Global Warming, Manmade or Just Nature [Archive]

Terry Penrod

August 9th, 2006, 04:57 pm

.

I'm also a big believer in normal climactic shifts that could easily account for any (perceived) current increase in hurricanes, tsunamis, average temperatures, etc. We simply cannot begin to prove a direct link between pollution rates / the ozone layer and these larger events.

However, we can measure specific things like air / water quality, accelerated erosion around densely populated or over developed land masses and the negative effect of overly aggressive forestry without proper reforestation projects. Plus we can plainly see the immediate impact that man-made disasters like oils spills and nuclear power plant leaks have. Those are simply our fault and there is no denying them period.

But in every case, we have made very big strides over the past few decades in all sorts of critical areas including far more stringent industrial safety standards, disaster recovery and emmission controls. We have also made significant progress with much better energy conservation and environmental impact in dozens of areas like alternate fuels, better solar/wind/wave solutions as augmentations to fossil fuels and nuclear power, more mass transit systems, better waste management processes, highly efficient rainwater treatment and resuse plants, and what appears to be an extremely exciting, new, multi-pronged avenue of nanotech research that has already produced some amazing advancements in environmental clean-up procedures, cancer treatment, super efficent materials, and much more. In the next two decades that whole area of R&D is going to explode in every direction.

So anyone who thinks we are not making measurable progress in all those and other areas is simply wrong and anybody who believes they can prove that mankind is in fact causing major shifts in the weather or increased polar icecap activity or accelerated natural disasters needs to do a much better job of presenting their case by offering a great deal more solid evidence.

Panic based on a lot of speculation will NOT solve anything and yes, we really do need to assure that we don't cause a total collapse of the economy based on these fears. Do we need to move as quickly as possible on all fronts? Hell yes we do. But that effort cannot be based on speculation and it must allow the economy to accommodate human beings who need jobs, housing, transportation, communications, education, life essentials and many other things in order to both survive and grow in our modern world. In other words we have to apply common sense and we need to maintain a certain level of prosperity or else everything civilized will crumble around us.

Cheers, Terry

bmn

August 10th, 2006, 01:51 am

Since the mean temperature anomaly is now warmer than it ever has been in a few hundred years, yes I believe that global warming is not only real but also man-made.

NotSoFast: You appear not to have done any research at all on this issue. Otherwise you would know how we measure the temperature of old times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). Next time try and actually learn something before you post. :rolleyes: Also, your statements about the Dustbowl are most appropriate, thanks for bringing it up... :):

In the few years leading up to the dustbowl, the fertile plains of the midwest were being very poorly farmed. Indigenous plants which fed the soil were removed wholesale, and wheat was planted instead. This had the unintended side-effect of the soil just blowing away. :scared: Hence, no plants to soak up that nasty C02. And, as you'd probably like to contest, too much C02 == warmer temperatures. Thanks for proving global warming is man-made! :D:

One of the most common arguments I hear is that
"Whether or not humans cause global warming is debated."
I've yet to see any credible (peer-reviewed) scientific journal even question this. In fact, energy companies actually pay scientists millions of dollars to make this subject "debated". By far the most prevalent conclusion within the scientific community is that humans are causing global warming. Only a very small minority of scientists contest this. Why take their opinions with so much more weight than the vast majority? Probably you're afraid of change, that's what I think. Yet I can see no negative effects emerging from reducing our environmental impact. Think about this: fossil fuels ARE a finite resource. They are not going to last forever. That's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is an absolutely indisputable fact. So why not start movingg AWAY from non-renewable energy sources ASAP? Perhaps because *gasps in shock* it might prove me and all those who agree with me RIGHT? :rolleyes:

Rafal Dudek

August 10th, 2006, 01:59 am

Kinda both but it gets disturbing. Yes, there is a cold-warm cycle the earth experiences due to increase and decrease of water vapor found in atmosphere. Problem is, due to heavy polutants we may have disturbed this cycle. Only really time knows what will happen next. We may go into a long ice age or we may turn out to be like the planet Venus in terms of thick atmosphere.

Kingfisher

August 10th, 2006, 11:29 am

Think about this: fossil fuels ARE a finite resource. They are not going to last forever. That's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is an absolutely indisputable fact.

As you have pointed out, fossil fuels are a finite resource. So even if Global Warming is true, we can simply wait for the fuels to run out.

Argument over!

:joker:

Chylde Roland

August 10th, 2006, 11:45 am

I'm kind of on the fence about this one. I'm mainly a believer in the natural temperature swing camp, but I'm not so sure this one is completely natural. Like Zedd, I think our actions have definitely had an impact on the way things are going.

In Calgary, things have been changing over the last few years, and it's been pretty noticeable. Last year we had a very wet and rainy July, which is unusual, that caused mass flooding and many problems with the growing season. This year it's been very, very hot, which is also unusual. Our July has typically been more temparate, with some minor swings into the low 30s (celcius). This year we've had consistently hot weather and very little rain, not even thunder showers.

Things are easing up now, with a good deal of rain yesterday and more expected today. But that's not all: our winters have also been increasingly more mild. Typically we get a good freeze during December and January, with some darn cold weather into February. The past two years have been different. Things have not gotten all that cold, and I only had to plug my car in a couple of times. Normally it would need plugging in throughout January and February.

One thing is for certain, and that's the need for us to diversify our sources of energy. I'm with bmn when he says our oil WILL run out. In Alberta, we have oil sands that are estimated to have larger reserves than the oil in Saudi Arabia, but even that will eventually run out (especially if... no... when... the US taps into this source).

I get very nervous when I think about us running out of oil, because everything we do in North America depends on the energy provided by fossil fuels: manfacturing, farming, driving, food processing, entertainment… everything. If we don't come up with a more environmentally sound, renewable, source of energy soon, we're going to be in big trouble. I've seen some positive strides in this direction, such as wind and solar farms, but it's going to take one hell of a lot more than that to keep us going.

The climate change in itself is a bad thing, and something to cause concern, but it's these other changes that are occuring as a result that are also very disconcerting. I've long been a subscriber to National Geographic, and for the past few years, it's been very rare to see an issue without at least one story about how we're destroying our planet. It's always a wake up call, and it also makes me sad about the way things are going. But I don't know what to do to change things...

bmn

August 10th, 2006, 03:00 pm

As you have pointed out, fossil fuels are a finite resource. So even if Global Warming is true, we can simply wait for the fuels to run out.

Argument over!

:joker:
That is not funny. What you're talking about quite possibly involves the absolute destruction of all human life on Earth, simply because you give more credability to a fractional minority of scientists than practically the entire community.

Why?

Why would you risk something so globally catastrophic? Just so your precious big businesses can make a few more bucks by not cleaning up their act? Thus far I've seen ZERO reasonable arguments AGAINST reducing pollution.

NotSoFast

August 10th, 2006, 04:13 pm

BMN, you actually expect me to believe that planting wheat raised the temperatures over many states over 30 degrees? And ONLY in these states.

And what would you have us do? Shut down our computers to save energy? Walk 40 miles each way to work and back?

People also seem to overlook the overpopulation of the planet. There are several times more people now than there were a few hundred years ago.

One last thing....I highly doubt they can tell a one degree temperature average difference from hundreds or thousands of years ago by analyzing an ice sample. That is, afterall, what the scientists say the difference is. A degree or two increase in hundreds of years.

I'm not saying we don't need to change our ways. I am not even saying there is NOT a slight temperature change. What I am saying is that there is no hard evidence of "dangerous" changes already taking place.

Temperature fluctuations come and go. They always have. Some scientists say we are still on the way back up from the last ice age 10,000 years ago. If this is true, it seems logical that temperatures would be rising.

Maybe we could curb the population explosion on our planet. Less people using polluting products would mean less greenhouse gasses. Less people consume less food. Less fuel for farming and processing these foods. Less cows killing the atmosphere with their flatulation. Less cars on the highways.

bmn

August 10th, 2006, 11:56 pm

BMN, you actually expect me to believe that planting wheat raised the temperatures over many states over 30 degrees? And ONLY in these states.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Dust_Storm_Texas_1935.jpg/800px-Dust_Storm_Texas_1935.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Dust_Storm_Texas_1935.jpg)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Dallas_South_Dakota_1936.jpg

Wheat caused that. You seriously don't think it could raise the temperature?

And what would you have us do? Shut down our computers to save energy? Walk 40 miles each way to work and back?

Let's start looking into alternate energy sources, for one thing. As I've said earlier, we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Whether we're prepared when we do is a matter of how fast we start phasing them out of our lives.

People also seem to overlook the overpopulation of the planet. There are several times more people now than there were a few hundred years ago.

I don't see how this is relevant, but that seems like a nice indisputible fact...

One last thing....I highly doubt they can tell a one degree temperature average difference from hundreds or thousands of years ago by analyzing an ice sample. That is, afterall, what the scientists say the difference is. A degree or two increase in hundreds of years.

Somehow, I had predicted that you would try to call into question the effectiveness of this method. Too bad it's a proven method and its effectiveness is NOT in question.

I'm not saying we don't need to change our ways. I am not even saying there is NOT a slight temperature change. What I am saying is that there is no hard evidence of "dangerous" changes already taking place.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg

Speaks for itself.

Temperature fluctuations come and go. They always have. Some scientists say we are still on the way back up from the last ice age 10,000 years ago. If this is true, it seems logical that temperatures would be rising.

Again, taking that fractional minority and giving it more credability than just about the entire community.

... Why?

Maybe we could curb the population explosion on our planet. Less people using polluting products would mean less greenhouse gasses. Less people consume less food. Less fuel for farming and processing these foods. Less cows killing the atmosphere with their flatulation. Less cars on the highways.

That's not a bad idea, actually.

Terry Penrod

August 11th, 2006, 01:16 am

.

I loved that scene at the beginning of The Wizard of Oz when the big storm was heading straight for Dorothy's house... the photo above kinda looks like that sans the funnel doesn't it? And the one below looks just like Galveston Beach after that huge hurricane struck early in the 20th century.

Seriously though, we obviously need to accelerate R&D for finding clean, efficient, new forms of renewable energy capable of replacing fossil fuels on a grand scale and we need to step up all efforts to conserve energy, abate pollution, clean-up our water and maintain adequate wetlands, forests, etc. Even if the global warming thing turns out to be a false alarm, all those things still must be done if civilization is going to survive another century.

Cheers, Terry

Terry Penrod

August 15th, 2006, 07:00 pm

.

Here's a link to a related news article about an interesting new idea aimed at seriously reducing harmful gases from burning fossil fuels that I thought some of you might like to see. It involves trapping, liquifying and pumping greenhouse gases from industrial plants into existing pockets under the cold sediment on the deep ocean floor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060815/ts_nm/environment_carbon_dc

Whether or not this kind of sweeping solution actually solves global warming, it most certainly would reduce air pollution drastically and that would be a very big step in the right direction. It would also allow industry to continue, economies to grow and regular folks to go on heating their homes, etc. without adding to the problem.

Now, could a series of future offshore earthquakes undo the benefits and release massive amounts of liquified greenhouse gases into the oceans all at once? Possibly but I assume we will do some extremely comprehensive studies about the very safest long-term storage points for pumping these gases beneath the sea to minimize any such risk.

Cheers, Terry

bmn

August 16th, 2006, 01:15 am

Sounds like sweeping the dust under the rug to me.

Terry Penrod

August 16th, 2006, 01:51 am

.

Sounds like sweeping the dust under the rug to me.

Given that we currently have no good alternatives for completely replacing all fossil fuel usage for all energy needs worldwide BMN, what exactly would you suggest? Should we stop all travel, all commerce and all industry everywhere, throwing the entire human race into joblessness, abject poverty, chaos and back to the stone age?

Or should we discuss, explore and embrace any and all feasible new ideas like this one that might actually put a noticeable dent in pollution rates, while allowing us to keep living in a modern civilized society and to keep growing as we search for even better long-term solutions?

Cheers, Terry

Soapflake

August 16th, 2006, 02:09 am

I don't see how this is relevant, but that seems like a nice indisputible fact...

Are you kidding me? Overpopulation is highly relevant in this dicussion! I'm sure you know overpopulation equals more cars, more electric used, more food production and forest destruction. All of that is speeding up the process and its only going to get worse.

Now I'm all for different energy sources. It will eventually be the only way, but there are few energy sources as effective as our fossil fuels (at least so far anyway. that is what research is for). You probably also know that oil companies and automotive companies are slowing the production of these new vehicles. I saw an episode of The Daily Show the other night there was one man on there discussing the electric car that was produced for a short period of time, and then discontinued. Not only that, but GM came in and asked for all the cars back. Its hard to make an impact on saving the earth when big business will not let you.

This is going to be a slow process and to get angry at people for polluting isn't the answer. I drive 80 miles roundtrip to get to work every day. Theres nothing I can do about it (besides getting another job). If there were effective electric cars, hydrogen-cell cars or water vapor cars available I'd be getting one. But again, you know who is slowing the new ideas down.

NeedForPower

August 16th, 2006, 11:03 pm

To tell you the truth I didnt read all posts, so if i say something already said I apologize.
Speaking from a religious point of view, the Earth never went through ice ages and is not a qua-billion years old, so the dude with caveman story.... Sorry.
Speaking from my point of view.... As someone else said, if you cant see that we're screwing up the planet... Well you just ain't the brightest star in the galaxy now are you?
Temperature guy, here in arizona we were in the 100's close to 110 for weeks at a time.... I remember not 10 years ago to get a few above 100 was scortching hot.
My brilliant 2 second thought cure for global warming. Earth needs an exhaust pipe.
My brilliant 4 second thought cure for global warming. Earth needs dual exhaust. I mean we just make a huge pipe(s) to the moon and everytime it goes by we shoot our gases at it. Nobody lives there, nobody cares right?
Now for different energy sources, FUSION, just need to learn how to control that puppy.
And the attitude of "Well eventually we will fix it right?" thinking that way your going to be dead before you can find out.

Pure and simple fact, we are destroying our planet, and if we dont try to slow it down majorly... Well we arent going to have a planet for much longer.

Rob

August 16th, 2006, 11:17 pm

Earth needs to lose a few billion people, especially as we will longer. I am not suggestion actually killing anyone, but limiting births should really be on everyones mind long into and after the death rate is higher then the birth rate.

Speaking from a religious point of view, the Earth never went through ice ages and is not a qua-billion years old, so the dude with caveman story.... Eh, what? So dinosaurs were not on this earth 65 million years ago? The ice age didn't happen? I do not always agree with religeous points of view, but I have never met one who didn't believe dinosaurs or the iceage existed.

