What About Global Warming?

But [i]Abdussamatov's[/i] was one of the ones insisting that drinking several gallons of Vodka per day had no scientific adverse affects on the Human Anatomy as Vodka is [b]All Natural & Organic.[/b] Some of his detractors pointed out that Opium was Organic as well but not something that you want to be using at all but he chose to ignore this point of view.

When you are talking about millions of tons per year of CO2 being pumped into the Atmosphere above what is naturally occurring and the removal of vast amounts of Carbon Sinks in the form of Forest Removal there has to be some form of impact on the Planet even if it is only a [i]a whisp in the spanse of time and space[/i] it's still possible to destroy the Human species and no one will notice in the overall scheme of things.

Today there is no argument about Refrigerant Gasses that where being used where destroying the Ozone Layer and after legislation was invoked to prevent the continued production of these gasses the controversy disappeared over night as well because the makers didn't any longer have a cause to fight or fund.

Col

The refrigerant gases that were illegal during the 90's are available again today in the US. The original AC system for my 1990 pickup is fully available after being forced to convert it in the mid 90's. The dang thing has never worked under the new system. And every other nation around the world never complied with those requirements.

The issue has gone away because political entities are now focused on Global Warming hoopla.

I read one posting in another thread indicating based on the EPA numbers that the US contribution was realistically small on a global scale. I took those calculations and computed the percent of standard density of pollution to be less than 3 times 10 to the -7th power. That is really nothing.

When I look at the events on a solar scale the human influence is really unmentionable.

I ask how many people remember the Times Beach or Love Canal? How many remember the acid rain problem or lakes and rivers that spontaneously combusted? Those were honest issues but most do not recall and many have never heard of those things.

Firstly the stated amount of CO2 produced isn't the real amount it's CO2 produced per $ of GDP so you are seeing a fixed value which can allow the amount to actually rise without causing anything else to happen.

As for the acid Rain and other items like the Spontaneous Combustion of water ways this can all be traced directly back to industry polluting so if Man can cause Acid Rain and Waterways to spontaneously Combust why is it so hard to believe that he is incapable of adversely impacting upon the planet. He has already done this on numerous occasions with the latest being the introduction of Unleaded fuel who's main byproduct of combustion is H2SO2 which combines with some free radical Oxygen atoms in the atmosphere and returns to earth as H2SO4 or in layman terms [b]Sulfuric Acid.[/b]

As for the Refrigerant Gasses you are wrong we used to use a gass called R12 which was very damaging to the atmosphere and it's production has been banned. Initially this was replaced with R36 which required a expensive conversion which very rarely worked but since that time an inert gas called R22 has been developed which will work as well as R12 used to in the older AC units.

Col

On the downside it sounds like this is an inconvenient truth. Therefore the True Believers will probably attack you for posting this.

I believe American-caused global warming is nothing more than a gambit to gain more control over our lives and our money than anything else.

Again, the True Believers in the religio-environmentalist movement will probably pounce on your and my apostasy.

People become fervent over many things. My view on Global Warming is somewhat pragmatic.

I believe that there is a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States and Global Warming is only one instrument in this effort. The old montra was a marxist approach of endearing the forgotten people and organizing militias to fight for their rights. It was a common global theme for over 50 years.

Today, you should note that the Global Warming players include countries like France and groups that are mostly enviro-fascist people. They are organizing treaties, global doctrines, and other agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty. The common theme in these 'crisis' are either to create economic funnels draining cash out of an economy, turning over sovereign territory, or otherwise exert influence over a country such as the United States.

These these things worry me. The radicalize leftist parties, namely the Democraps, have an agenda to convert the United States into a new form of government over time. They cannot do it directly so they incrementally march towards the goal. I beleive Global Warming is an instrument for this effort.

by absolutely Mar 4, 2007

I suspect my time would be wasted addressing your concerns regarding "a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States." The statement implies, with little or no room for uncertainty, a belief not amenable to revision. So, instead, I suggest that writing off Global Warming as "[i]only[/i] one instrument in this effort" is tantamount to betting all your marbles on the assumption that having been blackmailed once, every subsequent phone call is from the same blackmailer.

The United Nations is not the only organization of people on Earth, nor do they hold an intellectual monopoly on scientific research.

by tig2 Mar 3, 2007

First- stay off my religious ass. I probably give a heck of a lot more space than I receive.

On second thought, I KNOW I do.

I think that there is more to learn on the Global Warming debate. On one hand, I look at the vast NUMBERS of us and think that there is a connection. I look at corporations buying preserved land (rainforest, anyone???) and think again.

Should we go greener? Probably. Should I be forced to give up a big,safe truck that gets me to the commuter bus? No.

But how is any of this different to Eco Action from the 70's? It isn't.

How about the "Re-use, re-align campaigns of the 40's?

Bottom line. We are required to THINK. Not blindly, but with knowledge, care, and consideration. We have to consider our legacy.

Sorry sn, some of us "religious nutcases" prefer to think.

Tigger said, "Bottom line. We are required to THINK. Not blindly, but with knowledge, care, and consideration. We have to consider our legacy."

Sounds perfect. If you are actually thinking you are less likely to give up your right to live free.

"Sorry sn, some of us "religious nutcases" prefer to think."

I encourage it. Of course, if you begin thinking and avoid environmental-wackism then the problem is most likely solved.

This problem is far more political than it is scientific.

That continues to be your strength, merely believing. When are you going to come up with some scientific facts to support your beliefs?

When you do, those of us who take global warming seriously stand ready, willing and able to engage you and yours in a formal debate.

deep have you "ever come up with a scientific fact"? Or do you read what others have conjectured?

Why do you think formal debate has anything to do with influencing anybody?

Beliefs, emotions, informal discussions are far more likely to sway opinion than sweating over mathematical models.

I cannot be swayed by a political approach that I can clearly see is intended to reduce my freedoms and enhance the political power of another. If you want to sway me show me how the solution will increase my freedoms and reduce the political powers at the state, federal and trans-national levels.

by tonythetiger Mar 5, 2007

the controlling of other people. It's a condition brought about by the realization of one's own valuelessness. The afflicted mistakenly believe they can obtain value by stealing it from others.

That's like thinking you'll become a high-school graduate by stealing someone's diploma.

by absolutely Mar 5, 2007

However, the assertion that it applies to climate science has not been [i]proven[/i], which would require substantive rebuttal [i]of the data[/i].

Some of it has been cited in various threads already, with no responses beyond instinctive distrust of some of the sources, and often of sources separate from those providing the data.

have an impact because of the butterfly effect.
How much of anything you need to tip the currently stable system into an other pattern is something we are incapable of quantifying.

We can't say whether other human influenced factors add or decrease the risk of change.

