PDA

View Full Version : Are you concerned about Global climate change?


Fat Elvis
04-13-2006, 11:15 PM
I was in the doctor's office today and I was reading a Time magazine article that talked about the catastrophic effects of global warming on our environment. Usually, I'm just, "eh, whatever...," but today for some reason that article really resonated with me.

It seems that the impact and fallout from global warming is accelerating at a pace that was completely unforseen, and that certain feedback loops are really amplifying the effects on the climate. It was shocking to see some of the before and after pics of glaciers and ice shelves.

It seems like the world that my kids will inherit may be very different from the world that I grew up in.....

SBK
04-13-2006, 11:32 PM
I would say that when God created the earth He knew what He was doing.

So no, I think all this global climate change and global warming talk is a bunch of crap.

Taco John
04-13-2006, 11:34 PM
I would say that when God created the earth He knew what He was doing.

So no, I think all this global climate change and global warming talk is a bunch of crap.



What does that have anything to do with anything?

SBK
04-13-2006, 11:36 PM
What does that have anything to do with anything?

AM I CONCERNED ABOUT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?

You did read the thread title correct?

Taco John
04-13-2006, 11:40 PM
AM I CONCERNED ABOUT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?

You did read the thread title correct?



Yeah. It was the ignorance of your answer that dumbfounded me. God doesn't guarantee a safe earth free from the effects of Global Climate change.

Taco John
04-13-2006, 11:41 PM
I believe in God, so pshaw to the Ice Age... Bunch of made up mumbo jumbo...

Dunit35
04-13-2006, 11:43 PM
I am alittle concerned. In a 100 years or more is when people should start getting even more concerned about it.

SBK
04-13-2006, 11:45 PM
Yeah. It was the ignorance of your answer that dumbfounded me. God doesn't guarantee a safe earth free from the effects of Global Climate change.

I merely stated that I am not worried about it because I think that God knew what he was doing when he created this place.

Call me ignorant all you want, I merely answered the question.

Fat Elvis
04-13-2006, 11:48 PM
I am alittle concerned. In a 100 years or more is when people should start getting even more concerned about it.

The upshot of the article was that for a long time people thought we had a 100 years to worry about it, but that is no longer the case. The transformation over the last several years alone have been greater than anyone expected. Basically, we are totally screwed....

banyon
04-13-2006, 11:55 PM
nah, there's only like 90% of scientists on board with this idea.

I'm waiting til it hits 98% to take this problem seriously.

KCChiefsFan88
04-13-2006, 11:56 PM
What was the temp in KC today, around 90 degrees in early April?

Rausch
04-13-2006, 11:57 PM
If by worried you mean I'm helping to cause it, then no.

If by worried you mean that we've only had reliable science and computers capable of working entricate calculations for about 40 years (at best) and we have no idea WTF kind of cycles the world operates in.....then yeah, I'm scared $#itless...

Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:01 AM
...and we have no idea WTF kind of cycles the world operates in...



Where in the world did you get that idea?

Pitt Gorilla
04-14-2006, 12:02 AM
Eh, I still know people who won't concede that man may have something to do with climate change. They provide no evidence for their position, which is just as strange. I don't get it.

Rausch
04-14-2006, 12:07 AM
Where in the world did you get that idea?

Well, we've been able to monitor weather patterns for (at best) around 60 years now.

The planet has been around how long?

How well do we really know when global warming/ice ages occur?

Sample size is everything in science, and right now we're taking a bucket out of the ocean and predicting what the Pacific consists of...

Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:08 AM
I don't know if Man has anything to do with it or not. I do know people I trust who are smarter about this kind of stuff than I am are concerned about the trends that they're seeing, and the science that they're reading.

Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:11 AM
Well, we've been able to monitor weather patterns for (at best) around 60 years now.

And we have a geologic record that is millions of years old.


The planet has been around how long?

At least as old as the geologic record. But probably longer.


How well do we really know when global warming/ice ages occur?

Dude, I don't mean to be rude. This is all Geology 101.


Sample size is everything in science, and right now we're taking a bucket out of the ocean and predicting what the Pacific consists of...

You know I respect you as a person and even consider you a friend. But man... We have a lot more data and science available than your Rush Limbaugh-esque evaluation gives credit for.

