Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

0 helpful
163 replies

by protiusx

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

For those of you who know me or remember me will remember that I like to discuss topics that are contentious and spark debate. For me this is one of them. In my opinion the premise that humans have initiated a catastrophic cycle of global warming is utter non-sense. I believe the science used by our illustrious former vice president was at best misrepresented.

For those of you who would like to debate the issue I would like you to answer one question:
What caused the massive climate shifts that scientists have discovered that occurred prior to the 19th century and the industrial age? If man wasn?t driving vehicles and over populating the world what caused these temperature changes?

163 replies

by zlitocook

A lot of theories about the climate shift from tectonic plate shifts that brought magma close to surface but did not cause a volcano. That caused changes in ocean temps. Which can cause massive temperature changes. Gasses released from volcanoes can cause a heating effect. There are a lot of thoughts on it.
But global warming is going on now; if you need any proof read any real scientific journals.

by tryskadec

we've had 20 odd years to sort that conclusion otu for ourselves.

The more pressing concern I have is what's everybody's plan for when it all goes to hell in a handbasket?

Whether it is from cataclysmic climate change, The end of the fossil fuel era, or just good old fashion war?

by tony hopkinson

Politicians and their families, friends, lovers and pets hole up in a bunker.
We all die, then they vote themselves in again.

Thought everyone knew that.

For anyone who survives out of the bunkers, we should make a pact to kill the fkers when they come up for air.

by mr stumper

I'm waitin for the Rapture...I'll be in heaven and the rest of you heathens will have to deal with it!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!

by maxwell edison

Just wait until Neil gets a hold of you.

But you've been gone. We've already decided that the Interstate Highway system causes global warming because of all the heat-absorbing concrete! Some people, however, disagree. (Search some of my old discussions for the questions you're asking yourself right now -- if you want to take the time, that is.)

by mjd420nova

If all the knowledge we believe is right, then there is a possibilty. BUT Do we have all the knowledge we need to make these decisions?? I know we don't. With over 70 percent water and what do we really know about our oceans?? If there is one thing we need to remember is that as we evolve, so does our planet but our understanding of this is but the literal TIP OF THE ICEBERG. Mother nature as some describe it. The unpredictable nature of this planet and its mechanisms both above an below the surface and the interactions will never be understood. I laugh in the face of the UFO buffs. The Time/space boundary will not and can never be breached. What we have here in our solar system is what we have and all we'll have. We have to learn to work with it and attempt to understand. Can and will this ever be done?? Now there's the question.

by maxwell edison

On one hand, you say that we possess little knowledge, and what we know (of the oceans) is just the tip of the iceberg. But on the other hand you say that the time/space boundary can never be breached. Perhaps that knowledge, too, is buried somewhere deep in that iceberg you mentioned. (What unknown laws of physics are yet to be discovered?)

by tonythetiger

thinks they are the last word. If we knew everything, we'd know we knew everything. And since we don't, we don't. :)

by mjd420nova

There is so much more. As I said, we know so little. Our understanding of physics is even less than none. To make an example...As close as we can look with a microscope to look in one direction in this universe as we interpret it, we can all look the other way with a telescope and see the other boundary of the universe as we again interpret it. We are only limited to how far we can SEE and the instrument we use to view this universe. The other unchangable law that we see and interpret as TIME. Now the hook, The telescope allows us to see back in time. Can there be a tool, instrument that allows us to look the other direction. There are so many inter mixed and dependent associations with in the Element table, and their relations to the solar system and it's orbital existance. Gives me shivers. Eventually we'll get it.

by tig2

Steak every Saturday we walk 10 or more miles. Rare is good.

My cats cause global warming. They gang up on me and radiate heat. This is a clue...

On a serious note, I have no clue why the temps are not what they were when I was a kid. the planet, like me, is aging like a bad beach party movie. Kindly ignore the stretch marks...

by Member 25348569

that it's the heat rising up from your feet that's affecting the climate in Newcastle and causing GG all of her problems.

Be ashamed :(

Neil :D

by jim_p

Seriously think about this, the last Ice Age we had was 20,000 years ago right. Which left a lot of glacial sheets in North America, other top parts of the world. Which a majority of them were there from the previous Ice Ages. Now it was in the 1890s that some explorer dude had noticed that one of the famous glaciers in North America started to melt or shrink. Ever since then, it is now something like 25% of it's original size, so people are blaming Global Warming for this. Well umm I hate to say this, we didn't have cars around in the 1890s, we had factories but not as many as we have now. Let's be realistic, let's take the Helium gas for example, helium is a naturally produced gas produced from decaying radioactive materials which comes out of the ground such as Uranium, now some people believe that this gas is going to fill up our atmosphere in time and choke us out, well the scientists disagree and simply say it eventually floats off into space. Well we've had cars, trucks, trains, etc and factories all over the world now for 100 good years, you trying to tell me that all that smog, exhaust and gases is still floating around up there in our atmoshpere? We have had major bushfires all around the world for probably millions of years now, smoke thick enough to change the colour of the suns rays and make everything look orange, well does the smoke stay there forever? No it eventually clears up, what do we think the smoke just moves over to another country? No, it goes away. Where does the smoke go? If our atmosphere had contained all the smoke just from camp fires, native fires, and all the bush fires we have been having since forests, woods, rainforests, etc and mankind, we would be incompletely in darkness and hardly any oxygen to breathe. With all the smoke wandering around in our outer and inner atmospheres. Well I reckon it's the same for the greenhouse gases, eventually they pass on through into outer space. I was watching a documentry where some scientists have proven that mass rain forests cause massive heat, which they reckon is contributing to the so called "global warming"
So here we are, all planting trees everywhere we can possible. Are we interferring with mother nature here?
In conclusion to my opinion on global warming, for starters, I reckon as I said, we are still recovering from all the Ice Ages we have had, (yes we had more then once) so naturally our earth is warming up as we recover, secondly yes there is greenhouse gases being produced, whether they are caused by, animals, cars, factories, etc. The "greenhouse gases" that are currently floating around in our atmosphere will be eventually dispersed into outer space, and in the mean time the new freshly created "greenhouse gases" will be just going up into the atmosphere causing no harm as we do have a pretty big atmosphere, so as the current gases floating around, be like me taking a leak into the ocean, ain't going to do jack all.

As I said, this is my opinion and I am open to others :)

Kind Regards,
Jim

by deadly ernest

The climate is such a large and complex thing that no two scientists agree yet on the question of 'Do we know all the climate factors?' let alone what they are and how they work.

Recent scientific work has uncovered many facts, the most significant of which is that the earth has been going through a cyclic warming and cooling for many millions of years. We are currently in a warming period that is NOT typical and that has been going on for over 100,000 years.

They have also identified a number of cases where major volcanic eruptions have directly, and quickly affected the overall global climate. About 200 years ago one such eruption in Indonesia caused the Irish potatoe famine because it dropped global atmospheric temperatures by several degrees causing svere frosts and crop damage through all of europe the following spring and summer.

Another eruption 75,000 years ago caused a mini ice age.

Sure CO2 emission are contributing to the situation, so is exhaling. And yes I think we should take REASONABLE measure to reduce polution.

by jim_p

That's what my father says, we are just going through a cycle.

Kind Regards,
Jim

by tony hopkinson

Most sensible interpretations of man's input to climate change, talk about visible effects on it. At the minimum we have to be either warming the planet through greenhouse gasses and probably cooling through particulate release.

De-forestation, polution of the oceans have had measurable effects . All measurements are local and isolated.

We do not have the science to assess the impact on one single impact on our environment, all we can do is model. Set up a simple atmospheric model, increase the CO2%, watch things get warm.