We can't say how big a change, we can't say how long it will last.

We can't say what other cyclical influences may impact and how they will.

So given that level of ignorance, what worth is a politically inspired guess to either outcome?

Nil ,nada, nothing, print it out on soft paper, wipe your arse with it.

The only sensible position in my eyes is to look at limiting our impact on the environment, because that only risks certain vested interest's current profits.

Tony said, "You can't say that the amount is too small to have an impact because of the butterfly effect."

Chaos theory says that very minor changes in the initial state of a complex system can lead to major changes over time. It does not take a stand on whether the changes will be positive or negative. For all we know, giving carbon tax money to the United Nations will result in world-wide catastrophe and the next ice age. On the other hand, given human nature it is unlikely that giving additional power and control to corrupt politicians will have anything but an ill-effect.

"How much of anything you need to tip the currently stable system into an other pattern is something we are incapable of quantifying."

It is not stable. The earth has been in a warming pattern since the end of the last ice age. It is a good thing. We ought to recognize that changes in climate are an inherent part of the very complex solar system (with emphasis on that great nuclear furnace, Sol).

"The only sensible position in my eyes is to look at limiting our impact on the environment, because that only risks certain vested interest's current profits. "

Chaos theory suggests, since you brought it up, that there are many sensible positions, an infinite number in fact. And what do you have against profits? They are the reason you can interact on this forum.

is the study of non linear dynamical systems.

Specifically to identify the order in chaotic systems. If you google Lorenz and butterfly effect you'll see the famous diagram.
That was based on three equations to govern a simple climate.

It was chaotic (apparently random), because there was no particular pattern the solutions of the individual equations but when viewed as system the solution always stayed within certain bounds.

I have nothing against profit, I profited from my reading of James Gleick's Chaos, I profited from my business. I haven't profited from risking the entire biosphere and millions of lives though.

It's called ethics.

American contribution to potential climate change yes but no you can't claim to have made global warming, unless Al's been waffling again?

The orginal premise of Chaos theory is that everything contributes to the outcome of a system. The 'Butterfly Effect' is an illustration of the principle not necessarily a truth or testable outcome. And some people in this forum would argue it is not logical. The point being while there is a contribution to what degree does it have an impact?

I think we should assess first how much carbon dioxide must be added to the atmosphere to increase global temperatures one degree. Then we need to assess if those numbers polluted come close to that necessary to increase temperatures one degree. We may find that the numbers may be so large that they become surreal.

Additionally, we should also compute how much additional solar radiation is necessary to cause existing greenhouse gas levels to increase global temperature one degree.

In doing these computations we would be applying statistical thermodynamics on a global scale. Nonetheless, My guess is that humans have virtually no sustainable impact compared to other natural events.

If we look at a single human being and compare him to all the cosmos then ask who is he and what is his contribution? If we multiply him by 6 billion times then look at that compared to the cosmos, we can only surmise that human existence is nothing more than a whisp, an instantaneous spark, a flash point and nothing more. Of course, in a spiritual sense we are far more but naturally humans are insignificant.

So what makes you think that anything we do has an impact on anything else other than ourselves?

We are adding CO2 at hefty rate.

Your guess is we don't impact,my guess is we do

So if I'm wrong we get a cleaner planet and some profit moves from currently 'dirty industries to some 'cleaner' ones.

If you are wrong millions of people lose everything, quite possibly including their lives.

So what's the sensible risk here?

The butterfly effect is proven in the models, whether the models are an accurate measure of the real world, is something else entirely.

As for the last paragraph the other 5999,999,986 humans might be insignificant but me and my family matter very much.

Why not choose variations in solar output since that is a far more logical starting point for variations in the Earth's temperature?

I read that too. It was great. I believe that Lorenze had 8 simultaneous equations to model the global weather patterns. Anyhow, that is unimportant.

While pollution is an important concern, we have to ask what is an acceptable level that promotes human dignity without causing immediate or future loss of human dignity?

Dumping of toxins on otherwise productive farm land then building a subdivision on top off the waste is unethical and diminishes human dignity. That action may even cause human suffering unnecessarily.

Things like electricity, air conditioning, and sewage systems improve human dignity. But they can also cause poor living conditions if not properly designed. Where do we draw the line?

under the profit column on the balance sheet.

The world is run by bean counters, they are judged on money at the end of each financial period.

Ask one how much a forest is worth, he'll calculate the value of the saleable wood and the land it's on and give you a price.

Bean counters are a pain in the kazzotski.

How does one cost environmental concerns?

For a common citizen to add solar power to his home, install composting toilets, and separate trash for recycling it cost $45k the first year. He could sell compost and recyclable trash offsetting the cost but there is little to no financial return on those things. In fact, it would be mostly a move on conscience more than anything else.

So again where do we draw a line?

Is there a connection between pollution and global warming? Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a by-product of breathing.

Waste management is a reasonable thing to do. But I do not see the connection between cleaning up after ourselves (which all of the wealthy nations do well and the former socialist ones do very poorly) and potentially causing global climate change.

And the random Bush Fires that occur naturally there wouldn't be much of a problem. But CO2 is also a by product of Combustion of Fossil Fuels so those Fuel Cracking Plants and Coal Fired Power Stations in use now are contributing far more of the CO2 into the atmosphere than animals breathing.

Also under strictly [b]Medical Terms[/b] if you have a need for something you are addicted to it so every human in the world is addicted to breathing air.

Do you now enjoy being classed as an Addict?

Col

by tony hopkinson Mar 4, 2007

Lost for words.

Stumped.

Any response is obviously a complete waste of my time.

Businesses only recognise two sorts of value in ethics.

One is fuzzy, as in marketing your self as ethical, the other is slightly more defined in terms of the cost of being prosecuted for doing something illegal. Though in the latter case, many of the fines are a joke.
If it costs $200k a year to deal with waste properly, vs a 50k fine if you get caught and found guilty, which one should a business man pick?

Tax incentives for being green for individuals and businesses, I believe is a practical way to go. Certainly taking away every ones car and making them live in a wattle and daub hut, is not going to make you popular.

The lines are wherever we choose to draw them, at the moment there are next to none.

Tony said, "Chaos theory is the study of non linear dynamical systems."

I think the solar system is a non-linear dynamic system.

I did not understand the rest of you post as it pertains to chaos theory.

"I have nothing against profit,"

Great. Nor do I.

"I profited from my reading of James Gleick's Chaos,"

I read it too. Many years ago.

"I haven't profited from risking the entire biosphere and millions of lives though."

How do you know? How do you know there is even a risk? What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind? Would you be willing to take the risk of spoiling that equally likely outcome because of environmental-religious reasons?