Personally, I think the earth has its own ebb and flow and we will always be caught in it. However, people and pollution could be forcing more extremes at a faster rate. I believe it is a combination of the two.

And as far as the pipes go... I think it would be much better to fix the problem then push it off on someone else. Reminds me of an episode of Futurama.

NeedForPower

August 18th, 2006, 01:08 am

You never know, maybe god had plans for dinosaurs, smashed a meteor into the planet to see if any were smart enough to live, maybe he froze the planet. It's impossible to know, perhaps Earth is one of gods toys, maybe he's been screwing with Earth for millions of years.

The simple thing is there is no proof.

Another thing is, scientists have NO idea if their dating technology works. They believe they know how but they cant really test it. I mean if Earth lasts another 600 millions and the human race does too then the scientist now can bury something leaving a note with it saying "This is from the year 2006".

Another thought, "The Big Bang Theory" well where'd the material come from to cause the big bang? (Rob your going to hate this next part) It amazes me how stupid scientists can be to have never thought of this, and if they did they never really said how the material was created. I mean its an infinite loop, if this created the material for the big bang then what was that created from, and that created from, and that created from etc etc...

Hey if there is a heaven and a hell no one is going to know until they get there.

So as I was saying, god might've been screwing with the planet for a million years or just a 10,000 years. Scientists have no control to test their dating technology, sure it might be able to nail how old I am, but they dont know how something would decay over a million years, they have theories, but they just dont know for a fact.

At the same time, who created god?

Rafal Dudek

August 18th, 2006, 01:48 am

Why did this thread turn into a religious debate?

Ice ages come and go. Hell, there was a minor ice age back in medieval europe!!!!

bmn

August 18th, 2006, 06:49 am

Perhaps you'd care to argue that I can't prove the earth is round, NeedForPower?

pcfreak

August 18th, 2006, 09:21 am

Shoboy

August 19th, 2006, 12:57 am

The earth goes in cycles, plain and simple. We are not helping matters by being over populated, wasteful and flatout ingnorant of the "nature" dangers of our fuels. But seriously, we are not effecting things that much. This planet is going to do what it always has, go in cycles. We will just be caught up in it.

We will NEVER leave OIL. There is too much money in it and money rules the world. Money is power and to those who have it, it is NOW! Money is in thier pocket NOW! Not much care for the 'long run' on "thier" part.

Religion......real quick as to not derail. There is no 'real' proof about past tempatures, fine, I'll sort of buy that cause I'm not much of a scientist. Ice is Ice but I will say we can learn things from it. But no matter what anyone says about God this and God that, there is no proof that there even is a God, so any debate between the science that we are discovering and the God we credit for everything is pointless................ Even though we have things (bones for ex.)that are millions of years old but alot of the 'religous' stuff only goes back a few thousand years.......................... :thikskul:

The world will spin around and around like this :globe: , the face of it will change cause that's called plate tectonics, and the weather will always be unpredictable. We are not helping, but we are not hurting it as much as so many would like us to believe.

pcfreak

August 19th, 2006, 05:08 am

'Climate change is our biggest environmental challenge', says the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair. His chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, calls it a far greater global threat than international terrorism.

There is wide though not unanimous agreement from scientists that they are right.

It is certainly possible that warming temperatures could take the Earth into uncharted waters, even though nobody can say exactly how fast it may happen and who will be most affected.

Life on Earth exists only because of the natural greenhouse effect, the ability of the atmosphere to retain enough heat for species to thrive (and no more).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of several thousand independent scientists, says rising levels of industrial pollution are unnaturally enhancing this effect, with increasing amounts of heat trapped near the Earth instead of escaping into space.

The main culprits, it says, are the burning of fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas - and changes in land use.

The chief greenhouse gas from human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2).

Before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 270-280 parts per million (ppm).

They now stand at almost 380ppm, and have been rising at about 1.5ppm annually.

The consequence of increasing CO2 and other pollutant levels, the IPCC says, will be higher average global temperatures, meaning unpredictable weather, rising sea levels, and perhaps runaway heating as the whole climate system slips out of gear.

The IPCC predicts that if we go on as we are, by 2100 global sea levels will probably have risen by 9 to 88cm and average temperatures will be between 1.5 and 5.5C higher than now.

That may not sound very much - but the last Ice Age was only 4-5C colder than today.

The sceptics are unmoved. Some say the human influence on the climate is negligible, and that isolating one small variable, CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, in an immensely complex natural system is meaningless.

Others insist the IPCC's measurements are flawed and its predictions unreliable. Yet others believe a warmer world would be better for most of us.

They are entirely right to argue that there are still many uncertainties about the climate and any influence we may have on it.

But many who were once sceptics now accept that enhanced climate change is happening, and that we have to respond - not necessarily by trying to reduce its extent but by adapting to its effects.

Part of the problem is that climate change is now part of the stuff of science fiction, with Hollywood and some campaign groups alike feeding scare stories that owe little, if anything, to scientific fact.

But the facts are sobering enough. We know that average global surface temperatures have risen by 0.6C in the last 140 years.

All of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 1990, including each year since 1997.

If we could halt all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the heating would continue for decades or more
The possibilities are sobering too.

Many water-scarce regions now will probably become thirstier.

Some countries may be able to produce bigger harvests, but in others yields will drop. Sea level rise may make many coastal areas uninhabitable.

Weather patterns may change, producing more heat waves, droughts, floods and violent storms.

Aid agencies are warning that these combined effects could seriously jeopardise attempts to lift the world's poorest people out of poverty.

Furthermore, there is also the possibility of "positive feedbacks"- for example, higher temperatures may release more methane from the Arctic tundra and CO2 from peat bogs, which will themselves speed up the warming process.

Then there is the inertia of the atmosphere and the oceans.

What we do today may literally determine how long the Greenland icecap survives - even though, at fastest, it will still take a good few centuries to disappear.

And wildlife, less equipped to adapt than humans, could be hit hard. One estimate suggests hundreds of thousands of species may be at risk of extinction by 2050 because of climate change.

Hundreds of thousands of species may be at risk of extinction by 2050
Creating worldwide consensus on this global problem is difficult, not least because of the economic cost of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol, which commits rich countries to reducing emissions, is a small but necessary start on building an international system for tackling climate change, its proponents believe.

But the country responsible for about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the US, has refused to sign up to it.

The protocol does not require developing countries to cut their emissions, although fast-industrialising countries like China will soon be significant contributors as those in poor nations increasingly demand rich world lifestyles.

For them, emissions cuts could have significant social costs in slowing the growth that feeds economic development, creates jobs and helps lift the poor out of poverty.

A prudent look at the evidence, preliminary though it is, suggests we shall be wise to err on the side of caution.

Dr Geoff Jenkins, of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said recently: "Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human influence on climate.

"We've reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening."

And what's happening now could lead to a world beyond our experience.

NeedForPower

August 20th, 2006, 07:10 pm

Sorry to get off topic again, but the bones we dug up you cannot prove for a fact that they are a million years old. I also agree, yes we have no proof there is a god, but we have no proof there isnt. Like I said, we just have to wait till we die to find out.

Anyways back on topic, well if you look at a city (say Pheonix) and you see the huge smog cloud over it, and you still dont think we're having a effect....well I better not say.Anyways this is one of the few things that scientist say that I agree with, we are having a effect, and basically we're screwing ourselves over. You can disagree, and I'm not going to stop you, you're just reminding me how un-intelligent the human race is. Nope, Rob I'm not saying I'm superior. And to prove it, here's a nice quote:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein

Rafal Dudek

August 20th, 2006, 11:25 pm

http://home.comcast.net/~rafal12468/Mt._Elbert_climb25.jpg

I dunno bout this whole global warming thingiemajiggie. But when I was hiking up Mt. Elbert, it was farking COLD up there :p:

NeedForPower

August 21st, 2006, 01:00 am

Why is everyone wearing shorts then? lol

Rafal Dudek

August 21st, 2006, 01:14 am

they're used to it. I was wearing a ski jacket and long pants and was still freezing =P

pcfreak

August 21st, 2006, 06:49 am

The simple thing is there is no proof.

Another thing is, scientists have NO idea if their dating technology works. They believe they know how but they cant really test it. I mean if Earth lasts another 600 millions and the human race does too then the scientist now can bury something leaving a note with it saying "This is from the year 2006".

How did you come to this conclusion? Where did you get this information. Carbon dating has been proven to be a reliable means of dating objects. It sounds like you have made your mind up before you discovered the facts. In fact, I doubt you have even bothered to try and discover the facts!!
Just for you, follow this link and you will see how carbon dating works.

Carbon Dating (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/excavations_techniques/carbon_dating.shtml)

Then you can make an informed and enlightened statement, instead of ill informed statements!!

Cheers,
Stuart

NeedForPower

August 21st, 2006, 10:05 am

Yes I've read up on carbon dating, but they have no means in which to prove it can actually get how old something. If they alread knew that something was a million years old, then tested it and carbon dating said "yep thats how old it is" then they would know it works. They think they've figured out how carbon decays, but over a period of a million years they really dont know.

Kingfisher

August 21st, 2006, 01:28 pm

This thread is losing the point!! The issue we are supposed to be discussing is global warming!
I think there are too many people saying wait and see if global warming is happening. To me that is very stupid indeed. There is growing evidence, from reputable scientists, that global warming caused by mankind is happening. Surely this should be enough to make us think about our impact on the planet and do something about it, not wait till its too late!

This Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_on_sc/ozone_global_warming) is a prime example of why I advocate waiting until we KNOW what the full situation is and what the fallout of our actions could be, not jumping into immediate action without understanding the full picture.

Kingfisher

August 21st, 2006, 01:49 pm

Carbon dating has been proven to be a reliable means of dating objects. It sounds like you have made your mind up before you discovered the facts. In fact, I doubt you have even bothered to try and discover the facts!!
Just for you, follow this link and you will see how carbon dating works.

Carbon Dating (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/excavations_techniques/carbon_dating.shtml)

Then you can make an informed and enlightened statement, instead of ill informed statements!!

Cheers,
Stuart

Two problems with your statements here.

First, radiocarbon dating assumes a constant proportion of carbon-14 thoughout the time span of the object being tested. But we know that the ratio of C14 to C12 in the atmosphere has not been constant. We have measured higher ratios before the Industrial Revolution and lower ratios after atmospheric testing of nuclear reactions. They have been able to tweak the dating clock by testing objects that have been historically dated (such as graves and other dated objects) but outside recorded history, it's all assumption. Assuming a constant rate during such a huge timeframe simply doesn't flow with what we know of the planet's state throughout known history. These objects don't sit undisturbed in a vault. They are bare to the elements.

Second, even carbon dating proponents state that carbon dating is invalid past 50,000 years. Not one million.

Add to the above that it is not empirical science. These things all have assumption in the theory. You cannot empirically test the age of anything that old. We haven't been here to witness it and it can't be recreated in a labratory setting.

NeedForPower

August 21st, 2006, 06:08 pm

Exactly my point. You just had better words.

Anyways, if you dont take action now to stop "possible" global warming then we might find ourselves in a position where we can't reverse it.

I mean if by some means right now we stop polluting completely and we replanted the rain forests, I'm pretty sure we'd see a result within a year.

Only problems, the human race depends on pollution in a matter of speaking, and to replant what we've cut down would have a massive price that the human race just would not pay that price.

Shoboy

August 24th, 2006, 05:44 pm

Carbon dating still goes back much farther than anything writen in the bible. So that shows that science is still older than religion and that science is a provable thing.

While it does NOT automatically discount what any religous book 'may' say, it does show that what is 'common' belief in religious history is mostly wrong.

Take adam and eve. How old are they? When, according to the birth of christ, did they 'take place'? We got 2006 years according to catholic religion but we know that stuff happened before JC was born. But just how long did stuff happen before JC was born that we "know of" according to the book? Was time not kept back then? Carbon dating can at least show 50,000 years...... That's alot of time before good ole JC was around.............. I dont think Adam and Eve were that old.

And dinosours. We have thier bones, it cant be passed off. But I dont remember reading anything about them in my days of catholic school and catholic study in college..... But that stuff is for a totally different thread............

With global warming, it sounds like we are all doomed. But with global warming and the PROOF that it really is happening, despite the arguements on WHY it is, there are also quite a few PROVABLE facts that we are in fact heading for another ICE AGE!

Kind of odd how we can have both at the same time :wtf:

NeedForPower

August 24th, 2006, 09:04 pm

Yeah, no offense.... But have you actually read a bible before? It was when I was a kid but Adam and Eve became before JC and no dates or years were written down to my knowledge so....

Despite the 50,000 thing, scientists really dont know for a fact how carbon decays past like 6,000 years. I admit im not a history Genius so...

Sorry dude the the thread went off topic...

Soapflake

August 25th, 2006, 12:23 am

Shoboy, the bible is more a guide of how you should live your life, not an encyclopedia with dates and dinosaurs.

NeedForPower

August 26th, 2006, 12:02 am

Speaking of the bible I saw on the history channel they found evidence of a scene from the bible being true. They followed everything the bible said and found all the evidence. Even stones with the events carved on them.

The scene was when Moses parted the water and then had it crash onto the bad guys. (Again I havent read a single page of the bible for quite sometime and my memory is getting foggy)

Even though the bible has no science (or very little) many things written in the bible have had evidence of being true.

So though not everything is covered many many many things are true.

SORRY ITS OFF TOPIC AGAIN

d4m

August 27th, 2006, 07:15 pm

Man made.. very very easy to prove, don't know why people don't get this except that they don't understand thermodynamics.

Earth is a contained system and subject to the entire energy is never created or destroyed, it only changes form relationship.

We pull energy in solid (coal), liquid (petrol) and gaseous (natural gas) out of the Earth. We release this energy in many forms and use it for mechanical power most of the time. Unfortunate effect of the carnot cycle of engines is an efficiency in the 50% range meaning 1/2 the energy makes you move, 1/2 the energy is lost as heat. This goes for cars, powerplants, you name it. If you use 100kWh a month in your home, then you alone are contributing 100kWh of heat being ejected into the atmosphere. 100kWh of heat energy = 100kW * 60 sec/min * 60mins/hour = 360,000 kJ since 1 W = 1 J/s. It takes 4.19J to heat up 1 gram of water 1 degree C (1.8 F) so 360,000kJ heats up 859 Liters of water from 0C (freezing) all the way to 100C (boil).