That's a given we are definitely having an effect on CO2 levels in the real world. How much of the current warming cycle, is down to us and down to say the thermal pulse, is where the real debate is.

I say we are having some, fanatics on either side say none or all.

Logic suggests I'm correct, there's no worthwhile science to prove the extreme contentions.

Climate is chaotic, that means several things.

1) it's stable
2) it's not linear
3) any model we have is exactly that
4) empirical science can't help us

Point 4 is crucial to your argument. There was warming in the past, man had much less to no impact then in terms of industry, therefore he can't be having any now, is the essence of it.
Does that make sense to you ?
Sure doesn't to me!

by jaqui

the natural cycle.

why are there claims that man has caused a shift in the temperature across the globe?
the industrial age, burning of forests to clear land, burning of coal in steam engines, burning of fossil fuels in both steam engines and internal combustion engines, nuclear reactors, atomic bombs.

all the above are sources of heat.
whith the increase in man made heat sources it's harder for the natural cooling cycle to dissipate the heat into space. it is now over 200 years that we have been doing this, and the effects are cumulative, since the heat sources keep getting stronger.

what's the temperature of a fission reaction? and there are how many power plants that are using fission reactions to generate power? with heat as a waste product?
[ don't forget to count the US Navy nuclear powered vessels, they generate a lot of heat ]

by deadly ernest

be caused because the annual forest fires across most parts of the lands no longer occur and have been stopped by man's cultivation. It's a ying / yang situation - there's good and bad to everything.

However you try to slice this, what man can do is nothing comapred to what nature can due.

by royhayward

We call it the sun.

To stop global warming we really just need to find a way to put out the sun. It is the source of all this heat.

All of the measurments, all of the models, and all of the former Vice Presidents are not taking in the real source of heat. And this source of heat is NOT a constant source.

The sun has been changing in temperature output forever, all stars do this, it is just the way the universe works. Valcanoes can't hold a candle to the solar heating power or a small solar flair.

by tony hopkinson

Very useful contribution.

Earth is warmed by the sun, glad you pointed that out, I thought it was me farting.

by Member 25348569

I think we've been here before.

But, just for ProtiusX, some facts. And then a couple of questions for him and the other the nay-sayers.

Let's leave to one side the question as to "how much" is due to man and also, for now, whether, if the proposed cure results in economic meltdown, the cure is worse than the disease in terms of human suffering (I actually have some agreement with Max on this one).

A few facts. Please feel free to argue...

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs energy that would have radiated back out to space and reflects some of it back down as infra-red radiation - heat.

(Yes, I know that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and there's a lot more of it and that methane is a much better greenhouse gas but who am I to deprive any of you of the opportunity for "fart" jokes.)

Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere - carbon sinks - by plants and also by marine creatures in the form of calcium carbonate.

Fossil fuels and chalk or limestone represent carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere over millions of years.

The last couple of centuries is the first time - as far as we know - that the carbon dioxide in these historic sinks has been released in significant quantity. Burning fossil fuels is the most common way but cement making (from limestone) is another lesser source of historic carbon.

The questions:

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

Is the level of carbon dioxide rising?

Is the rise in the [/b]level of carbon dioxide[/b] due to man?

Is the average global temperature rising, taken over the last 100 years?

I'd be interested to see who wants to answer no to any of those to see the justification.

Oh, go on then - the final question:

Is any of the observed increase in global temperature due to man's release of historic carbon dioxide.

by tonythetiger

"Is any of the observed increase in global temperature due to man's release of historic carbon dioxide."

Is the rise of man due to increased global temperatures?

by maxwell edison

I hate to answer a question with a question, but I will anyway. Oh, what the heck. I'll answer your questions.

[i]1. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?[/i]

From what I've heard and read it is, but personally I haven't studied such things. It's not exactly my forte'. I do remember, however, studying in school that plants soak the stuff up and thrive on it.

[i]2. Is the level of carbon dioxide rising?[/i]

Well, I have no way to personally measure such a thing, so I would have to rely on what other people tell me. And personally, I don't know who or what to believe. (However, many of the people making such a claim have lied to me about other things, so.....)

[i]3. Is the rise in the level of carbon dioxide due to man?[/i]

It depends on who you want to believe. Some say yes, some say no. Some say yes but it's irrelevant. Some say yes and predict disaster. (And again, many of the people making such a claim have lied to me about other things, so.....)

[i]4. Is the average global temperature rising, taken over the last 100 years?[/i]

Again, I have no way to personally measure such a thing, so I would have to rely on what other people tell me. And again, who should I believe and why? I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it is, because the average global temperature is not a static thing. It's dynamic, it always has been, and always will be. So the temperatures is rising - Ho-Hum. I might as well worry about the atomic particles thought to exist in moon dust. I can't do anything about either one.

Okay, there are my answers. And they're probably the most honest answers you've ever seen on the subject in these threads. Like I said, most people who aren't knowledgeable in such things will not admit their ignorance, and choose to repeat what they've been told to believe. It takes years and years of study to even begin to scratch the surface of understanding such things, and we all spend WAY too much time in these threads to have studied enough to master the subject.

Now my questions to you.

What percent of the world's population can answer your questions? (Okay, confine it to the industrialized world.) Most people have no idea as to the answers to your questions, although they probably won't admit it. Most people will only repeat what they've been told to believe. But in my opinion, you're asking the wrong questions. The more important question is this. Why are politicians and political activists (normally left-leaning) the only ones who seem to be advancing the man-caused global warming scare? (Yes, I know, you'll cite some scientific journals, as though they might be exempt from being political, but you must include ALL such scientific opinions, or consider none of them. Or are the valid ones only those that agree with your position?)

And why doesn't anybody ever answer my margin of error question? I've asked it many times, but I can't recall a single answer. Measuring something like global temperatures, not only recent measurements, but those over millions of years, is not an exact science. (Or do you claim that it is?) I've seen a one or two degree increase over one hundred years being thrown around. What's the margin of error? And how does that margin of error compare to the claimed readings?

In my opinion, more and more people are wising up to these activists. They started their silly claims about twenty years ago, and they gave the world only ten years to survive imminent disaster. We're working on a ten year extension right now, but we're coming up for renewal pretty soon. I'm pretty sure we'll get it.

Like I said, so the temperatures is rising -- Ho-Hum. Open the friggin' window and let some breeze in.

by mc_user

Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. He write in an article for the Wall Street Journal:

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

*** In other words, there has been some warming, but it started long ago; CO2 ought to be a contributor so it's safe to say there has been a human contribution; and the contribution from CO2 we would expect is smaller than we have found.

*** This is his latest conclusion. ****

in his article he describes how scientists who are opposed to the current disaster scenario are called up cor question about their findings and have their fundings cut.

Judge for yourselves.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage

by oz_media

THt's my whole point. Who wants to breath our air? We have polluted our air SO bad, you can't even see ten miles in some cities.

We, and this is an absolute fact, cannot breath CO. CO kills us, that's what happens when you run the hose from your exhaust pipe. We CAN build better cars and also regulate plants and factories who burn fossil fuels, the source of CO.

Without doing so, we are going to sufocate over time, maybe not us but our ancestors. We cannot breathe what we emit, thus we must reduce or change what we emit.

It's not brain surgery, it's not in need of more facts ot be proven it just IS, just as the sky is blu...ish.

Not related to global warming you say? Fine, then why is there so much fuss over reducing emisisons? It's not because people don't buy the global warming issue, it's because people don't want to make sacrifices or see companies forced to make sacrifices, especially when it's money we sacrifice.