I just want you to think about it.

"It's called ethics."

It is called uncertainty. And politics will not change that. There is noting ethical about the UN power grab that is taking place. Ethics makes people freer. It does not enslave them.

"American contribution to potential climate change yes but no you can't claim to have made global warming, unless Al's been waffling again?"

Al Gore just might be the greatest threat to mankind, pound for pound. But then, I am only speculating.

The man is a megalomaniac and a pathological liar. You know he invented the internet and he invented Global Warming. In fact, he was studying the effects of Global Warming in 1959 but never took action until 45 years later. That was when his data began to 'indicate' that it was a problem. By the way, the data that indicated a problem was his paycheck as he was unemployed. Except that the generous US taxpayers grant him a annual stipend just because he was an elected official at one time that many of them do not even make or get just because they worked for someone else.

Elected Officials Fleecing the system? They are Criminals who grant themselves these perks and will continually continue to do so until the people of the country raise up and demand that this action be stopped immediately.

So when are you going to fill up your vehicle and carry everyone that you can jam into it to Washington to demonstrate to stop the payments to Elected Officials even the ones currently in power?

Col

I take it that you will willingly accept the displaced people of the world as the water rises and accept them as refugees into your Country without any complaints. Some Pacific Islands are only several feet above sea level and even Hawaii isn't safe from rising sea levels.

So what do you propose happens to all the people who are displaced by the rising Ocean Levels?

Much more importantly what do you propose to eat when the Ocean Chemistry has been so dramatically altered that the vast majority of the Fish and like die off as a result?

Look at he Coral Reefs in Floria and see just how healthy they are as they look like a desert and this is so called Progress that brings betterment of life. Sorry but no thanks I'll stick with what was there before and you can have the [b]Brave New World[/b] where there will be hardly any soil available and even less fresh water.

You are looking at that movie [b]Water World[/b] and not seeing it as a very possible future. The science about what would happen to the ocean levels if the Polar Ice Caps where to melt has been around for several hundred years now so it's hardly anything new to be considered as to what will happen when they do melt.

But as you and I will not be around by then it's not our concern is it? It's perfectly acceptable to wreak the place now and leave it to your grandchildren to clean up your mess right?

I'm betting that wouldn't be acceptable to you for any inheritance that you where to leave them that would cost them millions of $ and thousands of years to put right but somehow it's acceptable to do it to the planet that we live on and currently [b]Can Not Escape From.[/b]

Actually instead of All Gore being the greatest threat to mankind I think that you'll find [b]Apathy[/b] is and it's people like you who allow the mess to happen and then moan about the cost & time taken to clean up.

Personally I haven't watched the All Gore Movie and I'm not overly interested in it because of the reports that I've seen of it understate the real damage that will be done so it's all nice and fuzzy and not real.

Col

Hal, it is a religion for you. Praise god.

by tony hopkinson Mar 4, 2007

they'll think what we tell them to so they can get our votes and bury their heads in the public trough.

Ethics do not make people freer, they are a constraint. Being ethical means you limit yourself to what you should do, not what you can do.
I am capable of draining my engine into my flower bed, my ethics make me collect it in a suitable container and dispose of it safely, even if doing so incurs a cost.

The big problem in terms of being bio-ethical is those who are against such ideas always look at the cost of disposing the oil, never the flowers, wild life, scenery, public welfare etc. None of those are easily fitted on the balance sheet.

Al Gore is a politician, if he thought pouring crude oil on californian orchards would get him a vote, there would be dead trees across half the state.

Hi Tony,

I am interested in determining why you and HAL (and probably others) commingle the perfectly reasonable pollution management and the idea that we are destroying the Earth because our activities might be warming the place up a tiny bit.

Hi Tony,

I do agree that anything can be a pollutant in context.

Thanks.

The system is simple. The sun heats the earth and greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, trap the heat. Either solar radiation increases or CO2 increases or there is some sort of combination.

Either we see how much solar energy is needed to increase temperatures 1 degree given constant CO2 or hold the solar radiation constant to see how much additional CO2 is necessary to increase the temperatures 1 degree. These are your bench marks to measure from.

Then ask is the sun putting out that much of an increase in solar radiation? Or ask are humans adding such an excessive amount that we are increasing temperatures? Based on computations I have worked, there is little support for humans causing widespread increases in global temperatures.

The problem is no one is considering this. It is all media hype. This is why I am skeptical. They try to bury it in all this technical confusion and keep people guessing.

For scientists, that is not the case. And, one need not 1st have the exact formula that produces the observed results in order to have a viable hypothesis. In fact, it is generally the case that the formula is ultimately derived from the observed results.

I want to take from another posting, because it was curious to me, and build upon it.

The USGOV reports 98% of the greenhouse gases come from fossil fuels and estimates that 6,008.6 million metric tons are dumped into the atmosphere annually as of November 2006 report. The US is believed to be the largest contributor worldwide to these gases.

These numbers came from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

The Earth's for the most part is a sphere with a diameter of est 12713 km +/- 75 km; a 0.5% variance. While the Atmosphere extends to 800km, the effective atmosphere (upto the ozone) is 50 km. Therefore, the math follows for computing the volumen of the atmosphere:

volume of a sphere = 4/3*Pi*r^3

Atmospheric volume = Volume to the ozone - the Earth's volume

volume of the atmosphere = 25,574,515,366.3 cubic km.

Density = pollutant tons / volume of atmosphere

The annual green house gases = 6,008.6 million metric tons.

This equates to a density of greenhouse gases emissions of .235 Metric tons per cubic km. (The original poster made an error not accounting for the word "million").

pollution density = .235 Metric tons per cubic km or 5.18E-7 lbs/cubic meter.

Now if I take this density and compare it to STP density of ordinary air, what percentage is attributed to pollutants?

STP density = 2.649 lbs per cubic meter.

Pollutant contribution to global atmospheric density = 1.96E-7 %

I would say this is way neglible and hardly enough to cause global warming. Remember its a Oxygen-Nitrogen atmosphere making up nearly 98% of the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 is estimated to be about 3.6E-2%. The percentage addition of pollutant CO2 is 5 orders of magnitude smaller or nearly 1 millionth of the natural amount present.

Okay folks, is that reasonable? Can that amount cause ice caps to crack? Can that amount ignite raging brush fires? Can that amount raise the earth's temperature not only one degree but several? I just don't see it.

We have this nuclear furnace nearby. It is always on. If there is a thermostat no one has shown us how to use it. A fraction of a percent difference in solar output could account for the added warmth here and on Mars.

The sun does contribute far more than the human population is able to contribute to cosmic and global events. This is my point in the numbers of human contributions being so small.

Next I would like to compute the numbers for the Sun's contribution.

