Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

We aren't, and wouldn't be, saving the planet; the planet will get along just fine. We are, instead, trying to save ourselves.

I asked a question earlier that I would like to repeat: at what point would there be enough evidence to convince people such as yourself that there is a serious problem? What matricies do you judge the problem by?

You state, also:

Quote:

The U.N. is very, very political. I would value what their experts say about climate change as basicly worth less than a hill of beans

That's because you disagree with the policies of the UN, not because their scientists are any less competent than any other scientists. Who do you value, when it comes to scientific opinions on Climate Change?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Sound scientific opinions based on sound, unbiased facts, without alot of assumptions as to future projections, and preferably done by scientists not connected to a political organization or agenda.

0 Replies

I didn't say what type, I said who.

You have concluded - based upon what evidence, exactly? - that those scientists that forward the concept of Climate Change are not credible, for one reason or another (which I'm sure would shift depending on the individual). So who is credible? What scientists have you read who are credible? Why do you believe they are credible, while others are not? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

For starters, check out the links I posted a few posts back. When I get time, I can get more specific if names matter that much.

0 Replies

We have climate change, because by short-term recorded history of the world's climate, it is getting warmer. The problem with the current warming up of the planet may be in its natural cycle, and not from the burning of fossil fuels or manmade products.

Evidence can be found to show the warming of this planet. All the conclusions made by scientists about human influence on earth's climate are only guesses; nothing more.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, You make an interesting observation about ecology and communism. Some people just refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that indivudual action to save this planet has no impact on our ecology; the increased use of fossil fuels will not deminish at any time while Chna and India, the most populated countries on this planet, finds more needs for it.

Excellent point.

At some point we have to accept that we are dealing with a new reality and not try to cling to the past. It may very well not be a better reality, but it is the reality with which we are faced. How conservative of Liberals to want to return to a bygone pastoral age, and further proof that there is enromous overlap between what we perceive to be conservative and liberal.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

On the other hand, if everybody thinks that way, no changes at all would happen on any subject.

What changes can you realistically hope to occur?

Roughly the same group of people have been arguing against nuclear weapons, and yet they continue to proliferate.

The only way that there will be a populist movement to curtail the use of fossil fuel etc will be for there to be an extreme environmental catastrophe. In effect, too late.

There is no where near the level of popular support for a Luddite agenda to curb the excesses you believe to be in place.

So the world gets warmer? The human species and modern civilization will have no problem surviving.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn = We aren't, and wouldn't be, saving the planet; the planet will get along just fine. We are, instead, trying to save ourselves.

I asked a question earlier that I would like to repeat: at what point would there be enough evidence to convince people such as yourself that there is a serious problem? What matricies do you judge the problem by?

You state, also:

[quote]The U.N. is very, very political. I would value what their experts say about climate change as basicly worth less than a hill of beans[/quote]

That's because you disagree with the policies of the UN, not because their scientists are any less competent than any other scientists. Who do you value, when it comes to scientific opinions on Climate Change?

Cycloptichorn

Global Climate Change does not represent a significant threat to either mankind of modern civilization.

The most extreme and ludicrous expression of the threat, as represented by the film "Day After Tomorrow," posed no real threat to the continuance of the human species or. for that matter, modern civilization.

There may be all sorts of reasons not to want Global Climate Change to occur, but they certainly do not include the preservation of the planet, nor the preservation of mankind or modern civilization.

Sooner or later we will have to accept the fact that human destiny will carry us far beyond the confines of a single planet and its natural systems. This doesn't mean that we should not begin to realize that we need to exercise our growing power with prudence, but it does mean that notions of technological and consumptive restraint are romantic desires from a bygone era.

0 Replies

Cicerone imposter quote:

Quote:

We have climate change, because by short-term recorded history of the world's climate, it is getting warmer. The problem with the current warming up of the planet may be in its natural cycle, and not from the burning of fossil fuels or manmade products.

Evidence can be found to show the warming of this planet. All the conclusions made by scientists about human influence on earth's climate are only guesses; nothing more.

Do I detect a shift in your philosophy or opinions or am I mixing you up with somebody else?

0 Replies

okie, I don't think so, although I have said in the past that it wouldn't hurt humans to minimize the toxic gas from burning fossil fuels.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

We have climate change, because by short-term recorded history of the world's climate, it is getting warmer. The problem with the current warming up of the planet may be in its natural cycle, and not from the burning of fossil fuels or manmade products.

Evidence can be found to show the warming of this planet. All the conclusions made by scientists about human influence on earth's climate are only guesses; nothing more.

I think that's a little unfair ci. Predictions about the future might be termed guesswork but not analysis of historic data. Where I think I agree is that no experts in a field of study are ever likely to conclude that their chosen line of research is bunk. People who go looking for something, often find it...thus proving they were right to start looking in the first place, and justifying further research and the necessary funding. But dont you think the world's leading climatologists and paleo climatologists are aware of these factors? Dont you think their "guess" about what might happen carries a little more weight than someone who's scientific research is based on observing a bit of seaweed?

I wont be in Chicago. Have a great time and say hello to anyone who knows me. (Still use the a2k San Fransisco hat btw Smile

)

0 Replies

Chance of snow flurries here today. Warming shwarming.

0 Replies

Steve, Climatologists can read the tealeaves to interpret what they find with only two conclusions; we have global warming or not. Macro climate studies have shown this planet to have gone trhough several ice ages. The present recorded history of global warming looks at a very short period in relation to this planet's age, and human use of fossil fuels have a shorter time period in relative terms.

Your guess is as good as mine; scientist's are guessing one or the other from too short a history on climate and the use of fossil fuels.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:
I think we can sort out the wheat from the chaff really quickly here.