The heat given off just doesn't disappear, nor does it all radiate off this planet. Our atmosphere helps to reflect a lot of it back down. Simple example, watch the cloud cover at night. You should notice a difference in the amount of dew on your car on a cloudy night to a non cloudy night since cloudy nights reflect even more heat back to the surface than normal.

Its just like an AC in your house. You run the stove, the house heats up, why? The heat has to go somewhere. Law of conservation.

Cloudw4lker

August 27th, 2006, 07:40 pm

Earth is a contained system and subject to the entire energy is never created or destroyed, it only changes form relationship. On a large scale, such as the earth over a period of many years, it is definatly not a contained system, a significant amount of heat is radiated. However, we are creating much more heat than it is used to, normally it might be balanced at a certain temperature. So anything we add to that will raise the temperature which will eventually cool off.

Put an ice cube (radiation out) in a cup of hot coffee (earths current temperature), over a small flame (the sun). Add a new ice cube every time the previous one melts, time it. Now, heat it up again and put in ice cubes again but then put it in the microwave (the sun + human heating through burning). Add the ice cube like before, time it. You will have to put them in much faster. Obviously, our radiation out doesn't increase therefore it will heat up.

Anyway, that adds up with the greenhouse gasses which just makes it worse.

And to the off-topicers, I think the bible says in it somewhere through vague links of time that has that the universe is ~6000 years old and carbon dating and even written history goes back past then. I don't know for sure and I'm not gonna respond to and responce to this.

NeedForPower

August 27th, 2006, 11:43 pm

Im pretty sure no where in the bible it says that.....

To question whether global warming is manmade or natural.... is kind of the same. We are part of nature, so in a way yes it is natural. But is it just a coincidence that the planet starts heating up when we develope power plants, cars, etc?

Kingfisher

August 28th, 2006, 12:24 pm

And to the off-topicers, I think the bible says in it somewhere through vague links of time that has that the universe is ~6000 years old and carbon dating and even written history goes back past then. I don't know for sure and I'm not gonna respond to and responce to this.

What you're referring to is what is known as Young Earth Theory. It is the belief that the earth is approximately six to ten thousand years old due to certain passages in Genesis. A literal six day creation is the basis. As for written history, the current speculation is about 8,000 B.C. for the oldest known writing (on the corner of a brick in current day Iran). This is completely in line with either theory.

There is also opposing thought called Old Earth Theory that believes the passage in Genesis is translated as "six periods of time" and not literal days.

The confusion lies in the translation of the old greek text and there is no definitive answer. There is valid support for both camps of thought.

Many people discount the idea of a 6,000 year history out of hand. However, consider this: If we do indeed have an omnisicient Creator that built this universe for us, then it is certainly possible for an all-knowing, all-powerful God to create a world that is only 6,000 years old in reality, but to every test would seem much older. For example, Adam and Eve. They weren't created as embryos, but as fully mature Man and Woman.

But I digress...

pcfreak

August 28th, 2006, 07:18 pm

Well I wish he had made money trees :D:

NeedForPower

August 29th, 2006, 12:04 am

Technically he did.... Where do we get money from? Paper, where do we get paper from? TREES, YAY WE HAVE MONEY TREES!

(Yeah yeah, I know ink, printing presses etc etc)

Lou Cypher

August 29th, 2006, 03:58 pm

Money, at least in the U.S.A., are made from linen :): .

Lou :globe:

Shoboy

August 29th, 2006, 09:38 pm

yes it is. But dont go putting it in the washer to 'clean' it if you get it by ill gotten ways.......... :wink:

And I've tried, TIDE detergent does not do a good job of cleaning money. It makes it smell nice, but it's useless since it just gets messed up............

Kingfisher

August 29th, 2006, 10:03 pm

Or they could change textiles and use Hemp. Then the money would actually be worth the paper it was printed on. :shades:

d4m

September 4th, 2006, 12:35 am

There is also opposing thought called Old Earth Theory that believes the passage in Genesis is translated as "six periods of time" and not literal days.

The confusion lies in the translation of the old greek text and there is no definitive answer. There is valid support for both camps of thought.

Many people discount the idea of a 6,000 year history out of hand. However, consider this: If we do indeed have an omnisicient Creator that built this universe for us, then it is certainly possible for an all-knowing, all-powerful God to create a world that is only 6,000 years old in reality, but to every test would seem much older. For example, Adam and Eve. They weren't created as embryos, but as fully mature Man and Woman.

But I digress...

The question I got to ask about the whole 6 days thing is that on the first day he separated light from dark, so before that they were one, but if they were one then how could you have a day if there was no difference between light and dark. How could light and dark be separated on the first day when a day hadn't even been defined yet? It wasn't until the 2nd day that there was truly a day to speak of.

But alas, we are digressing, lol.

Oh, I know some of the heat we generate radiates off of the Earth, but thats it, radiation. There is no convection or conduction which are the 2 faster heat transfer methods.

We could also just attribute global warming to population size. Don't we put out something like 10 btu's each? Also the sun itself contributes 1kW per m^2 for sunlight helping us in this warming.

robbiekarlson

November 17th, 2006, 09:07 am

it is totally not man made the earth goes through cycles of graduall warming and cooling i mean just think about the ice age and did you know a volcano put more pollutants into the air than we do in 10 so sure we have some affect towards global warming but not all of it what we really need to worry about is the friken huge land fills we have and how we are gunna run out of room so there it is

Rob

November 17th, 2006, 11:03 am

How can anyone not think it is man made? Is there a natural ebb and flow, definitely. Does that mean man has not helped push it a long, definitely not. Think about the Amazon rain forest for a second and the way carbon dioxide works. It is corny to say it, but it is true, the Amazon is the Earths lungs. Yet, we keep burning it down. Burning down trees can release 15+ years of built up carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a matter of minutes. The second effect after you release all the carbon dioxide from the tree burning is that you now have less trees to trap further carbon dioxide. Man is lighting a fire under the butt of natural flow.

robbiekarlson

November 17th, 2006, 08:19 pm

thats pretty much what i said.....

Rob

November 17th, 2006, 08:39 pm

You said it wasn't man made... I said it was. I do not see the connection.

ExoticWolfBait

December 1st, 2006, 09:44 am

I believe its both nature and man-made. Due to humans spewing toxic gas in the atmosphere had cuased a raise in the mean temperature and global smog, but most people dont know that evey 10,000 years the earth goes into a ice age due to an irregular orbit during that time period. (ill post link later). hence, we'll still go to an ice age anyway....

bmn

February 2nd, 2007, 07:41 am

OK then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

CrimsonKnight13

February 2nd, 2007, 08:57 am

Natural w/ nudging by human ignorance for the environment

Torsion

February 3rd, 2007, 07:06 pm

Well the Earth was a giant swamp/ desert for about 250 million years during the pennsylvanian and mississipian period of the precambrain. That was natural global warming. Large scale climate change is just a fact of nature. However, our time scale is just a drop in the bucket so to speak. This makes it hard to determine what small changes are man made and which are natural. This is not new info of course.

What worries me is that by trying to make the global climate a static property by intervening we might end up reducing the natural mechanisms themselves that swing the climate back into stability. For example, reducing the amount of hydroflourocarbons in the atmosphere might stabilize the global temperatures in the short term but eventually lead to an out of control explosion of ozone.

The thing is, with other "natural" forces acting on this planet as well as our own, things become very complicated. We might someday know precisely how our actions will effect the climate and step in to intervene during periods of change that we do not like. However, with the Earth's mechanisms now under our control, will we know what to do if lets say a meteor impacts and the natural stabilizing mechanisms have been removed and altered by us?

Technology might give us the powers of god, but not the foresight and reasoning. We only have one chance to get this right or our control over this planet could spiral out of control.

Edit: "Despite the 50,000 thing, scientists really dont know for a fact how carbon decays past like 6,000 years."

Just to clear this up, the half-life of carbon14 on Earth is static. That is, the carbon gives of a helium nucleus to revert back into carbon 12 at a constant rate. Up to about 60 thousand years carbon dating is possible but starts to lose validity after this time. The thing that throws off the dating is flucuating amounts of natural C14 in the atmosphere that get taken up in sp2 hybridized carbon forms (graphite). However, dispite this, carbon dating has proven reliable for aproximate dating. How do we know it is actually reliable? Well for example, we can follow the migrations of prehistoric man and the dates of trees and such in the stratigraphy match up with what we see in the caveman bones. Either we are seeing thousands of coincidences, or the dating is working. For dates older than 60,000 years, it is better to use cesium or uranium isotopes. However, due to stronger electronegativity each decay happens much slower so using a geiger counter is no good. This makes it expensive and you have to send samples to a special lab and the dating takes about a week.

CrimsonKnight13

February 4th, 2007, 05:02 am

Eh... I don't have a good opinion/belief in evolution at all, so most of it is fabricated to my own knowledge & beliefs. I'm not going to go any further with that except that I don't agree with most of the posts here about the Earth.

Rob

February 4th, 2007, 08:37 am

If you feel like criticizing other peoples believes, at least have the guts to state your own.

CrimsonKnight13

February 4th, 2007, 09:15 am

I wasn't criticizing anyones. If anyone feels condemned from me merely making a mention that I oppose it, then so be it. :): Your response is rather cookie cutter but I'll let it rest since this will turn into a turmoiled battle as it always happens to be. Neowin proved that to me very much.

Rob

February 4th, 2007, 09:51 am

except that I don't agree with most of the posts here about the Earth. That right there is criticizing other people's beliefs, which is fine as we are all putting our beliefs and opinions out there. But if you are willing to criticize, at least be a bit constructive and tell us why we are wrong and what you believe.

And although I know what a cookie cutter response is, I am not sure how you are applying it to what I said.

CrimsonKnight13

February 4th, 2007, 09:59 am

not agreeing != criticizing

I didn't pinpoint anything. I made a simple statement. Your response is cookie cutter due to you taking the offense when I've said nothing wrong.

Kalbrecht

February 7th, 2007, 05:24 pm

Jumping in on this one late. But it's both.

The natural movement of the earth, magnetic fields blah blah blah means that there are temperature fluctuations, and we are currently going through a warm period - cyclically it's getting to the peak of warmth before the cold crash. Studies hypothesise a coming ice age. Predicting when is of course dependent on the doomsayers, but there is evidence that the more erratic weather patterns we've experienced lately are caused by these fluctuations.

A lot of this is sped up by man's needs and overuse of the earth. We've got some pretty solid evidence that the overusage of land through farming and grazing does increase heat and damage to the environment of that area. Much of Australia is going through the worst drought in 100 years, with dams dried up and so on. Some farms began an experiment some years ago, bringing in rocks etc and recreating the natural biodiversity of the region in a central location. They are now the only farms with running creekbeds, and proper, natural greenery, which in turn cools down the farm and makes it a much more sustainable environment.

Other than that, we'd have to be fools to assume that all the pollution and energy we create doesn't have an effect. The earth's crust can maintain and store and incredible amount of energy, and we keep on churning out more and more at an increasing rate. Does it go into space? Assuming that the greenhouse effect does not exist and there is a clear line into space, there's still a massive amount of energy being released upwards (not to mention downwards and sideways). Much of this conflicts with the heat energy of the sun, travelling in the opposite direction. In addition, heat energy from land has to travel hundreds of miles up before it can effectively dissipate. This takes time, and we're not giving it, since we're constantly rotating, and releasing energy.

To make things worse, many governments have ludicrous 'solutions' to problems of pollution, water usage and so on. Stop-gap measures, instead of real long-term solutions. Bah.

Rafal Dudek

February 8th, 2007, 12:21 pm

CrimsonKnight13

February 8th, 2007, 01:30 pm

I'd love to go all nuclear... but its ignorant environmental activists spooked from Chernobyl (means wormwood in Russian) & 3 Mile Island that don't want us building any more then we have. They're a perplexing bunch who confuse the meaning of things I think.

Skritch

February 8th, 2007, 05:41 pm

Not sure if anyone has said this yet or not (didn't feel like looking through all 4 pages), but "An Inconvenient Truth" is a great documentary about global warming.

It'll really open your eyes.

Kalbrecht

February 8th, 2007, 05:44 pm

Well, I just read in Fortune magazine about Texas TXU energy company is to build another 5 coal plants. The CO2 emmisions will be higher from those 5 plants than entire country of Sweden, Denmark, or Portugal ....

Seriously, France is like 90% nuclear powered, why the fark cant we?

The real headslapper is the recent proposal by a US group to 'solve' global warming...by creating a shield to cut down on the amount of sunlight we receive.

Why should we change! Let's just change nature instead!

Lou Cypher

February 8th, 2007, 08:45 pm

Not sure if anyone has said this yet or not (didn't feel like looking through all 4 pages), but "An Inconvenient Truth" is a great documentary about global warming.

It'll really open your eyes.I haven't jumped into this debate yet, but Al Gore movie is pure junk, and it's not a "documentary".

Lou :globe:

Circlebreaker

February 9th, 2007, 03:44 am

I haven't jumped into this debate yet, but Al Gore movie is pure junk, and it's not a "documentary".

Lou :globe:

No, it's not. It's supported by the large majority of the scientific community, the only scientists that do not support it are the same kind of scientists that think the evolution theory is only a "theory". :rolleyes:

Lou Cypher

February 9th, 2007, 10:51 am

No, it's not. It's supported by the large majority of the scientific community, the only scientists that do not support it are the same kind of scientists that think the evolution theory is only a "theory". :rolleyes: So your saying everything in the film is factually correct?

Lou :globe:

Circlebreaker

February 10th, 2007, 02:49 am

There's a big difference between saying it's not "pure junk" and saying it's entirely factually correct Lou, don't put words in my mouth. What I know is, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't make any personal claim to how accurate it is. I'm not a scientist specialised in global warming, so I couldn't make that claim anyway.

But from what I've read about the movie, it's supported by the scientific community (the people who, unlike all of us, actually know what they're talking about when it concerns climate change), and the scientific data he bases his movie on is supported by current research. There's pretty much a consensus among the scientific community that global warming has been caused by humans, just look at IPCC's results that have been published recently. BMN linked to the story on the previous page of the thread but it looks like noone actually read it. :wink: The reports from that story are a lot more important than Al Gore's movie, they pretty much seal the discussion here. Global warming *is* manmade, it's factual now, not theoretical.

Lou Cypher

February 10th, 2007, 11:03 am

There's a big difference between saying it's not "pure junk" and saying it's entirely factually correct Lou, don't put words in my mouthI wasn't trying too.