Without re-visiting the calculations presented, as such was previously in another discussion, the following should be observed.

1) The burning of fossil fuels produces not 1, but [b]3[/b] inputs in to the mechanism in question: water vapor, carbon dioxide and thermal energy.

2) Both water vapor and carbon dioxide have adsorption spectra that cause them cause them to [i]reflect[/i] infrared (IR) radiation. (Contrary to popular belief, the "green house" effect is [i]not[/i] caused by atmospheric components serving as "insulation," but by the reflection of IR radiation.)

The overwhelming portion of the Sun's radiant energy received by Earth lies within those wavelengths shorter than IR. Most of this energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface, with the balance being reflected, at the original short wavelengths, back into space. As the Earth's ice and snow caps diminish, less and less is reflected.

That greater portion which is absorbed is then re-radiated as IR. Of this IR, along with the above said waste heat from the buring of fossil fuels, some portion [b]cannot escape[/b] back into space, but is reflected back to Earth, thus increasing the total thermal energy of Earth and raising its temperature.

And, as such temperature rises, the ice and snow caps slowly melt, thereby decreasing Earth's albedo, reducing the amount of short wavelength solar radiation reflected, and increasing the amount absorbed and ultimately re-readiated as IR.

Left unchecked, this positive feedback loop serves only to raise Earth's thermal energy.

The key point to observe and understand is that IR reflectors do not in and of themselves increase Earth's thermal energy, but that they do [b]not allow for its free escape.[/b]

Incidentally, it should be noted that this mechanism is not one newly proposed, but dates back to 1897!

to cover all the CO2 emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution where Industry Polluted without control for many years till the adverse effects could no longer be ignored. It was at that stage that Governments stepped in and put controls on these industries to meet certain Minimum amounts of Pollution. Unfortunately Exhaust Gasses have never been included in these Pollution Emissions controls as the Elected Officials couldn't see them and couldn't gather any problems from their existence so they till recently have been ignored.

There is one Big Difference between the AU Federal Government and the US Federal Government and that is that th AU Federal Government accepts that there is Global Warming happening now where as the US Federal Government refuses to accept this fact even though the Climate is changing and the weather patterns are changing.

In recorded Human History it has not been common for Icebergs to run ships aground on them but they have previously sunk ships. But today there are Icebergs bigger than some countries floating around in open Ocean and they are constantly getting further and further away form the Polar regions in both the North & South Hemispheres.

Today Shipping is looking out for Icebergs bigger than countries that they need to avoid to prevent grounding and the subsequent loss of profit because the ship is delayed till it can get free. When there are Icebergs floating around the Equator will you begin to worry then?

So next test redo your figures but take into account several hundred years of Pollution caused since the onset of the Industrial Revolution and do not just look at 1 years figures thinking that they somehow no longer exist the next year and everything begins again from a clean sheet.

Col

by Member 25348569 Mar 4, 2007

Your figres are a waste of space. You do some ridiculous calculations on the volume of the atmosphere to see how many zeroes you can rack up and - either by design or total ignorance - you fail to take into acount little things like the drop in atmospheric pressure as you get higher. Oh, and neither Oxygen nor Nitrogen are greenhouse gases so they are simply [b]ignored[/b] in any real calculations (takes off a few zeroes, doesn't it?) :)

Why did you produce your silly mathematical gyrations when the figures are there to be looked up?

The total quantity of atmospheric CO2 is currently at around 3x10^12 tons. The US [b]alone[/b] burns fossil fuels to the equivalent 0f 6,000m tons CO2 pa. The world, as a whole, burns the equivalent of 24,000m tons fossil fuel CO2. (UN figures so they're probably lying about the US producing 25% of the crap beacause they hate the US).

CO2 measured in the same place since 1950 to the present day shows arise of atmospheric CO2 from 0.030% to 0.38% (US figures). Small numbers, I know, but anyway, to continue, isotopic measurements show that, of the increase, it is ALL - or near enough to make no difference - derived from fossil fuels. That's an increase in the last fifty years of over 25%. Much bigger number.

As Colin said, you add it on, year on year. The carbon sinks in the ocean can remove some of it, but not all.

Now CO2 is a greenhouse gas and simple physics makes it impossible to deny that fact. If you can state categorically that an increas in CO2 of 25% over the last fifty years is having no effect then you need to justify it a little better.

So, if you want to produce toruous figures about volumes of spheres, that's OK, but if you want to then use those figures as some sort of "scientific" argument then we end up with a crock of crap and you need to accept that.

Neil :D

by fluxit Mar 4, 2007

Deepsand seems to be discussing the Earth in terms of the White or Black Body effect and presents another science behind the alleged phenomenon. The other two known sciences are the blanket-in-the-sky and a statistical thermodynamic model. According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained then 100% of that is re-radiated again back into outerspace. NASA calls this the Gray Body effect. My question is if 100% is radiated back into space then where is the heat increase? The other questions I have is how long is water retained in the atmosphere before being precipitated?

Hal9000 points out that the result of CO2 is cummulative, he believes that the EPA numbers do not include emission amounts, and that the US Government does not accept Global Warming. A review of the EPA webpage indicates that the numbers cited are emissions estimates. While there may be a cummulative effect there are counter processes depleting the CO2 emissions other than capture by the oceans. Photosynthesis is a major natural method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Gases are also absorbed into rain then into the soil and contribute to fertilization. I would have to research a realistic residual based on the biospheres capacity to processes gases. My guess is that not much hangs around year to year as the ecosystems autocorrect somewhat quickly. As for the US Government not accepting Global Warming they are certainly doing an aweful lot of talking about it. Gore put out "An Inconvenient Truth"

Neil thinks the calculations have already been completed and has figures of his own. Please cite your sources. The math was design to demostrate the percentages based on EPA figures. Regarding standard density, it is a standard used in the aeronautical, meteorological, and other science communities. Standard density is taken at standard temperature and pressure. Based on the official figures I am pulling there is no such 25% increase of CO2. In fact, the percent contribution for one year is 5 orders of magnitude smaller that the total naturally occurring percentage. Even if multiplied by 50 years at 100% residual at 2005 levels it would not be enough to close the gap in terms of orders of magnitude. The number is so ridiculously small that its influence is questionable.

by Member 25348569 Mar 5, 2007

The key marker - the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, US government figures from the observatory at Mauna Loa cross-referenced for comparison with UK and Australian official government figures. As for the 25% increase in 50 years, well the sum is 80/300*100 and not a pi in sight! The increase is actually 26.7% but I thought that I'd be kind.

For the CO2 released into the atmosphere, UN figures for 2002 and referenced at the Kyoto Climate Conference, the last year that they were complete. Figures for subsequent years for individual countries are available and show that it ain't falling.