It's because soceity expects soeone else to do it so they don't have to be bothered by it and can just consume and waste as they choose.

It's a pretty annoying and very ignorant state of mind, one I would like to knock out of many heads myself.

by mc_user

Here is a very good article by the scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute that global warming can cause a mini-iceage.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10046

They agree that we man is effecting the climate. They believe that the earth goes through natural climate changes too. But in total they believe that we don't know enough to say what exactly is happening.

by jim_p

I think we should just let it go, just keep monitoring the temperatures and cross the bridge when if anything happens. Because if the experts don't know what they are dealing with, then trying to stop th Global Warming may even end up in a worse case scenerio.

Regards,
Jim

by prefbid ii

There may be a some evidence that supports a small rise in global temperatures over a short period of time (say 50 years). However, that is hardly a reason to think that man is causing it. There are several things to consider.

Greenland is a conundrum for those that want to say global warming is caused by man. The ice cap on Greenland barely goes back 5000 years. No one that I know claims there was any huge warming period that goes back that short of a time. Also, Greenland was green in Lief Erickson's time (less than 1000 years ago). It's not a bad place now, but it does not match the description of what Lief left.

That suggests to me that there is a cycle to the earth's climate and the period of that cycle is greater than our timeframe for measuring it. We've only been doing a reasonable job of measuring the whole earth's temeprature for about 15 years. We've been doing an acceptable job of measuring local climate data in some parts of the world for about 200 years. A very few places have data reaching back about 500 years. All that has to happen is for the cycle period to exceed about 100 years and our ability to "see" the cycle disappears.

Case in point, in the past 200 years there have been about a half dozen major volcanic eruptions. Each one caused major climatic changes around the world. From our ability to measure the impact, the "worst" one that occurred in Indonsia in 1816 only impacted the climate for about 3 years (or so we think). That one erruption is thought to have sent more dirt into the air than all of the cars, people, forest fires, and war of the last 200 years combined. Yet's its impact was about 3 years.

I think the whole notion of man being the cause of global warming is based on a huge ego trip of a few people. They refuse to think that the earth is more resilient than man's greatest power. They are desparate to believe that man is in charge of the place and the world is some delicate creature that needs careful tending (and you know who they want put in charge!).

I'm all for keeping things clean. I'm all for air polution standards. I just get tired of a few people trying to make it sound like all of humanity is going to die within 10 years unless radical and expensive changes are made now.

by mjd420nova

I think that if we look at the atomic structure and liken it to our solar system there are remarkable similarites. The sun being the nucleus. For the layman it would be hard to explain. A through understanding of physics would be primer to linking these phenomena we observe about the sun and all of the planets plus their respective moons. Any lights go on yet?? I think the unlimited amount of energy the sun puts out needs to be observed, and how those carbon dioxide molecules capture those photons and other particles streaming from the sun. Then we could shut down all the fossil fuel generation plants. Duplicate the capture on the surface of the planet, it obviously works in the atmosphere. Too bad the moon doesn't have a magnetic field, that rotates. Aatronauts have tried to us a metalic tether and it keeps burning loose. Curious.

by Member 25348569

The only similarities between atomic structure and the solar system is that um...ummm....umm, well, none.

Yes, a diagrammatic representation of the solar system and planetary orbits could look a bit like a diagrammatic representation of how we thought that an atom looked in two dimensions, say, at the time of Rutherford. But other than the fact that both have one bit in the middle and the rest of it "isn't", there the similarity ends. Planets have orbits, electrons have probability density in phase space. Perhaps our solar system sin't an atom in a higher-level universe after all (if that's what you were hinting).

If we want to generate electricity from magnetic fields, we can do it in Earth orbit with a satellite trailing a nice long bit of wire. It needs to be miles long so we'd need to improve on our materials science first. If we can do it, we'd be much better off doing it around Jupiter, though - bigger magnetic field and much faster orbit.

Back to reality - One of the problems with your "carbon dioxide solution" is that we don't want to turn light into heat - we want to turn it into electricity.

Curious. :)

by protiusx

Let me begin by saying you all have very good posts and it will take me a while to read through them. Before I do I have to throw out this one bone. While I was traveling over the last year I decided that it would be a good idea to further my education and so I began an on line class in accounting. A decision I now regret as I found that I detest accounting and would rather have a hole drilled in one of my front teeth than continue on in this line of study but I digress. One of the fundamental tenants of accounting is the idea of balance. The value on one side of the ledger will (or should) always equal the value of the opposite side. I had an epiphany while working one day and came to the understanding that life, and indeed all things in this world, follow this law of balance. I think if one were to look at any physical system one will see ebb and flow and even perhaps chaos but the end result will always equal the beginning. I think Einstein himself declared this when he wrote his theory of relativity where E=MC2. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. The closer mass approaches the speed of light the more energy is expended. Each side of the equation is equal.

Life is much the same way. Each season comes and gives way to another. There are hot days and there are cold days. Matter is consumed to produce energy (heat and light) and yet the sum total of matter and energy remains the same. Humanity can not affect this natural law and we are compelled to obey it regardless of what we do. The earth we live on is an enclosed living biosphere and while the system as a whole may be affected by a particular part for a short while it will eventually return to a state of evenness or balance. Don?t misunderstand me; I don?t believe the planet is alive in a sentient way (utter tosh) but I do believe that it is a very complex thing with many interdependent physical systems that not only compensate for one another but regulate one another as well and the whole thing is designed to bring balance.

by Member 25348569

I was afraid, for a few moments, that you were going to quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics at me in an attempt to disprove Evolution. The criticism of that particular tack holds here, as well. The Earth is [b]not[/b] a closed system.

The energy input from the sun varies in a very complex way by a virtue of a number of different cycles of higher or lower energy. This accounts for [b]most[/b] of the observable or inferable changes in the Earth's climate since it was created (small 'c'). Spread over millions of years, though, we can say that there is a pattern in the energy input.

Now we get to energy output back to space. Life, complicates things even more and different life complicates it in different ways. Those of us who believe in global warming or that "something odd is happening" merely point out that this is the first time that we know of that large quantities of fossil carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere that, without humanity, would not have happened. The fact that this is a greenhouse gas is the key point as it upsets the balance of the system in that less energy is radiated out to space than otherwise might have been if humanity had not existed or had not released all of the fossil carbon.

Then it gets [b]really[/b] complicated and we get into whether the CO2 will cause formation of more clouds which will then reflect heat back to space and dampen down the effect or...And so it goes on.

You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Maxwell is convinced it's a left-wing global conspiracy to wreck the US economy for the purposes of..I dunno.

You are just a sh:t-stirring so-and so.

Did I say "welcome back"? Now bugger off.

Neil :D

by protiusx

So much for my moment of existentialism.

I personally think that Al Gore is a smurf masquerading as a man and if he is ever caught out in the rain it will all be made clear. :o)

by maxwell edison

You said, [i]"Maxwell is convinced it's a left-wing global conspiracy to wreck the US economy for the purposes of..I dunno."[/i]

You overstate my position, stretching a few things I've said to the absurd. It's a typical ploy when faced with a compelling argument for which you have no rebuttal. Before you paraphrase anything you claim I said, please address ANY specific comment I've made in ANY specific message. Feel free to provide links to ANY discussion. They should all be easy enough to find.

I stand by anything I've said, and if shown to be mistaken, I will freely stand corrected. But I won't stand by the nonsense you said that I said; and I've never said it was a "left-wing global conspiracy to wreck the US economy".

by maxwell edison

Neil, as the resident [i]man-caused global warming alarmist[/i], seems to not be able to handle legitimate and rational opposition to this claim. Perhaps that's why he fails to address many of the points made that question his claim. How many times has Neil ignored my legitimate questions? More than I can count. At least I answer his questions. It appears he just can't handle it.

by tonythetiger

People claim global warming is bad, yet they vacation on tropical islands and retire to Florida and Arizona :)

by tonythetiger

is more amenable to life than a cold one. Humanity could not have thrived as is has were the average temperature much lower.

