General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2269755

    What About Global Warming?

    Locked

    by fluxit ·

    I read through several Global Warming threads and saw many things that were curious. Then I came across this article:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    While I have not made a decision on the human contribution to Global Warming, I have a tendency towards a neglible impact. I believe that Global Warming is a natural process and that the natural has a greater impact on the climate than human influence. Certianly, humans cause an impact but it is usually a whisp in the spanse of time and space.

    What do you think about the article?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2536329

      I hate to rain on your parade

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to 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

      • #2536318

        Huh, There is a Different Thought on that…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to I hate to rain on your parade

        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.

        • #2535473

          Everything that you are describing is wrong

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Huh, There is a Different Thought on that…

          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

        • #2535443

          The Problem Is

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Everything that you are describing is wrong

          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.

        • #2535407

          The sale and use of R12 continues to be restricted.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

        • #2535400

          Very Interesting

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to The sale and use of R12 continues to be restricted.

          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

        • #2535401

          re. “These Global issues are not so observable”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

          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.

        • #2537366

          The truth is out there. Your refusal to see it does not negate it.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

          “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.

        • #2538839

          Pictures

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The truth is out there. Your refusal to see it does not negate it.

          OKay this global warming BS is getting offensive now. There are so many people refusing to accept our harmful emissions as a contributor to the depletion of teh ozone layer that it is becoming harder and harder to see reality throuh the smog.

          Reasons to NOT control our emissions:

          Wildlife will die anyway, polar bears etc. ice melts, it’s all a natural phenomenon….we think.

          Political fear, it is all a ruse to gain political favour, they need a smoke screen etc.
          And many more unrealistic and misguided reasons I am sure.

          Reasons to control our emissions:
          They kill us at street leel as we cannot safely breath our emissions (CO – Carbon MONoxide for example that causes a loss of white blood cells and literally suffocates the body)

          It is a known FACT that these gases DO harm teh atmosphere, proportions are irrelevant. ANy harm to what we know is already a natural depletion is just careless and irresponsible.

          So emissions kill us AND it harm the atmosphere. The only ISSUE is the cost or inconvenience of retrofitting and controlling the emissions.

          I see no valid excuse for not following suit and becoming a responsible society, the only problem is that it means left must agree with right, and that canot be so in today’s political world of distancing one party from the other.

          As far as pictures of natural ice cap metls and other “questionable” photos, we cannot deny the absolute fact that astronauts have photographed the ozone layer from space for decades and it is VERY clear that it has thinned.

          Are our emissions the cause of this? NO I don’t believe so.

          Are our emissions contributing to this? Yes, there is little to debate that emissions do add to the natural ozone breakdown.

          So why haven’t we made a move? Do we need ot see 100% proof that it is unconrtollable before we start to act? If so, why? Stupidity? Laziness? Mere cost?

          How much money would be acceptable in order to save the planet from our emissions?

        • #2538814

          “So why haven’t we made a move?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Pictures

          [i]As far as pictures of natural ice cap metls and other “questionable” photos, we cannot deny the absolute fact that astronauts have photographed the ozone layer from space for decades and it is VERY clear that it has thinned.

          Are our emissions the cause of this? NO I don’t believe so.

          Are our emissions contributing to this? Yes, there is little to debate that emissions do add to the natural ozone breakdown.

          So why haven’t we made a move?[/i]

          Um, Oz, I don’t know where you were in the 80’s, but we have moved on the ozone depletion issue, and my understanding is that it has helped.

          Reducing carbon monoxide emissions from my gasoline engine would mean that more efficient combustion is occurring, meaning that I’m getting more horsepower for the gasoline I’m already buying. I’m for it. You however seem more enthusiastic about it, so I invite you to [b]create[/b] that more efficient engine, or zero-emissions engine.

        • #2538728

          Cost

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Pictures

          When the California clean air act was brought about, people with 70’s muscle cars were at arms over the new ‘whimpy cars’ that couldn’t get them down the highway like a 440 did. We all know this was an untrue fear. In fact there are many 4 cylinder passenger cars that wil literally eat a 440 now.

          By the time fuel injection was common, all the former carb mechanics were complaining that new cars were wimpy and too problematic. Now we see that fuel iunjection is not only more efficient but provides a longer lasting vehicle, requires less maintenance and is a lot easier to tune and repair than an old Thermoquad carb.

          For some reason, many peopl still think that cars here ae the same as cars in Europe, which is also a myth. The same model car (usually adorned with a different model badge) will be sold in Europe as North America. However the European car burns fuel mroe efficiently and has FAR better quality materials in the build. No, a Ford Probe is not a Ford Probe everywhere in the world. European Probes will outperform and outlast a North American version…but why?

          Hydrocarbon fuels are extremely efficient energy sources, our vehicle are not. In an effort to offer an inexpensive car that still has reasonable emissions levels, we waste fuel energy in the form of heat. Thin materials, inexpensive aterials cause so an inefficient fuel buring process that many joules are lost in the form of heat. Therefors they ae covered with those stupid little tin heat shields todivert extra heat away from parts so they don’t fail, tht heat is simply disipated into the air. So the great energy potential of fuel is wasted in order to make a light car, the light car increases economy, not the quality of the components. As we now see, many manufacturer’s are resorting to muscle cars again to gain market share, as the cheap tin boxes are passed over by potential buyers. NO we are resoring to moving back to heavier components and lower mileage in order to get the most out of the potential energy and durability, ie the SUV.

          In Europe, more stringent standards need to be met, the effort of manufacturers is to build ‘Europoean quality’ cars that utilize better naterials to increase the fuel efficiency and gain more horsepower form the fuel energy.

          The cars they use for the Eurpoean market are far too expensive by North American standards, eve thoguh fuel is far cheaper, cars need to be as well or they just dont sell.

          If more people were interested in quality over cost, we would have North American manufacturers providing better quality cars with better fuel efficiency. Less fuel energy wasted as heat and more HP to the rear wheels.

          OS we CAn build more efficient cars, however the marketplac edemands acompromise. Unfortunately that cpmpromise comes at the cost of our health, but that is rarely considered.

          An example of how we THINK we are efficient:

          BC Air Care reports may show an allowable Co level of 8.6ppm. So when the old clunker pulls off a 6.5ppm we say it flew through air care. In actuality it does not, a newer car will often have a max of 2.0ppm.

          Based on an air care repoert, one may conclude that his/her car is runnign efficiently, in reality it is far from the truth. Our Canadian emissions are base don US diveability stats, converted to Canadian driving conditons. SO we are not actualy driving these great, fuel efficient cars at all. just what te manufacturer has made us FEEL is a fuel efficient car, becaus ethey offer no other alternative in North America….due to cost of production and a possible drop in sales.

          If you ever think anything in North America is not done for the pure sake of makig a dollar, go back to sleep and try again tomorrow.

          Money doesnt’ make the world go ’round, as the song implies. Money makes North America go ’round, and that’s all.

        • #2538844

          R12 Misconceptions

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

          R12 is a restricted refrigerant in vehicle use. The EPA exceptions are merely there for the sake of retrofitting and leakdown/bleed from SOME applicances but not for automotive recharging. R12 can only be bought with a licence and really shouldn’t be used anyway as it can be lethal to humans, forget about the ozone for a minute.

          As a certified air care and alternate fuels mechanic I have seen some rather gruesome videos of the REAL reasons R12 is no longer used in automobiles. It is not an issue of emissions control, although that is a small contributing factor behind such legislation.

          R12, or Dichlorodifluoromethane to be more specific, contains chemical agents that when burned, produce phosgene gas. Current automotive replcements provide a dozen alternative refrigerants, mainly just proprietary versions such as R-406A (very common) and Dupont’s HFC-134A.

          Why was this gas changed? Air care and California emissions were not in place at the time R12 was first considered lethal to humans, but when people were left for dead unexpectedly from vehicle accidents, refrigerant was often found to be the blame.

          R12, as mentioned earlier, creates a gas when burned (ie, in a vehicle or house fire).
          R12 refrigerant (also once used for home refrigerators)creates a gas called phosgene when burned, a chemical agent used in chemical warfare.

          Phosgene gas: because R12 has a relatively low boiling point, it was considered the safer gas for refrigerant, when exposed ot air it would boil off and become a heavy, cold steam (like propane does)but as vehicle engines became smaller, temperatures became higher and the possibility of R12 exposure to extreme heat was more and more common.

          When an accident occuurred it was more and more common for people to become very ill or die from exposure to phosgene gas withing a day or two.

          What is phosgene? In short, nerve gas. Phosgene was used as an early alternative to chlorine bombing in WWI. It is colourles, odourless and cannot be easily detected. This alone makes it an unsafe gas for common use, but when in a vehicle fire or exposed to the high heat of exhaust manifolds, phosgene from R12 is not the only killer, once the emergency vehicles use water to douse the fire, water breaks down the phosgene into other highly toxic gases.

          So the use of R12 in vehicles is not only retricted, it is pretty stupid also.

          Anyone who feels that a retrofit is too expensive is merely not understanding the reasons that we don’t use such harmful gases, it is not just our ozone layer, though that focus is always there, but it is a deadly gas to use and really stupid too when far safer chemical compounds are readily available at a mere fraction of the R12 cost.

          Why no R12 now?

          It is lethal
          It is detrimentaal to the environment
          It is far too expensive

          Your boss must have an air conditioning ticket or the like that allows him to purchase controlled R12? Many heating and air conditioning contractors do, but it is not to be used in recharging vehicle systems, just refrigerators, and other small home appliances when absolutely necessary.

          The R12 certification is designed to allow removal of R12 in such systems to be retrofitted and replaced by other safer refrigerants, it is not designed for people to purchase R12 and start recharging old automobile air conditioning systems.

          And since when did Colin not know what he was talking about when it came to cars?

          Homework, homework, homework!

    • #2536328

      Travelling Global Warming Show

      by sn53 ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      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.

      • #2536310

        LOL, I Like Your Analogy

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        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.

        • #2537359

          “…and Global Warming is [i]only[/i] one instrument in this effort”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to LOL, I Like Your Analogy

          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.

        • #2538828

          So lost!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to LOL, I Like Your Analogy

          “a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States”

          Let me guess, you whisper at home because the French government is spying on your thoughts too, right? Everyone is jealous of America and wants to see her sink, right?

          That lump in your neck is not a possible cancerous tumor, it is an alien implant to monitor your thoughts and eventually help Europe take over the world, right?

          Laughable, coments, assertions, so called facts, etc. simply laughable. Go and curl up under your bed with your shotgun and fear the uprising of the globe.

          Your comments are so self centered and inasanely paranoid that it is funny to think people actually believe that crap still. It’s the kind of stuff we laugh at in the movies, have you been watching too much King of the Hill, Dale?

          NAME: Dale Gribble

          OCCUPATION: Licensed owner/operator of “Dale’s Dead Bug.”

          HOBBIES: Paranoia, smoking, golf

          QUOTE: “Guns don’t kill people. The Government does.”

          FAVORITE CONSPIRACY: You really believe they landed on the moon?

          How may hours a week do you spend on the Area 51 website? I hired a guy in Oregon once that had a similar mindset, what a nutter, had to let him go eventually (and very carefully) as you never know what you loonies will come up with next.

      • #2535502

        Grip followed by Clue

        by tig2 ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        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.

        • #2535439

          Do religious nutcases think?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Grip followed by Clue

          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.

        • #2535397

          I agree with you 100%

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Do religious nutcases think?

          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

        • #2535395

          And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I agree with you 100%

          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.

        • #2535390

          YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          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. 😀

          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. 😀

          Col

        • #2535322

          Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          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?

        • #2535280

          sn53: It’s the same propensity to disavow responsibility …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          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.

        • #2537544

          sn53: “I am always confused”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          “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.

        • #2538817

          Don’t be confused, they are related

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          While some like to separate the issues, one is a reason for the other.

          The only reason people agrue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control. This works for both our cars and ground level emissions, smog etc. and also our emissions of the same gases that increase the natural effects of global warming.

          Show me how our pollution control is NOT aligned with emissions control/global warming awareness, I’ll show you very easily that they are related.

          While there is contest relative to the amount that our emissions incrase global warming, there is NO contest that our lack of emissions control is killing us as we live and breath on Earth.

          If we reduce and pay close attention to our KNOWN harmful emissions, it will also decrease the number of contaminants sent into our ozone, not all gases reach high enough altitude to break down and become harmless. Read up on carboxyhemoglobin, I know someone who died from it already, right in his own home. Polution control will, in turn, result in environmental support/control.

        • #2541566

          Why oh why oh why?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          oz wrote, “The only reason people argue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control.”

          Maybe in your small world. I argue against the idea of human-caused global warming for a variety of reasons. In the last one hundred years the temperature has risen about one degree. Most of that warming was in the period prior to the the 1970s. Mars is warming. Other planets are warming. The whole point of global warming “countermeasures” is to increase the size, scope, and reach of governments. Instead of looking to solutions that grant greater freedoms and liberties for the people they only seek to regulate, control, and to tax.

          Waste management, despite the claims to the contrary here, is not argued against. The richest nations are also the cleanest nations.

        • #2541533

          Note which side is now arguing based on assumption of the others’ motives.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          OzMedia: “The only reason people agrue (sic) AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded (sic) for proper emissions control.”

          Is it [i]really[/i] about the science, or will you employ any type of argument, allegory or fallacy necessary, in order to convince voters to be afraid of global warming?

        • #2541381

          Why, oh why, oh why, sn53, are you contradicting yourself?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          On the one hand, you rely on supposed correlations which may or may not be relevant, while on the other decrying the decidedly relevant correlations set forth by your opponents.

          You can’t have it both ways.

          The problem is that [b]you do not understand the scientific issues[/b] involved, and therefore seize blindly on those “facts” which seem to serve your desired conclusion, without even knowing which facts are relevant and which are not.

        • #2541376

          Well, Absolutely, given that motives can and do lead to bias, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          and that sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary, all while harping on matters of policy, clearly it is legitimate to suspect that his motives have indeed resulted in a strong bias on his part.

        • #2541238

          deep, a tool for the enviro-fascists

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          deep wrote, “sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary”

          How can you get it so wrong with such regularity? I said that I do not need to understand any more of the science than I do. This is not about science. It is about naked aggression and political control. Consider this clarification if my statements were not clear to you in the past.

          You cannot be trusted because you are a useful idiot for the enviro-fascists.

        • #2542148

          deepsand: given, that motives [i]can[/i] lead to bias…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          depending on the character of the scientist.