Lou :globe:

RangerRick

February 10th, 2007, 02:21 pm

Global warming *is* manmade, it's factual now, not theoretical.

That statement is incorrect. "Global warming" is happening because of the cyclical events of the Earth. Man "is" speeding up the event.

Global warming would be occurring without man. That's a true fact. The scientific community would not deny that fact. If there are some who do, it's because they have their own agenda, and are just as bad as those who say man has no guilt in the process.

OmegaBob

February 12th, 2007, 10:51 pm

RangerRick

February 12th, 2007, 11:07 pm

Like The One Ring (tm) and It's Master, the Earth and Man are one in the same.

If you disbelieve this statement, then were do you think mankind came from? Pluto?

Therefore, if you believe that global warming is caused by man, ALL of our actions can be seen as a natural occurance.

WTF!

Global warming would occur WITHOUT man. Earth and man are not one and the same. You may as well say spiders and man are one and the same.

Global warning is not caused by man, BUT man is accelerating the cycle.

OmegaBob

February 13th, 2007, 01:50 am

If you believe in the theory of evolution, then you must believe we came from the Earth (unless you believe we are space alien spawn, planted here to inhabit the planet)

Therefore, as we (and all living beings) are part of the organism called, Earth, we ARE the Earth and as such, what we do (good and bad) is a natural occurance.

Think of us as the individual cells of the lifeform known as the Earth if that helps clarify.

The so-called 'global warming' (as other events that can happen: earthquakes, hurricanes, disease, war, etc) is(are) a part of nature itself culling the 'bad cells' so to speak. One could look at the so-called 'global warming' as being the anti-body to the occasional, cancerous cell called, mankind.

Whether we live or die, the Earth will repair itself in the end, with or without our help. It is only humankind's arrogance that assumes that it is the most intelligent or rather... most important lifeform on the Earth.

Basically, if you feel that you can make a difference, do so. But in the end, whether your collective actions do work or are for naught, the living Earth will always be here, whether or not the human race is still around.

Another and different way to look at it would be that WE are the anti-bodies helping the Earth... :): Therefore, stop the so-called 'global warming'!!!

Finally, another way this can be interpreted is that the living organism Earth is constantly evolving and climate change is just one small part of it's evolution. IMO, if one can believe in the theory of evolution as it pertains to living beings/organisms and the like, then why not believe in it in relation to the planet itself?

Gaia hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis)

Though the ideas expressed above are a combination of the Gaia Theory and my own personal views (as an extention of Gaia), I do not fully believe in it myself. It just makes for some interesting ponderings if you know what I mean. To me, sometimes Gaia makes sense; although it may not fully fit into my personal faith.

EDIT: Though I linked it, I havent read the newest Gaia theories posted there until now. This might be scary for those concerned about the so-called 'global warming':
Global warming inevitable
In Lovelock's latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, he argues that because of global warming the world population should brace itself for the inevitable: most of the planet will become uninhabitable by the end of this century.

pezy86

February 13th, 2007, 06:20 am

Global warming. its all the suns fault.
check out this artical.
article1368920 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece)

I-Am-Back-Fools

March 19th, 2007, 03:16 pm

The Earth goes through natural stages of warming and cooling, but humans are like steroids to it.

Terry Penrod

March 20th, 2007, 08:22 pm

.

Even the most liberal estimates of the timespan covering man's slow ascension through the evolutionary process from primitive cave-dwellers to what we are today makes us a very young species compared to the most ultra conservative estimates of earth's age.

Assuming that our best scientific minds - using a wealth of tangible, independently gathered evidence through the fossil record, carbon dating, archaeological research and common sense - have not collectively missed the mark by a country mile, we are barely a blip on the cosmic radar.

However, through massive, rapid population growth brought about in the past few centuries by industrial, medical, agricultural, technological and other advancements, we are making a much greater impact on our environment than ever before. One must question though to what degree we are actually impacting the current climatic cycle. There seems to be little or no question that we are now directly affecting air and water pollution rates on a global scale and that must be making a difference. But how big a difference and more importantly what can we realistically do about it if we are to sustain any additional growth in numbers, age span and in terms of raising average living standards for mankind as a whole?

It takes huge amounts of energy to operate the global economic machine that feeds, clothes, houses and employs billions every single day. Stepping up all efforts to find clean, renewable sources while fostering increased conservation at every turn will help. But at what point do we as a species reach our maximum capacity to keep cutting pollution and energy usage? At what point does each individual man's own natural instinct to survive take over and he start acting 100% selfishly in trying to horde what is left of our quickly dwindling (known / developed) natural resources?

These are the bigger questions we need to be asking - while also discovering the true relationship of cause / effect and searching for real solutions.

Cheers, Terry

.

OmegaEps

April 4th, 2007, 12:26 am

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU) supposedly debunking the connection between CO2 and T. Having seen this video, someone in another discussion forum posted a topic postulating that maybe Al Gore was just wrong.

I weighed in a little, but decided that peeing contests weren't my forte, so I just posted some links. Don't get me wrong-- I'm not characterizing this forum as such.

At any rate, here are some I found interesting and informative:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060712/news_lz1e12somervi.html
http://risingtide.org.uk/pages/voices/hall_shame.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-30091
http://www.climatedenial.org/

Lou Cypher

April 4th, 2007, 12:33 pm

I bet you $5 I can Pee farther than you :p:

Lou :globe:

OmegaEps

April 4th, 2007, 03:04 pm

My being 62, I bet you can! I cleaned up my post a little since I first posted it. Originally it contained reference to a certain male problem, but I wasn't quite certain how that would be received.

Just went back and checked your posts, Lou. Have you looked at any of those links I posted?

Lou Cypher

April 6th, 2007, 10:46 am

Just went back and checked your posts, Lou. Have you looked at any of those links I posted?
Which posts are you refering to?, I did a cursorie look at the links you provided but I'm already in your camp on this.

Lou :globe:

OmegaEps

April 6th, 2007, 01:44 pm

I was refering to #69: I haven't jumped into this debate yet, but Al Gore movie is pure junk, and it's not a "documentary".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299

(How does the quote thing work here? Tried it, got confused, so did it the old fashioned way.)

Terry Penrod

April 7th, 2007, 06:48 pm

.

The following, highly relevent excerpt from the news article linked below sheds more light on this topic from a very well-established, respected meteorological forecaster named William Gray. His scientific knowledge of directly related cause and effect issues is far, far more reliable than the opinions of people like Al Gore, John Kerry and a slew of other politically motivated, bandwagon-riding hand-wringers whose recent flood of books, movies, interviews and speeches on global warming amount to little more than paranoid rantings.

Better IMO to listen to real experts who have no ulterior motives like pandering to specific political party factions, selling theater tickets or promoting their own book sales.

Warming not behind hurricane activity: forecaster

By Jeff Franks
Fri Apr 6, 3:53 PM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Natural changes in ocean currents are to blame for increased Atlantic hurricane activity in recent years, not man-made global warming as many scientists believe, hurricane forecaster William Gray said on Friday.

"I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring," Gray said in a speech at the National Hurricane Conference.

Gray, whose annual forecasts for the hurricane season are closely watched, said the Earth has warmed the past 30 years, but that it was due to flucuations in ocean currents. He predicted a cooling off period would begin in five to 10 years as the currents change again.

"I see climate change as due to the ocean circulation pattern. I see this as a major cause of climate change," Gray told the meteorologists and emergency management specialist who attend the annual conference.

FROM: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070406/sc_nm/hurricanes_warming_dc

Cheers, Terry

OmegaEps

April 8th, 2007, 01:13 pm

Terry (#86) says: The following, highly relevent excerpt from the news article linked below sheds more light on this topic from a very well-established, respected meteorological forecaster named William Gray. His scientific knowledge of directly related cause and effect issues is far, far more reliable than the opinions of people like Al Gore, John Kerry and a slew of other politically motivated, bandwagon-riding hand-wringers whose recent flood of books, movies, interviews and speeches on global warming amount to little more than paranoid rantings.

Better IMO to listen to real experts who have no ulterior motives like pandering to specific political party factions, selling theater tickets or promoting their own book sales.

You're not paying attention, Terry (see above links, #81). In addition, you're citing one person from one article (from Yahoo, no less) and obviously have done no research into Dr. Gray. Al Gore has never claimed to be a scientist; he is one of many messengers. You would shoot the messenger. As for "ulterior motives", "pandering", etc.---smear tactics.

William Gray is one of a handful of "contrarian" climate scientists who continue to dispute [global climate change]. To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic "balance" is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It's plainly inappropriate.

The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. The WSJ also made much of the withdrawal of an invitation for Gray to join a debate on hurricane trends at an Atlanta tropical meteorology conference. We can't speak for the organizers, but we find it easy to believe that their decision was guided more by the invalidity of Gray's scientific reasoning [underline mine] than by any political or personal considerations.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=william+gray&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3A AA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF% 3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3 A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.
The Washington Post April 7, 2007

Do your homework, Terry! Oh, and Cheers to you too.

Terry Penrod

April 8th, 2007, 02:21 pm

.

Hi OmegaEps -

I have already read the articles you linked above and many others on this increasingly important subject. I also posted a personal overview previously in this thread that posed some key questions that nobody else had addressed here.

My more recent post pointing to the latest article on Gray was much more specific to the implied claim that CO2 emissions are the PRIMARY cause of increased hurricane activity / severity - as opposed to other naturally occuring changes in addition to the cumulative effects of industrialization. On that specific point, I disagree strongly with the assumptions / innuendoes of people like Al Gore who have made some very misleading statements in an attempt to oversimplify a very complex set of yet fully answered questions.

Put simply, Gore and many others are jumping the gun. They are basing their conclusions on incomplete data, making broad assumptions and (as has been pointed out by members of the legitimate scientific community) made numerous mistakes.

I don't however question the general claims that mankind is having a measureable impact on a variety of environmental conditions, which was clearly stated in my previous post. I only question the degree that impact is having on a larger scale and ask that we don't make loose assumptions - let alone adopt such broad, premature conclusions.

Cheers, Terry

OmegaEps

April 8th, 2007, 05:34 pm

Terry,

Re: trapping, liquifying and pumping greenhouse gases from industrial plants into existing pockets under the cold sediment on the deep ocean floor from your #16 post.

CO2 has been injected into declining oil fields for more than 30 years, to increase oil recovery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration)
Ironic, huh?!

Now to the matter at hand.

Your arguments would have more weight if you cited some examples of such things as "implied claim[s]", "assumptions/innuendos" and "misleading statements". In addition, "jumping the gun", "broad assumptions", "loose assumptions", etc., sound to me like loose presumptions.

CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.

How well does the film [Gore's] handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. Still, these are rather minor errors.
Above quotes from my links, post #81.

psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss...tinkl e...tinkle........tinkle

:cheer: I'm declaring victory and leaving. :wave: :lol:

Terry Penrod

April 9th, 2007, 12:23 pm

.

OmegaEps, there is no "victory" to claim in this discussion. All we have are unsanswered questions about the relationship between increased industrialzation and measureable changes in the climate that have been strongly implied but not proven.

I assume you saw Al Gore's movie and are aware that it implies specific causes and effects. I also assume that you are aware of naturally occuring climate changes or cycles that have been studied far longer than the more recent issue of pollution. So far, the combined impact of these two undeniable factors has not been fully evaluated.

The degree of impact man-made emmisions have had on weather patterns (in this case hurricanes) is still being studied and anyone who tries to draw final conclusions from the limited information we have to date is jumping the gun.

Those questions aside, I already stated clearly that we need to accelerate all efforts to reduce energy consumption and environmental pollution through conservation and by developing clean, efficient, renewable fuels and alternate power sources. But we also must simultaneously tackle the issue of sustainable economic growth to accomodate an ever larger global population.

Worldwide demand for energy, transportation, jobs, housing, food, manufactured goods and everything else has risen dramatically in the past fifty years. Too much reliance on nuclear power has its own set of very real dangers. Hydroelectric, solar, wind and other forms of localized power generation have limitations.

So until we have a viable replacement for fossil fuels that can be safely and efficiently adapted for all purposes in every corner of the earth, we will continue to need gas, oil and coal. That is unless we want to stop all human progress dead in its tracks and deny 90% of the world's still growing population the basic neccesities of modern life.

When you answer all those questions and solve all those problems, then you can claim "victory", not before.

Cheers, Terry

P.S.

On the specific topic of scientific hurricane predictions and exactly what causes them (especially those originating in the Atlantic Ocean), there is no better authority than Dr. Gray. He pioneered the field and is widely considered the world's leading expert on the subject. As a matter of fact, the official U.S. government hurricane center often defers to him and his colleagues as the most reliable and best at what they do.

So when he states that naturally occuring changes to ocean currents are the primary cause of increases or decreases in hurricane severity and seasonal numbers, most intelligent people listen very carefully to what he has to say. They do not dismiss his as an entrenched, biased or unqualified opinion. Quite the opposite and therein lies the problem with far too many members of the scientific community who have invested themselves heavily in a very high-profile public campaign to blame all these problems on man-made pollution with an argument that centers around its impact on a noticeable, recent global warming trend.

The mistake here is in making such broad assumptions and aligning yourself so quickly with anyone who supports these claims - even when the world's leading authorities on very specific related subjects beg to differ. It is these lone but extremely well-established voices of scientific reason that I trust - much moreso than those with lesser credentials in different fields who have jumped enthusiastically onto what is in fact a popular political bandwagon making the rounds through the media circus and being steered by people like Al Gore. You can choose to jump on that bandwagon or you can remain open-minded, listen to both sides and insist on more proof before leaping to any final conclusions.

.

joemo13

April 11th, 2007, 07:48 am

Hey there,
You said that Nuclear Energy has produced its own problems but you dont take into account that there are thousands of years worth of Uranium235 left to fuel these power stations. They dont use combustion and so dont produce any greenhouse gasses. The only downside is the waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years.

There is evidence to suggest that it is a combination of both, man-made and natual, reasons that global warming is happening but the Earth will cool back down in the next ice age which we will have mainly caused. Many people think that C02, Carbon Dioxide, is the main cause of Global Warming but is actually Methane as it is a much more efficient gas at trapping Infra-Red radiation given off by the earth, thus heating it up. The Ice Age will be caused by the dilution of the sea water with fresh water from melting icebergs this will then upset the delicate balance of salt that causes the Gulf Stream shutting it down, the northern countries will freeze as the countries near the equator will boil.