My thinking is that it could have been the warming of the planet that led to the explosion of live, and everything that life does, such as emit carbon dioxide.

In other words, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't (didn't) [b]cause[/b] global warming, it is a [b]result of[/b] increased animal activity brought about by global warming.

This also fits the glacial record, which shows periods where the average temperature was higher than it is now, without the carbon dioxide being higher.

by Member 25348569

I see what you're getting at. The problem is, though, that CO2 has been relatively constant for the last 500,000 years as best they can measure it with the largest increase and the highest levels in the last 50. Isotope measurements seem to prove that the increase is all fossil carbon and that suggests that we're overloading the natural equilibrium where most of the CO2 is buffered (kept reasonably constant) by the oceans.

One of the real difficulties in all of this is that it's just so bloody complcated. I find this is usually used as a stick by both sides to beat the other up.

Although I believe that "something is going on", I'm still relatively insecure in my viewpoint simply because it is so complicated. I just take the hard-line viewpoint here for debating practice and because you're all so convinced it's some sort of economic plot. The research I'm doing is interesting. I reserve the right to change my mind - but not yet.

Check out the Milankovitch cycles and you'll see why the temperature changes and CO2 doesn't and vice versa. What climate scientists are trying to do is to find if there is an aberrant pattern of climate activity above and beyond the natural cycles.

Neil :D

Enough climate science. I've been good for the past three weeks so I'm off for a couple of pints of Cobra and a Jalfrezi.

by tonythetiger

On the emotional level when Tom says something that Joe (thinks he) knows just doesn't add up, he begins wondering why Tom would spout such blatant lies, and since lieing is bad, concentrates on the worst motive possible.

Cooler heads can lean one way or the other but know not to jump to conclusions until all the data is in, and it isn't... not by a long shot.

also:

"The problem is, though, that CO2 has been relatively constant for the last 500,000 years as best they can measure it with the largest increase and the highest levels in the last 50."

The data I've seen shows variations between 180 and 300 ppm roughly (not exactly) correlated with temperature shifts from about 3C warmer to 9C degrees cooler than the 1950 average, with peaks occurring about every 120,000 years. Since 1950, the CO2 has risen to the highest level anyone has seen, 390 ppm. We're not (yet) at the temperature of the last 3 peaks but we're about due.

The thing that stikes me is that if CO2 was exactly correlated to temperature, the current average temperature should now be much higher (over 5C higher) than it is. Obviously there are forces at work that have yet to be explain.

by Member 25348569

I have really no knowledge of Al Gore and he may well be a smurf (I [b]hate[/b] smurfs) but one thing I do know is that you ain't an existentialist.

Going home time. you'll have to carry on being silly without me. :p

by maxwell edison

MIT Professor of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen, who is also a member of the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) panel, is one of those who does not accept the consensus that global warming is man-caused.

Why should I (or anyone) believe your MIT professor and not professor Lindzen?

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7363&news_iv_ctrl=1084

And what about my margin of error question? You didn't address that either?

As a disclaimer: I don't question whether or not global warming is taking place, probably because I don't care; for if it is, and if it's part of a natural cycle, it's just one of those interesting things we hear about but can't control. Kinda' like that asteroid that passed Earth earlier this month by a mere ~250,000 miles -- a near-miss in cosmic terms. Like I said, it deserves no more than a Ho-Hum.

What I do question is whether or not it's man-caused. In that regard, color me skeptical.

by Member 25348569

It was just a bit of hyperbole for fun and profit...

I will [b]try[/b] not to do it to you again. I mean that. I do believe, though, that a number of people who are set against the global warming and any remedies [b]do[/b] hold that view but I accept that you're not one of them.

Neil

by maxwell edison

Let me attempt to speak for those others.

Conspiracy implies that these people get together behind closed doors to plot out some dubious or devious plan, and they work in concert to carry it out. Such things are better left for thriller novels.

Most people who question the man-caused global warming claim don't suspect any such "conspiracy". What we do believe, however, is that these people are like-minded. They are big government proponents and collectivists. They have a world-view of things. They are victims looking for a perpetrator. And they are, for the most part, demagogues and pessimists. They think alike; they hang out in the same circles; and they support each other.

To prove my point, how many Democrats (the leftist party in the USA) question man-caused global warming? I can't think of one. How can that be?

We're doomed because of global warming. Everybody's a victim of something. To have peace, all we need to do is stay out of wars and the "bad guys" will just leave everybody alone. It's a like mind-set, and they rarely question each other. Man-caused global warming is a leftist "cause" intended to further their agenda of command and control over the population. But they don't want solutions, they only want the cause. Do they all scheme behind closed doors? Probably not. Do they all sing the same tune? It sure appears as though they do.

Show me a leftist who thinks the man-caused global warming alarmists are full of crap, and I'll stand corrected. But I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find one. That alone is sufficient reason to stand back and wonder about their true motives. (Hint: It's not to save the planet.)

by jim_p

Heat always goes to cold, how do you think a recycle air conditioner, car air conditioner, or a fridge works. Maybe the earth is running out of life and we can't do anything about it, unless we reverse this physic law or maybe control it, I think not! :P

Regards,
Jim

by tony hopkinson

The sun's corona is much cooler than it's centre. Course we can't live in either location, so your point is the earth will be much coller when we've all decomposed ?

by Member 25348569

Hardly that, Maxwell.

So, you've answered my questions? The questions that I posed required a simple yes or no answer with the exception of the last one and even there yes or no would have sufficed.

Your answers were enlightening:

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? "don't know but maybe"

Is the level of carbon dioxide rising? "I don't know because I don't believe anything anyone tells me"

Is the global temperature rising? Ditto.

Is the rise in CO2 levels due to man? Ditto.

You then pose questions to me and I'll answer them:

"What percent of the world's population can answer your questions?" I don't know but why is it relevant what may or may not be happening?

"margin of error" I don't know. There are an awful lot of measurements taken and conclusions drawn. I tend to favour those in peer-review science journals which include statistical anaysis of the results. If you want to the figures, go and find your own. What you appear to want is for me to hand you a loaded gun so you can shoot me down. I don't have the time to put the effort into doing that.

Seems like neither of us are happy with our answers.

"so the temperatures is rising -- Ho-Hum. Open the friggin' window". Yeah, well, now [b]that's[/b] debating me into a corner!

Neil :D

by maxwell edison

....to repeat what someone else said, shouldn't the text within the quotes be exactly what was said?

You're really slipping, Neil. When you continually misquote me, it must mean you fall short in addressing what I REALLY said. It's the same ploy used by leftist politicians around here.

When you misquote and misrepresent what a person REALLY said (you did both), and then provide your own argument against your own misquote or misrepresentation, it must mean something. When it becomes transparent, you only hurt your own argument. (Of course, the hope is that it will not become transparent.)

by Member 25348569

I put quotes around what you said or implied (or I inferred/paraphrased/extracted/whatever who gives a) merely to separate it out from what I said/implied/paraphrased/whatever. I couldn't think of a better way to do it. Bold or italic, perhaps?

If, to my eternal shame, I didn't quote you directly or you feel that some form of disclaimer was warranted or that I should have used single quote marks then all I can suggest is that you sue me or invade - both of which your country is expert at either yourselves or by proxy.