          [i]Well, Absolutely, given that motives can and do lead to bias, …
          and that sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary, all while harping on matters of policy, clearly it is legitimate to suspect that his motives have indeed resulted in a strong bias on his part.[/i]

          I was speaking specifically to the claim of environmentalists that the global warming debate is [b]only[/b] about the science. Oz_Media’s commentary on his opponents’ motives is contrary to that claim of his “team”. I agree with sn53’s reply to your claim that he has stated that he does not understand the science. He has said no such thing, the closest being that the science is “merely interesting”, which I take to mean that [i]on the subject of global warming[/i] science is but a means to an end. Such should always be the case! The purpose of science is not to establish an oligarchy or technocracy, but to learn the truth. When science is subverted to cloak remote possibilities as certain, impending doom, I take offense. I consider it highly probable that such is the case, but am keeping an open mind. Vague, unsubstantiated claims of bias don’t cut it with me. I refer you to my dismantling of neilb’s claims that Friis-Christensen’s research is flawed, and invite you to address that. I also note that sn53 has been consistent about his position (that the debate is primarily about something [b]other[/b] than the science) and that Oz_Media has broken from his “team’s” stated position.

        • #2542013

          sn53: Your attempts to mis-represent both your prior posts & mine …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          is pathetic.

          Grow up.

        • #2542010

          Absolutely: To repeat, I am [i]not[/i] here to argue matters of policy.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          As before noted, policy [b]must[/b] follow the facts if it is to be both legitimate and expecting of success.

          sn53’s persistent attempts to distract others from the scientific facts is nothing but an exercise in sophistry, one that I will not be party to.

        • #2541996

          sn53: Address your contradiction or withdraw.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          .

        • #2535323

          Acid Rain

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          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.

        • #2535279

          “largely localized phenomena”? Nothing could be further from the truth.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          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.

        • #2535267

          deep’s pessimism

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          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.

        • #2535215

          Spouting off without the facts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          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?

        • #2537313

          I’m amazed that this is now only confined to the US

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          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? 😀

          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

        • #2537312

          Presumably you also believe

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          [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. 😀

          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

        • #2516661

          Why oh why oh why?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          deep wrote, “Spouting off without the facts.
          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?”

          Why does anybody sue anybody? Everyone is looking for deep pockets. It is a blood sport. Since the public seems remarkably gullible it seems a safe bet that federal taxpayers could be fleeced for a local good. It is immoral.

          “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?”

          I do not recall saying that only local power plants were polluting. A decade-long federally-funded national acid precipitation study found local effects to local polluters.

          Your mileage may vary.

          “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?”

          Why indeed? Religious training?

        • #2516403

          sn53: Flippant remarks are a poor substitute for facts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          As usual, you’ve evaded the hard questions, just as you have so many times before in other discussions.

          If all you have to offer is opinions, you would be well advised to recall that opinions supported by the facts have no lasting value. The universe is a cold and uncaring place, and neither knows of nor gives a whit about opinions.

        • #2516200

          deepsand: the evaluation that remarks are either flippant, or …

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          that they are a poor substitute for facts, implies an assumption about the [b]intended purpose[/b] of those remarks. Flippant, non-substantive remarks, in my observation, are not [b]intended[/b] as a decent substitute for facts, but rather as an [b]indecent[/b] substitute, utilized by those lacking the ability to provide facts to support their beliefs, and/or lacking the integrity to espouse beliefs according to facts.

          Unfortunately, the mere opportunity to express an opinion frequently produces numerous duplicates of the same opinion, among those who judge it more important to concur with those closest to them than to concur with fact. Thus, the unfortunate necessity of sometimes confronting even flippant remarks.

          It is a thankless, tiresome, time-consuming job.

        • #2535272

          Taking undue credit

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          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.

        • #2535214

          [i]Non sequitur[/i], non-substantive & non-responsive.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          .

        • #2537540

          “a [i]nearly[/i] consistent warming since then” – How nearly?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          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.

        • #2516658

          Conclusions

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          deep wrote, “You have claimed, with a tone of confidence & authority, that the science of human-caused global warming is invalid, and the motivation is political.”

          Yes. I have. There is no science of human-induced global warming. There is lots of data that says the Earth has been warning since the last great ice age ended. And there are assumptions that Americans caused it. Cool.

          “This is an opportunity for you to present some data that support your assertions.”

          You are way too hung up on data. It is the conclusions that are important, not the data.

        • #2516400

          “It is the conclusions that are important, not the data”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          My conclusion is that you have no data to support your conclusion, thereby rendering it but an unsubstantiated opinion, not worthy of consideration.

          Get real if you expect to be taken seriously; otherwise you will be taken for the fool.

        • #2516396

          deepsand – YOUR data. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          …..does not support YOUR conclusion. It is your conclusion that is terribly flawed, as I’ve shown in several messages within this discussion.

          Man-caused and/or man-contributed global warming and/or climate change is, at best, pure speculation based on inconclusive and/or incomplete and/or incorrect data. The premise is flawed, thereby rendering your conclusion either flawed or incorrect.

          In lay-terms, you’ve been duped.

        • #2516386

          Well, max, in that case kindly provide the data that you claim is correct.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          [i]And[/i], demonstrate that such is recognized by the scientific community at large as being so.

        • #2516385

          I’ve already done that

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          It’s in the many messages throughout this discussion.

        • #2516377

          Data? Scientific data? As in hard observational data? Where?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          I’m not talked about a detractor of global warming and/or man’s contribution to such claiming that the data supports his claim.

        • #2516312

          observational data?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          It’s YOUR observational data that is flawed and/or incomplete and/or incorrect, not ours. I’ve proven that to be the case, and provided links and sources as support. It’s you who fail to address the all the holes shot through your data and subsequent conclusion. If you were on trial for murder, you’d be convicted because you can’t account for your whereabouts during the times brought forward. And in this case, you can’t account for the objections and corrections in the bogus “data story” you’ve been spewing.

        • #2533356

          Science or snow job?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          deep wrote, “You have the mistaken impression that this is not about science.”

          Time will tell. If the science is real it will stand the test of time. If the science is not then it will fall all on its own. Of course, it could be a long, dark age once people give up their liberty to meet the magnitude of the “threat”.

          “To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any resulting policy on your personal life than you are for the long term physical consequences to future generations.”

          What do you know. You do get it. This is a power grab, nothing more. There are no long term effects we have any control over. We might as well be arguing about the danger of too many angels dancing on the head of a pin.

        • #2533310

          re: “Science or snow job?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          [b]Science or snow job?[/b]
          [i]deep wrote, “You have the mistaken impression that this is not about science.”

          Time will tell. If the science is real it will stand the test of time. If the science is not then it will fall all on its own. Of course, it could be a long, dark age once people give up their liberty to meet the magnitude of the “threat”.

          “To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any resulting policy on your personal life than you are for the long term physical consequences to future generations.”

          What do you know. You do get it. This is a power grab, nothing more. There are no long term effect we have any control over. We might as well be arguing about the danger of too many angels dancing on the head of a pin.[/i]

          Of all the possible legacies for future generations, liberty is the most crucial, and the most fragile. Certainly, it would be sad if our descendants’ options don’t include skiing and building snowmen. It would be sad if the words ‘air-con’, ‘air conditioner’, ‘climate control’ are replaced by something more like ‘life preserver’ or ‘cook prevention’. But liberty is historically rare, and interspersed between centuries- [b]or millennia-long[/b] intervals of [b]brutal tyranny[/b]. Whatever happens to ‘the climate’, our intellect and wherewithal are sufficient to the task — provided that we remain free. Without personal liberty we’ll be back to tools of stone & wood within 2 generations. If you doubt this, you simply have not read enough of history, or have not understood what you have read.

          [i]I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.[/i]

          (Albert Einstein)

        • #2533947

          I’ve neither the time for nor an interest in “snow jobs.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          If anyone wishes to discuss matters of science, very well; if, on the other hand, you wish to argue over policy, you’ve put the cart before the horse.

        • #2516294

          Taken for the fool

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep wrote, “My conclusion is that you have no data to support your conclusion, thereby rendering it but an unsubstantiated opinion, not worthy of consideration.”

          Deep, you have the mistaken impression that this is somehow about science. It is not. It is about politics. Those on one side have something to gain by staking out their positions. Perhaps it is continued funding. Or the ability to significantly harm a competitor. It is about who gains and who pays. In a word, politics.

          “Get real if you expect to be taken seriously; otherwise you will be taken for the fool.”

          My position is quite real. I see a threat to my liberty, my freedoms, my way of life and my finances. The gradual changes that have been occurring for the last ten thousand years will continue. We will adjust as we have adjusted in the past. There will be winners and losers, just as there have always been. I do not need the overbearing power of the state to get in the way.

        • #2534117

          You have the mistaken impression that this is [i]not[/i] about science.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any [i]resulting policy[/i] on your personal life than you are for the long term [i]physical[/i] consequences to future generations.

        • #2533309

          deepsand: the contradiction you imply is false

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          [b]You have the mistaken impression that this is [i]not[/i] about science.[/b]
          To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any [i]resulting policy[/i] on your personal life than you are for the long term [i]physical[/i] consequences to future generations.

          The legal right to [b]coerce[/b] in the name of ‘global warming’ is a very real, [b]physical[/b] consequence, with as great or greater potential impact on future generations as ‘global warming’.

          To paraphrase you: address the fallacy of a logical contradiction between the physical good of the collective vs. the physical liberty of all individuals (who, to give you a hint, are the ‘component parts’ of the collective!), or withdraw.

        • #2533962

          Wasn’t addressing said “contradiction.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          Rather, I was addressing sn53’s insistence that his [i]personal[/i] “rights” are in all ways and at all times superior to those of others.

        • #2533927

          deepsand: I knew that you [i]were not[/i] addressing that contradiction.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          Will you?

        • #2532919

          What is a “right”?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          deep wrote, “Wasn’t addressing said “contradiction.”
          Rather, I was addressing sn53’s insistence that his personal “rights” are in all ways and at all times superior to those of others.”

          Interesting deep. Does it continue to be a right to life, liberty, and property when the state can take it away on a whim?

          Is the mere claim of a future crisis sufficient to reduce us to serfdom?

        • #2526673

          sn53: You continue to deliberately misrepresent,

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          At no time did I say anything that could be taken to hold that “(a)mere claim of a future crisis (is) sufficient to reduce us to serfdom.”

          “Mere claim” and “serfdom” are characterizations of your making, and have no basis is fact.

          Put such words as you chose in your own mouth, but stay out of mine.

        • #2526404

          He wasn’t misrepresenting,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          he was using a (quite accurate, in my opinion) figure of speech.

          The same people who are trying to cram their view of global warming everybody’s throats are the same people who want world-wide socialism (with THEM as the overseers and controllers of resources and work product, of course, since THEY know what’s better for us than we do ourselves).

          That automatically makes them suspect, and anyone who believes them wholesale based on the scant evidence that is available is either a sucker, or complicit.

        • #2526180

          Is deepsand goofy?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          deep wrote, “Mere claim” and “serfdom” are characterizations of your making…”

          Yeah? They are. What of it?

        • #2532140

          Re. “automatically makes them suspect”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          The same can be said for those who dismiss out of hand the possiblity that there may be a problem.

        • #2531922

          As I’ve said

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          I’m not dismissing at all, I’m waiting for the proof.

          The reason they’re the ones who are suspect is that they are demanding that I hand over MY money and MY rights to their cause, all the while wasting more resources and causing more pollution in a month than I will in 10 years! You’d have to be stupid not to be suspect.

          I wonder how much the CO2 level would drop if these people would just shut the hell up.

        • #2527949

          Re. “You’d have to be stupid not to …”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          You’d also have to be stupid not to examine the data, but choose instead to simply reject it.

        • #2527912

          I have no problem accepting data

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          and examining it. I have a problem accepting analysis that claims to be definitive when it is clearly not!

          Have you heard the latest?

          “Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.”

          Seems like it is as it’s always been… the strong will adapt and survive and the weak will perish. Just as it should be.

        • #2527013

          That change may be inevitable does not mean that …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          any and all particular changes are.

          That one’s body changes with age may be unavoidable; [b]but[/b], what those changes are [b]can be influenced by us[/b]. As individuals, we cannot wholly escape our genetic backgrounds, but we are not necessarily bound to any particular life styles such as affect our health.

          So too with other kinds of changes.

        • #2527006

          Again,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          I have no problem with being more efficient, using less energy, etc. either. But I’m not into shoving it down others’ throats.

          It’s ironic that most of the same people who are against requiring others to pull their own weight in society are all for requiring those who do pull their own weight to accept even greater burdens. Adding this to the fact that the most vocal proponents are the some of the biggest wasters of resources, and the political side of this issue is just [b]OOZING[/b] disingenuousness.

          It’s not terribly unlike the father waving a lit cigar around while telling his kids they shouldn’t smoke.

        • #2526991

          Still, Tony, we are not compelled to let politics obscure the facts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          To the contrary, the more politicized an issue is, the more important it is that there are those who insist on an examination of the [b]facts[/b] in the clear light of reason.

        • #2526899

          Something we can agree on!

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          [i]To the contrary, the more politicized an issue is, the more important it is that there are those who insist on an examination of the facts in the clear light of reason.[/i]

          Now all we have to do is get the politicizers to shut the hell up!

        • #2520890

          And that, Tony, includes those who insist that the issue is …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          [i]solely[/i] one of policy.

        • #2541769

          Fantasy dismissed

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep wrote, “All truths of great import are at first dismissed as fantasy.”

          Maybe so. For those very rare truths of great import there are vast quantities of bovine excrement dismissed as well. More fantasy is dismissed as fantasy than there are truths falsely accused, in my opinion.

        • #2541417

          [i]Non sequitur[/i]

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Fantasy dismissed

          Opinions matter, but only when supported by facts.

          And, in this case, the facts contradict your opinion.

          Get over it.

        • #2542489

          Get clarification

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep wrote, “sn53: Address your contradiction or withdraw.”

          No doubt you are aware that many people do not read anything but your headline before they move on. Why else would your entire message be placed there?

          You have at least one personal problem. It is not possible for you to resolve it.

          Show me my contradiction. Lay it out. I am always happy to help the less fortunate get clarification.

        • #2540667

          I’ll not waste my time repeating that which was clearly said and ….

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Get clarification

          in plain sight of you.

          If you were too lazy to read it, that’s not my problem.

        • #2535324

          Clever Reply

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to I agree with you 100%

          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.

        • #2537308

          Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Clever Reply

          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. 😀

          Col

        • #2535995

          “This is not Science it’s Politics”

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          I agree with you HAL. It is not science. It is politics.

          HAL wrote, “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.”

          In fact we agree again. If you tell an inconvenient truth often enough a lot of people will believe it…

          I especially love the urgency of this crisis. We must act immediately or we will lose our major cities. We must act immediately or…(name your favorite bad thing here) will happen.

          It is appropriately apocalyptic. The only really scary part is the loss of freedoms and the increased taxes. The added warmth is fine with me.

        • #2515780

          Cities (sn53)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          Perhaps the problem is that since cities are the major source of things “bad for the planet”, and since cities are mostly chock-full of liberals, and since liberals are always wanting “someone else” to pay for fixing problems they create, there’s nothing being done 🙂

          Hey! There’s an idea…. Make the residents of a particular city pay for the damage to the planet that their city causes.