O2 and N2 as not being greenhouse gases. Any reference you want to look for. Find out for yourself, it'll be more profitable than the calculations that you're doing.

Isotopic data relating to the increase being from fossil fuels. Can't be bothered - look for it yourself.

But, back to the key data, the rate of increase is increasing http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1324379,00.html

Believe what you want but don't try to get clever with calculations that don't work and aren't relevant.

by rjpoirier_nb Mar 3, 2007

Lot's of interesting posts and new threads here. Didn't like the Anti-American stuff, hey we are all to blame. IF??? the Mars meltdown is mathematically and exponentially significantly greater than the Earths meltdown (as it is closer to the sun) then there would be a significant impact, probably from the solar flares from a couple of years ago, but the real point here is that as humans, not as some political or religious group, we are all guilty of the damage that we are doing to Mother Earth. As a cancer to Earth, the human race has set the clock to it's demise. Charles Darwin said it, and we are doomed. Don't dwell on it. The world pollution, and generation of heat, electricity, automotive and home heating gases, and heat generated from our computers are heating the earth, and it will get worse for the need of fuels and food to provide for an even greater world population. Tune in next week for the answer to all our problems... We could move the moon a bit to cool things off, lol, Think about it. Anytime man messes with nature he messes it up. We are all to blame! Our History, our future. Ourselves, our children, descendents of our follies, greed, ambitions, ignorance. Don't have the time to elaborate.

rjpoirier_nb@hotmail.com
self-proclaimed scientist and more.

rjp said, "We are all to blame!"

I prefer to think that we must all be thanked. I have lived in the cold and I have lived in warmth. I prefer warmth.

We have put off the return of the next ice age. What could be better than that?

That man is whacko. Besides it is fun blaming him.

I agree that humans are responsible or irresponsible depending on how we frame it for making a mess of things. Your reference to heat is perhaps more closely tied to thermal bubbles over metropolitian areas. Fossil fuels are the contributor to global warming.

What about nuclear power? It is environmentally friendly and extremely efficient.

Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the Three Mile Island incident, and the ensuing paranoia about Herhsy Bars that glow in the dark, made it policically unpalatable.

Had we continued with our nascent fast breeder reactor program we might well now not be having this discussion.

[i]What about nuclear power? It is environmentally friendly and extremely efficient.[/i]

With an efficiency rating of 18% they are first thing hardly efficient from any prospective and can be downright [b]Bloody Dangerous[/b] The US Reactors because they have a Water Insulator between inner and outer pressure vessels are inherently far more dangerous than the Russian Made Reactors which use sand as an Insulator between the inner and outer vessels. It was the Silica used by the Russians that made the Chernobyl event far less damaging that it should have been.

If 3 Mile Island had of suffered that type of Catastrophic failure the People of the US would be extremely worried about their Reactors particularly the Fast Breeder type that they like so much.

Now the real truth about Nuclear Powered Electricity generating systems. They are horrendously expensive to build, maintain and have an extremely short life so the costs for the generated electricity that they produce are more expensive than conventional coal fired Power Stations. Then they also have a massive waste problem that as yet no one has been capable of solving when used fuel rods are consumed they need to be stored somewhere safe where there is no chance of them getting loose. To date no one has found a solution to this problem and are stockpiling their rubbish in abandoned buildings hoping for a solution to be found. To date the best form of storage was found by accident when Chernobyl went into a Full Melt Down and exposed the core materials to the outside world when the hot stuff eventually cooled down the really dangerous stuff was encased in Glass and relatively safe. Unfortunately this only applied to the bottom of that particular reactor and not the top which to this day remains exposed to the atmosphere.

Then there is the problem that if Nuclear Power is the answer to everything why is there any concern when countries who don't already have it want it? Why complain about Iran wanting to build their own Nuclear Power Plants?

The current generation of Hot Water Reactors are both expensive to build and maintain and extremely dangerous the next generation which is currently being developed in China look much safer and far more cost effective to run and don't have any problems with a Core Melt down as they rely on removable balls encasing the nuclear fuel so a decrease in cooling water level has no adverse effects like what happened at 3 Mile Island.

But there is still the problem with what you do with the spent fuel once it's been 50% consumed as the thermal reaction drops dramatically after that point.

But no matter what any Nuclear Reactor is still dangerous subject to severe unknown damage by tectonic activity and still to date no known way of safely storing the spent fuel and other contaminated materials which is the biggest problem that is associated with this type of power generation plant.

Col

that those things like acid rain, Times Beach, Love Canal, and lakes\rivers combusting were very observable with real results. These Global issues are not so observable. We are shown images of snow caps that have melted but we do not know the full truth there. The earlier picture could have been taken following an abnormally cold winter and the subsequent picture is closer to normal conditions. Routine thraws are normal. If they never happen then the mountain caps would be caked in 100's of feet of snow and ice.

I know I can legitimately purchase R12 and the original A/C system after being banned. And I can get it from the dealer. In fact, my immediate boss has a permit to purchase R12. That argument is closed. I know you are not completely incorrect but regarding the availability of R12 you are.

See
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/subrecsm.html

Here except for recycled R12 which by now is in minute amounts there is no new R12 being made or allowed to be Imported into AU. My brother in Law has a Car AC service Business and that's how I know exactly what's going on here in AU.

The very last time that I ever saw a Bottle of R12 was when I was consulting for Ford and at one of the smaller Country Agents they had 1 part filled Bottle of R12 still on hand in 1998. Other than that one I haven't seen an R12 Bottle that actually contains Pure R12 around since. Quite a lot of these R12 Bottles are used to recycle the Refrigerant after purging the AC Systems as here at least there is no further use for them.

Col

The evidence for such is not comprised of photographs, but of a substantial body of data re. atmospheric composition, temperatures of land, ocean and atmospheric masses, amounts and wavelengths of Solar radiational infux and terrestrial efflux, over a sufficient span of time, that now demonstrate a net gain in Earth's total thermal energy in direct proportion to the amount of IR reflectants in the atmosphere.

Photographs of the diminuation of glaciers, snow caps, ice caps and ice shelves serve only as anecdotal evidence of such that is visible to the human eye.

by absolutely Mar 4, 2007

"The earlier picture [b]could have been[/b] taken following an abnormally cold winter and the subsequent picture is closer to normal conditions. Routine thraws are normal. If they never happen then the mountain caps would be caked in 100's of feet of snow and ice."

The pictures to which you have alluded are matters of public record and available to you with a minimum of effort. If you dispute the veracity of one or more of them, the data to support or disprove your claims are also available, if you are industrious enough to seek them. Unless and until you do, what you state "could have been" done has no relevance, except to those who are as easily persuaded to doubt as they are to believe.

in a multi-input system.