Considering that your answers could only be interpreted as "I don't know" and mine were similar, I have one final question on this subject "Does anyone care?" cos I friggin don't.

by mr stumper

from you, Mr. Maxwell Smart

"....distort, distract, deflect, discredit, and deny -- because they can't win an arguments on its own merit."

That pretty much sums you up regarding pretty much any of your "debates" with Neil.

I may not always agree with Neil, but he is the victor when it comes to fact checking...IMNSHO.

by deadly ernest

First its been a looong time since I was at school studying physics so my memory may be a bit hazy but I seem to remember being told

1. matter or energy can't be destroyed.

2. matter or energy can't be made out of nothing.

3. All you can do is to convert matter into another form or into energy, or vica versa.

If that is so then all this business about greenhouse gases etc changing the world needs to totally reviewed as it would seem that the total earth matter/energy equation is unlikely to have been unchanged for many millions of years.

The cyclic creation and melting of ice ages is due to the matter/energy converting to and from huge ice sheets and snow. The amount of carbon In the earth is the same, it's just changing form from gaseous to various solids and back again.

These changes have been hapening since well before man was on the scene, and often in a very dramatic (climatoligically speaking) manner too, so you would have to be an extremely egotistical fool to think or claim it's all man's fault or that he can have a significant impact.

by tony hopkinson

It's a good book anyway.

You can't use classical or even relativistic physics on this level of complexity. They are both reductionist and are heavily dependant on linear mathematics, the latter not a feature of the real world.

Chaos theory say's you have to right about it not being all man's fault, and that the chances of some of it not being man's fault are very very small.

by maxwell edison

Perhaps because he's not used to being challanged with arguments that might prove his long-held, man-caused global warming claim both wrong and silly.

by maxwell edison

You said, [i]"Quite an interesting little thing that came out of the US airspace shutdown for the days immediately post 911. A researcher was able to test a hypothesis about high-level pollution from aircraft forming reflective clouds that seems to be keeping us cooler that we might be."[/i]

So the burning of fossil fuels, in general, causes global warming; and the burning of fossil fuel by aircraft keeps global warming from getting too warm.

Interesting.

All we need to do is figure out how to put wings on SUVs!

by faradhi

Yes definately one of those.

Could I be that there is man made global warming. Yes, there have been studies published in scientific journals that state the possibility.
Could it be that it is just a natural cycle. Yes, There have been studies that state the possibility.

Has there been a hijacking of this possible issue by wacko environmentalists. (The same ones that hold factories for ransom for one dying owl.) Yes.

Has there been a concerted effort by large energy companies to debunk the scientific studies. Yes.

Since, I am a network administrator and not a climatologist, I choose to believe the scientific journals. Since I have seen articles both for and against and have no education in climatology, I my answer to your question in the subject of your post is Yes.

I would add, however, Why not take the cautious approach? Why not encourage continue aggressive development of alternate fuels? (Which BTW, the current high oil prices are doing.) Additionally, Why not increase use of nuclear power.

Both of these would reduce CO2 without harm to the economy. (Even creating new jobs in the nuclear field.) This would also alleviate the worry about CO2.

by maxwell edison

Because the same environmental wacko wing-nuts who are predicting doom and gloom because of their bogus [i]"man-caused global warming[/i] claim have also been blocking the development of nuclear power.

It just proves that these lunatics only want the issue (to advance a political agenda), but not any viable solution.

by faradhi

The energy companies do not want a solution either. They do not want to admit that their product may be contributing to global warming.

A sensible solution would actually require concessions from both sides.

Energy companies should be more aggressive with alternative fuel development.

Envronuts would have to concede to the use of nuclear power.

Additionally, I have an Envronut friend of mine why they do not take the money they use fighting "Big Oil" and put it into grants for development of alternative fuels. Never did get a straight answer.

If we put half the energy we use to debating if Global Warming is man made in to actually eliminating CO2 emissions, the issue would be nonexistent.

by protiusx

Unfortunatly for us this fear of anything nuclear seems to be unique to the United States. The left here has done such a great job of demonizing nuclear power that we have wasted billions of dollars on a nuclear power program that is now all but defunct. The UK on the other hand is increasing it's funding of nuclear power as an adjunct to conventional power plants. Their strategy is to not place all their eggs in one basket but evenly distribute the power generation across multiple sources. France, England and much of Europe has been way beyond the US with regard to their power generation technologies. It is sad that we are such a fearful society.

So to recap - NO NUKES! NO OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING! NO DRILLING IN ALASKA!

And people wonder why our gas prices are so high!

by tony hopkinson

no so fine. Now whether highly toxic, but low volume and hopefully isolated waste is better than is better that globally distributed high volumes of not so toxic is better is open to question. Presumably this is just for the western world by the way. How many countries would you not like to give the facility to produce plutonium in return for a cooler planet ?

There are lot's of other solutions for power generation, and no doubt better ones than making our grand children glow in the dark for dealing with the waste. However the guy's who want to make money selling nuclear power can't see any profit in dealing with the waste properly, so they'll just put that problem off 'til the next quarter. While that's true they can't be allowed to **** up our kid's furures so there shareholders can make a quick buck today.
There's enough of the b'stards doing that already.
I aren't in the 'man caused group' but I'm definitely in the 'can't find my kids in the dark group.

PS it would be easier to solve fusion than to come up with a safe way of disposing of nuclear waste on this planet.

by maxwell edison

Instead of grouping that entire industry together, most of which, by the way, is either owned, controlled or regulated by local or state governments, perhaps you can provide some specific examples of some specific comments made be some specific people.

Such a general comment doesn't really mean much. It's kinda' like all those "big business" type omments. What exactly have you heard, read, or experienced to compel you to make such a comment?

by faradhi

And rather than get bogged down in the details I will concede that the statement was overly general. Hell, just to eliminate any discussion along the line I will even say your right it doesn't mean much.

Now try to look at the rest of the post excluding that statement.

The point I am trying to make is that both sides put more energy into debunking the other side than they do to eliminate the issue.

by maxwell edison

The rest of your post:

[i]"The energy companies do not want a solution either. They do not want to admit that their product may be contributing to global warming.[/i]"

A solution to what? Man-caused global warming? Sorry, no "solution" can be provided for a nonexistent problem. How about a solution for air pollution, strip mining for coal, and so on. Now you're talking. Get the enviro-nuts out of the way, and you'll see nuclear power plants sprout up like weeds.

[i]"A sensible solution would actually require concessions from both sides."[/i]

There is no "concession" to make, unless it's made unilaterally by the enviro-nuts.

[i]"Energy companies should be more aggressive with alternative fuel development."[/i]

What kind of alternative fuel are you talking about, other than the aforementioned nuclear, which has already been shown to be opposed ONLY (or primarily) by the enviro-nuts? Wind power? Again, the enviro-nuts don't want the birds to be chopped up, so they block a lot of wind farms; and the elitist enviro-nuts, such as Ted Kennedy, don't want wind farms in their back yard.

Do you want to see a bunch of wind farms? Go to Wyoming, a Republican state, an oil state, and the home of -- shudder -- Dick Cheney, and you'll see some wind farms. If memory serves me correctly, Wyoming provides a higher percentage of its power from wind than any other state. How about natural gas? There are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas offshore, but the enviro-nuts are blocking that as well.

[i]"Envronuts would have to concede to the use of nuclear power."[/i]

Yes they would, and so far, it appears as though ONLY the enviro-nuts are the ones who need to concede.

