics said could happen.

    In 2011 Brisbane again experienced severe flooding despite massive Flood Mitigation work being done and the construction and subsequent enlargement of a new dam since 1974 to supposedly stop massive waves of water running down the Brisbane River from it's catchment.

    In 1974 the flooding was relatively localized to the South Eastern Corner of Queensland and only adversely impacted on those communities on the Brisbane River Flood Plain.

    In 2011 the flooding was no where near as severe in the depths of water involved but it was much more severe from the point of view that it was 90% of Queensland that was impacted by flooding not just the South Eastern Corner and the flood waters ranged all the way up the east coast and through most of the inland areas. That is something that has not happened in our Recorded History but that in itself doesn't mean a lot as Australia is a very young country with records not going back all that far mostly no more than 100 years or so. That gives you some idea of just how severe the 1893 Floods in Brisbane actually where to a relatively newly established settlement.

    But the point is that the Trend is getting shorter 81 years between the 1893 to 1974 Flooding event and 37 years to the next major flood event in 2011.

    That in itself may not be of any importance because there is not the Historical Records to tell us if this is a common event the flooding and that we have just been lucky or that it is getting to be a more common occurrence.

    What we need to do is look at older parts of the world where Accurate Records have been kept for much longer periods of time and see if there is a correlation of these events getting closer and closer together. Of course depending on where that place is there may be more than just floods to take into account.

    Things like areas in the Higher Latitudes could be subject to flooding and major snow falls which have to be taken together where as places in the Tropics and Sub Tropics are very unlikely to have any Snow Falls so flooding from Severe Storms is a more likely occurrence.

    There has yet to be an Planet Scientist who has claimed that any storm is the result of Global Warming that is restricted to Politicians and Media who go for the easy answer and do not rely on Science to sprout their ramblings so every storm can be attributed to other naturally occurring events. For that matter every Severe and any other storm can be contributed to Natural Events in the Atmosphere generating that Severe Weather Event, so you do not look at the actual storms but the frequency of them and that unfortunately can only be done after the event so the only way to prove that Global Warming or whatever you chose to call it is happening is after it has occurred and the Higher Temps have been recorded for many years along with the frequency of Severe Weather Events.

    This is not something that happens quickly as the Planet moves to a different Time to Humans and what to us is an extremely long time is nothing but the blink of an eye to the Planet. The entire history of Humanity is but a very short time to the Planet and currently our records are not nearly far enough back to provide the required proof that some people demand.

    With all Science there are those who accept it and those who deny it. A very good example of that happened within the last year where a Group of Scientists who where terrified of the Hadron Collider tried to get a Court Injunction to prevent any experiment that may have produced mini Black Holes. They argued that any Mini Black Hole that may be produced would not blink out of existence but continue to grow till it ate the planet and solar system.

    The same thing happened before the first Atomic Bomb Test where a group of Scientist who where more conservative than those working on the Manhattan Project tried to prevent the first test arguing that once the Reaction started it would continue and destroy the planet. They reasoned that once the Chain Reaction started it would be self perpetuating and could never run out of energy to cause it to cease happening.

    Also some people reasoned that because Internal Combustion Engines where powered by Explosions that the Internal Combustion Engine was an inherently dangerous thing and would be exploding all over the place causing untold death and destruction.

    None of those 3 examples where anywhere near as bad as some people claimed that they would be and the Mass Hysteria that they generated is still with us today and rears it's head more often than many people accept.

    The bottom line is that all Science is the Observation and Recording of Events and that is all that Science can ever be.

    Now for some indisputable Fact the World is going to end at 12.00 PM December 21 2012. That is the Belief of a very advanced race that Inhabited the Southern Americas and who simply disappeared. As it is on the Internet and I read it there it must be true because no one would place lies or untruths on the Internet would they?

    But the real message here is it's not what one or some people believe will happen, means that it is going to happen just that they believe that it will.

    Sometimes that's not a bad thing and sometimes it is a terrible thing. So we need to keep in mind that everything that we experience Good or Bad will only ever be proven after it is a Indisputable Fact.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Nobody is saying that GC causes weather.
    Obviously, having an atmosphere + Eartch revolving around its axis + Earth orbiting the sun is what causes weather.
    GC modifies weather.


    So, you have to ask: why is Dr. Gray making a straw man attack?

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Col, some people are more trusting of politicians and media than I am. I don't believe anything they say because their ultimate goal is to find a way to make money from it. If they can convince enough people that GW is man-made, and they have, it will justify a new Carbon Tax that everyone will happily pay for the rest of their lives or as long as they can keep the man-made GW story going.

    There are still scientists on both sides of the GW acceleration issue, but nothing I've seen convinces me that man-made GW is an indisputable fact. What is indisputable is that politicians and the media will work together to achieve the ultimate goal, a Carbon Tax on everyone.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    What is going to make more money for your politicians in the short term. That you, the US, continues with your current lifestyle (which you won't, by the way) or that you all conserve a bit, recycle a bit and just use less without having to be coerced. God forbid that you should reduce your consumption of energy down to that of, say, the UK or Germany and have to face the lack, the squalor and barbarity of our lives. It would only be a small reduction - a paltry 50%. The latter would obviously make money for your politicians but I'm damned if I can work out how.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Neil, the politicians will make money no matter what the American people do. If we continue on our current path of maximum consumption, short term they have Cap and Trade and possibly a Carbon Tax. If we cut down on use and move to the new *green* technologies, we will pay through the nose for those new technologies. Heck, maybe they'll create a new *Green tax*.