As noted above, the end result is not solely dependent on how much radiant energy the Earth receives from the Sun, the overwhelming majority of which is [b]not[/b] thermal energy, but how much is and is not returned to space.

For a given level of IR reflectants in the atmosphere, an increase in Solar radiational influx will simply result in Earth's thermal energy rising at an even faster pace.

deep said, "an increase in Solar radiational influx will simply result in Earth's thermal energy rising at an even faster pace."

Yep. It is the sun. We have found the source of the warmth. I always suspected it. Right from my first summer day...

Of course that confers no additional power on any particular group so it must be dismissed. Right deep?

■▄■

not simply the influx of Solar radiational energy alone.

Were the Earth, including its atmosphere, a perfect black body, then its thermal energy would be directly proportional to the influx alone. Were it a perfect reflector, it's thermal energy would be wholly independent of said influx. However, the Earth is neither of these.

The Earth's albedo, determined in great part by its ice and snow coverings, determines how much of the Sun's radiant energy is reflected.

The IR reflectants in the atmosphere serve to determine how much of the Sun's radiant energy, comprised mostly of wavelengths shorter than infrared (IR), after being absorbed and [i]re-radiated[/i] as IR, can escape into space.

This is a Political Debate and there is no Science Involved. It's not expedient for Politicians to admit the truth as that will adversely impact upon their election contributions so they make up stories from people willing to be bought at any price and use that information to muddy the waters.

The simple truth is that 99% of all Scientists accept that there is a Climate Change Occurring [b]Right Now[/b] and 1% who are paid by the Industries responsible are getting equal time in any coverage as the 99% to make the general population believe that there is some argument when actually there is none.

The Tobacco Industry did exactly the same thing for over 15 years and kept insisting despite the overwhelming evidence that there was no Scientific Proof that Smoking and Cancer where related. Most wouldn't even accept that smoking was addictive.

Now the same Lobbing Agency formed by the Tobacco Industry is funding the Global Warming Detractors that in itself should be enough to make even the most jaded person think twice before sprouting off an opinion about the rubbish being peddled by the media who I might add have a vested interest as well.

Col

Never mind that we here in Pennsylvania saw our forests being killed and the paint on our vehicles looking as though someone had doused them with Coca Cola.

All truths of great import are at first dismissed as fantasy.

One of the Upper Market Suburbs in the area that I grew up in is situated on the site of an old tannery.

I'll give you one guess what the soil is contaminated with on these $300.000.00 allotments. :D

When this Building project originally started they wouldn't believe the warnings now 20 years latter half of the houses built there have been demolished and the soil removed. The site is still so contaminated that the area is fenced off and never to be used for anything.

When I went to Charters Towers I got a real shock at the local Hospital that had a massive sign on the wall telling the Medical Staff how to recognise & treat Cyanide Poising. After all the tailings from the Gold Mines where Cyanide Separation was used where not at all dangerous and the masses of the stuff left lying around where nothing would grow 100 years after it was dumped there was no reason to be at all concerned. :D

Col

deep said, "Never mind that we here in Pennsylvania saw our forests being killed and the paint on our vehicles looking as though someone had doused them with Coca Cola."

I read the National Acid Precipitation Analysis study when it was released a couple of decades ago. Despite the hysteria of that scare it turned out to be largely localized phenomena. And the "dead" lakes had always been acidic because of the composition of the local rock and soil environment.

But the same sorts of people who are riding this 'crisis' rode that one. Their solution is always centered around the forward march of socialism and dictatorship. Funny how that works out.

I will jump on the bandwagon when their goal becomes more individual freedom and less political power accruing to the state and the trans-national organizations like the United Nations.

deep wrote, "sn53: It's the same propensity to disavow responsibility ..."

If it were true that I caused the last ice age to end ten thousand years ago followed by a nearly consistent warming since then I would be quite happy to take the credit. But alas, it is probably just the sun.

Oh. And nobody is dismissing the warming. Just the significance of our role in it.

HAL said, "This is a Political Debate and there is no Science Involved."

There is science and then there is Science.

"The simple truth is that 99% of all Scientists accept that there is a Climate Change Occurring Right Now."

Are you aware that 72% of all such statistics are made up right on the spot? Oh, and three out of four dentists agree.

There is climate change occurring all of the time. There always has been. I suspect there always will be. That is not the point of the discussion, is it? Since we have been in a warming trend since the end of the last ice age I suppose climate change has been a good thing.

"...Global Warming Detractors that in itself should be enough to make even the most jaded person think twice before sprouting off an opinion about the rubbish being peddled by the media who I might add have a vested interest as well.

I think I see a little bit of Enviro-religion here. We cannot have detractors. Nope. That would mean apostasy. In some religions that can result in a death sentence.

If the science is real it will stand the test of time and substantial peer review. We do not need to rush into a dictatorship. Even though that is what is being implied.

Just the Prostitutes who are willing to produce an answer that is wanted to give the people who fund them the advice that they want to hear. This is not Science it's Politics but is what is now accepted as Science and the real science is forgotten.

Incidentally I loved your Commercials that you brought up just goes to show if you tell a lie long enough eventually a lot of people will believe it and no matter what the facts of the matter they will continue to believe the lie. No smoking doesn't lead to addiction or cancer so why are you not smoking much more and there is no proof that secondhand smoke has any harmful effects on people so I take it that you are willing to go into areas where there are smokers only and be quite happy being the only nonsmoker there and know that you are not being adversely impacted upon by all that secondhand smoke. :D

Col

by fluxit Mar 4, 2007

I am talking about Al Gore, the citizen.

I have no comments on elected officials.

I am always confused by the almost eager willingness to talk about both pollution management and global warming theory as if they are the same thing. Is this part of the same religion?

Hal wrote, "under strictly Medical Terms if you have a need for something you are addicted to it so every human in the world is addicted to breathing air.

Do you now enjoy being classed as an Addict?"

Don't forget food and sex. I need those too.

for the consequences of one's actions that has manifested itself in all of the examples cited by Col and myself, and which is now displayed by those who out of hand dismiss global warming and/or mankind's role in such.

The sulphur laden plumes from the stacks of coal-fired power plants in the states to the west affected much of the East Coast.

And, the de-forestation and corrosion of metals had nothing to do with local soil conditions, but with rains bearing suphuric acid.

As for the "dead" lakes, many of those soil conditions that you allude to were and remain the results of mining practices, the same of which can be found to exist today in the western states.

It's time to take off your rose colored glasses and see the world as it really is.

As for a "solution (that) will increase (your) freedoms and reduce the political powers," you'll need to look elsewhere. My job is not to please you but to wake you up to realities.

deep said, "My job is not to please you but to wake you up to realities."