[i]"Additionally, I have an Envronut friend of mine why they do not take the money they use fighting "Big Oil" and put it into grants for development of alternative fuels. Never did get a straight answer. If we put half the energy we use to debating if Global Warming is man made in to actually eliminating CO2 emissions, the issue would be nonexistent."[/i]

You and I are on the same page on this one. I've been asking that question for years. With the political backing and the financial strength behind the movement, they could have just DONE IT by now. In my estimation, this lends additional proof that their agenda is to gain political power, not anything else. They want the issue, not the solution. They want political power, not a clean environment.

Sorry, I blame the enviro-nuts 100 percent. There are no concessions to make, except by them. I've long been an advocate of developing cleaner energy, but I don't need a false global warming scare to convince me. And I'm not gonna' kiss their butts just to pacify them. They're a bunch of wing-nuts who are trying to dupe the population for political gain, and they should be exposed for what they are. If not, they'll only want more and more, which will be advanced by more and more of the same loony-tune tactics.

by faradhi

I do remember so news reports that came over the AP and Reuters wire.

I am not going to look them up, but one was on exxon's contribution to a group trying to debunk the Global Warming theroy.

The other was an Energy Company Industry group giving money to another group.

But given that; the statement is not important to my point and I conceded that the statement was overly broad I am not going to waste my time looking for them.

by maxwell edison

There are TWO kinds of energy companies: the transportation energy companies and the utility energy companies. And since this tangent was started with the discussion of nuclear power, I assumed we were discussing the utility companies. Unless, of course, we all want to be driving around in nuclear powered batmobiles! (Hey, I'll take one or two!)

by faradhi

My point is that both sides are being childish.

It boils down to both sides yelling at each other, "I'm not going to shut up, You shut up!!"

You can blame whomever you want.

--- edited to add

Instead of doing the obvious thing which is to put their money into reducing the CO2 levels that are being blamed for Global Warming.

Again I am not making an argument either way. I blame both sides because it takes two to argue.

by maxwell edison

It's not "childish", as you suggest. And it's not even environmental. It's political, pure and simple. The environmental movement is not an [i]environmental[/i] movement, but a political one.

I suppose you and I have an entirely different take on this. I believe that the notion of man-caused global warming is a farce, a total farce, and nothing but a farce. Apparently you do not. You can believe in space aliens, for all I care, but I'm not going to agree with you just for the sake of not arguing.

I think I've been pretty clear, and I don't think you have. I've been pretty precise, while you've been extremely vague. I'm not a politician. I don't have to pacify the "other side". They're a bunch of wing-nuts not worthy of being taken seriously. It appears to me that you aren't willing to make such a leap or make such a comment. Perhaps you don't want to "offend" anybody.

by maxwell edison

These enviro-wing-nuts are complaining about the status quo, but they also block any alternative. Period -- that's it. Why don't people see it and/or concede that one simple point? faradhi seems like a smart guy, but for some reason, he appears to be sitting on the fence in an apparent attempt to find some middle-ground, or pacify the leftist enviro-wing-nuts, or play the part of moderator, or something. Geesh, let's just call a spade a spade.

by faradhi

Because there are articles in scientific journals that state both sides. I am not a climatologist.

I am certainly not trying to pacify anybody.

I am only saying that if all the money that is put in to debunking the argument the co2 released from burning fossil fuels is causing global warming would go into developing fuels that do not release CO2, then we would not be having this argument.

by maxwell edison

How much money is spent advancing the notion of man-caused global warming versus the money spent attempting to debunk the claim (not to mention which came first)? Of course, neither of us could possibly answer that question (but since you brought it up, perhaps you do know the answer), but it seems to me that MORE money -- much more -- is spent trying to advance the claim.

As far as the money "big oil" might spend, it seems to me that they're actually being forced to defend themselves against attack, so to speak. It's almost like a frivolous lawsuit being filed against you. You either spend the money defending yourself or let the attackers have their way with you. What would you do? Would you just lay down and die, or would you try to fend them off?

Like you and I both suggested, if these eco-wing-nuts were really that environmentally conscious, they wouldn't focus their efforts on "big oil", so to speak, but rather in the development of products to compete with them. Either build a better mouse trap or shut up, is what they need to be told. What they don't do is much more telling than what they do do. (Which means they're full of doo-doo.)

Come on, get off the fence on this one. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

by maxwell edison

You should really avoid making claims or generalities unless you can support it. You've done it twice in this dialogue, and it doesn't really serve to your benefit. If somebody did that in a live debate, and the opponent was even a half-way skilled debater, that person would be left stumbling, stammering, and stuttering all over the place, looking absolutely lost and without a clue, or left speechless like a deer in the headlights. It would be a slam-dunk win for the other guy.

by oz_media

And then rethink your stance.

1) Global Warming - Fact or Fiction? Fact

2) MAN MADE lobal Warming? Fiction

3) Man's EMISSIONS increasing the natural effects of global warming? FACT.

Well that was easy. the only people who have ever cast doubt on this are a handful of scientists, in one instance they were found to not actually be scientists. In another instance they were encouraged/promised funding to say otherwise. One such person came out about a month ago and stated as much anyway.

here's the scary part, even the Great Bush dmits that mans emissions have an adverse effect on the natural cycle of global warming now. And he was about the last insane person on teh planet who doubted it.

No man didn't CAUSE global wraming, but there is too much fact of our emissions effects for anyone to deny that man's emissions are adversely efecting the Earth's natural cycle. It started with NASA by comparing atmospheric pictures over decades and has been since supported by almost every reputable scientist in the world.

Here's where the anti-argument is flawed, people are stating there are no adverse effects by man's emissions on the atmosphere. WHY do they say it? because they are opposed to regulating factories and vehicle emissions? That's just plain retarded.

okay, so let's say that it DOESN'T have an effect on the atmosphere or global warming, the fact is our emissions DO kill us, several thousand North Amerficans die every year from CO poisoning, corboxyhemoglobin. That's why we are encouraged to buy CO detectorts and not just smoke detectors.

Conclusion?

Anyone who doubts that reducing emissions saves lives, is completely out of their mind, if so, then anyone who doubts our effects on global warming, simply because they see no need to reduce emisisons is also completely out of their mind.

F**k global warming, it' sgonna be too late to care if we kill ourselves and make our air unbreathable in teh meantime. If we find out, several decades down the road, that there WASN'T a global warming issue, then we are at least healthier for our reduction in emissions.

What about dogs, cats etc.? In the yard, by the street, inhaling toxic fumes from your neighbour's exhaust because they won't walk the two blocks to get milk and nobody believes in gobal warming?

It's a pathetic excuse for not acting on a proven fact.

>>Edited to correct error where I stated global warming as fiction.

by maxwell edison

If all the eco-wing-nuts pooled their dollars, their efforts, and their focus, they could design and build an automobile that ran on alternative fuel, and people would flock to buy them. Even if they were their own only customers, the impact would be significant. Why don't they? Your only possible rebuttal is to suggest that people would not flock to buy them, and therefore should be forced to. That's B.S. Or perhaps you'll suggest that big-oil has the powers-that-be in their pockets, so it's not being allowed. Of course, that's pure B.S. as well, because the powers-that-be used to be Mr. and Mrs. Environment themselves, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who did nothing. (But this is where the Republican Congress will be blamed.) Bottom line: JUST DO IT, but they're not. That's very telling, if you ask me.

Nuclear power plants and wind farms have been shot down by the very same people who cry about the coal burning power plants. Why is that?

Your entire argument is shallow because the people who make the claims aren't doing anything to change the status quo and/or are blocking attempts to do just that.