          Boy, talk about an [b]exodus[/b] :0

        • #2514950

          TonyTiger:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          small wonder that Leftists are for federalizing absolutely everything, eh?

          Liberal has an historic meaning, which I will not sully by applying it to today’s Democrat Party.

        • #2516311

          That’s OK Abs

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          I don’t think “conservative” has maintained its historic meaning either 🙁

      • #2535419

        re. “I believe …”

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        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.

        • #2535327

          Scientific facts

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to re. “I believe …”

          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.

        • #2535277

          When you’re ready for the formal debate, let us know.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Scientific facts

          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.

        • #2535266

          Ha! That’s funny

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to When you’re ready for the formal debate, let us know.

          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.

        • #2535213

          So, that’s a “yes?”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Ha! That’s funny

          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.

        • #2535205

          No

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          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.

        • #2516399

          You and your ilk are cowards.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Your claimed reason for not engaging in formal debate is a classical excuse given by countless others throughout the course of history.

          The truth of the matter is that, like so many who have no firm ground for their position, and therefore little likelihood of being able to defend it, you seek only to avoid defeat.

        • #2516391

          deepsand, but it is you who are defeated

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          You base your conclusion on flawed and/or incorrect and/or incomplete data, but claim that your conclusion is correct, thereby “winning” the debate. Simply saying so doesn’t make it so. You can claim that Al Gore won the presidential election in 2000, but he didn’t; and simply saying he won doesn’t place him in the White House.

          You lost this debate whether you acknowledge it or not.

        • #2516384

          max, claiming victory will not make it so.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          [b]If[/b] it should come to pass that the scientific community is, as you claim, either so badly in error or so politically corrupted, then, and only then, I shall concede.

        • #2516285

          Is that the best you can do, deepsand?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Simply saying the same thing to me that I just said to you? How lame and childish.

          You’re debated into a corner, and you’re getting desperate. What you’ve been trying to pass off as “scientific facts” all this time has been debunked, and you’re struggling. Moreover, it’s been shown that the “debate” is really political, not scientific. But you’ve been living the lie for so long, you apparently don’t know how to handle being publicly proved wrong.

        • #2534115

          Re. “it’s been shown that the “debate” is really political, not scientific”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Well, then, stop arguing from the perspective of your perception of the implied consequences on policy and get back to the underlying science.

          If you are so certain that I, Absolutely and others are so terribly wrong, and that you possess the wherewithal to scientifically demonstrate such, then agree to the proposed debate and settle the matter.

        • #2533477

          deepsand is wrong (as usual) on two counts

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Absolutely has left your side — the dark side — and has seen the light of reason

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188891

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188893

          And regardless of your incessant insistence, it’s not possible to debate “the science” behind the man-caused global warming claim in this discussion forum. First of all, nobody who posts messages in these threads is qualified to debate such issues. I’m assuming, of course, that there are no trained, educated, and experienced people around here — ones who have spent their careers studying such things and/or conducting their own observations and experiments — but rather, at best, a bunch of mildly interested bystanders who read magazines and Web sites — usually in search of justification for their foregone conclusion. At best, you and/or those who disagree with you would have to rely on citing other sources of expertise; and as shown time and again, there’s enough dissention to offset any source you could cite; there’s plenty of reason to doubt and question motives; and there’s plenty of history to suggest that any climate anomaly is actually normal.

          If you think you’re smart enough to be the know-all and tell-all of all things concerning earth’s atmosphere and weather patterns, you’ll be the only one who believes such a thing. On second thought, since you always come-across as a boorish know-it-all, you probably do believe it. But no one else does.

          Moreover, the real issue, as it affects people like us, IS a political issue — a fact you have yet to acknowledge. (Which actually makes you wrong on three counts.)

        • #2533395

          Proof

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          “Man caused Global Warming”, is kinda like God.

          1. Proving that either [b]doesn’t[b] exist is impossible.

          2. Those who believe treat it like a religious thing.

          🙂

        • #2533343

          re: Proof

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          The fact that an assertion is not [b]disproved[/b] does not constitute [b]proof positive[/b], only uncertainty. Uncertainty is not a basis for taxation, punitive damages, or any other restriction of liberty, property, or pursuit of personal happiness.

        • #2533306

          re: the debate challenge, and my ‘defection’ from the dark side

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          This forum is insufficient for another reason than those maxwell edison has named: inadequate display of graphs and sophisticated numerical analysis.

          Nevertheless, the debate [b]should[/b] occur, and we should agree in advance on very clear, strictly enforced rules as to how the politics (“therefore, what?”) and the science are discussed — together or separately. We are, after all, talking about liberty, and about survival, and most of us at least, are doing so in a country in which “Give me liberty, or give me death!” is a statement of loyalty, not of treason, which it would be in most countries in Earth’s history.

        • #2533954

          No, max, I do not concur.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          While it may be that, for some in both camps, it is the case that the issue is one of policy rather than of science, I do not agree that such is the case for all.

          Would you claim that those whose “scientific” positions you have here noted as supporting your cause have made their public statements owing solely to their “policy” positions? I submit that you would not. Why, then, hold that all of your opponents cling to policy over science?

        • #2533868

          deepsand – you’re wrong because. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          …..the “science” is, at best, inconclusive. Yet, there are those who wish to establish policy based on that “inconclusive science”. Moreover, when those policy initiatives infringe on individual liberty, it should give any freedom-loving person reason to doubt, and question, and resist.

          EVEN IF, the “scientific” findings were with merit (which they’re not), any “solution” that denies individual liberty is unacceptable. Do you disagree?

          Nonetheless, that question alone illustrates why it is political, not scientific.

          You, deepsand, are in serious denial.

        • #2526670

          You can’t do just one thing.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          A refusal to consider a change of policy is a decision to choose the current one, which is to presume that science will [i]not[/i] prove you wrong.

          Yet, by your own words, the result of scientific investigation remains unsettled. In that case, consideration to a change of policy is not merely warranted, but required.

          In other words, you have put the issue of policy before the facts needed to formulate a sound policy.

        • #2526463

          deepsand – full of double-talk and nonsense

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2196949

          And it’s the reason I seldom engage in conversation with you. Your double-talk and nonsensical talk impress no one. Moreover, it’s a primary reason that any “debate” which involves you would be a joke.

        • #2526283

          deepsand: I disagree with your description of the anti-ecochondriacs

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          deepsand: “A refusal to consider a change of policy is a decision to choose the current one, which is to presume that science will [i]not[/i] prove you wrong.”

          The refusal to support the changes of policy directly related to claims of global warming, caused by humans, is soundly, logically based on the assertion that science [i]has not[/i] thus far [i]proven you correct[/i]. Their position requires no speculation as to what science [i]will[/i] or [i]will not[/i] prove. That is what I see as the greatest inherent strength in their argument.

        • #2532139

          maxwell, what did you not understand?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          .

        • #2532136

          Absolutely, you seem to have misunderstood me.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          I am [b]not[/b] proposing that policy issues should be decided on the [i]assumption[/i] that global warming both is extant and affectable by mankind.

          Rather, I am arguing that policy should not be determined on the [i]assumption[/i] that the [b]converse[/b] is true.

        • #2538806

          Maexwell’s liberties.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          It fears you so that you may lose your God given liberties, oh no, make that liberties your government has chosen to provide you with. In your eyes, because your government allows you to have some liberties, you feel that no change can take place that may effect those assumed liberties?

          You wouldn’t sacrifice the changing of your current liberties to see your children’s children also experience life also?

          Personally, I couldn’t give a rats ass if you were inconvenienced in any way. The issue is not about saving your liberties it is about changing as a society to become more aware and responsible.

          I bet you are so scared of change, that you still walk around in blue leisure suits with white, platform shoes. DO you still have that futuristic 8-track player in your Desoto? Why change, it works just fine and you understand it?

          When the ‘older’ generation passes on, perhaps the world will be able to move forward, but as long as there are those who hang onto outated science and fear of change, there will be no progresion as a race. Time’s ticking, what are you mid 50’s now? 55 this year I think? Oh well, we can wait a little longer I suppose. Pretty soon the feed tube will be in and we won’t have to listen to those who fear losing control to a changing society.

          ‘kin old Americans and civil liberties. Get over yourself and wake up already.

        • #2538714

          Oz is being mean-spirited and ignorant. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          …..all at the same time.

        • #2539735

          Tyranny flows from such sentiments

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          oz wrote, “Personally, I couldn’t give a rats ass if you were inconvenienced in any way. The issue is not about saving your liberties it is about changing as a society to become more aware and responsible.”

          From such sentiments flow the seeds of tyranny. Listen to the attitude in those two sentences. It is about changing society so that it will be more to his liking. He does not care that we will lose our rights to be free and to pursue happiness. He does not care nor believe that we have a right to enjoy our property unhindered by the state.

        • #2539709

          sn53: On Oz

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Oz is the biggest horse’s ass I’ve ever seen. He’s an absolute uninformed idiot who thinks he’s the smartest person on the face of the earth. He’s an idiot. He’s an ass. He’s an imbecile. He’s totally unworthy of serious consideration.

        • #2539441

          SN53

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          In what way does becoming more environmentally aware, taking personale responsibility and driving a more efficient vehicle actually impede your right to freedom?

          Society changing to MY liking, not bloody likely, but I am wiling to see some change if it is for thebetterment of our health and well being, if we can help reduce harmful effects on our planet at the same time, then that’s even better.

          Society doesn’t have to change, but society needs to become more responsible. People need to accept that they are responsible for their own actions.

          From reading your posts, we will never see eye to eye. As for Max;s comments, we established we are thinking from opposite poles many years ago, nobody is fighting for your acceptance here though.

        • #2539384

          The road to tyranny

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          oz wrote, “In what way does becoming more environmentally aware, taking personal responsibility and driving a more efficient vehicle actually impede your right to freedom?”

          We could begin with your statements. You are not asking for awareness. You are asking for the state to compel me to pay and to regulate my behavior.

          Now if you want to market benefits that I am willing to pay for I might be all for it. Either way it ought to be my choice. The global warming people want none of that. It is all about treaties, and taxes, and compulsion.

        • #2531646

          Re. “the road to tyranny.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Oz is in no way asking for that which you state. What he [b]is[/b] asking is that you get your head our of your butt and look beyond your own limited mortality into the future of the Earth that will be.

          The tyranny to be most feared is that of small minds.

        • #2531602

          Tyrants all

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          deep wrote, “Re. “the road to tyranny.”
          Oz is in no way asking for that which you state. What he is asking is that you get your head our of your butt and look beyond your own limited mortality into the future of the Earth that will be.

          The tyranny to be most feared is that of small minds.”

          You are a wanna-be tyrant too. It figures.

        • #2530931

          Tyranny, butts, heads up them, & small minds.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?

        • #2530341

          sn53: Your self-imposed ignorance is a wonder to behold.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          When you’ve some understanding of science, along with both knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts, let me know. Until then, your input here is irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.

          As for yout opinion of me, you’ve obviously have mistaken me for one who gives a damn about such.

        • #2541363

          Absolutely: ?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          “[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]”

          Given that I have observed you be be objective, given to rational statements in matters of facts, and studiously avoiding the pitfalls of fallacious utterances, I am at a loss to fathom your above post.

          That it contains a multitude of fallacies is, I presume, as clear to you as it is to me. To say that it is quite uncharacteristic of you stands without question.

          How to explain? A momentary emotional outburst triggered by some personal trauma? Words unleashed by a temporary loss of one’s sensibilities, induced by the partaking of a mind altering substance? Or, perhaps, a missive merely intended to cause some small mischief?

          I can but hope that whatever darkness so clouded your mind as to give rise to this passes both quickly and easily.

          May the future be kind.

        • #2542141

          deepsand: [i]ad hominem, non sequitur & non-responsive[/i], yourself!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          [i]Given that I have observed you be be objective, given to rational statements in matters of facts, and studiously avoiding the pitfalls of fallacious utterances,[/i]

          Why, thank you!

          [i]…I am at a loss to fathom your above post.[/i]

          If you will kindly specify the nature of your loss, I will clarify my statement as necessary so as to facilitate your comprehension. 😀

          [i]That it contains a multitude of fallacies[/i]

          Name one!

          [i]…is, I presume, as clear to you as it is to me.[/i]

          It is not.

          [i]To say that it is quite uncharacteristic of you stands [b]without question.[/b][/i]

          Is that so[b]?[/b] 😀

          [i]How to explain? A momentary emotional outburst triggered by some personal trauma? Words unleashed by a temporary loss of one’s sensibilities, induced by the partaking of a mind altering substance? Or, perhaps, a missive merely intended to cause some small mischief?[/i]

          E) None of the above.

          [i]I can but hope that whatever darkness so clouded your mind as to give rise to this passes both quickly and easily.

          May the future be kind.[/i]

          Likewise.

        • #2542003

          Absolutely: Per your request

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          “[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]”

          1) “[i]why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation?[/i]” – [b]assumes facts not in evidence[/b].

          2) “[i]why is … so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]” – [b]assumes facts not in evidence[/b].

          3) “[i]governmental regulation[/i]” – as used, assumes that [i]all[/i] regulation is both unnecessary & undesirable; i.e., [b]facts not in evidence[/b].

          4) “[i]non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]” – as used, assumes that technology alone can & will solve all problems; i.e., [b]facts not in evidence[/b].

          5) “[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why …[/i]” – Draws a conclusion based on [b]false choices[/b].

        • #2537364

          Them’s arguin’ words!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ha! That’s funny

          “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?

        • #2535994

          Scientific research

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Them’s arguin’ words!

          Abso wrote, Are you willing to explain why you see only political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?”

          Sure. The politics are the dangerous parts. The science is merely interesting. What do we have, .5 degree change? And in the next hundred years a range of 1-4 degrees? Of course the future is based upon modeling.

          And then there is that solar bias of mine.

          And one more thing, this is just not that big a deal with me. I already spend too much time on TR. I intend to cut way back and get back to my real life.

          By the way Abso, it has been a real pleasure discussing issues with you.

        • #2535774

          re: “The science is merely interesting.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Them’s arguin’ words!

          Like any value judgement, that depends on what it is that you intend to pursue.

        • #2535722

          Message moved to beginning of a new thread

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Them’s arguin’ words!

        • #2517277

          Influence

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Them’s arguin’ words!

          Abso wrote, ” Are you willing to explain why you see only political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?”

          Sure. The science does not interest me. It is not dangerous. The politics both interests me and it is very dangerous.

        • #2537402

          Just in case you decide to debate:

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Ha! That’s funny

          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!

        • #2516390

          Correction.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Just in case you decide to debate:

          Rule no. 3 isn’t mine. You’ve obviously misattributed a rule set forth by another.