RedDread
04-14-2006, 12:15 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Rausch
04-14-2006, 12:21 AM
And we have a geologic record that is millions of years old.


Based on 60 year old science and technology to compute our theories.


At least as old as the geologic record. But probably longer.

Based on our ability to determine it.


Dude, I don't mean to be rude. This is all Geology 101.

Good, then I won't be rude by pointing out that volcanic events and asteroid/comet collisons can piss all over "projections."


You know I respect you as a person and even consider you a friend. But man... We have a lot more data and science available than your Rush Limbaugh-esque evaluation gives credit for.

No, we don't.

And I'm not saying global warming is or isn't.

I'm just saying we have no real way of knowing if our recent events are due to a normal cycle or the use of any fuels.

I don't disagree for a minute that some very odd weather has been going on all over the world.

I just don't claim to know enough about it to assume a direct cause.

alanm
04-14-2006, 12:26 AM
The upshot of the article was that for a long time people thought we had a 100 years to worry about it, but that is no longer the case. The transformation over the last several years alone have been greater than anyone expected. Basically, we are totally screwed....
On the other hand I've seen articles that forsee another ice age coming down the pike. The earths climate runs in cycles who the hell knows what the weather will be like in 100 yrs.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 12:28 AM
Yes, it's Susie Soccer Mom driving her SUV that is f**king up the world. It has nothing, NOTHING I tell you, to do with the sun getting hotter. It has NOTHING to do with the ice age/tropical ages that our planet has experience before. We should blindly trust these scientists who depend on govt funding based on scaring us. They have no reason to feed half-baked info into a media eager to scare the nit-wit populace OTHER than the fact that is how they make their living.

OOooh noes! We're all DoooOOOOOoooOomed!

luv
04-14-2006, 12:29 AM
My grandmother (who was VERY superstitious) used to say the the shifting of the seasons was a sign of the end times. Maybe we'll all be in our prespective afterlives in a few years. :shrug:

SLAG
04-14-2006, 12:29 AM
Global Warming is A Theory - that is all I take it as

Rausch
04-14-2006, 12:29 AM
Yes, it's Susie Soccer Mom driving her SUV that is f**king up the world. It has nothing, NOTHING I tell you, to do with the sun getting hotter. It has NOTHING to do with the ice age/tropical ages that our planet has experience before. We should blindly trust these scientists who depend on govt funding based on scaring us. They have no reason to feed half-baked info into a media eager to scare the nit-wit populace OTHER than the fact that is how they make their living.

OOooh noes! We're all DoooOOOOOoooOomed!


Hey, I know I don't like what I'm seeing. I think it's getting $#itty out there.

I just don't claim to know why...

Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:30 AM
No, we don't.



Well, actually, we do.

But I did learn that we did from a University, and you know how it is with those liberals.

RedDread
04-14-2006, 12:31 AM
Actually I think all the Government ones were told to STFU. The ones that are crying about it earn their paycheck from elsewhere.


And also lets just do away with weather forecasters entirely. They're only getting paid to warn us about shit that hasn't even happened yet anyways. Can I get a little fear with my paycheck please?

Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:31 AM
It wouldn't be Darwinism without stupid people.

Rausch
04-14-2006, 12:36 AM
Well, actually, we do.

But I did learn that we did from a University, and you know how it is with those liberals.

And you do understand that most science is based on probabilities, not fact.

Theory.

And if you're going to tell me we know 100% sure how and why every climate change has ever happened on this planet you're flat out full of Raider.

Something odd is going on, I'm with you. It's not normal (or as much as a 29 year old can claim) and it appears to be getting more extreme.

But we're still discovering planets in our own solar system, still mapping human DNA and what bond makes what trait, still trying to figure out if birds are dinosaurs or not, still arguing over the exact makeup of anything below the earth's crust, and still can't figure out how Pam Anderson isn't "patient 0" for the AIDS explosion in the late 80's.

I agree we have a problem, I don't agree on the cause.

I do agree Rush is a toolbox...

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 12:38 AM
It wouldn't be Darwinism without stupid people.
It wouldn't be America without people being scared s**tless and demanding rash actions before the facts are all in.

