Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 09:16 am
@rosborne979,
If only Americans and their daft ideas on the environment were urban myths. I mean you would have to be pretty dumb to think the answer was drill,baby drill.
0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 11:46 am
@Fountofwisdom,
Fountofwisdom wrote:

About ice. What you say is true. You dont take into account how much ice is on the top of mountains. or that large parts of Antarctica or the Arctic is actually land covered in ice. In fact most Ice is on land.Did you note I specified "floating ice" in my post?
Someone has only told you half the story. Ask them why they did it. And you are intelligent to work that out for yourself.
Scientists also argued that destroying not respecting the eco system will lead to trouble. In some countries people didnt listen. Americans are so stupid that they destroyed the plants that held together the topsoil. This took several thousands of years to create. The Oklahoma dustbowl was created in 10 years.
I disagree with you, you can't argue with facts. Global Warming is a FACT. Global warming has happened many times in our past. It's nothing new.
However if you wish to remain skeptical but at the same time not messing things up then that is fine.
Skepticism and asking questions is perfectly valid, I would however, check all the data you are given. Learn what you can about global warming. There is a reason that 99.9% of the worlds scientists accept it exists.
So how many of the world's scientist are experts on climate ?
The trouble with the ecology is it is much easier to mess up than fix.
I accept scientists are gloomy. I was predicting global warming from 1981.
15 years ago these same scientists were predicting an ICE AGE
People knew about it then. They didn't realise the scale of it.
The same with the ozone holes. No one thought they'd be as bad.
There are scientist that say that volcanoes emissions are the single biggest cause of ozone depletion.
Your argument could just as easily go like this:
1: tell people there is nothing to worry about.
2: we are making a lot of money and we can't be bothered with this environment stuff.
3; Even if people do sensible stuff like recycling our profits will be cut

I ask you one question: how many rich scientists have you seen: and how many rich oil company owners?
I don't know about rich scientists, but there are sure a lot of people's jobs depending on climate change and carbon trading these days.
The media is responsible for a lot of misinformation . For example, when they show pictures of these naughty coal burning power stations, they zoom in on the clouds of polluting gases coming from low squat chimneys. Well, these structures are cooling towers and the "polluting gases" are nothing more than water vapour. The carbon dioxide and other gases they are all concerned about are coming from the tall stacks and are colourless ( As long as the precipitators are working properly)
We all have to be as GREEN as possible, but I still believe we are being suckered by people with a financial interest in there being a crisis about global warming,




Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 12:29 pm
@Deckland,
A lot of the stuff you are spouting is nonsense. Some scientists were predicting an ice age. The thing is, in the light of evidence scientists are persuaded. Changing your mind is not a bad thing if you are a scientist.
Plus the scientists involved are different.
your statement on ice is irrelevant then as most ice isnt floating on water.
The argument on volcanoes are a red herring. They have always occured.
The temperature is rising, and it shouldnt be, volcanic eruption, sunspots, and other activities can cause changes in climate.
However scientists are measuring changes over several hundred years.
They aren't making a snap judgement. The stupids of the US made them check, and re check their figures. It has taken around 10 years of research.
Climatologists,Botanists,Geologists,physicists,chemists,mathematicians are all in agreement. Global warming is a fact.
You have to look at what is different at the moment. Deforrestation and industrialisation is seen as the biggest new changes.
You claim a lot of people are employed by Carbon trading. I can't name one. I can name several oil companies. There most famous employee is george bush.
I am not in favour of Carbon trading, but we have to have the system because it is the only one the stupids will accept. By that I mean Kyoto. Everyone signed it. Except America. Australia left later on the grounds that if the worst polluter in the world didn't act there was no point.
If you want to have a conspiracy theory ask why America is so low in league tables for teaching Maths and Science. Ask why your government wants you to be stupid.
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 01:43 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
Fountofwisdom wrote:

A lot of the stuff you are spouting is nonsense. Some scientists were predicting an ice age. The thing is, in the light of evidence scientists are persuaded. So they were predicting an ICE AGE without evidence ? Changing your mind is not a bad thing if you are a scientist.
So perhaps these scientists may change their minds again.
Plus the scientists involved are different.
your statement on ice is irrelevant then as most ice isnt floating on water.
The argument on volcanoes are a red herring. They have always occured.
Yes as has global warming and ice ages.
The temperature is rising, and it shouldnt be, volcanic eruption, sunspots, and other activities can cause changes in climate.
However scientists are measuring changes over several hundred years.
They aren't making a snap judgement. The stupids of the US made them check, and re check their figures. It has taken around 10 years of research.
Climatologists,Botanists,Geologists,physicists,chemists,mathematicians are all in agreement.
No, they are not all in agreement.Global warming is a fact.
Yes it is fact that the earth is warming at the moment, but not proven to be from man made emissions.
You have to look at what is different at the moment. Deforrestation and industrialisation is seen as the biggest new changes.
You claim a lot of people are employed by Carbon trading. I can't name one.
What about all these scientists you claim are studying it ?I can name several oil companies. There most famous employee is george bush.
I am not in favour of Carbon trading, but we have to have the system because it is the only one the stupids will accept. By that I mean Kyoto. Everyone signed it. Except America. Australia left later on the grounds that if the worst polluter in the world didn't act there was no point.
If you want to have a conspiracy theory ask why America is so low in league tables for teaching Maths and Science. Ask why your government wants you to be stupid.

Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 03:30 pm
@Deckland,
You seem to believe scientists when it suits you. but not when it doesnt. It is extremely hard to prove a causal link for anything. It was the argument used to defend selling cigarettes.
The scientists were predicting an ice age in about 10 000 years. global warming will destroy all life by 2200. Serious damage in less than 50 years. You are condemning the future generations to suffer and die.
You never get everyone to agree. The people who are studying the science get a lot more money for joining the Anti-warming brigade. But they stop being scientists, it is so dumb. Either that or their consiences stop them.
0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 01:57 pm
Quote:
Fountofwisdom, I just don't believe everything scientists say. I question their sometimes wild claims.
In times past, scientists said that inventing machines to travel faster than 10 mph was a waste of time as the human body could not stand the pressure You might laugh, but they were the "experts" of the day.
How about in recent times when mathematicians calculated that dragsters would never exceed 150 mph in a quarter mile as it was impossible to get enough traction to do so. Well that was blown away huh ?
What about periods in history when the CO2 level was 10 times higher than today ? Shouldn't all life on earth be extinct ?
I agree that we should reduce emissions, but I also don't believe carbon trading is the answer. Isn't it simpler for governments to legislate to force their industries to reduce emissions. How does buying carbon credits stop pollution ? Pay money and you can pollute ? And we all know who pays in the end.
Global warming and carbon trading is the new industry of the future.

Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 03:52 pm
@Deckland,
I think the claims about speed weren't made by scientists: I have no problem with scepticism. The most famous wrong by prediction was made by Ernest Lord Rutherford "this is pure science, it will never have any application in the real world" he had just split the atom.
I am not a believer in carbon trading: but that stuff needs to be done urgently. You may be right about scientists over reacting. When the price of petrol went over 150 dollars a barrel the world carbon emissions dropped by a quarter: it was as easy as that.
As i see it: the petrol is going to run out eventually. I'd like to see renewable energy given a much higher profile. A lot of the claims about how costly and ineffecient it is are far too negative.
In an ideal world I'd like to see space travel attempted too. A lot of the thermal energy ideas are looking positive.

Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 08:42 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
Fountofwisdom wrote:


As i see it: the petrol is going to run out eventually. I'd like to see renewable energy given a much higher profile. A lot of the claims about how costly and ineffecient it is are far too negative.


I agree with that 100 % .
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:12 am
@Fountofwisdom,
Foundofwisdom wrote:
A lot of the stuff you are spouting is nonsense. Some scientists were predicting an ice age. The thing is, in the light of evidence


*Some* is quite right. The 'new ice age' ideas were never mainstream and ideas of CO2 causing global warming received greater *scientific* attention even then, if I have my dates right (I wasn't alive).

The statements from scientists I've seen concerning new ice ages are accurate, as well. They're only inaccurate if you read far too much into the possible implications.
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:14 am
So, did anyone ever back up the original claim concerning people claiming the weight of CO2 produced versus their gas reagants? Did anyone actually say that, or was this just made up/borrowed from a worthless denialist screed?
0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 04:48 am
Here is an article to read .......

The Dangers of Disputing Warming Orthodoxy

http://mises.org/story/3283
0 Replies
 
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 05:02 am
I've read the post. It is by a right wing libertarian group masquerading as an academic institution. It promotes two books neither which are scientific in nature.
A lot of its argument is relatively cogent: however its conclusions are not connected to the arguments.
It mostly concentrates on the economics and not the science. I didn't find the quote that started the debate.
It claimsto argue in the manner of the Austrian school,which I've never come across. The crest is not that of an academic institution. It is not supported by any Government or academic institution.
0 Replies
 
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 05:10 am
Have checked up on the institute: it is a privately funded institute, for those who wish to peddle laissez faire economics: It is against any interference in the market: meaning no safety controls etc.
I can't comment on how good the economics is: but the science is piffle: it quotes scientists out of context and mangles there words.
It is an attempt to mislead: thinly disguised.
0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 01:42 am
It seems a lot of scientists don't agree with the
GLOBAL WARMING claim .


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 02:08 pm
The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 05:26 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
Global Warming may be a fact. It also may just be weather.

Anthropogenic (Man Made) global warming may be more politics then fact.

There has been considerably more atmospheric CO2 in some past ages. The Earth has been considerably warmer in the past, The Earth has been considerably cooler in the past. There may have been less atmospheric CO2 in the past. Unfortunetly the records aren't too good past 10,000 years.

Where do you think that the carbon in todays coals, limestones, and corals came from?

It's nice not to pollute. It may not be so nice to call an important plant food a pollutant. Politicians are sometimes nice. Politicians are sometimes not nice!

The amount of carbon in the world was pretty well determined at its creation.
We may have a bit of influence over what form it is in. At less than about 1/2 of one percent difference in atmospheric CO2 attributed to man I will worry more about what I will do after supper!

The carbon sequestered in coal largely came from plant biomass. The carbon sequestered in limestone and coral is largely the result of animal biomass. Any increase in temperature or concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is likely to lead to an increase in the activities of these processes.

Consider that if sea levels rise Florida and Bangladesh may become uninhabitable. But Greenland will be pretty nice! If temperature increases the Sahara may become green again. Maybe we will be bright enough to have sustainable development in Antartica. I wouldn't bet on it.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » carbon dioxide
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:39:13