        • #2516292

          Cowardice in the face of propaganda and lies

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to When you’re ready for the formal debate, let us know.

          deep wrote, “You and your ilk are cowards.”

          Why yes. If you say it is so then it must be. Or it might just be a waste of time. It is not the science it is the politics. You want to argue the science of gradual warming and computer models. I want to discuss the politics of enslavement of an entire class of people (taxpayers) by another (green politicians) through the use of a fraud.

          We have no common ground.

        • #2534113

          FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Cowardice in the face of propaganda and lies

          “[i]You can’t learn what you don’t want to know.[/i]”

        • #2526356

          Care???

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          Science is not something to be cared or not cared about. It is simply about discovery and the understanding. In science, consequences don’t matter (“Hey fellow scientist, I just discovered that the world is going to end on August 10, 2151.” … “Really? … Cool!!! Let’s write it in a book!”). They’re merely additional data.

        • #2526244

          Very, VERY funny, Tony!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          Objectivity is the hallmark of a good scientist. To “care” about objectivity as the means to an end is very different from the bias of “caring” about achieving one result instead of another, from any particular scientific experiment, or set of experiments.

        • #2526178

          FACT – If the theory is valid…

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          deep wrote, “You can’t learn what you don’t want to know.”

          I do not feel obligated to be very afraid of the monsters under the global warming bed.

          If we are fortunate the warming tend we have experienced will continue throughout my lifetime, holding at bay the start of the next ice age. That is good enough for me.

        • #2532135

          That, sn53, is both shortsighted and selfish.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          With any right comes a commensurate responsibilty. To hold that you’ve the right to act in manner that causes future harm to others is the height of hubris.

        • #2531860

          Wanting to keep it warm — Shortsighted and Selfish

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          deep wrote, “That, sn53, is both shortsighted and selfish.”

          I want it to be warm for you too, deep.

          “With any right comes a commensurate responsibility.”

          Really? Is that in the Green handbook? Must my right to be left alone be paid for by taxes to the United Nations and a tithe to Al Gore?

          “To hold that you’ve the right to act in manner that causes future harm to others is the height of hubris.”

          That is your claim. You (and those like you) make the claim that my being left alone will cause you harm. I think the onus is on you to show how leaving me alone hurts anyone.

          What do you think?

        • #2528123

          Ouch!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          We’re leaving sn53 alone, and [b]IT HURTS US![/b]

          Well said.

          If there is really a [b]scientific[/b] case that CO2 is a ‘weapon of mass destruction’, please, by all means, assemble your coalition [b]of the willing[/b] to spend their [b]earnings[/b] on zero-emissions vehicles. Do that for 150 years, then compare weather patterns. Oh, how about for 15 years, then? Really, go spend your own money on your own zero emissions vehicles, lower global emissions of CO2, then you’ll have [b]scientific evidence[/b] that reduced CO2 emissions are responsible for reducing warming. Until then, you have mainly fear & some plausibility arguments, of questionable & varying plausibility.

        • #2527945

          sn53: Re. “With any right comes a commensurate responsibility.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          If you don’t understand & accept the concept, then you are a sorry case indeed, far beyond hope of my imparting any understanding on you.

        • #2527941

          Ouch?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          I prefer to let the policy [i]succeed[/i] the facts, [b]not [i]precede[/i][/b] them.

      • #2537419

        That’s what’s in vogue nowadays.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        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.

        • #2536198

          Profound observations.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to That’s what’s in vogue nowadays.

          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.

        • #2537186

          Refuting data

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Profound observations.

          is difficult (the only way to refute data is to have more data, and we’ll just have to wait on that). Refuting the conclusions drawn based on that data, though, is easy. Just ask the scientists who can’t agree on what it means.

        • #2537172

          “Just ask the scientists scientists who can’t agree on what it means.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Refuting data

          There are essentially two ways to counter an academically valid scientific claim. (If the claim is not made validly, why bother refuting it?)

          First, you can question the methods of data collection. Were the instruments calibrated according to procedure? Were the measurements taken at the same time of day, or the same date of different years?

          Second, you can question the interpretation of the data. Are the data being interpreted within their proper context?

          The latter in most cases is easy enough for a layperson, who has passed college statistics 101.

        • #2537165

          A novel variant on the infamous double-double-post

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “Just ask the scientists scientists who can’t agree on what it means.”

          Just ask the [i]scientists scientists[/i].

          Bollocks!

        • #2537158

          There’s a third way

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to “Just ask the scientists scientists who can’t agree on what it means.”

          [i]First, you can question the methods of data collection.[/i]

          Yes, that’s always an option… as long as you personally weren’t the one who collected it 🙂

          [i]Second, you can question the interpretation of the data. Are the data being interpreted within their proper context?[/i]

          “Proper context” seems to be variable, as well as usually politically, rather than scientifically defined.

          [i]The latter in most cases is easy enough for a layperson, who has passed college statistics 101.[/i]

          Yes, you can always attack the messenger if you don’t like the message. Maybe he didn’t go to college (he was probably working his ass off while they were sleeping theirs off in the back of the classroom). Or maybe his second cousin’s wife had a felony drug conviction. That would likely make anything he had to say not worthy of consideration.

          Of course, keen minds such as those working on this “problem” wouldn’t look on that as much of a challenge, so we can probably discount that 🙂

        • #2537128

          So many straw men, so few flamethrowers!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          “[i]First, you can question the methods of data collection.[/i]

          Yes, that’s always an option… as long as you personally weren’t the one who collected it 🙂

          [No, the person who collected generally doesn’t publish unless they believe the data collection valid, or unless they think they can get away with it. If you really believe they are trying to get away with something, why all this ad hominem crap? Why not attack the claim at its strongest point, if it really is a crock?]

          [i]Second, you can question the interpretation of the data. Are the data being interpreted within their proper context?[/i]

          “Proper context” seems to be variable, as well as usually politically, rather than scientifically defined.

          [That assertion is yours to prove.]

          [i]The latter in most cases is easy enough for a layperson, who has passed college statistics 101.[/i]

          Yes, you can always attack the messenger if you don’t like the message. Maybe he didn’t go to college (he was probably working his ass off while they were sleeping theirs off in the back of the classroom).

          [The point was the limited understanding of statistical analysis needed to understand a lot of scientific research, not college attendance. Maybe I should have emphasized [b]101[/b]? The same/equivalent class can be taken in junior/community college (depending whether you live in California or not), or learned from a textbook without paying for instruction & a certificate. I stand by the essence of my statement about statistics: it isn’t difficult to learn a powerful amount of it, if you’re motivated to do so.]

          Or maybe his second cousin’s wife had a felony drug conviction.

          [I’m not interested in your rap sheet. Just the facts, man.]

          That would likely make anything he had to say not worthy of consideration.

          [Of course, you’re free to dismiss whatever you like, on whatever grounds you like. Much of what you’ve written above looks nonsensical to me, and is hopefully unconvincing to everybody else. Not that you’re necessarily wrong, just that your argument isn’t very persuasive.]

          Of course, keen minds such as those working on this “problem” wouldn’t look on that as much of a challenge, so we can probably discount that :)”

          Smily face, right, just keep grinning, Uncle George will clean it up eventually. Jeepers!

        • #2537007

          First,…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          [i]Why not attack the claim at its strongest point, if it really is a crock?[/i]

          … I don’t know that “it’s a crock”. I also don’t know that it’s not. All I’ve ever said is that there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion, one way or the other.

          [i]and is [b]hopefully unconvincing[/b] to everybody else. Not that you’re necessarily wrong, just that your argument isn’t very persuasive.[/i] (emphasis added)

          And then you demonstrate exactly what I said (sigh).

        • #2536983

          Demonstrated exactly what you said?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          I hope that nobody is convinced, one way or the other, by your straw man tactics.

        • #2536950

          Yes, exactly

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          “[/i][b]hopefully unconvincing[/b][/i]” and “[i]Not that you’re necessarily wrong[/i]”

          seems to indicate you’re more interested in keeping a message from being accepted than in whether that message is right or wrong.

      • #2538835

        Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        At first the debate was man-caused global watming. Well nobody has stated that we CAUSED global warming, but that didn’t stop many from arguing against the point anyway. “Man caused” is the only way non believers can argue the concept. Yet that is not an issue of debate.

        Man’s emissions INCREASING the natural effects is the real debate, get on track.

        Now you have taken that even one more step out of context, “American-Caused” global warming. You make a strong assertion and I agree, America did NOT cause global warming. I think teh globe agrees with that though, thus it is hardly a point to be made.

        That’s not a topic of debate either. How about you sit down and show me proof that our emissions do not harm us directly (yes right here on Earth at round level),and thus do not need further control; and that our emissions do not have an adverse effect on the natural depletion of the ozone layer and thus do not require further control.

        To make life easier for you, you can’t. We have undeniable fact to proove both; not photos and heresay, but scientifically proven fact(the same thing we base most of our responsible decisions on).

        So argue a point or concede that our emissions efffect on the atmosphere is having a negative impact, but don’t stand there making up arguments that are not contested to begin with.

        • #2538790

          Oz, on [i]man-caused global warming[/i] – Be Fair

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

          Now Oz, you know as well as I do that the global warming people have been changing their tune for years. Not to mention the fact they went from global cooling to global warming, but they also changed, somewhere along the way, from caused to contributed, and they also went from global warming to climate change.

          And now, I have to qualify all of my comments to look like, [i]man-caused and/or contributed global warming and/or climate change[/i].

          So for the record, whenever any skeptic (including myself) just says “global warming”, he means ALL of the above. (Or should I say he and/or she means and/or implies and/or….?)

          And it’s another reason to lend even MORE skepticism to their silly claims — they change them all the time! They can’t even make up their own damn minds!

        • #2531639

          There is no “they.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Oz, on [i]man-caused global warming[/i] – Be Fair

          To view those that you address as “global warming” people and “global cooling” people can be lumped together into a single homogeneous group may make for good tactic on the part of their detractors, but is hardly the truth in fact.

          Phrases like “[i]their[/i] silly claims” and “[i]they[/i] can’t even make up their own damn minds” are empty of any real meaning.

        • #2538754

          Not at all.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

          [i]How about you sit down and show me proof that our emissions do not harm us directly (yes right here on Earth at round level),and thus do not need further control; and that our emissions do not have an adverse effect on the natural depletion of the ozone layer and thus do not require further control.[/i]

          I am not now, nor have I ever contested nor tried to contest those things. I am only arguing that any scientific conclusion, [b]one way or the other[/b], is, at best, premature.

          Science is about facts, Oz. Facts, in order to [b]be[/b] facts, must be 100% certain and provable. Not 39%, not 51%, not 99%. A claimed “fact” based on less than 100% certainty is a lie.

          They can push for the “controls” all they want, but as long as they continue to lie about why they’re doing it, they should continue to expect to be called on it.

        • #2538722

          It was for SN53

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Not at all.

          Based on his paranoid ramblings about American caused global warming and he big conspiracy to take over his life and strip him of his liberties. He’s a bit like Max, but gone mad.

          With respect to your comments:
          Science, without any contest has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our emissions, Hydrocarbons, Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon monoxide are causing illness and death.

          That is therefore Scientific fact.

          If we have scientific fact that our emissions kill us, and we also have proof that those same emissions contribute to greenhouse gases or acid rain, why must we then debate the feasibility of our emissions contributing to what is also a scientific fact, natural global warming? Do we need to have it kill on contact before we see it as dangerous and wasteful of our energy resources?

          We can’t breath our emissions, is that really not enough? We don’t allow factory’s to spew poison into the air, do we? Of course we do, so why not closely regulate them as well?

          There should be no further debate that our emissions may or may not increase global warming efects; fact of the mater is, those same emissions are poisonous, what more fact do we need before taking action and becoming responsible as a society?

          This is all thwarted because SOME money huggers are just interested in short term income, not long term life expectancy?

        • #2538700

          Poisonous emissions

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          I think the poisonous emissions account for the mental defect known as liberalism.

          Think about it. The largest hives of liberalism are in the huge cities, where the largest concentrations of emissions are located.

          It is clear we much clean up the environment, before everyone is stricken with the mind numbing condition known as liberalism.

          Please do your part. Our kids are at stake!

        • #2538694

          Yet …

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          [i]There should be no further debate that our emissions may or may not increase global warming efects[/i]

          … that’s the only argument in town it seems.

          “fact of the mater is, those same emissions are poisonous”

          There are organisms in our own feces that can kill us. Would you suggest we stop defecating? 🙂

        • #2539435

          Feces and carboxyhemoglobin

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yet …

          Hey Tony, it’s been a while! While I was most amused and humoured by yoru reply, comparing the two is not exactly making a point.

          But in anothr sense, your comments are a great illustration of the need for control.

          Ahem,….here we go.

          Romans created a sewer system, this greatly reduced illness and death due to exposure to feces and other waste that contained such harmful organisms. The people all rejoiced and much fun was had for all. Many years later, Sir John Harrington built the first water closet for Queen Elizabeth. The people all rejoiced and much fun was had for all. Today we have extremely complicated sewer networks, we have processing plants that break down such matter in carefully controlled environments. Staff are put through decontamination processes on a regular basis and wear specialized clothing so as not to be exposed to the possibly lethal doses of contaminants in the area.

          Yes, the government has taken over control of our crap, they completey restrict access to and spend billions of dollars protecting us from the horrible feced monster.

          So let’s do the same (but in revers) with the environment, protect it from us.

        • #2531635

          By all means, sh!t; just don’t do it in the refrigerator.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Yet …

          .

        • #2539731

          sn53 — The center of attention

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          oz wrote, “It was for SN53… Based on his paranoid ramblings about American caused global warming and he big conspiracy to take over his life and strip him of his liberties. He’s a bit like Max, but gone mad.”

          Thank you for all of the attention. If only you were someone important…

          Have you never seen the slide shows where the mean Americans are responsible for a significant proportion of all of the Earth’s warming? We are a target because we have the deep pockets. The global warming crowd is like a group of lawyers looking for their next victim.

          I considered arguing your points and then I realized that it would be pointless. You are a True Believer.

        • #2519037

          Importance

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to sn53 — The center of attention

          First off you haven’t the foggiest clue who people are here, you cannot pretend otherwise.

          As far as being someone important, are there other people here that you actually feel are important here and how did you come to such a conclusion, or is everyone just offering their opinion? What a senseless comment.

          Slide shows of propaganda? Nope, don’t buy into that crap.

          Deep pockets is not exactly a global view of America, money grabbing, bottom feeders without a clue is the more common view.

          You can’t produce enough to support your country yourelf so you import it from other countries, whether paid for or not. Oil, natural gas, hydro, grains, lumber, fish etc. It is a constant need, gluttonous America couldn’t survive a year on its own resources. Those same ‘trade partners’ are dismissed and ignored if they offer opinion though, because ‘America knows best’ or at least that’s what you try to get peoeple to believe.