Look, you have the global warming guys. Now we have the guys that say global warming is going to cause global cooling. Then there are the guys that say if we stop producing greenhouse gasses we'll throw the environment for a worse loop than if we keep doing it. Then there is, of course, the group that says "what global warming?". The only good media story there is "global warming will kill us all". It has the best shock value and is the easiest to tell. Once the media picked it up there was suddenly a lot of money to be made as an "expert". I'd say that we should take a pause before we all freak out and ban farting.

Rausch
04-14-2006, 12:42 AM
It wouldn't be America without people being scared s**tless and demanding rash actions before the facts are all in.

Look, you have the global warming guys. Now we have the guys that say global warming is going to cause global cooling. Then there are the guys that say if we stop producing greenhouse gasses we'll throw the environment for a worse loop than if we keep doing it. Then there is, of course, the group that says "what global warming?". The only good media story there is "global warming will kill us all". It has the best shock value and is the easiest to tell. Once the media picked it up there was suddenly a lot of money to be made as an "expert". I'd say that we should take a pause before we all freak out and ban farting.

It doesn't take a genius to see there have been some majorly ****ed up weather patterns the last 8-12 years...

Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:42 AM
It wouldn't be America without people being scared s**tless and demanding rash actions before the facts are all in.

Let's keep the topic off Iraq for now...

Rausch
04-14-2006, 12:44 AM
Let's keep the topic off Iraq for now...

I'm ready to admit something is going on there.

I'm not ready to admit Bush is capable of masterminding the theft of a sandbox shovel...

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 12:45 AM
It doesn't take a genius to see there have been some majorly ****ed up weather patterns the last 8-12 years...
Agreed. The sun has also been getting hotter through that period. I'd say that's a more likely trigger than someone's tailpipe. We also have no way to know if those are just a sequence of anomolies and coincidences. The point is we don't know. Some people like to say they do, but they're just more willing to accept their own guesses than the rest of us should be.

Rausch
04-14-2006, 12:47 AM
Agreed.

Now we're getting somewhere.

The sun has also been getting hotter through that period. I'd say that's a more likely trigger than someone's tailpipe. We also have no way to know if those are just a sequence of anomolies and coincidences. The point is we don't know. Some people like to say they do, but they're just more willing to accept their own guesses than the rest of us should be.

I don't claim to know WHY, only that the extremes seem to be getting more extreme...

Taco John
04-14-2006, 12:50 AM
I'm ready to admit something is going on there.

I'm not ready to admit Bush is capable of masterminding the theft of a sandbox shovel...



Bush is nothing more than a trademark. He has no more power over his benefactors than the Pillsbury Doughboy has over the Pillsbury company.

But that's a conversation for a different forum...

You and I seem to agree on a couple of weather related points:

1) We agree that there's something wierd going on based on what we've seen with our own eyes in our own areas.

2) We doubt it has anything to do with men.

3) We aren't terribly alarmed... yet.


For my part, I'm stuck in the same stoop that I was in when I first heard of Bin Ladin back in the mid-90's and he threatened to wage war against America. I told my buddy at the time that I thought it would be bad news, but shrugged my shoulders figuring that there was nothing I could do, and went on with my life. I was alarmed, but more or less complacent.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 12:52 AM
Let's keep the topic off Iraq for now...
So you hate someone for, in your estimation, over-reacting on Iraq, but you want to do the same thing here. Nice plan.

RedDread
04-14-2006, 12:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

Point for Simplex.

Honestly this is more than a trend, but it will never become the runaway problem that some people make it out to be. Sorry creationists but the Earth is billions of years old, and I find it hard to believe that in that time we haven't had higher Sea Levels, more CO2 in our atmosphere, or higher solar radiations levels. If there was going to be a runaway greenhouse effect it would have happened already.

Taco John
04-14-2006, 01:07 AM
So you hate someone for, in your estimation, over-reacting on Iraq, but you want to do the same thing here. Nice plan.


I don't know what to say to people who think that they can read minds. What, praytell, is this plan that I've put together to advocate? The question, as I understand it, is "Are you concerned about Global climate change?" I don't believe anybody has even broached the subject of what kind of action they would advocate, yet you've ascribed "plans of over-reaction" for everybody who admits concern?

Also, I don't hate people who over-reacted to Iraq. I was one of them whipped into a frenzy based on propaganda and fabrications.

Taco John
04-14-2006, 01:09 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

Point for Simplex.