Terry Penrod

April 11th, 2007, 12:50 pm

.

Nuclear power plants pose potentially disastrous problems if they go into melt down. This could be caused by earthquakes, human error / negligence, renegade terrorist attacks or even official acts of war. While the probabilty of these things happening may be relatively low, the possibility still exists and the more we rely on nuclear power, the higher the probability of large-scale disasters will be. So too will the ongoing problem of long-term nuclear waste disposal / storage grow.

Those issues aside, there is still the matter of portable power supplies needed for industrial / agricultural machinery and transportation by land, air and sea all over the planet. More efficient, affordable electric / hybrid vehicles, cleaner fuels, stricter emmision standards, nano technology to develop far more efficient materials plus faster, cheaper environmental clean-ups, and better mass transit systems will all help. But altogether they will not completely eliminate the need for gas-burning combustion engines or massive amounts of oil-based lubricants needed for a very long list of other purposes any time soon.

So yes, we need to keep striving to find better solutions to the world's expanding energy needs in a way that allows the human race to actually grow and prosper.

Regarding the "Day After Tomorrow" theory, that too is a very remote possibility in the foreseeable future. More to the point, the implications are almost too dire to ponder and again, the question is, what can we realistically do (that we are not already trying to do) to prevent it?

One simple answer is for mankind to stop the petty bickering, stop engaging in racial bigotry, stop making war and start fully cooperating. If we could shift just 10% of the world's military budgets and other resources to a coordinated global research project to develop clean, renewable energy sources and other new ideas, we could solve many of these problems much, much faster.

Through nanotech alone we could make far better synthetics, reduce friction / resistance for all machines / surface coatings and create super-efficient oil-spill-eating microbes. We could also advance cancer treatment and a huge number of other badly needed things a very long ways.

So why aren't these new technologies being funded and coordinated worldwide nearly as well as they should be? Greed, insidious racist attitudes, ego-tripping and short-sightedness that's why. Solve those basic human flaws and all the rest will fall right into place.

Cheers, Terry

OmegaEps

April 11th, 2007, 07:34 pm

joemo13,

It is true that natural as well as man-made factors take part in the warming of the atmosphere. Natural factors are included where relevant, but, currently and for the most part, the focus is on anthropogenic CO2. The IPCC (more than 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries reporting to the United Nations in the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history) has said that it is more than 90 percent likely that global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. This has been endorsed by the vast majority of the scientific community.

Beware of "refuseniks" who would dismiss the IPCC and other reputable scientists and scientific organizations of broad and loose assumptions leading to premature conclusions from incomplete data. Beware of those who would put thier trust in a relative handful of "contrarian" scientists who have built personal careers as media pundits debunking the peer-reviewed work of their colleagues and are more familiar with the chat show than the lab. Beware of those seeking an elusive (probably inachievable) proof. And beware of those who would shoot the messengers.

It is unequivocal that CH4 is a more powerful green-house than CO2 (60:1), but CO2 lasts longer in the atmosphere (10:1). Also, CH4 breaks down into CO2. It is theorized that increased warming will release more CH4, e.g., from thawed perma-frost peat bogs---not a good thing.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227

Personally, when I first heard of the Gulf Stream theory, I found it really interesting and intriguing. Evidently, however, it is considered by at least some to be one of the more extreme claims of Climate Change/Global Warming consequences.

In his rather irate denunciation and refutation of the Channel 4 (UK) movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle", Professor Carl Wunsch (a leading expert on ocean circulation and climate) had this to say:

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost
surely has a major human-induced component.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements
are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for
which the observational record is so clear, that most
scientists would agree that they are almost surely true
(adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue
to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but
we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society
should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US
midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting
of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization
and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion
that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with
global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either
scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility
as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality.

Note: If I'm not mistaken, the ice age you refer to in connection with the Gulf Stream is usually called the Little Ice Age [LIA] and differs from the general term Ice Age.
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

(All the italicized quotes above are taken from links in my previous posts as well as http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/news/climate.php)

OmegaEps

April 12th, 2007, 12:30 am

Some corrections to my above post.

The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph should read: Beware of "refuseniks" who would dismiss the findings of the IPCC and other reputable scientists and scientific organizations as broad and loose assumptions leading to premature conclusions from incomplete data.

The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph should be: They just don't get it.

Lou Cypher

April 12th, 2007, 03:45 pm

Well OmegaEps, I guess I missread what your stance on this subject is, and reading what you've posted since I'll have to retract what I said before, I am not in your camp of thought on this subject. Believe what you want, man is not responsible for the so called "Global Warming".

Lou :globe:

OmegaEps

April 12th, 2007, 06:02 pm

Yeah, Lou...it puzzled me a bit when you said that (in my camp). I guess you're one of them refuseniks that just don't get it... huh? (rhetorical question)

Torsion

April 12th, 2007, 06:38 pm

Believe what you want, man is not responsible for the so called "Global Warming".

Can you come up with even one source of credible scientific discourse that indicates that man is not directly responsible for accelerating climate change on a global scale?

Face it, the objective reality based on real quantitative measurements and laboratory expiriments is undeniable at this point. The ross ice sheet is melting, CO2 levels are rising, tetrahydrofurans are being pumped into the atmosphere. Global climate patterns are changing at rates never before seen in Earth's history, except in cataclysmic events. You want to pass up this objective reality as a mere coincidence? There are no coincidences, just cause and effect, anything other is a human abstraction.

Let's put it this way, if you got together 2000 environmental scientists and asked those who believe in man accelerated climate change to move to one side of the room and asked everyone else to go to the other side, 1997 would go to the "manmade" side and 3 would go to the "natural occurance" side. I suppose you would be on the natural occurance side and I assume you would be quite lonely.

Would you argue that humans did not hunt the 9 foot ratie (sp), the moa bird, to extinction 500 years ago and that it was a natural occurance? You could argue that the bird went extinct naturally because it could not compete in a Darwinian sense, but then you would be totally missing the point I suppose. Everything, including humanity, is part of nature. We have been given natural powers of forsight through science, technology and communication. We can see our impending doom before it arrives and we must humble ourselves to see our responsibilities to this planet. Science allows us a window to see outside ourselves and our beliefs, to see a reality not bound up within the horizon of personal expirience. Science is showing us our effects on the planet for both good and bad and we know what we must do to keep the planet stable, dont try to deny it; just accept the truth.

If you truly believe that we are in a "natural" cycle, if we stopped emmitions and lived with 0 impact on the environment, the environment should just keep changing the same as it is now right? Does anyone remember when one could simply drink pure, clean water from a river? If everyone went back to non-filtered and nonsterilized water now, everyone would be dead within a year (I made this up, I have no idea how long it would take). Is it natural that 30% of all species on this planet are now endangered, not to mention the ones we already killed? The impact of humanity is truly overwhelming.

I'm not trying to get on your case Lou, but I think your opinion is wiggity whack. In the end, all you have is a belief and they are all beautiful but tragically ephemeral. Science is real and we are killing this planet regardless of your belief or anyone elses. If you brought your opinion to trial, how do you think it would hold up? I suppose its your turn to testify.

Lou Cypher

April 13th, 2007, 01:20 pm

Can you come up with even one source of credible scientific discourse that indicates that man is not directly responsible for accelerating climate change on a global scale?
Well it's impossible to prove a negitive, but I've been kinda busy getting the house ready to go on the market, but I'll post something short when I can get the time.

Lou :globe:

Tom Servo

April 14th, 2007, 01:51 am

I'm not trying to get on your case Lou, but I think your opinion is wiggity whack.

WOAH WATCH THE LANGUAGE

bmn

April 18th, 2007, 10:55 pm

Well it's impossible to prove a negitive, but I've been kinda busy getting the house ready to go on the market, but I'll post something short when I can get the time.

It is impossible to prove a negative, that is why the burden of proof has fallen on the other side.

Thing is, we already proved it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

Lou Cypher

April 21st, 2007, 04:06 pm

Which they havn't met.

Lou :globe:

bmn

April 22nd, 2007, 02:05 am

International agreement within the scientific community; 90% Certainty that humans are responsible for changing the climate.

joemo13

April 27th, 2007, 01:57 pm

Remember though science is only a best guess supported by evidence. A 90% certainty still gives 10% of uncertainty so it has not been entirely proved but maybe it will take time to convince everyone it is our fawlt - look at Darwins Theory of Evolution, that was rejected at first but eventually people started to belive in it.

U.2.K.

April 30th, 2007, 01:05 am

GW doesnt exist.

Kalbrecht

May 2nd, 2007, 06:26 pm

Here's a recent article on Gas Emission levels:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/sc_nm/globalwarming_curbs_dc;_ylt=AiNTcyp3enQbM37vtJ67T_ bMWM0F

bmn

May 28th, 2007, 08:25 am

Global Warming turns Alaskan Town into Sinking Island. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/us/27newtok.html?ex=1337918400&en=7e93b110d8fc61d0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

pcfreak

May 28th, 2007, 10:58 am

All you peeps who say GW doesn't exist should watch the news a bit more! There are too many symptoms and there is too much evidence to say it doesn't exist. Sounds to me like you are pretending it doesn't exist in the hope that it will disappear.

Global warming is happening at a faster rate than some predicted and it is alarming to think that we are creating a dangerous place for our children to inherit. I think that people who are against reducing emissions etc are the most selfish and arrogant people on this planet. It reminds me of the old saying - 'I'm alright Jack'.

Cheers,

Stuart

pcfreak

June 12th, 2007, 07:07 pm

I put my money where my mouth is the other month and got myself WEEE compliant! It's cost me a bomb to join a scheme but I think it is worth every penny. I didn't have a choice as an OEM PC manufacturer but if the choice was there, I would have joined anyway!! Even though the amount of PC's I make is small I still have to be compliant.

WEEE is the EC Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) aims to minimise the impact of electrical and electronic goods on the environment, by increasing re-use and recycling and reducing the amount of WEEE going to landfill. It seeks to achieve this by making producers responsible for financing the collection, treatment, and recovery of waste electrical equipment, and by obliging distributors to allow consumers to return their waste equipment free of charge.

What about you fellas? Have any of you made a commitment of any kind to try and reduce our carbon footprint? Do you recycle your old PC parts etc?How about a poll on it moderators?

Cheers,

Stuart

Nivizoit

July 10th, 2007, 01:06 pm

Gary V.

December 16th, 2007, 07:59 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071216/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingdenial

Kalbrecht

December 16th, 2007, 10:37 pm

while i agree with recycling, reducing emissions and more effective waste management to keep things clean and have good air to breathe, the idea that by doing so is going to change earths temperature or put us "back on track" is a little much. why are we so concerned with ourselves when the poster boy for global warming al gore still flys in a private jet to go promote his movie and speak in conventions. that doesnt make much sense to me.

Meh, I have never had any respect for Al Gore and his style. He doesn't, and has never deserved to be the poster boy for global warming. The importance and 'message' of climate change was around long before Al Gore.

You're also thinking too small, Nivizoit - while its important for individuals to 'do their part', the biggest change comes from large scale manufacturing and so on - industries that definitely DO make an impact on the environment in quite a visible manner. Our lifestyles are simply encouraging a more wasteful society, so once the change in thinking gets moving on all levels, and in many more countries, then the potential for changing the air quality and so on, are much bigger. It's a very long-term goal - more to do with stopping the decline in the climate and increases in warmth, and less to do with 'turning it around', since some things are very out of our control. Much of that sort of massive global climate change is still up to the earth itself, but we can stop making the problem worse than it might otherwise be.

Kalbrecht

December 17th, 2007, 02:10 am

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Dramageddon--Too-much-water.3594818.jp

This is the kind of reason why I am a believer in the dangers and threat of Global Warming and Climate Change.

THREATEN MY WHISKY SUPPLY??? Oh, you better believe that gets me militant.

;-)

Terry Penrod

December 19th, 2007, 05:25 pm

.

Again, we need to work on all the problems associated with pollution and energy waste from both ends. Individuals need to start making some basic changes to their habits. They need to take some responsibility and get involved. But so do governments along with big business and industries of every kind.

From broad new green initiatives, accelerated alternate renewable fuel development, stricter emmission standards and innovative nanotech solutions to simple things like using more efficient light bulbs, doing some recycling at home and keeping your car tuned up - all of us have to help.

Whether the current global warming scare proves to be justified or not, all the myriad problems mentioned above and in countless other forum threads are as real as real gets. All of them have a serious negative impact on the quality of our lives today and all of them threaten to get much worse if we don't begin taking action now.

Cheers, Terry

Lou Cypher

December 20th, 2007, 10:45 am

Link (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Lou :globe:

pcfreak

December 20th, 2007, 01:12 pm

At the end of the day, there are currently only two real possible outcomes regarding the global warming debate:

1, We take stock of how we are affecting our planet and we try to do something. Our governments stop making token gestures to appease the global warming advocates, stop bickering over the problem and tackle it head on with real solutions. Would it be a case of too little, too late though? Or could we actually reverse some of the damage we have done?

2, We carry on arguing over the situation, until it is too late to do anything. Our governments do nothing of any substance to tackle the problem and we end up with a planet that has distinct differences from the one we all grew up in. Animal extinction rates would soar, countries would see their habitat change, our weather would become even more unpredictable and dangerous. Sounds like something from a disaster movie doesn't it? It's a pity that this is already happening right here and right now!

I know some people have mocked this topic, and some see it as the doomsday lovers at work again. Well I am, and always have been, an eternal optimist but I am also a realist. I consider myself intelligent enough to form an opinion on this subject. And I firmly believe that we are having a negative impact on our planet.

I have read evidence both for and against GW and I can see no reason why those who support the theory would fabricate or exaggerate, but I can see plenty of reasons why the anti GW lobby would. One of the biggest reasons, in my opinion, is oil. If we found a sustainable and clean source of energy, how long would the oil companies last?

At the end of the day, surely a civilization which is supposed to be as advanced as we are, should be adopting an eco-friendly ethos and seeking renewable, clean energy sources, regardless of whether global warming is real or a myth? Why is GW such a problem with some people? Partly because it means changing how we live and having to consider our actions. During the industrial revolution, there was an outcry from those affected by the changes and I think we are experiencing a similar problem now. We, as a race are divided into two catagories, those who embrace change and those who are frightened by it. It will be interesting to see who wins this debate!

Cheers,

Stuart

Terry Penrod

December 20th, 2007, 02:30 pm

.