By the way, I've been reading and seeing a lot about the oil sands in Alberta. (Maybe I'll have to buzz up there for a year or two and get in on the boom!) Anyway, and correct me if you think I'm wrong, but several years ago the Canadians sent lobby groups to Washington D.C in droves to try to work out some deals with the USA to buy the oil. Washington treated them coldly and with skepticism, for whatever reasons, but the Canadians persisted. The bottom line is this: The USA has not been twisting the Canadian's arms to get the oil, but rather the Canadian's have been twisting the USA's arm to buy it. Why is it that the environmentally conscience Canada, on one hand, is being extremely proactive in mining and selling the oil, but on the other hand you guys try to put forth the facade of so strongly supporting alternative energy sources? In this case, you came to us, not the other way around. Why is that?

(And what do you think about the opportunities in Northern Alberta for a guy like me? But only for a couple of years.)

by oz_media

Such a comment hardly warrants a fair reply. But with that aside, it's not about designing anautomobile that runs on alternate fuel, that's but one mere spit in the ocean.

They already have alternate fuel vehicles and due to rising demand the reseach and development has increased in great proportions. There are MANY ways to reduce your personal emissions without buying an electric car though.

Buy food grown/farmed locally, within 100 miles. This helps a local economy and also reduces the number of trucks importing foods down the highways.

Reduce drive time by planning routes iahead of time to ensure you are not driving in circles.

Turn your engine off when waiting for extended period of time, or gridlock. It takes more gas to idle for 3 minutes than to restart your car after three minutes.

Carpool, buy a smaller car, etc. There are many ways ot reduce emissions but most importantly, KEEP YOUR CAR TUNED UP!!! Cars now are designed to offer extremely low CO emissions but you must keep them tuned, sensors, catalytic converter changed etc.

There are a lot of ways to "Take personal reposnsibility" without needing 'eco-nuts' to force the government to act. They are pretty radical but if the PEOPLE won't take responsilbilty, no mater how many messages are given to them, then they are pleading for SOMEONE to step in and make it change, we must do something about protecting our air.

[i]"Nuclear power plants and wind farms have been shot down by the very same people who cry about the coal burning power plants. Why is that?"[/i]

For the same reason there are naysayers who think it's all complete BS that the Earth warms and cools. Radical examples, not the majority rule.

I know enough people who feel windfarms are useful, never met one who didn't, though I am sure there are some out there who have 'better ideas'. What about the people who go to great effort to build th ewindfarms? They areadvocates and very left leaning, save-the-planet, "Eco-nuts" too.
That doesn't stand up as an argument, Max. You are just speaking of SOME people.

[i]Your entire argument is shallow because the people who make the claims aren't doing anything to change the status quo and/or are blocking attempts to do just that.[/i]
Wrong, Max. You are not speaking of the majority again. Yes I am sure you have a source or example you can provide, I can provide examples to the alternate, such as the many, vast windfarms in California.

Do you doubt there are Californians that would support the idea? Do you think MOST who want to see better energy sources become a reality would oppose these farms? Of course not. In which case, it is obviously YOUR argument that is, as you say, "shallow". A very weak sample, so weak as to draw press attention for being unique to common feelings.

Northern Alberta, yup kaching. Too expensive to buy a home, nothing to do but make money though.
Southern Alberta is an employees dream too. A&W pays kids $15-$17/hr and they STILL can't find staff! Everyone is up North making big bucks for th esummer. IT jobs are abundant, and high paying!! I have made many thousands and will make many more selling products into the oil and gas industry.

So am I being hypocritical by profiting from the very thing that I oppose? No, of course not. We need oil, Canada exports oil, Canada is America's largest provider of oil. Alberta thrives on it, along with other booming industries they have.

This doesn't mean I should then waste oil to support my own profits. If the oil AND natural gas plants shut down tomorrow, it's only one vertical market, I have many.

Without diggin gup ten mroe threads worth of debates here, I will also guess that during talks where Canada was apparently begging Americans to buy oil there were many reasons, other than the quick/simplistic views you shared here.
WHat reasons would they have?
1) A completely different government and leader of the country.

2) Oil is a great export for any country's economy, why not buy from a democratic neighbour instead of supporting Middle Eastern terrorists? We've all seen the former presidents buddy-buddy visit shots with them. Dop you mean to infer that the US would not be pushing Canada to buy oil if we were buying it from Iraq? Would American citizens all over the country not slander and spit upon Canadians for trading with the enemy instead of a friendly neighbour?

That's a non argument, you have only viewed one side. Try on the shoes you will see a different view.

by oz_media

Here's a bit of a touche, and a GWB one too!

"06-02-06 President George W. Bush could get closer to his goal of cutting US dependence on Middle East crude -- but it won't be his futuristic plan to run cars on fuel made from wood chips or hydrogen that will do the trick.
It's Canada.

Bush laid out a plan in his State of the Union speech earlier to slash crude imports from the Middle East 75 % by 2025, replacing the oil with alternative fuels at home. But yet-to-be released numbers from the US Energy Information Administration, the analytical arm of the Department of Energy, show that crude from Canada's Alberta oil sands will help cut US Middle East oil dependence by half in two decades."
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn60932.htm

[b]Twelve-step program to break America?s oil addiction[/b]
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5218-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=198437&messageID=2068911

An interesting collection of many views, articles, news reports, presidential addresses etc on oil.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/frame_ntn_news.htm

by tonythetiger

"here's the scary part, even the Great Bush dmits that mans emissions have an adverse effect on the natural cycle of global warming now."

A giraffe eating all the leaves of a tree has an adverse effect on global warming! So what's the cure? Kill all the animals?

Another thing? Why is it that everything man does is termed "unnatural". Dogs do dog things and it's called natural. Alligators do aligator things and its called natural. Men do men things, and it's called unnatural. It doesn't make sense.

by oz_media

Well humans have a tendency to take the Earth's natural resources and refine them, blend them, burn them and waste them.

What is unnatural? Oil does not expell itself from eth ground before heating itself in a giant tubs and separating it's "imprities" before combining itself with several dozen other chemicals that naturally expell themselves from the Earth, refine, blend and become gasoline. The formation of these products is NOT a natural cycle, it is man made and thus unnatural.

Gas would be a lot cheaper if it was found in wells in our backyards. We also extrue natural metals and other substances from our surroundings and cause changes in their molecular structure, to build stronger materials, such as high tensile strngth steel, or even lightweigfht alloys like aluminum alloy. Alloy is not natural, these things aren't on the Earth until we change things a bit and create them.

A dog does not have thi sability to change and modify its surroundings in an unnatural way.

Your point is pretty pointless, mate. Almost silly as we can all determine the difference between natural creation and man's manipulation of the natural processes.

Pressure treated 2X4's and plywood does not grow on trees. We destroy trees and create pressure treated 2X4's and plywood.

by faradhi

too much.

However, If the energy companies said "Hey, this could be a problem. We don't know. We have these other articles that state that Global warming is not man made that were published in the same journal. However, we will be putting $X millions on alternate energy source research just in case." What could the environuts say? Nothing, thats what. They would have ripped the rug right from under them.

Instead, they said, "Its not true and we will be spending $XX millions on debunking the claims." Thereby giving the environuts fuel for their "Another example of evil companies doing evil things" argument.

I will not get off the fence until the articles in scientific journals agree, or I go to school to be a climatologist and gain the expertise to examine the evidence on both sides. (both are likely to happen the same time snowballs form in hell)

I accept scientists from both sides because I do not have the expertise to differentiate which has the stronger argument. As far as I can tell, no one on this board has such expertise.

by faradhi

If it were a live debate I would be better prepared.

Further a debate would mean that I am taking a side. I am taking neither.

If it were a live debate, I would ask two questions.