Honestly this is more than a trend, but it will never become the runaway problem that some people make it out to be. Sorry creationists but the Earth is billions of years old, and I find it hard to believe that in that time we haven't had higher Sea Levels, more CO2 in our atmosphere, or higher solar radiations levels. If there was going to be a runaway greenhouse effect it would have happened already.


What of the theory that it has happened already, and that an Ice Age is the Earths way of naturally restoring the balance?

mikey23545
04-14-2006, 05:04 AM
Some reading for Taco Tool...Surprisingly, not all info on global warming comes from democraticunderground.com or talkingpoints.com....






Global Warming: Why Can't the Mainstream Press Get Even Basic Facts Right?




DATE: March 22, 2004

BACKGROUND: The Associated Press ran a global warming story1 this past weekend that makes the following statements:

"Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

"Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

"Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."


TEN SECOND RESPONSE: How many scandals does the mainstream press need before it starts routinely running stories through fact-checkers?


THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: Faulty "news" stories like this one, which mislead people all over the world, are one of many alarmist global warming reports by the news media that do not reflect a consensus of scientists. What is more alarming than what scientists genuinely know about global warming is that a media outlet as influential as the AP would run a wire story this faulty, and that so many news editors would be gullible enough to run it.


DISCUSSION: A brief refutation:

Quote 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4

The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.


Quote 2: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.5


Quote 3: The AP said: "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7).

The Earth does not have "world governments." It doesn't even have even one, as the United Nations is not a government, but an association of nations.

If the AP is referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees.8 Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."9


FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Associated Press, "CO2 Buildup Accelerating in Atmosphere," as run by USA Today on March 21, 2004 at http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2004-03-21-co2-buildup_x.htm

"Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Oregon Institute of Science and Health, 2001, at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

"There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years," The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at http://www.co2science.org/edit/v3_edit/v3n13edit.htm

John Carlisle, "Kyoto Cover-up: TV News Gives One-Sided View on Global Warming," National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #337, May 2001, http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA337.html

John Carlisle, "Cooling Off on Global Warming," National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #284, April 2000, http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA284.html

John Carlisle, "Sun to Blame for Global Warming," National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #203, June 1998, available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

by Amy Ridenour

Contact the author at: 202-543-4110 or aridenour@nationalcenter.org
The National Center for Public Policy Research
501 Capitol Court, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002

Footnotes:

(1) Charles J. Hanley, "CO2 Buildup Accelerating in Atmosphere," Associated Press, available on various websites, including http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2004-03-21-co2-buildup_x.htm, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/21/170709.shtml, http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8241534.htm, http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0304/21climateside.html, and many, many others (note: the headline used on the story varies).

(2) See "The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases: An Overview," Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy (available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/attf94_v2/chap2.html) for a good summary of this issue understandable to the layman.

(3) Gerald Marsh, "Climate Change Science? National Academy of Sciences Global Warming Report Fails to Live Up to Its Billing," National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #349, August 2001, at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA349.html.

(4) Edward Klappenbach, "Examining the Carbon Dioxide in Our Atmosphere," About.com, downloaded from http://weather.about.com/cs/atmosphere/a/aa062003a.htm?terms=carbon+dioxide on March 21, 2004. Klappenbach gives the CO2 figure as .033 percent. Note: The Associated Press article being critiqued in this Ten Second Response alludes to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as meaured at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The average annual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere determined by researchers measuring there for 2002 was .0373 percent. A chart showing average annual CO2 concentrations as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory from 1958-2002 is available at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2 as of March 22, 2004.

(5) "Frequently Asked Global Change Question: What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?," Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March 2004, available at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html as of March 21, 2004.

(6) This is based on a review of global satellite and balloon temperature measurements and high-quality U.S.-based surface temperature station measurements. For additional details understandable to laymen, we recommend the short document "There Has Been No Global Warming for the Past 70 Years," published by The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and available online at http://www.co2science.org/edit/v3_edit/v3n13edit.htm as of March 22, 2004.

(7) "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Oregon Institute of Science and Health, 2001, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm.