Spot on Stuart.

It does not matter one little bit if the current global warming trend is being caused by mankind or not. We still have all the same problems of increasingly polluted air and water, toxic landfills, nuclear waste, oil spills, depleted rainforests, endangered species and an economy built upon constant, escalating fossil-fuel consumption that makes us FAR too dependent on suppplies from the Middle East and other generally unstable, unfriendly places.

If ALL we focus on is breaking the stranglehold of foriegn oil dependence, that alone is plenty reason enough to implement broad initiatives for developing alternate fuels sooner than later. If we also want to address pollution and toxic waste, then there are additional steps we can and should be taking.

On another level, if the ONLY benefit we ever receive from this whole GW scare is a much higher general awareness of manmade pollution and energy waste, then it will still have served an extremely important purpose.

Big Oil is already running scared. The big auto makers and numerous other cut-throat, smog-spewing, water-poisoning, land-raping industries are running scared too. Now let's get OPEC off our collective backs once and for all. While we're at it, let's take away the main source of funding for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and start spending our money on a whole new energy model that cuts them and all their murderous little buddies out of the equation completely.

Cheers, Terry

Kalbrecht

December 20th, 2007, 04:24 pm

Link (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)

Lou :globe:

Lou, I thought we'd already established in this thread that Al Gore is full of crap.

And yes I am quite serious.

The UN IPCC have hoisted their petard on the good ship Gore, and support all the pseduo-science he spews out. The basic message is there, but they've gone for the more extreme doomsaying trend, rather than actually try and tackle the problem intelligently. I DO believe that they have exaggerated the topic. It has happened before when Greenpeace first came to widespread popularity over the deforestation thing.

That many prominent scientists argue the Gore/IPCC stance is not surprising - it is, in fact, most excellent.

Scientists following a political motive disturbs me. A scientist should ALWAYS question the status quo, especially in an unproven science like climate change (ie we're talking about massive mesoclimatic change, beyond any really provable measurements).

However, as said before in this thread, keep in mind that it goes both ways. One can never take either side as gospel. The anti-GW debate is just as liable for exaggeration, and misinformation, as the pro-GW side.

Whether or not the climate change is caused by mankind, Gaia, sunspots or whatever the hell, we should still face the problems caused by our overconsumption and garbage. The consequences of some of those being scientifically proven and undeniable.

Kalbrecht

December 20th, 2007, 04:44 pm

You, know, at this point I'd like to reiterate something. It came up in a debate I watched a while ago about the Climate Change movement. I'm not sure if I mentioned it before in this thread, but I alluded to it in the post above.

Scientists are NOT politicians. Scientists should NOT be politicians.

As soon as a scientist says "we are 80% sure that mankind caused GW, we're all going to DIIEEEE unless something happens", then they have crossed the line.

What was pointed out in that debate, was that the scientist should NOT be working on that 80%, but standing with that 20% - asking questions, trying to be proven right/wrong. Until we're 100% sure.

And until we're 100% sure, then there is no such thing as certainty.

Mankind MAY have caused the earth to get warmer, just as a meteor may have killed the dinosaurs. But, we're not 100% sure and can never be. Anyone who says otherwise is being politically/media/popularly motivated.

Yes, 80% confidence is FAR more than 50/50. Which means, that the evidence 'points' towards. But there is still some doubt. That is where many scientists, including those who work within UN IPCC, should be working. And some of them, like those pointed out by Lou, thankfully ARE.

What we're seeing here is a mass politicisation of what was previously a civil matter. And like most matters that get dragged into the large-scale political arena, they get exaggerated beyond belief to fulfil a pre-determined political motive.

So what I am saying is - don't take all the scientific 'fact' of climate change as gospel. Either way. The massive mesoclimatic changes over thousands of years are so far beyond our reckoning, and accurate measurement, that there is no way of knowing which way it goes. Well, not for the next million years at least until we can record, and observe, some real patterns.

There are, naturally, samples that we can use to determine natural or manmade changes to the microclimate - mercury dumping, certain costal weather patterns, loss of habitat. These indicate patterns, but prove nothing in the larger scale.

As established before, I am a believer that we should do something about climate change. I was a believer in it many years ago, when my mum started listening to David Suzuki. And I am still a believer in it. I have seen it go through a load of crap, and personally - none of it worse than when Al Gore got his mitts on the movement. While he's made it mainstream, he's also "responsible" for it being overloaded with all the bullspit we're seeing these days - overhyped pseudo-science, politicised scientists, and so on.

We cannot prove, or possibly even change, the massive mesoclimatic changes, sunspot effect and so on. But we CAN change the effect we have on the smaller microclimatic issues that we have caused. This is a good thing, and what we should be promoting, rather than debating the pseudo-science.

Do I believe in changing emissions, and so on? Of course - but I don't think they're being sold right. They should be sold to the population as a 'clean our local air' rather than a massive 'change the world' movement. Motivation starts small.

Terry Penrod

December 20th, 2007, 05:14 pm

.

I couldn't agree with you more Chai. But if it takes the threat (jusified or not) of a genuine cataclysmic global event to get the majority of average citizens off their butts and onboard some kind of anti-pollution / energy conservation bandwagon, then so be it.

Evidently, the endless reports and mountains of tangible evidence that have been compiled over the past half-century about smog, water pollution, toxic waste, etc., etc., etc. are simply not enough to break through the exceedingly thick encasement of apathy that seems to paralyze most people from getting involved and acting.

It's bad enough that so many are just plain stupid, ignorant, selfish and/or greedy. But as long as they also hide behind convenient excuses like, "I can't fix the problem all by myself so why should I even try?" or worse, "It's not my problem." then we can't begin to solve this thing.

Whatever it takes to change that apathetic attitude to, "This really is my problem too and I need to start doing my part to help fix it" is okay by me.

Cheers, Terry

Kalbrecht

December 20th, 2007, 05:36 pm

I don't think that apathy is the problem though. Actually, I'm not sure that a lot of it is apathy, or greed/selfishness.

The problem is that people just have not way to relate to a problem of this magnitude.

When Greenpeace was trying to stop deforestation over a decade ago they kept on chaining themselves to trees and tractors. What happened? They became marginalised as the lunatic fringe because the average consumer had no way to relate to the dangers of deforestation or the age of the forests, and the older generation in the corporations had no way to relate to these idiotic hippies.

But, when they rebranded themselves, and now approach it as a quite slick brand, backed by a multitude of documentaries about the forests and so on, they started really making headway into corporations in regards to environmental management.

To conceive of, and relate to, climate change that lasts over thousands of years, is beyond the vast majority of people. Especially when they hear lines like "average sea temperatures have risen by 0.7 degrees celcius in the past 10 years alone!" or "the delicate balance of oxygen in the atmosphere has been thrown out by 2%!" (I'm making these up, but these are common arguments) These simply mean nothing to the average person to relate to, or to problems a world away when you're told "this is all your fault, you overweight, overconsuming American!" I know what they mean, and I still find it hard to relate to such numbers.

Water restrictions in Australia only became 'serious' in the past couple of years when it started affecting city folk. Prior to that, even though drought-style situations had been in effect for nearly a decade, it just didn't impact on people's lives. And now? We hear about dam levels every week, and there's talk of starting a stockmarket style "stock watch" for fresh produce.

I don't think talking on the massive catclysmic style is really effective enough. It's too theoretical - people need to see how it is affecting them at a personal level. It's like living with a person who's slowly getting sicker - if you see them every day, you don't notice the gradual decline. But when someone only sees them once a year, the decline is much more noticeable. People can't relate because they don't see the decline.

Terry Penrod

December 20th, 2007, 05:49 pm

.

True Chai but what about the looming mountain of evidence right there in front of all our noses?

I'm referring to the endless stream of smog alerts, news stories about massive oil spills, documentaries on toxic waste and burgeoning landfills, photo spreads of waterways so polluted life can no longer exist in them, the sharp rise in gas prices and the whole Middle East mess, the sticker shock of average heating oil bills in the winter, and so many other signs that we (all of us) need to start making some serious changes.

If all that failed to spur people into taking action, then maybe we did need a cause so big and so scary that nobody could simply shrug it off.

Cheers, Terry

Terry Penrod

December 21st, 2007, 11:57 am

.

Just some additional thoughts on the subject of energy conservation and environmental impact...

In writing reams of executive real estate case studies for Gerald Hines Interests' international marketing team over the past seven years, I've had the opportunity to interview dozens of the world's best architects, engineers, facility managers and others in related fields from across the world.

One of the stiffest challenges they face these days is retrofitting older structures to significantly increase energy efficiency and lower ongoing operating costs while decidedly reducing negative environmental impact - all without impairing tenant comfort (actually in most cases they improve it noticeably). They have also instituted an ultra aggressive approach to designing all these and many other benefits into new projects big and small.

In hundreds of properties of every kind, Hines has had remarkable results. They regularly slash energy consumption by 30% or more, reducing costs by millions a year for larger facilities and still manage to improve virtually every aspect of the human experience.

In the process, they implement green initiatives of every kind. They also improve lighting (natural and artificial), boost security, add a complete array of desirable new amentities, increase traffic flow, totally revamp property management, marketing, accounting, maintenance, parking and other services / systems, and help revitalize the surrounding neighborhoods.

For the latter they build new parks, outdoor plazas, skylit atriums, water walks, sky walks, marinas, daycare centers, mall areas, additional parking, etc. Plus they redesign street facades, landscaping, lighting, signage and more. They even work with local government and civic leaders to improve overall infrastructure for power, water, sewage, access roads and a world of other vital services including recycling centers, learning centers, etc.

As a result, when they get finished, the property value has soared way past the investor's wildest dreams, leasing or sales rates have skyrocketed, tenant / resident satisfaction has been sharply improved (which means they stay longer with far fewer problems / complaints) and a great deal of goodwill has been generated.

Most of all though - as it relates to this topic - a tremendous amount of energy has been saved and will continue to be saved continuously for the remaining life of the project. Negative environmental impact has been minimized too and the people who live, work, shop and play there are in fact healthier, happier and a more prosperous.

My point here is that through multi-tiered cooperative efforts, we can solve all these problems while actually creating many new jobs, generating much higher revenue and improving overall quality of life. Hines does it all the time all over the world and, as the global leader in setting new standards for real estate development, management and marketing, the trends they helped start are having a huge ripple effect.

Cheers, Terry

.

pcfreak

December 23rd, 2007, 11:14 am

I don't think that apathy is the problem though. Actually, I'm not sure that a lot of it is apathy, or greed/selfishness.

I think alot of the problem is down to peoples apathy, greed and selfishness. Accepting GW and realising that we all have a part to play means that we are going to have to make sacrifices. Now some people are prepared to make those sacrifices and others are not. Some think they shouldn't have to, some just don't give a rats arse! Others are on the fence, waiting for the argument to draw a conclusion. Then there are others who have already made significant changes to their lifestyle. But unless we all start doing something now, our planet as we know it has a bleak future ahead.

As I stated earlier, the real argument shouldn't be about global warming and whether it exists or not. It should be about whether or not we should be treating our planet the way we are. Forget the tag everyone has put on the subject and get back to the nitty gritty of the subject. We are ruining our planet, regardless of whether GW exists or not!

Cheers,

Stuart

Lou Cypher

December 23rd, 2007, 11:42 am

Lou, I thought we'd already established in this thread that Al Gore is full of crap.
Ya, I know, but you know us Americans have a short memory sometimes :rolleyes:

Lou :globe:

jeaniejam

February 22nd, 2008, 03:00 pm

lolzzz lou

Kalbrecht

February 24th, 2008, 06:10 pm

Ya, I know, but you know us Americans have a short memory sometimes :rolleyes:

Nyuck nyuck Americans are so unedumacated! :crazy:

Ain't anti-Americanism funny? :rolleyes:

:p:

But unless we all start doing something now, our planet as we know it has a bleak future ahead.

As I stated earlier, the real argument shouldn't be about global warming and whether it exists or not. It should be about whether or not we should be treating our planet the way we are. Forget the tag everyone has put on the subject and get back to the nitty gritty of the subject. We are ruining our planet, regardless of whether GW exists or not!

I'd be careful there, Stuart - I find that you're contradicting yourself a little bit.

Making a 100% claim that the planet has a bleak future, regardless of whether GW exists, is very different from saying that this should be about how we treat the planet.

While treating the planet better IS DEFINITELY what we should be trying to do, it is a very different thing from saying that we are definitely ruining the planet, and face a very bleak future.

Simply put, the scientific conclusions are still out on whether that future is bleak, or the planet beyond help.

The problem is that the entire debate is dominated by radical claims, one way or the other, which overshadow the extremely intelligent middle ground where we can really make headway into saving the planet. One example is that - as the green movement matured and decided that the best headway could be made by becoming more corporate and less "fundamentalist", they were able to show evidence to corporations that they could not only cut costs, but also be more socially responsible (ie better branding) by being energy efficient. This wasn't done by bringing up the words "we're killing the planet", but by tackling the gray middle ground. Like in Terry's examples - corporations can be shown that there are very real benefits to being environmentally responsible.

And now - every corporation, city and council consults environmental management. Not just to win votes with the green movement, or to 'make a difference', but to cut costs. Save energy and try and prevent things like rolling blackouts. Those are tangible benefits, that are in danger of getting lost if we keep pushing a radically conclusive line.

Radicalism is also exclusivity - 100% bleak future means there's 0% leeway. While that may get a LOT of sympathy from people at many levels of society, it's not how people practice their lives. People can't personally relate to 100%. It needs to work on many levels. Like you said - about treating the planet better, and removing the GW argument to a more abstract scientific level.

pcfreak

February 24th, 2008, 06:32 pm

I see your point but the bleak future I am talking about is already happening. We are facing ever increasing air, water and land pollution on a scale that would beggar belief. We are facing extinction rates that are soaring, partly due to our abuse of the natural habitats and partly due to the global climate change. Now these are scientifically proven conditions and I can only see things worsening and this is what I was referring to when I mentioned the bleak future because things aren't getting any better.

I personally believe that GW is a real problem, but I also believe that the argument should be withheld and we should start cleaning our act up regardless of the outcome of the debate. We would ALL benefit from a cleaner and safer planet!
Cheers,

Stuart

Rafal Dudek

February 24th, 2008, 10:59 pm

Don't know about you guys, but this is the 2nd green winter year in a row in Poland that we're having. Plants and trees are already blooming and the wheat on farms is already starting to budge out from the ground. Today we had a 15c degree weather.