    The thing to understand about America is we never cut down and politicians know that. Though there are some of us who use less because we're more prudent, most people will continue down their current path and just pay more. If by some chance we all did cut down and start conserving without adopting new technologies, no problem, they'll just raise the price. Politicians never lose.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Don't bother what pollerticians say.
    Look at the science in stead.
    99.7 % of peer-reviewed articles support and corroborate AGCC.
    There aren't people on both sides, you can't really say that.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Now I know to most, The Guardian, sounds like a real London Newspaper but reeeeeaaaly? The Guardian? News? Granted it's better than The Daily Mirror (minus the page 3 boobies) but a "news"paper?

    Guardian is always good for learning the latest gossip about the monarchy and unveiling the truth behind crooked politicians though.

    LOL! That's like all the Americans who buy into Jerry Springer, Aliens and UFO's stored in Area51, The Enquirer etc.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    It's not News of the World.

    The Guardian is slightly better than that now demised rag.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    That's the SUN, one of Rupert Murdoch's rags.

    I just happened across the article, nine years on, and thought it made a lot of sense.

    Still do, despite you dissing the Guardian. You've been in forrin parts for too long, I think you're mixing up the Guardian and the Telegraph.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    As I work globally again now, I get papers from all over. Most I read online but I need print copies of a few too. Usually two or three days behind though. I never bothered with the Mirror, though I guess they dropped page 3 girls years ago.

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    in the early 1990s, the Guardian and the Telegraph were about equally good as news purveyors, and at a higher standard than the SF Chronicle. The Guardian was somewhat socialist (it printed Doonesbury) and, as alas since the 1970s has often been associated with that standpoint, somewhat secular-inhumanist, whilst the Telegraph was somewhat conservative. Perhaps things have changed since then.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Permafrost melts and the oceans rise in the next few days and causes the end of Life as we know it on December 21 2012 you'll be OK because there will be no one left to say I Told You So and you'll not be around to say Sorry will you?

    I look at things this way the climate is getting hotter the sea levels are rising that is indisputable so it's in Humanities Best Interests to make sure that we stop things from getting over the top and killing us all. It really doesn't matter what is causing it to happen but in our own self interests we need to stop it if or we can or die trying.

    There is currently a lot of untrapped water on the planet which was locked up in the poles during the last Ice Age where the ice was over 1 Kilometer Deep on both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres Poles. What's currently left is rapidly disappearing and we really do not want the consequences of it all disappearing or the changes that it will bring with it.

    Currently if all Electricity Supplies where stopped in your country for a fortnight things would all but collapse if Global Warming causes the Food Supply to be adversely affected things would be far worse for Society as we know it and it really doesn't matter how high the Tax Rate in the US is everyone is going to be adversely affected.

    Currently your country has Mass Die Offs of Old Trees which it can not explain and the Temp has only increased buy a really small amount. If it goes up three times the current increase in the next 100 years there will be nothing left and that is what is predicted without taking into account the Permafrost melting.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Everything you say is disputable, Colin. Everything. Just because you make an assertion, it doesn't make it true.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    But when a preponderance of evidence points to a certain conclusion, only a fool ignores the evidence.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I never said anything about science being disputable, indisputable, or anything in-between.

    I suggested that everything Colin says is disputable.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    The Temp is getting hotter.

    Not in dispute with any sane person though they and you have argued why it is happening.

    Ocean Levels rising

    Again not in dispute because it's getting hotter.

    The depth of Ice over the Poles in the last Ice Age isn't in dispute either.

    So what's disputable?

    If you where referring to the Comment about the end of the earth they you should listen to the AU Prime Minister who gave a speech on this issue yesterday though at the moment there is no video available but I'll post one when it does become available.

    Well actually as the End of the World is Nigh I'll only be able to post the link if it is put up before the December 21 2012. After all it's not going to be possible to post after that is it?

    Col :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    What if the last post on TR was REALLY Dec.20th and the Mayan's actually WERE right? Here's us disputing global warming, presidential candidates, world affairs and politics, wars all over the world for one reason or another, but everyone shares the tongue in cheek snicker about the Mayan end of the world.

    I don't think there are enough eggs in the world for everyone's faces. That would be absolutely hysterical! We focused on the wrong issue all along, and 'poof' no more mankind!

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    If you can not laugh at things you'll go crazy.

    Now I wonder if the TR Servers will survive the December 21 2012 deadline.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Scientists spend our tax dollars trying to debunk previous conclusions, prove findings inconclusive etc. The whole idea behind science is that we don't know about everything, in fact we often prove things incorrect that were deemed correct many years before, that's just what science is. Scientists love to be proven wrong, then they have more work to do, more grants to spend etc. Then again, that is SO much better than a mindset that simply says "no" (lol, computer says 'no') and doesn't seek a better conclusion. Many people say GW is BS, fair enough, I'm open to that (in fact it would be great if it was BS) but they chalk it up to, the world will do it's thing, it's much bigger than us and we can't control it.

    To me, that's as much of a cop out as saying "No, I can' t explain why, but God has his ways" when people counter religion with science.

    If scientists said, "religion is a farce, science has it's ways of making things happen, don't pretend to understand it, just believe" Sure, LOL, that'll work!

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    You mean the peer-reviewed research?
    Whereas the average lifespan of "research" on your side seems to be three months in public, until it's proven fallacious, and then an eternity in the steaming undergrowth of people who don't grok science.