(8) Richard S. Lindzen, PhD., "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty," Wall Street Journal, June 11 2001 (a copy of this article is available unofficially online at http://www.enerne.dk/lindzen_i_wall_st__j_.htm). Dr. Lindzen, who is a professor of meteorology at MIT, participated -- as a scientist -- in the preparation of the IPCC report cited above and also was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change that summarized the IPCC report for the U.S. government.

(9) Paul Georgia, "IPCC Report Criticized by One of Its Lead Authors," Environment News, Heartland Institute, June 2001, available at http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069.



Blog

Ten Second Response
Search
Send EmailSubscribeSubscribe
DonateTSR ArchiveHome

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 05:28 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

Point for Simplex.

Honestly this is more than a trend, but it will never become the runaway problem that some people make it out to be. Sorry creationists but the Earth is billions of years old, and I find it hard to believe that in that time we haven't had higher Sea Levels, more CO2 in our atmosphere, or higher solar radiations levels. If there was going to be a runaway greenhouse effect it would have happened already.

Why do you apologize to Creationists?

NOTHING at all that has to do with Creation says the Earth can't be billions of years old. Unless you're arrogant enough to believe that Genesis days = 24 hours, which would be typical of humankind...

htismaqe
04-14-2006, 05:31 AM
It doesn't take a genius to see there have been some majorly ****ed up weather patterns the last 8-12 years...

There were similarly ****ed up weather patterns in the 1880's, including a very serious period that began with the eruption of Krakatoa. And then there was that whole Dust Bowl thing in the 30's...

I see you did your best to combat the arrogance and fearmongering of a few here, sorry I wasn't here to help.

Anybody that thinks this stuff is anything close to an exaxt science needs to read more and think less.

StcChief
04-14-2006, 06:24 AM
There were similarly ****ed up weather patterns in the 1880's, including a very serious period that began with the eruption of Krakatoa. And then there was that whole Dust Bowl thing in the 30's...

I see you did your best to combat the arrogance and fearmongering of a few here, sorry I wasn't here to help.

Anybody that thinks this stuff is anything close to an exaxt science needs to read more and think less.

Nobody can think or wants to research the past...It doesn't make for good news story.

Gloom and doom sell.

Saulbadguy
04-14-2006, 07:11 AM
Don't know, don't care, as long as my air conditioner works. It could be 89 degrees today...in APRIL!

Braincase
04-14-2006, 07:12 AM
Yes.




(Simple answer to a straight forward question)

JBucc
04-14-2006, 07:13 AM
Nah

Hog Rider
04-14-2006, 07:18 AM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Interesting thoughts by Dr Lindzen of MIT one of the IPCC participants.

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 08:01 AM
So what is the argument against cutting back on CO2?

Even if you take the climate issue out of the debate there still isn't good a reason to not reduce emissions.

And whether man is causing the climate to change or not still doesn't change the fact that it's changing. We can argue for 100 years over this point and the climates is going to continue changing regardless of who wins that argument. Feel free to bring up the economic implications if you'd like but if hurricanes increase in intensity, tornadic activity increases and drought hits the farm belt then your argument will have to be used against you.

Not believing it doesn't make it go away.

Simplex3
04-14-2006, 08:13 AM
So what is the argument against cutting back on CO2?

Even if you take the climate issue out of the debate there still isn't good a reason to not reduce emissions.

And whether man is causing the climate to change or not still doesn't change the fact that it's changing. We can argue for 100 years over this point and the climates is going to continue changing regardless of who wins that argument. Feel free to bring up the economic implications if you'd like but if hurricanes increase in intensity, tornadic activity increases and drought hits the farm belt then your argument will have to be used against you.

Not believing it doesn't make it go away.
I don't hear people saying "ignore the problem". What I hear is let's not bankrupt ourselves over fossile fuel emmission control when there is very little hard data supporting that being the cause of the change. If you exhaust all of your resources lowering human CO2 emmission only to find out that wasn't the issue, then what?

You want to put your money into something? How about heat and draught resistant crop research? How about people either a) not living in a hurricane zone or b) building houses that withstand those storms in areas where those storms are likely to occur.

Let's talk Hurricanes specifically for a second. The biggest reason hurricanes kill is stupidity. In the last 50 years not one single person in this country has been snuck up on by a hurricane.

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 08:16 AM
Let's talk Hurricanes specifically for a second. The biggest reason hurricanes kill is stupidity. In the last 50 years not one single person in this country has been snuck up on by a hurricane.
ROFL

Very true.