Which is very unusual since this is the time where its the snowiest in Poland.

Terry Penrod

February 25th, 2008, 12:07 am

.

I agree with Chai that the rhetoric surrounding global warming needs to be toned down so cooler heads can prevail.

Regarding progress, as I mentioned above, Hines has made huge strides with hundreds of large projects across the planet and they are just one amongst dozens of mega-developers working on numerous ways to make a significant difference. Right behind those massive international corporations are hundreds of smaller but still huge companies following the trends that leaders like Hines have already started.

In dozens of other business and industrial categories, many people are working very hard to preserve the environment and reduce energy consumption. But they MUST at all times confront harsh economic realities. They simply can not under ANY circumstances purposefully drive themselves into bankruptcy. If they did, the loss of jobs would be catastrophic and immediate.

Remember too that the human race has NO CHOICE but to use energy for meeting a huge number of fundamental needs, to create commerce, for manufacturing necessities of every kind and to power all forms of transportation. We don't have the option to stop eating, going to school, traveling to work, heating our homes or building places to live.

If we cut out all waste of all kinds, we would still use massive amounts of energy and produce a lot of garbage.

Cheers, Terry

pcfreak

February 25th, 2008, 03:59 am

You must also remember that there ARE choices each and every individual can make regarding their impact on our planet. And these need not cause damage to the economy or put jobs in danger. There are many, many ways in which we can all help a little, but alot of people do not want to because it requires them to think about things differently and change can be daunting or even scary to some.

I myself have introduced measures within my own company which have made some cost savings and reduced the impact it has on the local and global environment. Admittedly, this is a drop in the ocean and I am not going to make a difference on my own, but what if 50% of companys did the same? Then there would be a vast improvement. Some of the measures I have taken have cost me more in the long run, but I see this as an investment in a way.

Cheers,

Stuart

Rob

February 25th, 2008, 12:02 pm

Remember too that the human race has NO CHOICE but to use energy for meeting a huge number of fundamental needs, to create commerce, for manufacturing necessities of every kind and to power all forms of transportation. We don't have the option to stop eating, going to school, traveling to work, heating our homes or building places to live. Just because we need to eat, sleep and work doesn't mean there isn't choice. There is plenty of choice. Many choose to commute to work instead of living closer or carpooling. Many choose to build larger homes than they need and use more energy than if they bought something smaller. Many choose to overeat, creating a drain on food and land. Many choices, but so many are dismissed based on human greed.

Terry Penrod

February 25th, 2008, 12:58 pm

.

Of course there is a lot of waste Rob. But people still need to eat, work, travel, etc. and the bare minimum amount of energy required to support the human race in any kind of modern society is enormous.

By far the biggest factor in the rise of energy usage over the past century has been significant population growth coupled with rapid modernization and expanded life expectancy on a global scale. Soon there will be billions of people with cars, air conditioned homes, major appliances, computers, etc. and on average, they will be living longer. So the demand for energy in all forms will be astronomical compared to a hundred years ago - regardless of how much we tighten our individual belts.

Cheers, Terry

Lou Cypher

March 1st, 2008, 02:12 pm

Originally posted by Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander

Don't know about you guys, but this is the 2nd green winter year in a row in Poland that we're having. Plants and trees are already blooming and the wheat on farms is already starting to budge out from the ground. Today we had a 15c degree weather.

Which is very unusual since this is the time where its the snowiest in Poland.
Thats interesting, it seems that the rest of the world has gotten alot colder...

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
Dailytech (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

This is just another piece of evidence that manmade "GW" is just another chicken little movement.

Lou :globe:

Kalbrecht

March 2nd, 2008, 07:20 pm

This is just another piece of evidence that manmade "GW" is just another chicken little movement.

And your post is also evidence of how misunderstood the concept of "Global Warming" is. Global Warming is a convenient phrase for something that includes more than a simplistic "everywhere gets warmer!".

It encompasses some quite major shifts in climate, which are reflected in changes in tidal movement, water evaporation and humidity, cloud cover and temperature/sunlight coverage. These all have a flow-on effect, which include exaggerated heating/cooling cycles. That's the key - not just "everything gets a bit warmer", but an exaggerated cycle moving toward a global environment of extremes.

Australia has had record-level cold days, record hot days, record drought and record rain all in the past year. One town can flood, while barely 50 miles away the land is still under drought management.

pcfreak

March 2nd, 2008, 07:27 pm

And the worrying thing is Kalbrecht, these record breaking weather events are happening all over the world. Maybe it's time for people to wake up and smell the salts. Whether global warming exists or not, there are definitely extreme changes occuring that are putting human lives in danger.

Cheers,

Stuart

Terry Penrod

March 2nd, 2008, 08:11 pm

.

It also doesn't matter if mankind is directly and/or solely responsible for these climate shifts or not. We still pollute like pigs, ruin natural habitats like crazy and use far more energy / resources than we should.

We need to step up all forms of development for cleaner renewable fuels / alternate energy sources and we need to stop poisoning the air, water, land, flora and fauna we depend on for survival.

Cheers, Terry

Rafal Dudek

March 2nd, 2008, 08:36 pm

Yea, and we just had hurricane Emma pass through Poland:
http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1540827,wiadomosc.html

pcfreak

March 2nd, 2008, 08:40 pm

I saw the reports on the storms Central Europe has suffered on the BBC, I think we in the UK must have had the tail end of them. It's been windy as hell here the last few days.

Kalbrecht

March 2nd, 2008, 11:22 pm

It also doesn't matter if mankind is directly and/or solely responsible for these climate shifts or not. We still pollute like pigs, ruin natural habitats like crazy and use far more energy / resources than we should.

We need to step up all forms of development for cleaner renewable fuels / alternate energy sources and we need to stop poisoning the air, water, land, flora and fauna we depend on for survival.

This has been said a few times already in this thread alone, and I'll repeat it one more time:

DING DING DING! We have a winner. :yes:

Kalbrecht

March 5th, 2008, 07:33 pm

Here's one for Lou, :):

and to be honest, I'm pretty behind this guy's argument, if not the way he's going about it (yay using lawsuits for publicity! :rolleyes:)

http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, is looking to use a lawsuit to expose GW "Alarmism", which he believes has taken over the Weather Channel.

Things like this

The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

annoy me. She advocated decertification because they DISAGREE and DOUBT? She then has the gall to claim in that blog that those who disagree "have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming" (read: toe the party line)

Yikes. Looks like she needs to get educated on the process of scientific discovery - to push the boundaries, and try to explore the margins of doubt.

Or maybe the world IS flat after all. :rolleyes:

Lou Cypher

March 8th, 2008, 04:41 pm

Hmm, how convenient this pro manmade GW, It's to hot, mans fault, it's to cold, it's mans fault, to much rain/snow here but not enough over there, mans fault, it sure is hard to debate something when all the bases are covered, even when the science doesn't back it up, unless your using junk science as your main tool.
But what really gets me is, if man is the cause of GW and the "argument is over" and it's "the consensus of the scientific community":rolleyes:, why are the pro MMGW crowd so afraid of any apposing view like the article that Kalbrecht linked too, or that GW "deniers" are like “Holocaust Deniers” and should be put on trial in “Nuremberg-style trials” and much more.
The science is not there to back up the claim that man is responsible for GW, if it’s really happening at all because the Glaciers are not shrinking and the Polar Bears are not disappearing just to name two things that are widely quoted by the MMGW crowd.

Lou :globe:

pcfreak

March 8th, 2008, 05:19 pm

Lou how can you say that the glaciers aren't melting, when there is indeed scientific evidence to prove that the glaciers ARE melting at a higher rate than ever seen before?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2559633.stm

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/impacts/glaciers/index.cfm

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/glacier-shrinking-on-cumberland-peninsula-baffin-island-canadian-arctic

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/shrinking-of-fedchenko-glacier-in-the-pamirs-of-tajikistan

http://www.niwa.cri.nz/news/mr/2007/2007-11-18-2

http://pistehors.com/backcountry/wiki/Weather/Europe-S-Shrinking-Glaciers

Now all these websites are describing what you say isn't happening, and the research is conducted using proven scientific methods.

At the end of the day, it sounds like you think 'GW' is some conspiricy of some sorts, when all the 'GW' crowd are trying to do is safeguard our planet. I happen to believe in GW and I think there is enough scientific evidence out there for me to be concerned. I know others don't agree but instead of trying to prove or disprove the theory, why not accept that we all need to start cleaning our act up, surely you can see the sense in that?
Cheers,

Stuart

Terry Penrod

March 8th, 2008, 05:40 pm

.

Good question Stuart but the more relevant one is, why are we continuing to go around in circles about Global Warming - regardless of whether it is real, imagined, manmade, natural or a combination of both?

Why aren't we focusing 100% on what we know as unquestionable fact? That is our undeniable negative impact on the environment and our continued waste of all natural resources at every level?

Why aren't we concentrating all our efforts on significantly reducing manmade pollution and increasing energy efficiency?

Why aren't we screaming bloody murder that Big Oil is still dragging its huge, greedy feet in the area of developing cleaner NON-FOSSIL fuels that can be renewed and that will finally break OPEC's insidious hold on the civilized world?

Why aren't we doing everything in our power to put OPEC permanently out of business as soon as humanly possible?

I'll tell you why.

It is political corruption at the higest levels combined with unbridled greed.

It is an addiction to power by a handful of enormously wealthy individuals who make a fortune from oil, gas and all forms of industry / commerce that rely on fossil fuels.

It is their belief that they should control the flow of money, control government policies, control economic factors and control the masses to do their bidding while they lavish themselves with kingly luxuries and grant themselves obscene tax breaks.

It is the same tired, old, disgusting story.

Cheers, Terry

Rafal Dudek

December 11th, 2008, 12:19 pm

I think I changed my stance on this whole global warming issue. Recently I had a chance to talk to several physicists including those with Ph.D's from MIT. Basically, the amount of carbon dioxided that we're generating is very little. Our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and 20% oxygen. CO2 makes up roughly 0.038% of our atmosphere. So it barely has any effect to trap heat. H20 water vapor has a much much greater effect on trapping heat in our planet than CO2.

Basically we're just headed toward a warmer cycle. Eventually once we hit a peak of our warm cycle, there will be a lot of water vapor around the planet which will block off more solar energy coming to us which means, less heat will be captured and earth will cool off again.

Do you think planting more trees will clean things up? Trees also give off CO2 at night =]

Basically here is my stance on what I believe now:

Are we causing global warming? Yes and no. We are in a planetary cycle due to wobble effect of our planet. We might just *slightly* accelerated that process through burning of fossil fuels. But it's not that big of an effect as a lot of people seem to believe.

We do need cleaner energy sources. Just because we're not affecting global warming that much, we are generating pollution which is hazardus to our and future generations health.

We do need energy independence for our nation. We cannot rely on a cartel to regulate how much oil we purchase. Start drilling for new sources while developing different energy methods. But that's another subject :):

Rob

December 11th, 2008, 01:04 pm

I think that has been the crux of this entire thread, is Global Warming simply an inapropriate name or a real problem? The world spends too much time fighting over a name and not enough time worry about how we can fix our footprint on the earth. Does our use of gas powered cars promote global warming? Or is the question irrelevent since we should be looking at cleaner alternative fuels anyway?

I spoke to my geology teacher, whose opinion I highly value, and she said she 100% believed in global warming until she was part of a debate and was assigned the con position. She said she found more evidence against global warming than for, and her opinion has since changed. But, she still strongly points at polution, destruction of rain forests and so forth as being a major ecological problem.

So, is there global warming? Who cares, it is time to clean up anyway.

Terry Penrod

December 11th, 2008, 01:40 pm

.

Yep and that's exactly the point several of us have been making all along.

Global Warming or No Global Warming, we already have all the incentives we need to develop cleaner, more efficient, renewable energy sources, to reduce all forms of manmade pollution and to finally break free of the fossil-fuel addiction that has kept the free world under OPEC's / Big Oil's thumb.

We effectively need to put OPEC out of business by creating a whole new set of energy industries that employ millions of our own citizens (including North American, European, Asian and others) - in a way that actually makes this planet a cleaner, healthier place to live.

Hopefully in the coming years, my country (under new leadership) will help forge a truly global effort to leverage all our top scientific and technological resources to solve these problems. If so, the entire "free world" will be free again. Free from the constant pressure to feed a very nasty, expensive habit called Oil.

There are other toxins we need to clean up too. But compared to Oil and all oil-related products, collectively they are a drop in the environmental bucket.

Cheers, Terry

Colt

December 14th, 2008, 02:59 am

I agree with Terry 100%. Whether or not global warming exists is besides the point, we still need to clean up our act regardless.

I do believe in global warming though. It's very easy to get into a circular argument about it which makes the whole thing a bit tedious though so I don't really want to get into it. Suffice it to say I've majored in environmental management and whilst this in itself doesn't mean much in terms of knowing more than any other person here it does mean I've probably spent a lot more time researching both the pro's and negatives of the debate. Overal GW seems like a pretty solid theory and is backed fairly resolutely by the scientific community in general. So yeah, when all is said and done I support it and any efforts to address it.

I think one of the main reasons GW is so unpopular is simply that change = fear.

Vanish86

December 14th, 2008, 01:13 pm

I'm going to say both.

OldsterHolster

December 14th, 2008, 07:07 pm

Geeez, this is a long thread. It's been months and months since I've checked it out, and at my age, that means I've already forgotten what I've said, before. Heh, heh. I do kind of remember saying something to the effect that I thought this was one of those problems that would just go away in the foreseeable future. When I was a young man, the great unknown They kept us scared of Nuclear Winter, and nowadays They are pushing fear of Global Warming. Ironic, methinks.

I love the controversy. It's a delicious mixture of true and not true with lots of room for argument and no possible definitive answer at this point in time. What makes it special is that this instilled fear just might actually improve the planet, this time; something us old hippies were stoked about forty years ago.

One of my favorite old hippie sayings is, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy," and my curiosity runs to just why this particular public fear is being used and manipulated, today. It may be as simple as the feeling that, "Those guys are getting too much money/power with their oil, so let's demonize it." It would be a gem of a conspiracy that would accomplish the main goal, and make the planet a better place, too. Demonizing something that everybody is addicted to is no easy task, though, so fear is an effective tool to those trying to control the future. Frankly, I hope this one works.