          You are obviously unable to engage in rational dialogue with anyone who isn’t wholly agreeing with you, as your previos posts demonstrate.

          That’s probably why you only appear to base your oponion on one very narrow viewpoint, you simply do not allow alternative opinion or a balance of reports.

          Just as with most Republicans, you see your own miniscule view based on minute snippits and soundbytes force fed by only your own government and take that as gospel, dismissing cuntless other gloal reports that prove otherwise it’s the blind man’s view.

          No other opinion could be possible. Despite all that is said, the US government says otherwise and thus it must be so.

          Sorry to see that you are really so narrow minded you will never seek the truth unless it falls on your lap by default.
          But that’s pretty typical too.

        • #2531637

          As usual, the specious ramblings of a no-nothing.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to sn53 — The center of attention

          You’ve yet to offer [b]any[/b] facts relevant to the issue at hand.

          You’ve already admitted that you lack both a knowledge of and an interest in the sciences involved.

          One therefore must conclude that you have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion.

        • #2518949

          Nerve endings

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          oz wrote, “Importance … First off you haven’t the foggiest clue who people are here, you cannot pretend otherwise.”

          Strike a nerve, did I?

          “As far as being someone important, are there other people here that you actually feel are important here and how did you come to such a conclusion, or is everyone just offering their opinion?”

          Let’s just leave it with you.

          “Deep pockets is not exactly a global view of America, money grabbing, bottom feeders without a clue is the more common view.”

          Cool. The ever present anti-Americanism eventually comes out…

          “You can’t produce enough to support your country yourself so you import it from other countries, whether paid for or not.”

          That is pretty funny. I am laughing all the way to the bank.

          “Oil, natural gas, hydro, grains, lumber, fish etc. It is a constant need,…”

          Yeah? And?

          >gluttonous America couldn’t survive a year on its own resources.”

          When you are smart you don’t have to. I’m sensing penis envy.

          “Those same ‘trade partners’ are dismissed and ignored if they offer opinion though, because ‘America knows best’ or at least that’s what you try to get people to believe.”

          Are you thinking we have a centrally controlled economy?

          “You are obviously unable to engage in rational dialogue with anyone who isn’t wholly agreeing with you, as your previous posts demonstrate.”

          Obviously.

          “That’s probably why you only appear to base your opinion on one very narrow viewpoint, you simply do not allow alternative opinion or a balance of reports.”

          You may have all of the alternative opinions that you wish. And I will hold those opinions opposite yours (thee, that is balance).

          “Just as with most Republicans, you see your own miniscule view based on minute snippits and soundbytes force fed by only your own government and take that as gospel, dismissing cuntless other gloal reports that prove otherwise it’s the blind man’s view.”

          Please be more specific. What minute snippets and sound bytes do you believe have influenced me?

          And why, exactly, do you belong to the Holy Church of the Warmer Globe? When did you join? What part of the world do you expect to run?

          “…Despite all that is said, the US government says otherwise and thus it must be so.”

          About half of my government consists of leftists and kooks. They are on your side.

          “Sorry to see that you are really so narrow minded you will never seek the truth unless it falls on your lap by default.”

          There are many ways to seek the truth. Moving beyond the politically correct talking points is one of them. You might consider it. It is refreshing.

          “But that’s pretty typical too.”

          So we agree then?

        • #2531633

          Where are [i]your[/i] FACTS?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Nerve endings

          You’re long of wind and short of facts, as usual.

        • #2541532

          Obviously.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Nerve endings

          Oz_Media, to sn53: “You are obviously unable to engage in rational dialogue with anyone who isn’t wholly agreeing with you, as your previous posts demonstrate.”

          I challenge you to review my exchanges with sn53, beginning in the thread he started called “Preemptive Surrender Disorder”, where you will see that he is obviously [b]very able[/b] to engage in rational dialogue, with someone who, to put it mildly, “isn’t wholly agreeing with” him.

        • #2541519

          Abso and me

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          abso wrote, “I challenge you to review my exchanges with sn53, beginning in the thread he started called “Preemptive Surrender Disorder”, where you will see that he is obviously very able to engage in rational dialogue, with someone who, to put it mildly, “isn’t wholly agreeing with” him.”

          What? We didn’t agree? I suppose we didn’t. But that is okay. I enjoyed it and learned a few things in the bargain. Among the things I learned is that every one is at least as complex as I am.

          For those who have not come by I invite you. I do not expect many of you to agree with me. If many did the Democrats would not have won, not even by the slim margins they managed, and we would not be in a position where the Dangerous party would control this nation.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211753&messageID=2174443

        • #2541374

          Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          But, in that same discussion, and elsewhere, is clear evidence to the contrary as well.

        • #2542138

          deepsand: Was that [i]ad hominem[/i], or do we need to use the Latin…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          for “squirrel”? Perhaps you have invented a brand new category, the [i]argumentum ad rodentum[/i] fallacy!

        • #2541998

          Absolutely: Sorry, but my Latin’s a bit rusty.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          And, there is no fallacy in my statement re. sn53.

          That he may occasionally give the appearance of engaging in rational discourse does not mean that he generally, let alone always, does so.

        • #2531638

          Re. “A claimed “fact” based on less than 100% certainty is a lie.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not at all.

          Really? Clearly you fail to understand the scientific method.

          Furthermore, do you in fact live your life based only on those things which are certain, i.e. 100% guaranteed to be true, to happen, to have happened, etc.? I think not.

          Most importantly, as re. the matter at hand, using your own stated criteria, since it is [b]not 100% established[/b] that man bears no responsibility for climate change, the claim that such is the case is [b]false[/b].

        • #2539733

          What is important?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

          oz wrote, “At first the debate was man-caused global warming. Well nobody has stated that we CAUSED global warming…”

          Really? Isn’t that the whole point of the global warming crowd? After all, if we are not causing global warming then there not much to fear-monger over is there?

          “Man’s emissions INCREASING the natural effects is the real debate, get on track.”

          You go where you want. I will do the same. A radio talk show host mentioned, today, while I was driving home, that humans are responsible for less than 4% of all of the carbon dioxide emissions. I don’t know if that is a valid number or not. It really doesn’t matter. We have important matters to resolve. This is not one of them.

        • #2531634

          Re. “We have important matters to resolve.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to What is important?

          Yes; and, perhaps one of these days you’ll figure out what they are. For the present, however, you are, by your own self-imposed ignorance of the facts, clueless.

    • #2536302

      You can’t say that the amount is too small to

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      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.

      • #2536298

        Chaos Theory and American-made Global Warming

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to You can’t say that the amount is too small to

        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.

        • #2536284

          Chaos theory

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Chaos Theory and American-made Global Warming

          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?

        • #2536271

          Gleick’s Book

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Chaos theory

          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?

        • #2536265

          Where do we draw the line

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Gleick’s Book

          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.

        • #2536261

          Pure Greed?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Where do we draw the line

          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?

        • #2536256

          You can’t cost environmental concerns

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Pure Greed?

          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.

        • #2536247

          Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Gleick’s Book

          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.

        • #2535392

          If CO2 was only a byproduct of breathing

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          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

        • #2535321

          Don’t forget food and sex

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to If CO2 was only a byproduct of breathing

          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.

        • #2537304

          So SN as a self confessed addict

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to If CO2 was only a byproduct of breathing

          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? 😀

          Col

        • #2535265

          CO2 is not a pollutant?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          Lost for words.

          Stumped.

          Any response is obviously a complete waste of my time.

        • #2535263

          A complete waste of your time

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          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.

        • #2535210

          sn53: Not at nighttime, they don’t.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          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!

        • #2535208

          Pollutants – oxygen and carbon dioxide. Perspective

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          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.

        • #2537301

          Just out of curiosity

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          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. 😀

          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

        • #2536248

          Great!

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Chaos theory

          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.

        • #2536240

          Al Gore is a Threat – Not Speculation

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Great!

          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.

        • #2535383

          So what pray tell me are you doing about

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Al Gore is a Threat – Not Speculation

          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

        • #2535357

          Not Talking About Elected Officials

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to So what pray tell me are you doing about

          I am talking about Al Gore, the citizen.

          I have no comments on elected officials.

        • #2535386

          Well in that case

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Great!

          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

        • #2535320

          It is a religion

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Well in that case

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

        • #2535276

          As religions are based on “revealed” truths, it seems that your’s …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It is a religion

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

        • #2537300

          Well it’s a religion for someone

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It is a religion

          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

        • #2535273

          I don’t care what the politicians think

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Great!

          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.

        • #2535264

          Comingling pollution control and climate change

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to I don’t care what the politicians think

          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.

        • #2535249

          Because unlike you we know CO2 is a pollutant

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Comingling pollution control and climate change

          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?

        • #2535203

          All of your points were good enough for me

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to I don’t care what the politicians think

          Hi Tony,

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

          Thanks.

        • #2536190

          “What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Great!

          It is not. Warmer oceans mean that when tropical storms occur, they will be more severe than previously. Climatologists, not just those employed by the UN, are in unanimous agreement on this. If you can posit any benefits that might counter the cost represented by worse hurricanes, typhoons, etc., please do so.

        • #2535992

          a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to “What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind?”

          Abso wrote, “It is not.”

          Okay. So you think people were better off during the last ice age?

          Fine by me. But I think we are going to have climate change no matter how many freedoms you force me to give up. And some people will benefit and some people will lose in exactly the same ways as have occurred throughout the life of this planet.

        • #2535775

          I can’t wait to see this!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          No, having stronger hurricanes is not a benefit.

          No, I do not think people were better off during the last ice age: I’m not talking about gradual changes in temperature that happen naturally over many centuries, I’m talking about more sudden changes in average temperature, measurable over much shorter periods.

          No, I haven’t suggested you give up any freedoms. I think the Left should put more money into manufacturing & research, to create the alternatives they want, not whine for the government to do it for them. But you didn’t ask me that, you just assumed.

        • #2516388

          The truth comes out – it’s about your freedom to f*ck up the world.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

        • #2516291

          Freedom and swinging fists or wielding political coercive power

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          deep wrote, “The truth comes out – it’s about your freedom to f*ck up the world.
          Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.”

          And vice versa. I am only asking to be left alone. You and your green/socialist allies are asking for my enslavement. No thank you.

        • #2534111

          Your right “be left alone” is not without limitations.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          Such exists [b]only[/b] to the extent that it does not affect others.

          You have [b]no right[/b] to adversely affect the quality of my life or that of others simply because you desire to so act.

        • #2533342

          No, deepsand, but with few limitations, and prohibitive standards of proof.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          [i]Your right “be left alone” is not without limitations.
          Such exists only to the extent that it does not affect others.

          You have no right to adversely affect the quality of my life or that of others simply because you desire to so act.[/i]

          I refer you to Amendment 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

        • #2533961

          Re. “prohibitive standards of proof”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          The right of [i]any[/i] person to swing his fist ends where my nose begins.

          It is this that sn53 refuses to accept.

        • #2533883

          Right of a person to swing fist ends at any other person’s nose.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          I cannot imagine sn53 arguing against that principle. With that common ground accepted, let’s argue about which side is the swinging fist in the ‘global warming’ debate and which is the nose.

        • #2533813

          re: fist vs. nose

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          It’s not quite that straightforward, on the “global warming alarmist” side of the debate — though it is basically that straightforward on the “global warming denier” side, at the moment.

          1. alarmist:
          The fist (pollution) is swinging at a punching bag (the environment). There may or may not be a person standing on the other side (global warming) — because it’s a heavy-bag, the puncher can’t tell without walking around to the other side. Some people claim there’s a person on the other side, some claim it’s just a reflection of a person in the mirrors on the wall. None of them have yet made it all the way around the bag to check.

          2. denier
          The fist (governmental economic regulation) has already bloodied the nose (market freedom). It may swing again. It’s likely, given time, that the nose will break. The only question is whether that swinging of the fist is some form of self-defense — and that relies on point 1. If it’s not self defense, it’s assault.

        • #2526669

          Pejorative terms, such as “alarmist,” serve only to interject subjectivity.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          To characterize all who believe that there is scientific evidence suggestive of a serious problem worthy of consideration as being “alarmists” is naught but [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i].

        • #2526280

          Pejorative terms, such as “denier,” serve only to interject subjectivity.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          To characterize all who believe that there is [b]not[/b] scientific evidence suggestive of a serious problem worthy of consideration as being “deniers” is naught but [i]argumentum ad hominem.[/i]

          Apotheon has applied the commonly used pejoratives to both sides, leading me to suspect that he is quite aware of his own biases, and alert to ours. He is still my favorite for “impartial moderator”, but I suspect he is less than enthusiastic about undertaking the task.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2195803

          Who could blame him? Who on Earth, and for what reason, would wish to interject himself into such a feud?

        • #2532133

          Selective use of “naysayers” was not subjective.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          I reserve that term for those who, out of hand, dismiss that it is possible that global warming and/or man’s ability to affect climate is extant.

          Those who simply question whether or not such is the case are deemed to be skeptics.

        • #2531885

          Are different types of ‘deniers’ being lumped together?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          There are threee types:

          People who deny that global warming is happenning.

          People who deny that humans are responsible.

          People who deny that there is enough evidence to make a definitive conclusion.

        • #2527947

          Tony: Those who are the problem are those who …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          will not examine the data with an open mind.

        • #2527047

          Thanks, Absolutely.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          You made my point for me nicely — I was (tongue firmly in cheek) attempting to apply brief, common terms, pejorative to be sure, to both sides equally. The point was basically to achieve a balance of biases rather than a (highly improbable) complete lack of biases, and to interject a little subtle humor while I was at it.

          By the way, you’ve hit my level of motivation pretty squarely, I think. I’m willing, and probably quite able, but that doesn’t mean I don’t expect it to be a mostly thankless task fraught with pitfalls and hairpin turns (to mix a metaphor). I’m also pleased to see your faith in my abilities in that regard.

        • #2531857

          Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to “What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind?”

          deep wrote, “Selective use of “naysayers” was not subjective.
          I reserve that term for those who, out of hand, dismiss that it is possible that global warming and/or man’s ability to affect climate is extant.”

          Uh-huh. Aren’t you the same person who objects to me using one simple, easily understood umbrella term, Islamofascist, to describe radical Islamic leaders?

          Are you doomed then to being an amateur ecofascist since you are clearly unable to use nuance to describe each of our individual differences?

        • #2528126

          Outstanding!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          If you can’t keep them honest, at least keep them consistent!

        • #2527942

          [i]Non sequitur[/i]

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          If you wish to compare apples and oranges, you’ll need to find a different player.

        • #2527940

          Outstanding?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          To whom are you attributing inconsistence?

      • #2536286

        A Threshold \ Chaos Theory

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to You can’t say that the amount is too small to

        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?

        • #2536277

          Well you are getting your wish aren’t you

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to A Threshold \ Chaos Theory

          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.