I doubt it.

Quote:
I would love to hear from some of the true believers in the concept of global warming.

What I want to know is, if you truly believe what you say:

Do you heat/cool your home using fossil fuels? (This would include electricity gained by burning coal, etc)

Yes, to an extent. I have a couple of solar panels (see below) and I get most of my energy from the city.

Here in Austin we have the Greenchoice energy purchase program which allows citizens and businesses to direct their funds to renewable energy sources, in particular, wind farms in West Texas. While technically the energy I use to heat and cool my household comes from the same grid as everyone else's, 100% of the money that I pay goes to the renewable wind farms in west Texas. I pay a higher rate for electricity for this.

Quote:
Do you use public transportation or a bike to commute to work?

Bike; I put over 2k miles on my bike last year. And lost twenty pounds in the process.

Quote:
How many miles do you put on your car annually?

Zero. I sold my car. Waste of money and I don't agree with polluting every time I need to go someplace. People tell me that you have to have a car to get by; it seems to me that humans existed for several hundred thousand years without one, so why is it so neccessary now? I don't buy it.

If I had the money to buy a very-efficient hybrid, or electric car, I would.

Quote:
How many miles per gallon does your car get?

Zero; but my bicycle gets about 30 or 40 miles on 3 Clif Bars, which is about the same price as a gallon of gas.

Quote:
Do you use any other gas driven machinery (lawn mower, weed trimmer, motorboat, etc) ?

Only public transportation, Greyhound Bus, Aeroplanes, and I do believe my weed whacker runs off of gasoline.

Quote:
Do you attend events at night (concerts, movies, sports events, etc ) or shop during the evening which necessitates extra electricity usage and therefore may cause more fossil fuels being burned?

Sometimes.

Quote:
How many electric or gas appliances have you disposed of to cut back on your use of energy? What were they?

Shrug. I just keep the lights off and the AC off when I'm not around. My electric bill is quite low.

Quote:
What alternate power source are you using for your home's needs and what % of the power used at your home is from this alternate method?

I have two solar panels that provide about 10-15% of my monthly bill. They should, at current rate, pay themselves off in about 4 years. I have a solar stove which I bought last year that works great on sunny days.

Quote:
Are you just talking the talk, or are you walking the walk?

What do you think?

What have you done?

Cycloptichorn

I applaud your consistency to your belief. You are the exception, not the rule among your peers.

As you know, the vast majority of believers in global warming live a lifestyle indistinguishable from those of us who doubt the validity of the idea.

I think it's hilarious when I read about Ted Kennedy opposing a wind farm near his home, and stories about Washington pols showing up riding in SUV's at photo ops to decry high gas prices or somberly warm us about global warming. These are the guys you probably support. http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/john-kerry-environment-suv.htm

As for me, I've done nothing that doesn't benefit me.

I use fluorescent bulbs instead of standard most of the time to try to save $$, not because I fear global warming.

I would love to use an alternate source to heat/cool my home. Not because I fear global warming, but because I despise monopolies such as the utility companies and the chokehold they put on us.

I use my vans whenever I need them. They are gas hogs. When I can afford a newer more efficient one, I will buy it. Not because of global warming, but if it can save me $$.

These are clues if you are paying attention. The way to get people to do want you want them to do (conserve) is to make it beneficial to them, not because you posit a dubious theory.

You'd make yourself rich in the process, so it wouldn't hurt you either. That's good economics and good politics, so get after it.

0 Replies

Did anyone check with Kyoto to see if something like this is allowed before allowing this to happen? Where is the U.N., Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or somebody to check this out? Who should be fined billions for this unleashing of I am guessing at least thousands of tons of pollution into the atmosphere?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195817,00.html

0 Replies

That's nice joke, okie.

(But actually proves that you have no idea what Kyoto, U.N., Greenpeace, Sierra Club et cetera is all about. Nor that you ever read/understood anything about it.)

0 Replies

Well, my joke illustrates something doesn't it? If Exxon, the largest and most evil organization in the world, had caused this, the probable, projected effects as estimated by every credible environmental scientist of impending environmental disaster, from global warming or cooling, floods, blah, blah, blah, and extinction of species and other spinoffs would be the headline of every news organization today and for the next 6 months. As it is, it rates casual mention.

0 Replies

You overestimate volcanic effects and underestimate human effects. Most of the stuff volcanoes spew out is either particulate matter or short-term aerosols. They either settle out or are precipitated out within a year or two. Greenhouse gasses like CO2 on the other hand stay in the atmosphere for about a century, so we're still living with the stuff that went up in 1906 (roughly speaking ), plus what went up in 1907,1908.....1991, 1992,......

This sounds like a pretty piddly eruption comparatively speaking. Even once-in-a-few-hundred-year ones, like Tambora in 1815 (which produced "the year with no summer" in 1815-16) have only short-term effects. And we produce more of the long-lasting stuff than volcanoes do.

0 Replies

username, your post requires some historical AND scientifical knowledge ...

0 Replies

If Global warming due to "Man made" release of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere is causing "global warming"(no one,to the best of my knowledge, has separated "natural"effects from "man-made" effects and given a value to each) eg. 60% man-made; 40% natural, I am most concered by two countries which are not signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, namely China and India. These countries were exempted from signing on to the Kyoto Protocol since they were classed as "developing countries when the Kyoto Protocal was developed originally. Some have said that, no matter how severly the US cut its pollution into the atmosphere, the pollution created by China and India will more than make up for any US cut back by the year 2020.

What can be done, if, indeed, something needs to be done?

Some claim that the recent warming of about 1 degree world wide is due to the action of increased solar activity.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know