HC_Chief
04-14-2006, 08:19 AM
Climates change. Temperatures fluctuate. Plates shift. Volcanoes erupt. Tides wax/wane. Wind blows. Sun shines. Grass grows. It's called NATURE.

Am I concerned? No.

Baby Lee
04-14-2006, 08:28 AM
I find it interesting the interplay between stances on Evolution and Global Warming.

HC_Chief
04-14-2006, 08:32 AM
I find it interesting the interplay between stances on Evolution and Global Warming.

They are one & the same.

Evolution is <i>due</i> to climate fluctuations. Nature is cyclical; that's the "nature" of the universe: entropy. ;)

Baby Lee
04-14-2006, 08:36 AM
But I am REALLY interested in the interplay between these two quotes. ;)
I don't know if Man has anything to do with it or not. I do know people I trust who are smarter about this kind of stuff than I am are concerned about the trends that they're seeing, and the science that they're reading.
Also, I don't hate people who over-reacted to Iraq. I was one of them whipped into a frenzy based on propaganda and fabrications.

HC_Chief
04-14-2006, 08:39 AM
lol

I lost interest in TJ's inane ramblings long before CP ;)

Iowanian
04-14-2006, 08:40 AM
Throughout the ages, the Earth has undergone a series of dramatic Climatic changes. Without a series of cooling and warming periods, the Ice Ages, would have just been an "ice age" that never went away. Iowa used to be under an ocean, deserts used to be rainforest......
Climatic changes are historicallyl cyclical and its just nature.

I think the Earth may be slowly warming, and I don't think it has anything to do with man. I don't see it as anything to fear.

If Man wants to fear something....fear pollution, and desertification due to clearcutting erodible and non fertile soils in South America and Africa.


T@co is a nutjob who always thinks the sky is falling on every situation on the planet. I think he needs to refrain from putting the plastic bag on his head when he's punchin the clown.

JBucc
04-14-2006, 08:43 AM
Besides the beaches will just be a little closer...

Bacon Cheeseburger
04-14-2006, 08:47 AM
More babes, less clothes.

'Nuff said.

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 08:48 AM
I think the Earth may be slowly warming, and I don't think it has anything to do with man. I don't see it as anything to fear.Do you know what the "likely" result is from a warming planet?

MOhillbilly
04-14-2006, 08:51 AM
all i know is ive prayed for rain for weeks and months and nothing yet.

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 08:53 AM
all i know is ive prayed for rain for weeks and months and nothing yet.
You need to move your hillbilly ass up to San Fran. rochambeau :)

Cochise
04-14-2006, 08:53 AM
No.

Iowanian
04-14-2006, 08:58 AM
Do you know what the "likely" result is from a warming planet?

I've got a pretty good idea, but I've only got a bachelors in an Earth Science related major and a Minor in Geology to base that on.

Any idiot can see there is change. Its not difficult to see that periods of glaciation, desertification and other extreme changes in climate have had an effect on the earth, and have shown some proof of cycles. Techtonic plates move, volcanic events put huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, ocean currents are dynamic(ever changing) and the Jet stream fluctuates(see El Nino, el Nina).

There are things man does, that doesn't help our cause in the long run(deforestation, consumption of non-renewable fuels/resources et al), but in the big picture, it is my opinion that over time, the climate is going to cycle, regardless of what man does.


Am I worried? No. A country boy can survive.

KChiefs1
04-14-2006, 09:00 AM
I like warmer weather anyway...

jiveturkey
04-14-2006, 09:02 AM
Even if you don't consider the man impact the possible results from a warming planet can be really interesting.

Iowanian
04-14-2006, 09:07 AM
I think man can have some impact, it would be ignorant to not think there was no chance of that. I think its far more likely that man has impact on his region, than on earth as a whole.

If you want to have impact....go plant a hundred trees, to remove some CO2 from the Atmosphere.

it is my belief, that climate change is inevitable, and will happen regardless of the actions of man(barring some thermo-nuclear assistance).

At some point, the planet is going to burp and help get the population back in control. Nature has a funny way, in the long run, of making things "right".