        • #2536246

          Why chose Carbon?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to A Threshold \ Chaos Theory

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

        • #2536225

          Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Why chose Carbon?

          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.

        • #2535398

          re. “The problem is no one is considering this.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          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.

        • #2536179

          “Based on computations I have worked…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          Will you post those computations?

        • #2516383

          He’ll first need some time to cobble something together.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “Based on computations I have worked…”

          Just don’t look too closely under the hood.

        • #2516196

          I rather suspect that having come to Yoodler’s aide, Fluxit…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to He’ll first need some time to cobble something together.

          will not return to TechRepublic. He seemed not to have much to say beyond repetition of Yoodler’s…musings.

        • #2516214

          Sorry so long to reply to this

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          but I just now saw it.

          [i]mainly CO2[/i]

          I cannot let that go unchallenged.

          C02 accounts for only about 4% of the “greenhouse gasses” in our atmosphere. How do you get “mainly” based on that?

        • #2516194

          The molecule [i]most increasing[/i], I believe

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Sorry so long to reply to this

          As I posted to deepsand above, I think Fluxit has departed. I think that “mainly CO2” refers to CO2 being the one molecule increasing most rapidly in the atmosphere.

        • #2516186

          “…increased from ~360 gigatons (Gt)–mainly as CO2…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The molecule [i]most increasing[/i], I believe

          Science 16 June 2006:
          Vol. 312. no. 5780, pp. 1612 – 1613
          DOI: 10.1126/science.1128908

          Perspectives
          CLIMATE CHANGE:
          Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget
          Sergey A. Zimov1, Edward A. G. Schuur2, F. Stuart Chapin III3

          The carbon content of Earth’s atmosphere has increased from ~360 gigatons (Gt)–mainly as CO2–during the last glacial maximum to ~560 Gt during preindustrial times and ~730 Gt today. These changes reflect redistributions among the main global carbon reservoirs. The largest such reservoir is the ocean (40,000 Gt, of which 2500 Gt is organic carbon), followed by soils (1500 Gt) and vegetation (650 Gt). There is also a large geological reservoir, from which ~6.5 Gt of carbon are released annually to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

          Permafrost (permanently frozen ground) is an additional large carbon reservoir that is rarely incorporated into analyses of changes in global carbon reservoirs. Here we illustrate the importance of permafrost carbon in the global carbon budget by describing the past and potential future dynamics of frozen loess (windblown dust, termed yedoma in Siberia) that was deposited during the glacial age, covering more than 1 million km2 of the north plains of Siberia and Central Alaska to an average depth of ~25 m.

          The frozen yedoma represents relict soils of the mammoth steppe-tundra ecosystem that occupied this territory during glacial times (1). As windblown or river-borne materials accumulated on the soil surface, the bottom of the previously thawed soil layer became incorporated into permafrost. These sediments contain little of the humus that characterizes modern ecosystems of the region, but they comprise large amounts of grass roots (see the figure) and animal bones, resulting in a carbon content that is much higher than is typical of most thawed mineral soils. Frozen yedoma deposits across Siberia and Alaska typically have average carbon contents from 2% to 5%–roughly 10 to 30 times the amount of carbon generally found in deep, nonpermafrost mineral soils.

          Using an overall average carbon concentration for yedoma of ~2.6%, as well as the typical bulk density, average thickness, and ice-wedge content of the yedoma, we estimate the carbon reservoir in frozen yedoma to be ~500 Gt (2). Another ~400 Gt of carbon are contained in nonyedoma permafrost (excluding peatlands) (3), and 50 to 70 Gt reside in the peatbogs of western Siberia (4). These preliminary estimates indicate that permafrost is a large carbon reservoir, intermediate in size between those of vegetation and soils.

          Our laboratory incubations and field experiments show that the organic matter in yedoma decomposes quickly when thawed, resulting in respiration rates of initially 10 to 40 g of carbon per m3 per day, and then 0.5 to 5 g of carbon per m3 per day over several years. These rates are similar to those of productive northern grassland soils. If these rates are sustained in the long term, as field observations suggest, then most carbon in recently thawed yedoma will be released within a century–a striking contrast to the preservation of carbon for tens of thousands of years when frozen in permafrost.

          Some local thawing of yedoma occurs independently of climate change. When permafrost ice wedges thaw, the ground subsides (thermokarst), forming lakes. The abundant thermokarst lakes on yedoma territory migrate across the plains as thawing and subsidence occur along their margins. During the Holocene (the past 10,000 years), about half of the yedoma thawed beneath these migratory lakes and then refroze when the lakes had moved on.

          The yedoma carbon beneath the thermokarst lakes is decomposed by microbes under anaerobic conditions, producing methane that is released to the atmosphere primarily by bubbling (5). Near eroding lake shores, methane bubbling is so high that channels through the lake ice remain open all winter. During a thaw/freeze cycle associated with lake migration, ~30% of yedoma carbon is decomposed by microbes and converted to methane. As a potent greenhouse gas, this methane contributes to climate warming.

          In response to climate warming, permafrost sediments have already begun to thaw (6), with extreme projections that almost all yedoma will thaw by the end of the 21st century (7). What would happen to the carbon derived from permafrost if high-latitude warming continues?

          The unique isotopic signature of permafrost carbon provides clues from past warming episodes, such as the transition from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene. The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C). Methane, CO2, and dissolved organic carbon released from thawing yedoma have a radiocarbon age reflecting the time when the yedoma was formed in the glacial age, differentiating the permafrost carbon signal from emissions from other reservoirs that have a modern radiocarbon age.

          For example, the release of a large pool of radiocarbon-depleted carbon from permafrost could have contributed to declines in atmospheric radiocarbon during two strong warming events that occurred during the last deglaciation. These radiocarbon changes have previously been attributed to an assumed increase in deep- and mid-ocean venting, because no terrestrial pool that could readily release ancient carbon (such as permafrost carbon) was included in the analysis (8).

          Figure 1 Ancient soils. (Left) Exposed carbon-rich soils from the mammoth steppe-tundra along the Kolyma River in Siberia. The soils are 53 m thick; massive ice wedges are visible. (Right) Soil close-up showing 30,000-year-old grass roots preserved in the permafrost.

          CREDIT: S. A. ZIMOV

          Carbon loss from permafrost may also have contributed to past changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. During the last glacial maximum, permafrost extended south to 45?N in Europe and to 40?N in North America. About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed in the early Holocene (9, 10). If this frozen loess initially had a carbon concentration similar to the average for yedoma (2.6% C) and decreased to the carbon concentration of the current soils (0.15% C), it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon at the beginning of the Holocene. Additional carbon was presumably released by thawing of nonloess permafrost (river-borne, slope, and glacial sediments).

          Most researchers assume that the terrestrial carbon reservoir declined by 300 to 700 Gt at the last glacial maximum as a result of ice sheet formation and a decline in forest area. This terrestrial carbon was assumed to have been transferred to the oceans (11). However, these estimates ignore the soils and peat buried in frozen moraines beneath glaciers (380 Gt) (12) and assume that the broad expanses (~24 million km2) of steppe-tundra had a carbon content typical of polar deserts (4 to 40 Gt) (13, 14). The assumed soil carbon content for steppe-tundra in Siberia was only 0.1 kg m-2 (13).

          We can now provide a more accurate estimate of the carbon content of the steppe-tundra based on direct measurements. The carbon content of lowland steppe-tundra soils in Siberia and Alaska is ~2.6% with an active-layer depth of about 1 m, yielding ~42 kg of carbon per m2. In mountains, the carbon content is about 50% less, giving an average carbon content for the steppe-tundra biome of ~30 kg per m2 and a total carbon content of ~720 Gt. Taking into account frozen loess (500 Gt), steppe-tundra soils (720 Gt), sediments beneath ice sheets (380 Gt), and other frozen sediments, we hypothesize that the total terrestrial carbon reservoir did not decrease in glacial times but instead may have even absorbed several hundred gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and ocean.

          The decline in the 13C/12C ratio in marine dissolved inorganic carbon, recorded in shells of foraminifera, in glacial times is usually taken as strong evidence of transfer of terrestrial carbon to the ocean (11). However, the size and isotopic composition of the marine reservoir of organic carbon are similar to those on land (15), making it difficult to identify changes in the relative sizes of marine and terrestrial organic reservoirs. A decline in marine productivity (perhaps associated with reduced vertical mixing and reduced illumination under ice) might lead to a net release of depleted 13C from marine organic carbon reservoirs that could instead have caused the decreased foraminifera isotope ratio. Recent reanalysis of data from marine sediment cores shows that biological productivity and carbon export to ocean sediments were substantially reduced at the middle of the last glacial cycle in all oceans. At the last glacial maximum, biological productivity in the Atlantic Ocean increased, but in the much larger Pacific Ocean it decreased (16). Independent of carbon transfers between land and ocean, the reduction in alkalinity associated with the lower atmospheric CO2 concentration at the last glacial maximum could also explain the reduced 13C/12C ratio of foraminifera (17). Given this estimate of permafrost carbon storage on land, the redistribution of carbon during glacial periods is a fertile area for reassessment. Permafrost is a globally significant carbon reservoir that responds to climate change in a unique and very simple way: With warming, its spatial extent declines, causing rapid carbon loss; with cooling, the permafrost reservoir refills slowly, a dynamic that mirrors the past atmospheric record of CO2. In a warmer climate, permafrost carbon is thus likely to become part of more actively cycling carbon reservoirs. Factors inducing high-latitude climate warming should be mitigated to minimize the risk of a potentially large carbon release that would further increase climate warming.

          Referenes and Notes

          1. A. V. Sher et al., Quat. Sci. Rev. 24, 533 (2005). [CrossRef]
          2. In our calculation, we assumed a bulk density of 1.65 tons per m3, a yedoma thickness of 25 m, and an ice-wedge content of 50%.
          3. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Arctic (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2005). [publisher’s information]
          4. L. C. Smith et al., Science 303, [353] (2004).
          5. S. A. Zimov et al., Science 277, [800] (1997).
          6. V. E. Romanovsky et al., Tohoku Geophys. J. 36, 224 (2001).
          7. D. M. Lawrence, A. G. Slater, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L24401 (2005). [CrossRef]
          8. K. A. Hughen et al., Science 290, [1951] (2000).
          9. A. L. Washburn, Geocryology. A Survey of Periglacial Processes and Environments (Edward Arnold, London, 1979).
          10. A. A. Velichko, Prirodnyi Process v Pleistocene (Nauka, Moscow, 1973).
          11. M. I. Bird et al., Nature 371, 566 (1994). [CrossRef]
          12. N. Zeng, Adv. Atmos. Sci. 20, 677 (2003).
          13. J. M. Adams et al., Nature 348, 711 (1990). [CrossRef]
          14. P. Friedlingstein et al., J. Geophys. Res. 100, 7203 (1995). [CrossRef]
          15. V. Brovkin et al., Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 3, 1027 (2002). [CrossRef]
          16. K. E. Kohfeld et al., Science 308, [74] (2005).
          17. H. J. Spero et al., Nature 390, 497 (1997). [CrossRef]

          10.1126/science.1128908
          1S. A. Zimov is at the North-East Scientific Station, Pacific Institute for Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Cherskii, Republic of Sakha 678830, Russia. E-mail: sazimov@cher.sakha.ru

          2E. A. G. Schuur is in the Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

          3F. S. Chapin III is at the Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000, USA.

        • #2534091

          It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Sorry so long to reply to this

          It is not that “greenhouse gasses” serve to block the [i]conduction[/i] of thermal energy, but that CO2 and H2O serve to reflect the [i]radiation[/i] of such.

          http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png

        • #2533850

          So now

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          water’s bad too?!?!?

        • #2533732

          And of course,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          that still doesn’t help explain why the earth has been warmer in the past… with [b]less[/b] CO2.

        • #2533091

          TonytheTiger: Warmer in the past – When? Less CO2 – How much?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          Source of your info?

        • #2534546

          Source Abs

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          for about the sixth time 🙂

          http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

        • #2526666

          Yes, Tony, water [i]VAPOR[/i].

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          And, to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, that the Earth may have at some time been warmer with a lower level of atmospheric CO2 does [b]not[/b] serve to diminish the fact that, [b]for [i]any[/i] given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.[/b]

        • #2526277

          Assumes [i]ceteris paribus[/i] deepsand.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          [b]Yes, Tony, water VAPOR.[/b]
          [i]And, to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, that the Earth may have at some time been warmer with a lower level of atmospheric CO2 does not serve to diminish the fact that, for any given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.[/i]

          [b]Other things being equal[/b], “for any given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.” Cyclical temperature fluctuations, and the observation that these fluctuations lead rather than follow changes in CO2 concentrations, tends to suggest a more complex, dynamic equilibrium, and to contraindicate application of [i]ceteris paribus[/i] as assumption. It may yet apply, but proof is in order.

        • #2532131

          Absolutely: not based on observations, but on underlying physical …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          processes.

          Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.

          Now, enclose said body in a shell of matter that is not completely transparent to IR. Now, some of the energy that would otherwise have been shed by said body will be confined to that body and any matter between it and said shell. The new equilibrium temperature of said body will now be higher than that in the absence of said shell.

        • #2532057

          Do you REALLY believe your crap???????

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          deepsand said, [i]”Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.[/i]

          You’re an idiot, deepsand. To even spew such nonsense proves an imbalanced mind. You’re an absolute fool.

        • #2532050

          That’s laughable!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          deepsand said, [i]”Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.”[/i]

          That’s laughable. If you really take yourself seriously, you’re deranged.

        • #2532048

          deepsand is the kind of person. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          ….who believes in man-caused global warming. He says it all! This is the kind of person you global warming advocates are aligned with! YOU’re ALL IDIOTS!!!!!!!

          deepsand said, [i]”Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.”[/i]

        • #2527954

          max, study Physics, and then tell me with a straight face that I’m wrong.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          Until then, you seem to have nothing to offer with regards to matters of Science.

        • #2535399

          Because it’s the [i]net gain[/i] in thermal energy that counts, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Why chose Carbon?

          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.

    • #2535517

      Some Interesting Numbers

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      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.

      • #2535510

        Or it could just be the Sun

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        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.

        • #2535492

          It Could Be!

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Or it could just be the Sun

          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.

      • #2535412

        Well, that’s not quite the whole story.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        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!

      • #2535352

        Nice figures but you’ve forgotten

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        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

      • #2535349

        Lack of understanding…

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        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 3×10^12 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 😀

      • #2535184

        OK To Answer All…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        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.

        • #2537269

          Sources

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to OK To Answer All…

          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.