Really?

No wonder that you fail. Try influencing me instead. You might actually succeed.

I'm assuming that you'll be on the team opposing myself, Neil, Absolutely & several others who are already onboard.

As for your side, I'm afraid you'll have to go begging for teammates, as your side has been loath to commit to a formal factual debate.

by absolutely Mar 4, 2007

"Try influencing me instead. You might actually succeed."

I'll give it a try. Are you willing to explain why you see [i]only[/i] political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?

by puppybreath Mar 5, 2007

here are a list of deepsand's debate rules:

1) Any proof he provides is to be accepted as fact without question.

2) His experts couldn't possibly have an agenda like trying to keep their grant money so their credentials can not be questioned.

3) Any proof you provide is invalid because your experts must be part of "Big Oil" or they would admit to the scope of the GW problem.

4) Any other comments you have will fall into the category of "Non sequitur, non-substantive & non-responsive" and will be ignored.

So, as long as you agree to the terms......go for it!

is the truly religious belief, lacking, as it does, a basis in fact.

deep wrote, ""largely localized phenomena"? Nothing could be further from the truth."

Just before the decade-long Congressionally mandated study was released that is exactly what a lot of, well, environmentalist-wackos were saying. Then the report was released and the hysteria went away. Funny how that happened.

"The sulphur laden plumes from the stacks of coal-fired power plants in the states to the west affected much of the East Coast."

Not much. Just a few tens of miles around the plants. So deal with the problems locally. There was no need to give taxes to the United Nations. WE just needed to decide what needed to be done to fix the rather small problem and went on with our lives.

"And, the de-forestation and corrosion of metals had nothing to do with local soil conditions, but with rains bearing sulphuric acid."

Even that turned out not to be the case. The effects of local pollution were -- local.

"As for the "dead" lakes, many of those soil conditions that you allude to were and remain the results of mining practices, the same of which can be found to exist today in the western states."

Perhaps in a few cases. For the vast majority of the cases the lakes were naturally that way. And the science stood the test of time.

"It's time to take off your rose colored glasses and see the world as it really is."

Great idea. You need to add a pair. You are far too pessimistic.

Plants take in carbon dioxide and "exhale" oxygen. We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. If plants were as concerned about pollution and limited the amount of their pollutants thy could "exhale" we would be in trouble.

One must look at things in context.

by tony hopkinson Mar 4, 2007

If took millions of years to give us an atmosphere in which oxygen breathers could exist outside of water.

So long in fact we lost our gills!.

Now we are liberating all that carbon back into the atmosphere, every atom of which is combining with two oxygen ones. Worse still we are killing the only practical method of redressing the balance plants.

Anything can be a pollutant. if somebody poured a gallon of water in to your petrol tank, they've polluted it, with water.

All a pollutant is, is something that will damage an environment, what is a pollutant depends on the environment, not the chemical composition of the unwanted substance itself.

The reverse is equally true, if some one added a dash a petrol to your evian, you'd be complaining wouldn't you.

Amounts count as well. Breathe pure oxygen and you'll suffer. Hyperventilate and you reduce the co2 level in your blood stream to the point where you become ill. Too much CO2 will poison you.

Have a heart attack, they give you a wee bit of digitalin, it will save your life. Give you too much, ill or not and it will kill you. That too much is a very very small amount.

I don't know that we are destroying the earth, I know we could be. Based on that ignorance is saying ah f**k it, a rational response?

1) If the effects were so localized, why did several eastern states seek to sue the EPA for failing to rein in said power plant emissions?

2) If the effect were so localized, why were so many metallic surfaces corroded by sulphuric acid laden rain in so many places separated by great distances from said power plants?

3) If the effects are so localized then why has a cousin of mine had a research position for nearly 4 decades with the Univ. of Illinois related to such?

Do you really believe all that you spew forth, or do you just make it up as you go along?

by fluxit Mar 4, 2007

First off, modern reactors use liquid sodium as a moderator and not water. It hardens when in contact with air preventing spills and clogs the breach minimizing risk. Spent Uranium can be enriched and used again. Regarding efficiencies, a slug the size of a softball can power a city for 40,000 for 25 years or longer before enriching and reusing it. There are no carbon emissions and no sulfur emissions.

Second, as for waste disposal, it is placed into stainless steel cans and date stamped. The can is stored in a cave dug into a granite mountain then inserted into a granite hole with its lid showing. The waste can be enriched and reused or it can be depleted to lead.

Third, Three Mile Island was more hype than anything else. The system acted properly and contained Dueterium in a holding tank. BTW Dueterium is heavy water found in every glass of water one drinks. The biggest issue was what to do with the Dueterium. Everything else was what-if scenario paranoia.

Fourth, Chernobyl proved that humans are far more dangerous than their technology. While the Chernobyl reactor was by all standards (even US Standards) a poor design, it was human stupidity that exasperated it.

Sixth, the enviro-facist who are making a ruckus over Global Warming also make a ruckus over alternative energy sources. These whackos have no solutions just worries and desire to take the civil society back to the days of campfires and caves. OH! I forgot campfires create carbon emissions. I looks like they just want us to go back to caves and raw meat.

Seventh, there is no major issue regarding tectonic forces, earthquakes. Numerous strucutures are constructed successful that withstand these natural forces.

Responsible countries have an alternative solution of nuclear energy. It is safe and reliable source of energy.

I suppose that these are the lies being told to you by the relevant authorities right?

I seem to remember a while ago that some Earthquake Proof highways collapsed and killed several hundred people, but my concern with Teutonic activity isn't related to the reactors but to the Holding Tanks which are especially vulnerable to this type of activity and leads to contamination of the surrounding Water Table.

But you didn't address the main thrust of the entire posting Nuclear Reactors for Power generation are Expensive to Build, Expensive to Maintain and have a short life compared to a coal fired power station. Who is it that pays for these reactors? It's defiantly not the companies who make them or use them it's members of the General Public who are the ones paying the increased power bills.

You are also similarly misguided about the ability to recover exposed or contaminated material as while it it technically possible to render it down to lead it's also horrendously expensive and not worth the effort for low level contaminated materials.

Using the same argument with Nuclear Physics it's possible to turn Lead into Gold but the Gold that you produce would cost more to make than to buy.

But no matter what Chernobyl is a Perfect example of [b]The China Syndrome Occurring[/b] which is exactly what did happen there but because of the insulation material between pressure vessels it was contained and didn't eat its way through the concrete floor into the ground water and produce a massive problem that would have been impossible to deal with.