KCChiefsFan88
04-14-2006, 05:59 PM
Global Warming IS happening

Any scientist not on an oil company's payroll will say so

Fat Elvis
04-14-2006, 06:59 PM
I think man can have some impact, it would be ignorant to not think there was no chance of that. I think its far more likely that man has impact on his region, than on earth as a whole.

If you want to have impact....go plant a hundred trees, to remove some CO2 from the Atmosphere.

it is my belief, that climate change is inevitable, and will happen regardless of the actions of man(barring some thermo-nuclear assistance).

At some point, the planet is going to burp and help get the population back in control. Nature has a funny way, in the long run, of making things "right".

When you are talking about equilibrium systems, man doesn't have to make a big impact initially. A very minor impact perturbated through a complex system (such as an entire ecosystem) can have disasterous consequences (as far as humans are concerned) in the long run as nature runs its course independant of human interaction.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 08:04 PM
I was in the doctor's office today and I was reading a Time magazine article that talked about the catastrophic effects of global warming on our environment. Usually, I'm just, "eh, whatever...," but today for some reason that article really resonated with me.


Gee over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming in a formal petition is a lie as it is being promoted. This knocks enviro's socks off.

They are not in any way supported by the oil companies either.
They are independent scientists.

This guy writes their site's intro:
Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
Link (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

Now Time Magazine gets things wrong sometimes.
Afterall they did choose Hitler and another time Mussolini as the "Man of the Year" and featured them on their cover in the 1930's. Need I say more

ChiefFripp
04-14-2006, 08:10 PM
I think humanity has pretty much failed so I don't see this as a totally bad thing. On the other hand, It's too bad that so many other species have to go as well.

tiptap
04-15-2006, 04:09 AM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Interesting thoughts by Dr Lindzen of MIT one of the IPCC participants.

Dr. Lindzen represents the skepticism that scientist bring to the global warming question. Dr. Lindzen does not dispute the actual rise in global temperature over the last century. He does not dispute the increase in COtwo over the last century. He doesn't even dispute that that increase is due to man's activity. What he and many scientist are skeptical about is the relationship between increase in greenhouse gases and an escalating (positive reinforcement or positive feedback) in the atmospher towards predicted rise in temperature. He disputes the rather ominous sensitivity of the atmosphere to greenhouse gases used by some in the discussion but he merely insists there is 75% less sesitivity, not that there in none. Therefore he, like many who sign the petition, are not convinced that the current increase in temperature is entirely due to human activity in producing greenhouse gases.

And his criticisms have not been ignored. He publish work that indicated that the rising temperature should lead to changes in humidity, water vapor and cloud formation especially over the tropical regions that should offer negative feed back and sort of right itself. The response was efforts to find more and better ways of investigating the tropical region (a neglected region of study because it isn't where the advanced nations are located). His other complaints about pre 19th century data and such has also been taken seriously.

I think that the notion that scientists have been unduly chastised for being skeptical or critical of global warming claims though is unfounded. It is a heated debate. As was phlogistan or whether the atom was more than just a concept. As such there is plenty of tension and personal investment in one's position. Everyone want to be correct. It is always seen as prudent to remain skeptical in one view and remain conservative in one's actions. That is in contrast to the concensus among those most active is this area of research that there is a great deal of contribution to temperature rise by human action.

My questions are that we know there has been an exponential growth in production of human source COtwo. And with developing countries seeking to jump into the situation that also accelerates the production of COtwo. Lindzen doesn't dispute this. Can we truly think that the gluttony that this represents can't be actively reduced at least in the short run until a firmer relationship is found. Isn't that prudent?

And this is in light of the shrinkage of glacial ice. I know of only one place in the world where glacial ice is building (that would be in Argentina in one of their national parks) All other glacial systems are shrinking. That to me seems to be a pretty good indicator that we should be going slower, to at least quit increasing, human production of COtwo until a more refined understanding.

greg63
04-15-2006, 04:16 AM
If I was in a position to actually do something about it then I might possibly worry with it.

Guru
04-15-2006, 04:17 AM
If I was in a position to actually do something about it then I might possibly worry with it.


but it starts with just one person. Can you be the ONE?

greg63
04-15-2006, 04:20 AM
but it starts with just one person. Can you be the ONE?

I'll do some consulting....you know.


Well time to turn in.


Nite Planet....er I mean Mornin Planet.