        • #2536163

          “According to NASA 30% of the energy…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK To Answer All…

          “According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained…”

          I was able to confirm that much:

          “Not all of this light is absorbed by the Earth. Roughly 30 percent of the total solar energy that strikes the Earth is reflected back into space by clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, desert sand, rooftops, and even ocean surf. The remaining 70 percent of the TSI is absorbed by the land, ocean, and atmosphere. In addition, different layers of the Earth and atmosphere tend to absorb different wavelengths of light. Only one percent of the TSI, mostly in the form of UV radiation, is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, mainly by stratospheric ozone. Twenty to 24 percent of the TSI and a majority of the near infrared radiation is absorbed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), mainly by water vapor, trace gases, clouds, and darker aerosols. The remaining 46 to 50 percent of predominately visible light penetrates the atmosphere and is taken in by the land and the oceans.”

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_02.html

          However, I could not confirm the latter clause:

          “According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained [b]then 100% of that is re-radiated again back into outerspace.[/b]”

          What I did read, at the same page cited above:

          “For the Earth to remain at a stable temperature, the amount of longwave radiation streaming from the Earth must be equal to the total amount of absorbed radiation from the Sun.”

        • #2535991

          There is that mention of the sun again

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to “According to NASA 30% of the energy…”

          “For the Earth to remain at a stable temperature, the amount of longwave radiation streaming from the Earth must be equal to the total amount of absorbed radiation from the Sun.”

          So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets warmer.

        • #2535972

          Nobody said the sun isn’t involved.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There is that mention of the sun again

          “So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets (a bit) warmer.”

          Science requires quantifying your claims.

        • #2537218

          This is funny

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Nobody said the sun isn’t involved.

          I said, “So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets (a bit) warmer.”

          Abso said, “Science requires quantifying your claims.”

          Well. Let us think about the options. Either it gets warmer, stays the same or gets cooler. If I am standing next to a blazing fire and it gets hotter am I likely to stay the same, get cooler, or will I get a little bit warmer? My experience says I will get warmer. What does yours tell you?

        • #2537173

          This is funnier!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to This is funny

          [i]I said, “So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets (a bit) warmer.”

          Abso said, “Science requires quantifying your claims.”

          Well. Let us think about the options. Either it gets warmer, stays the same or gets cooler. If I am standing next to a blazing fire and it gets hotter am I likely to stay the same, get cooler, or will I get a little bit warmer? My experience says I will get warmer. What does yours tell you? [/i]

          Flawless logic – as far as it goes!

          If you’re trapped inside an insulating chimney, you will get hotter than if you are standing next to a well-ventilated campfire!

          :p

          PS I appreciate your comments about the science, to the effect that if it’s true, it will make provable predictions & if it isn’t, it will not. I guess you do know something about science. How much, you haven’t shown, but at least you do understand its basic workings. Well said!

        • #2515187

          Knowing about science

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to This is funny

          Abso said, “PS I appreciate your comments about the science, to the effect that if it’s true, it will make provable predictions & if it isn’t, it will not. I guess you do know something about science. How much, you haven’t shown, but at least you do understand its basic workings. Well said!”

          Yes. I know something about science. I know something about engineering. I know something about history. I know something about the military.

          Thank you.

        • #2515155

          I should have said…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to This is funny

          “a campfire in an open camp”, maybe with a cool breeze. There’s something funny-looking about a “well-ventilated campfire”.

          Oh well, I’ve written more important things than that, badly.

        • #2516379

          You long ago ceased being funny.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to This is funny

          You obviously have no intention of engaging in a discussion re. the scientific issues here involved; rather, you seek to simply pursue your denial of anything and everything that fails to comport with your perceived right to act in a manner that is irresponsible and detrimental to others by way of nonsensical verbalizations.

        • #2516380

          Only if it’s not reflected and/or re-radiated.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to There is that mention of the sun again

          Stop over-simplifying.

          If you know the sciences involved, then state them honestly; if you don’t know, don’t pretend, and don’t make flippant and specious remarks.

        • #2516290

          The discussion; science or politics?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to There is that mention of the sun again

          deep wrote, “You obviously have no intention of engaging in a discussion re. the scientific issues here involved;”
          Conversely, you have no intention of discussing the far more dangerous political issues involved.

          Therefore we have no common ground upon which to discourse.

        • #2534109

          Form follows Function.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The discussion; science or politics?

          Policy follows Facts.

          Get the facts straight [b]before[/b] you determine the appropriate policy.

        • #2535101

          Origins of policy

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Form follows Function.

          deep wrote, “Policy follows Facts. Get the facts straight before you determine the appropriate policy.”

          This is sage advice seldom followed in the real world. Take, as an example, the theory of man-caused global warming. There are data
          that have been fitted into speculative models whose end states range from a one to five degree average global temperature change over the next one hundred years. Each of these outcomes is deemed to be catastrophic, resulting in cities under water, the destruction of plant life, the extinction of animals and even an increase in allergies for the unlucky survivors. The policy that always derives from these speculative models is to force America to live in a primitive state.

          I am willing to wait on developing the policy until after the facts have been thoroughly established and proved by experience rather than merely by modeling.

        • #2535080

          [i]deep wrote, “Policy follows Facts….”[/i]

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Form follows Function.

          [i]deep wrote, “Policy follows Facts. Get the facts straight before you determine the appropriate policy.”

          This is sage advice [b]seldom followed in the real world.[/b][/i]

          Do you agree that if that “sage advice” is heeded in the real world more often, the real world would be a [b]better place[/b]? What would you say to changing the format of the ‘global warming conspiracy’ vs. ‘no global warming conspiracy’ [b]debate[/b] to something more like [b]cross-examination[/b] of the prosecutions’ witnesses?

          [i]Take, as an example, the theory of man-caused global warming. There are data
          that have been fitted into speculative models whose end states range from a one to five degree average global temperature change over the next one hundred years.[/i]

          That looks to me very much like something a defense attorney might say about the case against your witness.

          [i]Each of these outcomes is deemed to be catastrophic, resulting in cities under water, the destruction of plant life, the extinction of animals and even an increase in allergies for the unlucky survivors. The policy that always derives from these speculative models is to force America to live in a primitive state.[/i]

          ‘Your honor, you cannot be [b]seriously considering[/b] a life sentence of universal poverty, based on evidence that has not even passed the standards of ‘reasonable suspicion’, nor without [b]due process for the accused![/b]

          [i]I am willing to wait on developing the policy until after the facts have been thoroughly established and proved by experience rather than merely by modeling.[/i]

          However, we all know that the global warming zealots are not willing to wait as long as you are willing to wait. They’re after your liberty right now, and they mean it.

        • #2516382

          Several simple mistakes and errors of omission in that post.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to OK To Answer All…

          1) “[i]if 100% is radiated back into space …[/i]” It is [b]not[/b] the case that 100% of the influx of solar radiation is reflected and/or re-radiated.

          2) The net influx of solar radiation is at sub-IR wavelengths. Of that, some is reflected, with the balance absorbed. Of that portion absorbed, some is [b]re-radiated at IR wavelengths.[/b]

          3) Atmospheric components such as CO2 and H2O vapor absorb and re-radiate some of this IR radiation [b]back to Earth.[/b]

          4) Combustion of fossil based fuels yields, among others, CO2, H2O and [b]heat[/b].

          5) The byproducts name in 4) serves to both increase the amount of atmospheric components that serve to block the egress of IR radiation while at the same time generating IR radiation.

    • #2535470

      The Real Answer

      by rjpoirier_nb ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      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.

      • #2535438

        To blame or to thank

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to The Real Answer

        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?

      • #2535436

        Yeah, But Al Gore is Still To Blame!

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to The Real Answer

        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.

        • #2535396

          Yes, nuclear power is a viable option, one that much of the world accepts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Yeah, But Al Gore is Still To Blame!

          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.

        • #2535351

          A few problems associated with these

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yeah, But Al Gore is Still To Blame!

          [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

        • #2535212

          Where On Earth?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to A few problems associated with these

          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.

        • #2537295

          I’m really impressed with your Total Lack of Knowledge

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Where On Earth?

          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

    • #2535410

      Input of Solar radiation is but one input variable, …

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      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.

      • #2535318

        Is it the sun? Could it possibly be?

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to Input of Solar radiation is but one input variable, …

        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?

    • #2537527

      “Global Warming” is the biggest crock of crap ever. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      …..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.

    • #2537480

      The Great Global Warming Swindle

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

    • #2537479
    • #2537477
      • #2537437

        To a certain extent, I agree with you

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming

        The politicisation of this issue has me every bit as disturbed as it has you. In the US, so far, you are doing relatively little to reduce carbon emissions so the environmentalists are ramping up the rhetoric at an alarming rate with respect to the effects and the speed of onset. When I see environmental scepticism labelled as “Holocaust denial”, I get a trifle annoyed!

        Over here there’s still a lot of apathy and the politicians and committed doom merchants are at it as well. “Climate Catastrophe” is the new black.

        What do we do about getting a proper debate and independent research?

        • #2536181

          You and I couldn’t meet “half-way”, but we could. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to To a certain extent, I agree with you

          …..meet somewhere in between. I’m all for a clean environment, less (or no) pollution, etc, but there’s no way I’ll ever be convinced (at least with today’s “evidence”) that such pollution (or whatever you want to call it) parlays itself into affecting the global temperature and/or global climate, at least not on a permanent and/or catastrophic scale. I’ll certainly concede that snowfall, for example, can be made dirty falling through a polluted sky, but there’s no way that polluted sky (or emissions) is affecting the weather patterns. Hell, a weather forecaster is lucky to predict a week out; and these “expert climatologists” are predicting doom-and-gloom 100 years out. Give me a friggin’ break!

          If there was an impartial jury to hear the case, listening to both the prosecution and the defense, and they had to base their ruling on evidence that presented the case beyond a reasonable doubt, mankind would certainly be acquitted of causing global warming or climate change, or anything else other than dirty air. And no, it’s not even close enough to reasonable doubt to justify acting or being alarmed “just in case”. Add to that the fact that those screaming the loudest aren’t doing anything about it themselves, it all points to nothing but a big scam.

          And think about this. If “some” arctic ice IS melting, (but Antarctic ice isn’t) how can it be due to “global warming” air temperatures that never rise above zero degrees Fahrenheit? It’s colder than hell up there! And ice won’t melt with such cold temperatures. How is it happening then, one might ask? How about the INTERNAL temperatures of the earth, increasing volcanic activity, and such.

          Sorry, Neil. If I’m on the jury, I say not guilty to mankind for causing these things. Moreover, I say guilty to a lot of people for the attempted extortion of mankind.

        • #2537216

          What to do?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to To a certain extent, I agree with you

          neil said, “What do we do about getting a proper debate and independent research?”

          I wouldn’t worry about it. If there is anything to the science it will stand the test of time and peer review. We will all come around to agreeing with its assumptions, when it is shown that it can predict correctly what is occurring.

          But if it is not real it will fall on its own. That is why I say the “science” is less interesting than the politics, and lots less dangerous.

        • #2537016

          Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to What to do?

          It’s good to know that, as London sinks into he Thames, that I’ll be able to come over there and slap you a resounding “Told you so!”. Unless I’ve drowned, of course.

          🙂

          I will say, though, that the US politics is interesting. We have you, Max and others frothing at the mouth over the actions of politicians and scientists from the US, the world at large and ([i]shudder![/i]) the perfidious United Nations who you believe are all hell-bent on wrecking the US economy and enslaving your people into a lifetime of dependency hand-outs and control. Yet your government is doing NOTHING. The only policy that your government has on fuel use is a rather woolly strategy aimed at shafting the Arabs by using less ME oil and you’re even doing that ineffectually. Actually, “totally crap” would be a better description.

          SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

          Sit back, shut up and let the rest of the developed world tie itself in knots over Kyoto and others. Oh, you are. Except for the “shut up” bit, of course.

          All we did back in the Clinton days was ask you – nicely – to stop producing [b]quite[/b] so much carbon dioxide as you currently produce. Back then, you agreed (a bit) but since you’ve had this CLOWN in charge, you’d think that we wanted to bend you over a table and perform international rape!

          Ah, well. You saved our asses in five world wars, two alien invasions and at least six meteorite strikes so we should be grateful. I’d be speaking German, no, Russian, no, I’d be an incubator for a giant beetle inhabitant of the planet Smeeegheeed if it wasn’t for you.

          The planet is your plaything. We can’t stop you f’cking it up so we shouldn’t even try.

        • #2536961

          Neil said, [i]Yet your government is doing NOTHING[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          Okay, what’s your point? Personally speaking, I love it when our government does nothing. That’s what OUR government is supposed to be doing — NOTHING to infringe on individual liberties. When the time is right and when the people are so inclined, the market will do something.

          This is one thing I can point to as an illustration to PROVE the “global warming scare” is a bunch of bunk. If it were genuine, those “individuals” beating the drum the loudest would be DOING SOMETHING! But they’re not, and their inaction speaks volumes.

          In the meantime, I’m all in favor of our government DOING NOTHING!

        • #2536907

          Then why are YOU getting excited?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil said, [i]Yet your government is doing NOTHING[/i]

          You and sn53 and others are getting exactly what you want in terms of your government’s response to issues of climate change and yet the vitriol that you pour onto the “leftist environmentalist whacko traitors” is extreme.

          I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration and watch the World’s greatest polluter continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen. There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol’ US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn’t deny THAT, at least).

          I accept that we, as foreigners, have no “right” to say or do anything contrary to the will of the mighty US but you have to accept that at the very least “IT PISSES US OFF”.

          Ah well. We can wait and see what the next administration does.

          🙂

        • #2536900

          Do I really need to answer this?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Because there are forces, from both within and without, who ARE trying to force the government to do something. Without resistance and dissent, they’d get their way. But actually, if one really studies the “actions” of those advocates, one has to wonder why 8 years of a Clinton-Gore administration ALSO did nothing.

          P.S. The [i]”vitriol that you pour onto the leftist environmentalist whacko traitors is extreme”[/i]? Oh really? Well, Neil, those leftist environmentalist whacko traitors, of whom you speak, advocate having ME tried for crimes against humanity for my “global warming” denial. And you call ME extreme?

        • #2515348

          Yes, but I don’t

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          want to put you on trial for Climate Denial.

          Actually, I’m interested in finding out if you’ve really room to moan. I’ve had no exposure to what US politicians who have a real chance of wielding power want to do to you in the name of global warming. Could you point me at a couple of sources of what [b]might[/b] (i.e. there’s a good chance) be pushed on you by a Democrat administration so that I can compare them to the likes of Mayor Red Ken Livingstone and his aim to turn London into “The Greenest City in the World”.

          Neil 🙂

        • #2515307

          Why the global warming zealots are dangerous (Rant Warning!)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Frivolous lawsuits, in the name of global warming, being filed against auto makers (and others?). It will achieve absolutely nothing, except add to the cost of an automobile, not to mention the fact that it will place additional burdens on an already struggling auto industry. We need to find ways to boost our auto industry, not beat it down even more.

          CO2 “reduction measures”, by way of regulation and control. Any attempt at forcing business and industry to adopt “new technologies” before the natural market forces lead to such change, will only cost the consumer more to purchase that particular product or service.