Are you a climatologist? And when your answer was no. I would ask, while handing you copies of journal articles from both sides. How can you as a computer professional say that any of these climatologists on either side are wrong?

by tonythetiger

"but it seems to me that MORE money -- much more -- is spent trying to advance the claim."

It's not their money, and it won't be their money... but they control it, and [b]that's[/b] the whole point... Control!

by maxwell edison

Cute post, but meaningless. I stand by and support everything I say. Point to something specific, or else your message will be proven to be a lame attempt to distort, distract, deflect, discredit, and deny.

by mr stumper

"Perhaps because he's not used to being challanged with arguments that might prove his long-held, man-caused global warming claim both wrong and silly."

Your quote. And that is just from this thread...don't go throwing stones my boy!

Gee, nothing specific in your quote Max...But you seem to be the type that sets different rules for themselves than they do for others. I guess my opinion (or observation) is not as valuable as yours, in YOUR not so humbe opinion.

Just another attempt by Maxwell Smart to "distort, distract, deflect, discredit, and deny"

BTW...perhaps you are just sore where I proved you wrong in a post you made a few months ago regarding wiretaps...you said if it was any big deal that congress would do something about it...I supplied proof that dems had attempted and had been blocked by the Repugs and you ran away like a little child in yet another attempt to "distort, distract, deflect, discredit, and deny."

Ya lost buddy...missed it by THAT much!

Oh yeah, you might want to follow your own advice(who am I kidding, like THAT would ever happen!)and "follow the money" regarding Richard Lindzen (who in previos posts you have mistakenly referred to as Alfred P. Sloan, when in fact he is a professor AT the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's School of Meteorology at MIT. You might want to look up Sloan as well, BTW) as he has taken money from Western Fuels as well as OPEC. Why don't you follow your own advice Max? Oh yeah, that would require setting the same standards for yourself that you expect from others.

Hypocricy anyone?

by maxwell edison

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, Phred. (I took the liberty to correct it, by the way.) Other than that, your post is pretty meaningless to me. If you want to attempt to discredit Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, knock yourself out. Perhaps you can go to MIT yourself, and show those folks that you are smarter than him and much better suited to do his job than he is. I'll bet they'd pay you some big bucks!

I find it interesting that people like you make the false claim that there's 100 percent consensus in the "scientific community", but every time someone shows that assertion to be false, all you do is jump on the discredit bandwagon. In another message (in this same discussion), another person cited a different MIT professor, and I countered with MIT professor Lindzen. I wonder what those two guys talk about over lunch? Nonetheless, and regardless of any "credibility" claim, there is not 100 percent consensus on the claim that human activity either causes or contributes to global warming. I find it equally interesting that you guys can't even concede that one simple, and obvious, point. That alone shows your closed-mindedness. (Speaking of not being based in reality!)

by maxwell edison

Do you remember back in the early to mid 80s when it was claimed that human activity was causing the hole in the ozone layer? (And from what I remember, that hole was only discovered in the late 70s -- feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.) It was suggested that the use of freon was the culprit, and the environmentalists pretty much forced manufacturers of equipment that used freon to stop using it, and they had to change to something else. I think it took around ten years to phase it out of production, at a huge cost to the manufacturer, ultimately passed on to the consumers.

There's been another cost as well, and I just learned of this a few months ago. The insulation that NASA used on the space shuttle's external fuel tank was made of a material that used freon. There had never been any problems with that insulation until NASA had to stop using that material because of the new (forced) environmental regulations. The new insulation that they now use has a habit of breaking away during liftoff. On one of those liftoffs, the pieces of foam insulation actually damaged the tiles that act as a heat shield for the shuttle upon reentry into Earth's atmosphere.

May the perished Columbia astronauts rest in peace, and my deepest sympathies remain to go out to their families.

By the way, what's been the status of the hole in the ozone layer?

by Member 25348569

Ozone depletion hasn't happened, isn't happening, won't happen?

Happens anyway?

Man isn't reponsible (again)?

The breakdown products of CFCs don't catalyse the breakdown of atmospheric ozone?

The Columbia astronauts died because some selfish Aussies and Kiwis didn't want to get skin cancer?

What?

by maxwell edison

I don't think there's any denying that the United States relies heavily on oil. And as such, it's sad that the environmentalists are continually blocking efforts to use more of our own. Nonetheless, Canada isn't much better. If you consider oil consumption per capita, the United States and Canada are almost equal. (The U.K. is WAY down on the list.)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

There's not even that much difference between the two countries when it comes to CO2 emissions.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

And the USA is not on the top of the list in either category.

(I wonder, however, how the USA uses that oil consumption as compared to other countries as it relates to production output, GDP for example?)

I think it's sad that you look for reasons to demonize the USA at every opportunity, but in many cases, Canada is no different. In fact, depending on how you look at it, you might even be worse (from the environmental perspective, that is). Our enviro-wing-nuts are blocking us from getting our own oil. Yours, on the other hand, apparently aren't. If you guys walked your own talk, not only would your oil consumption, per capita, be way down (like the U.K.), and your CO2 emissions would be way down (like the U.K.), but you wouldn't allow oil to be drilled and mined at the rate it is, and exported to other countries (like the USA) who are [i]"destroying the planet"[/i] with it.

If the USA is the oil-drug junkie, Canada is the oil-drug dealer.

by oz_media

Max, Canada is one of the worst offenders of Kyoto, in fact we don't even come remotely close to stacking up against such a treaty.

I know, yuo couldn't give a toss about Kyoto, ad neither do I really. but I do recognize it as an ATTEMPT at some sort of regulatory reduction of emissions, though flawed in many areas.

As far as Canadians and Canada being no better than the USA, I agree. I think we have moer PEOPLE ready and willing to change but the efforts are almost wasted as industry is not regulated to follow tighter emissions guidelines and only new companies are installing effective solutions.

So I guess your last post merely makes your previous point moot. In one post you are trying to pin blame for pushing oil sales to the US, to the effect that we created our own monster.
on the other hand you are saying canada is no better, meaning that you recognize the USA is just as much to blame in such a situation as you are heavy consumers, I sat wasteful (again just like many Canadians).

I am confident that Canadians do have a larger percentage of the population that are concerned about these issues, that are actively working ot reduce personal emissions than in the US. My reasoning is that such issues are quickly brushed aside by US media and for many years, the US government. In Canada it is at least recognized, even if not acted on approporiately.

Is one better than the other? Not really. But it doesn't make the issue disappear, we all need to change and recognize the dangers of what we emit into out air.

by maxwell edison

...perhaps we should both leave it at that. (Did we really get through a whole discussion tangent without breaking out the flame throwers? Mae's right. I must be ill.)

by maxwell edison

All I did was follow the ozone tangent that somebody else initially brought up, posted some of my thoughts and observations, and let it rest for others to draw their own conclusions. If you want to do the same thing, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts.

The only question I asked (I think) was about the current status of the ozone hole. But since you took it a step further, perhaps you can verify for us not only that, but when the ozone hole was actually discovered, how long it's thought to have been there, and how big and/or small it's been over that time?

Moreover, if the instances of skin cancer in that part of the world is directly related to the hole in the ozone layer (and I'm not suggesting it isn't), how does today's rate compare to the 1970s and 1980s rate, and how do both compare to the rate in the first half of the twentieth century (before freon)?

And if I was trying to make any point at all with my comments on the Columbia disaster, it's only that perhaps NASA (or its supplier of fuel tank insulation) should have been exempt from the regulations that forced them to change what had been a proven and successful product. (At least that's what my rocket scientist buddy tells me. Remember him? He proved you correct and me wrong a while back on that [i]shuttle to the moon[/i] discussion.)