But this is the one that I just love. [i]Responsible countries have an alternative solution of nuclear energy. It is safe and reliable source of energy.[/i]

Welcome Iran to the World Club of cheap safe Electricity join right in and do everything that you like as you are helping to preserve the planet. Pity that the idiot politicians have got in the way complaining isn't it?

Col

During daylight hours, plants engage in photosynthesis; at night, respiration, whereby they oxidize a portion of the substrates created by photosynthesis.

Duing respiration plants take in oxygen & expel CO2!

deep said, "During daylight hours, plants engage in photosynthesis;"

Yeah. They take in carbon dioxide and water, mix it with a little sunlight and create food for themselves. And out comes that pesky pollutant, oxygen.

"at night, respiration, whereby they oxidize a portion of the substrates created by photosynthesis."

"During respiration plants take in oxygen & respire CO2!"

Quite right. Plants are simply amazing. But then the gasses we exhale also include oxygen. So maybe it isn't all that amazing.

Back to context. Plants use CO2, water and sunlight to create their food. They pollute the atmosphere with oxygen. We are glad they do.

They probably don't care one way or the other.

Speaking just for me I have much better things I must be doing.

I don't care enough about global warming as an issue to spend the time necessary to wage a good fight.

But good luck to you and your side. I am sure it will be entertaining.

Funny thing is that I remember Europe Going through this quite some time ago and they had to take steps to prevent if from destroying the entire group of countries as everywhere in Europe was affected by Acid Rain.

Glad to hear that wasn't the case and the Acid Rain Phenomena is only occurring in the US. What Kind of Id10t are you to come up with rubbish like that?

The bottom line is that Acid Rain has happened every where world wide and the US isn't in some little corner of the world divorced from the consequences of the actions of every one else. So they cleaned up the big polluters and then changed the Petrol used in all cars to Unleaded Fuel which has a Hydrogen Sulphur Dioxide as a component of Combustion. This is quite well known and even the Complete Idiot will accept this when they move into an underground car park and smell the H2SO2 commonly called [b]Rotten Egg Gas[/b] form the exhausts of the cars that are running in an enclosed space. Somehow this gas just disappears when allowed out into an open space and doesn't do any damage as it just disappears right? :D

I still remember a car that meet California's Emission Standards being produced my the company that I used to work for in 1985 and every other car maker was insisting that this was impossible to do as the emission levels had been set way too low. And no that car never made it onto the roads as it didn't have a Catalytic Converter as it was designed properly and was way under the emission requirements that where tagged to be put in place in the Mid 90's. But when by Law a Catalytic Converter was bolted to this car the emission levels went up through the roof as the so called Purification device actually created far more pollution than it prevented, but as the US Government had mandated that every new car required one of these to clean up the Atmosphere they had to supply one and as a direct result the Emission Levels where rolled back and still have not been meet.

But as you now have millions of cars all running on Unleaded fuel I'm supposing that the Acid Rain will all still be localised over the Big Cities so it's not important is it? :^0

Col

[b]The Magic Bullet Theory that was according to Congress responsible for the death of JFK[/b] right?

Well if you can not trust your Government who can you trust and this coming from the land of [b]Conspiracy Theories[/b] is just too funny for words. :D

Much More Importantly what's the UN got to do with anything? If you are unwilling to clean up the mess that you make you should pay for it yourself. I was taught a very long time ago that you do not [b]Shiite[/b] in your back yard as you are the one who has to live with the mess that you make so why is this any different? Blame the UN for something that your Political System is unwilling to accept and then think that giving the UN Money will cure your own problems that's insane by any stretch of the imagination. Though if the UN was to level severe fines for the US's continual refusal to clean up it's act that would be acceptable but both China and Australia would be way out in front of the US in the Fines stakes so what's the problem?

Is it that the US isn't the leader in this mess and nothing more than a bit player? Granted a big Bit Player but even still only a bit player as there are countries far worse than the US who need to do something and AU unlike the US accepts that there is a problem and is starting to do something about it so is China as they have just stolen our Major Wind Power Electricity Generation Company to provide electricity to China and they are now unable to provide the same thing in AU which is what they setup to achieve.

Col

Why do your words have any weight?

That junkie down the road hooked on [b]The Big H[/b] has as much to say and as much weight placed on their arguments as you do. So I take it that you'll be starting to inject h latter today right? :D

Col

What do you think will happen when the bulk of the plants are killed off by the Pollution ts that are pumped into the Atmosphere, where is all the CO2 going to end up then and much more importantly what are you going to be breathing?

Spaceballs Here we come full steam ahead and no stopping for anything no matter what the consequences are. :D

Even the Planet of the Apes knew just how dangerous the Spaceballs where as when they saw them escaping from the remains of Mega Maid they promptly said [b]Oh Shite Spaceballs[/b] Lets get the hell out of here before we get caught and corrupted to their way of thinking. :p

Col

But that's certainly not me as I don't actually believe in what you would like me to believe in on just [b]Faith Alone.[/b] When I have solid Science that has been known and talked about for hundreds of years I have something solid to fall back upon instead of the [b]She'll be Right Mate[/b]Attitude that you seem to want to push and hope for the best when everything is pointing in the other direction.

If erring on the side of caution is being a True Believer without any facts to back me up you are sadly mistaken as you are the one who has [b]Faith[/b] not me I'm the one with the facts and knowledge who is worried instead of the one with their head buried in the sand knowing no better.

Col

by absolutely Mar 5, 2007

"I am always confused by the almost eager willingness to talk about both pollution management and global warming theory as if they are the same thing."

Someone had expressed doubt that global warming, caused by humans, is possible. The mentions of other forms of pollution were offered as examples of proof that human effects on the environment have occurred already, to help convince you that yet one more may be occurring.

by absolutely Mar 5, 2007

How consistent?

You have claimed, with a tone of confidence & authority, that the science of human-caused global warming is invalid, and the motivation is political. This is an opportunity for you to present some data that support your assertions.

.....perpetrated on mankind. I'm amazed at how otherwise intelligent people fall for all of it and buy into the junk science.

However, after years of being one of the few to question such a stupid suggestion that mankind's activities are causing global warming, and/or climate change, and/or global cooling, and/or more severe weather, and/or more mild weather, and/or melting glaciers, and/or advancing glaciers, and/or....(and they even tried to blame earthquakes and a tsunami on it until they were laughed off the planet!), I'm beginning to see more and more information published that debunks the myth. And I'm also beginning to see more and more information that actually questions the motives of those advancing such a silly notion.

By the way, I'm selling carbon credits at $100 a pop. How many do you all want to buy? And remember, it'll be saving the planet! So stock up and use them wisely.

by puppybreath Mar 5, 2007

Will you throw in some good swamp land with the deal if I order large quantities?

....a bridge to get there!

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965