          Carbon credits and/or carbon taxes, especially the ones being advanced by the United Nations. The power of taxation is the power of control. We’ve seen it in the USA since 1913, and the United Nations is foaming at the mouth to get its claws of control into the USA. No thanks. Moreover, if the USA’s very own global warming zealots get their way, you can bet your sweet bippie that some sort of carbon tax is on the horizon. (By the way, what’s a bippie?)

          The Democrat Party and the Democrat Party activists are using “global warming” as a wedge issue, one to influence people to vote for them. Their disingenuous claims are a veiled attempt to scare voters, hopefully securing their support for the sole purpose of gaining power. Once in power, they can then use their positions to advance their more socialist agenda (nationalized health care, for example, something that would never fly unless they’re in the majority).

          I could go on, but that will do for now.

          —– Rant warning!

          Bottom line: It never was, it isn’t now, and it never will be about [i]protecting the environment or saving the planet[/i]. It’s about control. Control over business and control over individual lives. Drive what I say you can drive, not what you want to drive. Sell what I say you can sell, not what you want to sell. Make it the way I tell you to make it, not how you think it should be made. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, but I won’t let you drill for your own. And on it goes.

          Not only that, but all the advocates make me want to puke. All the disingenuous Al Gores of the world are sickening. I don’t want them preaching to me, all the while not doing what they ask others to do. I can’t stand hypocrites, and they’re hypocrites of the worst kind. And to segue into another example, people like Bono preaching to the world to spend more money to “help the poor”, all the while taking his own money out of his very own country in order to avoid taxes. They’re all advocates for some pet cause, one that in reality, they couldn’t care less about. They do it to get exposure, to sell books, to sell films, and stroke their own over-inflated egos. And they take the public for being fools, trying to get them to buy into it. (Of course, some of them are so damn stupid, they have no idea what they’re spewing.)

          And it’s the politicians and advocates, not only leading the pack of global warming zealots, but who make up almost ALL of the “cause”. It’s 99 percent all this crap, and only 1 percent science. And people like Colin have the nerve to suggest I’m always dragging politics into the issue. He has it bass-ackwards!

          —– End of rant!

        • #2515176

          I don’t mean to pick on you Neil

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          “You and sn53 and others are getting exactly what you want in terms of your government’s response”

          True. Today. But there are socialists in the wings would would be King. They love Euro-socialists more than their country or its Constitution. We must remain vigilant.

          “…and yet the vitriol that you pour onto the “leftist environmentalist whacko traitors” is extreme.”

          Leftist environmental whacko is an accurate label. “Traitors” is another thread. It is for people who are working for their nation’s defeat. Being stupid is not traitorous, just stupid.

          “I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration”

          You may do as you wish with your own country. Just keep your hands off my freedoms and liberty. It really doesn’t matter that you “feel”.

          “and watch the World’s greatest polluter”

          Really? Is that some sort of a record? The World’s Greatest Polluter”? Wow. I had no idea. Everywhere I look around me is clean.

          The former communist nations are the truly dirty places, the truly polluted places.

          “continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen.”

          Or continue on as if global change has always occurred and will continue to occur. Even if it hurts your feelings.

          “There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol’ US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn’t deny THAT, at least).”

          My advice to you is for you to bloom where you were planted. If you feel strongly about it then do whatever you think you must in your country. And leave mine alone.

          “I accept that we, as foreigners, have no “right” to say or do anything contrary to the will of the mighty US”

          We agree after all.

          “but you have to accept that at the very least “IT PISSES US OFF”.”

          But you see, I don’t really care if you don’t like it. I think your real problem just might be p e n i s envy.

          “Ah well. We can wait and see what the next administration does.”

          Here is to hoping for a Euro-socialist to control the US. That really is the hope of the world, isn’t it?

        • #2515167

          re: “but you have to accept” – Au, contraire!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          [i]I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration and watch the World’s greatest polluter continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen. There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol’ US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn’t deny THAT, at least).[/i]

          Build me an electric…does Britain even manufacture any automobiles any more?

          I hope the irony isn’t lost on you, Neil.

        • #2515150

          maxwell edison is right: “It’s about control.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          You can see it in neilb’s message:

          “Actually, I’m interested in finding out if you’ve really room to moan. (Translation: I want to know if you’re likely to suffer enough for my liking.) I’ve had no exposure to what US politicians who have a real chance of wielding power want to do to you in the name of global warming. ([b]No exposure?[/b] You know a great deal about GWB’s climate policies, when it suits you to know [b]that![/b]) Could you point me at a couple of sources of what [b]might[/b] (i.e. there’s a good chance) be pushed on you by a Democrat administration so that I can compare them to the likes of Mayor Red Ken Livingstone and his aim to turn London into “The Greenest City in the World”. (Translation: I want to know if you’re likely to suffer as much as I expect to suffer.)

          maxwell edison:

          “It’s about control. Control over business and control over individual lives. Drive what I say you can drive, not what you want to drive. Sell what I say you can sell, not what you want to sell. Make it the way I tell you to make it, not how you think it should be made. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, but I won’t let you drill for your own. And on it goes.”

          People who expect the right to control they haven’t earned make me [b]sick![/b]

          Maxwell, I apologize for not being clearer about the politics of this issue all along. I’ve been recently paying attention to the cultural aspects of the various parties to this and some other debates, and I’m decided: Leftists can kiss my hairy mule!

          I’ll be looking into the scientific research you have posted to support your position next, but I plan to be thorough, so I might not say much about it for a while.

        • #2516054

          Absolutely: A few, but generally smaller engined…

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          But every bit as fast and mostly faster than the total slug of a car that I hired when I was in the US last.

          Irony only works if the statement that you make is actually obviously untrue.

          🙂

        • #2516029

          But of course Britain also produces such economical cars as

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          The Aston Martin, Land Rover, Jaguar, Lotus, TVR etc.

          Though to be fair there is a Jag with a diesel engine which is relatively economical.

          But it is true that Britains and europeans tend to drive smaller cars. Your roads are smaller, your city streets smaller, you gas incredibly expensive. You will find that places like Quebec City, which have narrow streets similar to European cities, also tend to favour small cars.

          I love watching Top Gear (BBC car show) review American cars and scowl, but simply put they are built for wider, straighter roads where handling is not as important, and gas is relatively cheap.

          James
          James

        • #2516004

          re: “Irony only works if…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          I completely forgot about Jaguar, Aston Martin, Land Rover, and your other marvels of fuel-efficiency!

          :p

        • #2515941

          How could I forget

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Rolls Royce, Bentley, Lotus….

          But to be fair again, Ford in UK builds mostly small cars as do Rover, Vauxhaul.

          You know what, I realize that in terms of numbers, UK has more auto manufacturers than the US, though some of them are in financial turmoil.

          James

        • #2515938

          Jaguar, Range Rover, etc

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          OK, I’ll take my lumps on those but until I see the likes of the Ford Ka or (bletch!) the Smart on US roads in large numbers, I’ll continue to reckon that I’m ahead on points.

          http://www.pepecar.com/img/vehiculo/ford_ka_g.jpg
          http://dailygameplan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fortwo_smart_car_5.jpg

          Neil :p

          p.s. Don’t come the old crap about you “driving more”. The reason that I owe Maxwell a steak is that I lost a bet about the difference in per capita miles between the US and UK and it was closer that I thought!

        • #2515932

          Smart Car and Ka

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Well actually there was the Ford Festiva which was sold in the US (it was a Kia, before Kias were marketed in NA).

          The Smart Car has been sold in Canada for a couple of years now – there are a few in my neighbourhood actually. I understand the Penkse group is going to import them into the US (in Canada, they are sold at Mercedes Benz dealers, as they are MB cars).

          The Smart Car by the way is roughly HALF the price of a Prius and gets pretty great mileage(in Canada its diesel only and gets about 60 mpg). But the Toyota Yaris is cheaper and seats 4, and gets pretty good mileage too.

          James

        • #2515927

          Neil, do you play poker?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          I’ve made a couple of “bets” with you: I lost the one about outfitting the space shuttle (or some other existing craft) so it could make a quick trip to the moon, but I lost nothing. But you lost a steak dinner with the other bet. Therefore, when I lose, I eat crow; when you lose, I eat steak. Either way I get fed.

          You gotta’ know when to hold em’, know when to fold em’, and know when to raise the stakes (or steaks!). Do you play poker? I’d love to invite you to a game.

          (But wait a minute, I’ve already choked on the crow, but have yet to feast on the steak!)

        • #2536949

          Neil, you said. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          [i]It’s good to know that, as London sinks into the Thames…..[/i]

          I assume you’re referring to the alleged “rising sea levels”. If so, how do you reply to this?

          Q: What is the most dangerous untrue “fact” about global warming that’s out there in the media-sphere?

          A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2185646

          (Or are you going to solely rely on discrediting that Singer fellow?)

        • #2515355

          Assume nothing

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil, you said. . . .

          London is sinking, anyway, a little faster than the historic sea-level rise as England is tilting. I think we can cope with a sustained, slow, predictable rise in sea level.

          The real issue is if the weather systems get more energetic due to increased energy input from warmer seas. London is vulnerable to storm surges down the North Sea and this is why we have a barrier across the Thames to prevent very high tides from funnelling up the Thames. The tidal range outside of my window is up to 23 feet on a normal spring tide and there’s only about 4 feet of clearance to the top of the river wall. (It’s around this level that they shut the barrier.) It wouldn’t take much of a tidal surge at high spring tide to trash the city. The sort of values that surges currently have are around 8 feet for a good storm. The highest storm surge in the last five hundred years plus a high spring tide would top the existing barrier tomorrow if it happened.

          As for the sea-level rise. Yes, of course, it has been regular for a considerable length of time. The projections are, though, for it to accelerate [b]in the future[/b] so any number of studies showing what [b]has[/b] happened won’t do either of us any good in predicting what [b]will[/b] happen.

          Neil 😀

          As for Singer, I’ve no wish or need to discredit him. He’s just on the other end of the skeptical bell-curve from the “environmentalist whackos”.

        • #2515174

          Predictions

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          neil wrote, “The projections are, though, for it to accelerate in the future so any number of studies showing what has happened won’t do either of us any good in predicting what will happen.”

          There just may be a reason why the doom and gloom is all projected/predicted.

          If the science is real it will stand the test of time and peer review. We have the time as the gloomy predictions are all in the future. We must act NOW because if we don’t my model shows I will lose my funding…

        • #2515017

          Let’s say there is no such thing as human caused

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          global warming, but there is global warming.
          So sea level’s are rising, so coastal areas will end up under water.

          So seeing as it’s not ‘our’ fault we do nothing? We sit in our deck chairs and hope the trend reverses before the water washes our hankies off our heads?

          Huh?

          In the words of Mr Cheney.

          If you uropeans want to make your industries less profitable by dealing with pollution, go right ahead, we are going to make more bucks.

          Live on CNN, he said that, p1ssed off the rest of the world in one sentence.

          Making a buck now is more important to america than the future of the human race.

          Blame him, not your democrats and not us.
          Him and people like him are as guilty of the polarisation and politicisation of the issue as stumpy the commie eco-freak.

        • #2515954

          Tony, are you always so ignorant?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          You asked, [i]”Let’s say there is no such thing as human caused global warming, but there is global warming. So sea level’s are rising, so coastal areas will end up under water. So seeing as it’s not ‘our’ fault we do nothing? We sit in our deck chairs and hope the trend reverses before the water washes our hankies off our heads? Huh?”[/i]

          No, Tony. You deal with it. Are you so feeble that you need someone to hold your hand and tell you what to do? You just deal with things that happen in life, Tony. You just deal with them and do what’s necessary!

          The rest of your message is pure and meaningless crap.

          You said, [i]”Making a buck now is more important to America than the future of the human race…”[/i]

          Get real, you pompous ignorant jerk! (And you wonder why many Americans, including this one, couldn’t care less what you think!)

        • #2515945

          Dealing with natural disasters and/or natural changes

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          I’m amazed at how people are so feeble and helpless when it comes to dealing with life. Not to mention people’s inability to cope in society without having to vote themselves the fruits of another’s labor, but whenever the wind blows they’re friggin’ helpless. Our very own California coast is eroding, but if the New Orleans residents lived on top of the hill, they wouldn’t have the sense to move east without someone holding their hands telling them where to go and what to do. Are Londoners like that as well, Tony? Are you so helpless that you won’t know what to do if the waters rise?

          It’s said the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and what may have started out as good intentions to help people has ended up making them as helpless as little babies. The [i]”government is there to solve all problems”[/i] mentality has created a bunch of dependents and/or pansies.

          I pity people like you, Tony, who apparently can’t cope with life’s problems without blaming other people for them and/or expecting other people to solve them for you. It’s no wonder you lost your empire! (And it’s the reason we’ll lose ours if we can’t turn it around.)

        • #2514948

          Anyways, Hopkinson, if your city is in imminent danger

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          you want to hire the Dutch. Even if the United States goes along with your little request, don’t you think we’d ruin it, like we did the Colonies?

          :p

        • #2514958

          Praise him

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Neil, you said. . . .

          Tony wrote, “In the words of Mr Cheney.

          If you uropeans want to make your industries less profitable by dealing with pollution, go right ahead, we are going to make more bucks.”

          If you Europeans want to take yourself out of the running by making yourselves feel better that is okay with me. Just don’t expect my sympathy.

          “Live on CNN, he said that, p1ssed off the rest of the world in one sentence.”

          Thank goodness we still have one or two leaders with testicles. The effeminate Europeans have only one or two decent leaders and you don’t like or appreciate them. Your Tony Blair is magnificent.

          “Making a buck now is more important to America than the future of the human race.”

          Ha! You need to get over yourself. Prospering is more important than the self-indulgent global warming silliness that you are so enamoured of.

          “Blame him, not your democrats and not us.”

          I am sure you meant praise him.

          “Him and people like him are as guilty of the polarisation and politicisation of the issue as stumpy the commie eco-freak.”

          I think he is guilty of not suffering fools gladly. Feel polarized if you wish.

        • #2514885

          And the funny thing here is

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Praise him

          Recently I bought a couple of Bell Crash Helmets something that has always been good old USA Made and what did I find when they arrived Made In Italy on the box and inside the Helmets.

          Wasn’t a surprise as a couple of years ago i found this out and was appalled that Bell was no longer making Crash Helmets in the USA but I find it funny that you are willing to accept the extra costs in producing something in Europe which is [b]Clean & Green[/b] and still refuse to accept that you can make money without destroying parts of the environment.

          But as you’re sure that Man can not have any adverse influence on the environment I have some Commercial Fishing Licenses Available for you to buy to Fish Parts of Sydney Harbour where eating the fish will poising both you and your children and anyone else silly enough to eat these fish.

          Col

        • #2516917

          Col, Bell is just one company.

          by absolutely ·