An obviously similar, long-term, tactic has been the demonization of tobacco over the years. Hell, John Wayne smoked, dying soldiers on the battlefield asked for a final smoke, and it was a triumph for women when they could smoke freely in public; and from the beginning everybody knew it was bad for you. Intense, decades long, pressure, probably from the pharmaceutical industries, has finally convinced the masses that smokers are not only a financial burden on the economy, but their second-hand smoke kills a zillion babies a year, and a smoker is a worthless citizen. Funny how things change, huh, and has anybody noticed the enormous increase in prescription drugs that people are taking, these days?

OK, end of ramble. The second half of the hippie saying was, "Well, if there is a conspiracy, why am I not part of it?" Heh, heh. For a cynical old fart, I'm feeling pretty good about the way some things are going. Kicking the oil habit is huge, and the Global Warming ploy has effectively gotten the ball rolling, I think. Near-future breakthroughs in battery technology and solar panel efficiency will solidify the new direction, and just maybe the world will be a better place before it's my time to check out. I hope so. Edward.

Terry Penrod

December 14th, 2008, 07:43 pm

.

Good rambling there Edward and I think most here agree with you that whatever the "truth", attitudes about energy conservation and environmental issues are finally beginning to change... and that ain't a bad thing at all.

Cheers, Terry

Colt

December 25th, 2008, 08:57 am

Has anyone else noticed that this is in the "Heated" Discussion forum? :)

Rob

December 25th, 2008, 10:22 am

Yes, but since this thread started in 2006, we got out most of our agression in earlier posts.

Terry Penrod

December 25th, 2008, 11:14 am

.

Maybe we can move it to the barely luke warm discussion forum.

Cheers, Terry

RangerRick

December 25th, 2008, 11:50 am

An obviously similar, long-term, tactic has been the demonization of tobacco over the years. Hell, John Wayne smoked, dying soldiers on the battlefield asked for a final smoke, and it was a triumph for women when they could smoke freely in public; and from the beginning everybody knew it was bad for you. Intense, decades long, pressure, probably from the pharmaceutical industries, has finally convinced the masses that smokers are not only a financial burden on the economy, but their second-hand smoke kills a zillion babies a year, and a smoker is a worthless citizen. Funny how things change, huh, and has anybody noticed the enormous increase in prescription drugs that people are taking, these days?

And the cost can outweigh that of smoking! :crazy:

Not to mention that plethora of side effects, and what they can do long term!!!! :scared:

Will we ever learn?????? :face4: :(:

Terry Penrod

December 25th, 2008, 02:41 pm

.

Well Rick, that did raise the temperature of this thread a little, but it's still only slightly above luke warm. I think we can do better and just to get things off on the foot, I'll light the first bonfire by saying . . .

I can't stand self-righteous, holier-than-thou hypocrites that whine incessantly about second-hand smoke while driving around in gas-guzzling, pollution-belching SUVs the size of a frickin' house.

Moreover, if those same peabrained dickwads actually checked out the outrageously astronomical "sin tax" on cigarettes these days, they'd know who is paying for ALL related costs.

Smokers in this country are getting gang raped straight up the butt by a nanny-state mentality supported by millions of blithering idiots that wouldn't know a tobacco leaf if it slapped them upside their barely functioning little heads.

That's because they're the ones taking all those truckloads of mood-alterating, anxiety-reducing prescription drugs pushed by the corporate overlords they worship like a bunch of lily-livered lemmings.

These sniveling, cause-of-the-day morons single-handedly waste more natural resources and do more harm to the environment making trips to the mall than an army of smokers. Worse, they gleefully buy truckloads of shiny, status-seeking, self-gratifying crap made by third-world sweatshop labor in appalling conditions - and then have the unmitigated gaul to bitch about American jobs being lost to foreign competitors.

I say screw all those festering two-faced sacks of mindless mush. They need to clean up their own act before pointing fingers at others.

And if you don't like that opinion, then don't get me started on those pukes at PETA or evangelical activists, who REALLY piss me off.

. . . is that heated enough?

Cheers, Terry

.

pcfreak

December 25th, 2008, 03:11 pm

Couldn't agree more! As a smoker myself, I absolutely hate the fact that smoking is getting such a pounding in the press, when alcohol hardly gets a mention. Here in the UK, our A&E rooms are full to bursting every weekend because of young people binge drinking. Yet smoking still gets the blame for being a drain on our NHS, when booze is probably the No. 1 money pit.

Also, there's nothing worse than an ex-smoker who decides to preach to those of us who haven't the required will power or the interest in giving up. That really gets my goat up big time. I would love to be able to stop, but I find it damned difficult. I smoke because I haven't yet been able to stop, but I still enjoy a cigarette, and I won't be talked down to by some self righteous anti smoking arseholes for doing so:mad: I don't smoke near my kids, and I respect non smokers so leave me the hell alone to enjoy my fag!

Terry Penrod

December 25th, 2008, 03:28 pm

.

I only smoke the occasional cigar, but good for you Stuart.

You're an adult that knows the risks, you don't force others to breath second-hand smoke and you don't deserve to be treated like a second-class citizen.

The hordes of hypocrites that persecute smokers like you need to mind their own damned business - especially the ones who drive gas guzzlers, pop pills like candy and booze it up every day at happy hour. I mean, who the hell are they to talk?

Cheers, Terry

Gary V.

December 26th, 2008, 01:18 am

I hate it when a smoker blows his smoke in my face or when I have to walk through the smoking section of a restaurant. Two seconds is all it takes for my clothes and hair to smell like freakin' cigarettes.

pcfreak

December 26th, 2008, 05:32 am

Blowing smoke into someones face here would be seen as an act of contempt, whether the receiver was a smoker or not, and it would likely end up with the guilty person getting a smack on the nose.

We have a ban on smoking in public buildings here in the UK. Basically, no-one is allowed to smoke in an indoor public area. That includes restaurants, pubs, shops, taxis, hotels etc etc. The new laws met with some criticism from some smokers, but most smokers, like myself, can see the benefits of this and welcome them.

Rob

December 26th, 2008, 08:57 am

The city I live in and most of the surrounding cities have bans on smoking in indoor public areas like the ones Stuart just mentioned, which is amazing since tabacco is our number one cash crop. And our school has an official rule that one cannot smoke within 25 feet of any doors into a building. And for the most part students follow it, at least until it rains, then they crowd near the door.

Self righteous or not, I will not be around someone smoking if I can help it.

As for alcohol, I will not be around drunk people either and refuse to go to bars because of it. Drinking is bad, but for other reasons. I grew up with an alcoholic father and that is all it takes. Alcohol is not going to go away, and after being in Europe and Russia, I believe it is time to get rid of the coolness of the first beer and binging by removing a lot of restrictions and adopting the European attitude towards it.

Terry Penrod

December 26th, 2008, 11:09 am

.

Houston has the same kind of citywide ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. I support that law and and there are stiff penalties for violating it.

However, Texas also levied an additional $1.00 per pack "special" sin tax on cigarettes a while back and IMO that was going too far. The state and federal taxes were already sky high and it amounts to nothing more than government-sponsored extortion.

Here's the rub -

If the same kind of severe restrictions and financial penalties were applied to alcohol, millions of the very same self-righteous morons that constantly whine about tobacco use would scream bloody murder.

In that and many other ways, they are blatant hypocrites and hypocrites make me sick. The more self-righteous, loud and whiney they become, the more sickening they are.

Cheers, Terry

.

Rob

December 26th, 2008, 11:23 am

I wouldn't be opposed to a $1 alcohol tax either.

And for the record, I do occasionally drink, I just do not go to bars because I do not want to be around drunks.

Terry Penrod

December 26th, 2008, 11:45 am

.

Your state of Kentucky has some of the lowest sin taxes in America Rob. Most states already have MUCH higher taxes (on top of what the federal government gets). In somes cases like Texas, states have added yet another large "special" tax on top and IMO it borders on criminal extortion.

Cheers, Terry

Lou Cypher

December 27th, 2008, 10:14 pm

Here's a very good article, even though it's out of GB:wink:, but this paragraph really stuck out;

"First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Lou :globe:

pcfreak

December 27th, 2008, 10:24 pm

Here's a very good article, even though it's out of GB:wink

That's rich! An American criticising our press??:eek::): Thank God for the BBC!:): And I wouldn't take the evidence you provided as anything more than a light hearted look back at 2008 by a reporter who has not shown any supporting data to back his statements up.

Terry Penrod

December 28th, 2008, 03:30 pm

.

USA Today Online ran an article today with the headline:

Satellite data shows Earth's climate is changing unevenly

http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2008/12/satellite-data.html

While hardly an unimpeachable source, it includes some estimates from a couple of fairly reliable entities as follow.

"Earth's atmosphere warmed an average of about about 0.72 degree F in the past 30 years, according to NOAA and NASA satellites. More than 80 percent of the globe warmed by some amount."

The story continues with the next statement about uneven polar temperature changes according to John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville.

"However, while parts of the Arctic have warmed by as much as 4.6 degrees F in 30 years, Christy says that much of the Antarctic has cooled, with parts of the continent cooling as much as the Arctic has warmed."

Beats me who to believe about Global Warming at this point. However, as most here seem to agree, we know for a fact that mankind is producing a LOT of oil-based pollution, toxic waste and mouintains of garbage. We also know that our fossil-fuel supplies are finite plus demand for it has grown by an astronomical margin over the past century.

Our major cities are extremely overcrowded, our highways are jammed, rapid development has caused a number of other serious problems, and the entire industrialized world is in a very bad position regarding dependency on OPEC.

None of those things are based on speculation at all. They are as real as real gets. So we simply don't need to "know" what's what with Global Warming.

We already know for a fact that action must be taken to lower pollution, find cleaner forms of renewable energy, and generally change the way we treat this planet.

ANY other view is suicidal.

Cheers, Terry

.

Rob

December 28th, 2008, 04:06 pm

I think the term Global Warming itself has been a large problem as people seem to believe it means it is just getting hotter which is definitely not the case. A much better term would be global climate shift.

"First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century."

There is a huge problem with the above quote. Temperatures just do not cancel each other out, it changes the entire eco-system. Plants that normally bloom in May die from the lengthy cold, which in turn kills off the bugs that eat them because there is no food, which in turn means less food for spiders and birds and so on and so on. Seems trivial, but it has already had a large impact on the world. The plants, the bugs, the animals will move. All the extra snow will melt, flooding the land in places that have not experienced this. Other areas used to the snow will receive less, creating water shortages such as in Denver.

Climate shift.

Nagumo

December 29th, 2008, 09:25 am

The ross ice sheet is melting

So what? Ice melts as temperatures rise, nothing new about that.

CO2 levels are rising

So what? Same thing happened long before man ever saw the light of day. Unless of course you think the T-Rex was scooting about in a Humvee.

tetrahydrofurans are being pumped into the atmosphere.

And in this thread a whole load of manure is being shoveled.

Global climate patterns are changing at rates never before seen in Earth's history, except in cataclysmic events.

Really? So you know all the details about the vast time period where we had no recorded weather values? You know, the one huge period that makes up 99.9% of the Earth's history. The one where scientists offen tell us that they theorize things happened in some way as they just DON'T KNOW what happened as there's no recorded history.

You want to pass up this objective reality as a mere coincidence?

Sure. I mean why can't we humans, that only output roughly 3-6% of the world's CO2 be the alpha and omega of climate change. I mean we're all important, every egomaniac knows that, nothing can happen to the earth without mans efforts.

There's no way that the weather could be cyclical and the warmth or lack there of *(remember, in the 70's it was global cooling :rolleyes: ) (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html) actually be affected by the proximity of the Earth to the sun and the degree of radiation from the sun (hell, all big flaming balls of rock are totally stable after all).

There are no coincidences, just cause and effect, anything other is a human abstraction.

Right coincidences never occur, they're just a figment of the imagination. :rolleyes:

Good for a fortune cookie, meaningless in any real or tangible way.

*
Another Ice Age?
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974

pcfreak

December 29th, 2008, 10:37 am

Nagumo

December 29th, 2008, 11:08 am

Nagumo, so are you saying that we shouldn't be concerned about the impact WE are having on our environment? If so, can you pass me your blinkers and rose tinted glasses please, because I CAN see evidence of the impact WE are having on it! As mentioned by other members here, Global Warming is a bad phrase for something we should all be concerned about. What we should be worrying about is ever increasing pollution rates, mass landfill, deforestation, abnormal extinction rates etc etc, and all this can safely be attributed to OUR self satisfaction!

PS if you are going to mass quote, then please do provide the source details.

You won't get far with me using red herrings. At no point did I ever stipulate that we should remain unconcerned with noxious emissions and other forms of pollution. You can gather this from the fact that I indeed, never stated anything so utterly absurd. That's all you.

Second, I'm not going to run out and start a biography on, Torsion since the entirely of my quotes are simply sentences culled from his single post on page 5 in order to address the points individually.

pcfreak

December 29th, 2008, 11:43 am

It's good forum etiquette to state who you are quoting within your posts, it's nice to be able to reference the quoted statements in their entirety without having to trawl through the thread to find them.

As for the red herring:

Sure. I mean why can't we humans, that only output roughly 3-6% of the world's CO2 be the alpha and omega of climate change. I mean we're all important, every egomaniac knows that, nothing can happen to the earth without mans efforts.

I interpreted that statement as you were denying Humans had any part to play in climate change, hidden with sarcasm.

Terry Penrod

December 29th, 2008, 12:31 pm

.

Hey guys, does it really matter what amount of impact mankind is having on global climate change - if any?

Isn't it more important that for the first time EVER, the majority of people in this world are actually concerned and motivated to do something about little things like saving energy, reducing waste, stemming pollution, developing cleaner / renewable fuels, recycling, etc.?

If "Global Warming" turns out to be nothing more than the battlecry that finally, at long last woke people up from their denial and/or apathy, then it will have served an extremely important purpose.

That's because, as I think all of us here agree, we do need to change our ways and that change will take a lot of hard work, sacrifice, cooperation and support by millions of average folks as well as governments, industries and the scientific community.

Think of it as a slogan for a massive public relations campaign to get our collective butts in gear and clean up our act while we still have time.

Waiting for our oil reserves to get so depleted that it sparks WW3 will be too late and as anyone can plainly see, we are in fact hurting this planet and ourselves.

So screw the details and to hell with further debate. We need to take decisive action NOW and anything that helps make that happen is a positive thing.

Cheers, Terry

pcfreak

December 29th, 2008, 06:49 pm

Terry, I think that the action will finally come when it's too late. Our governments have been arguing over climate change (Global Warming) for years now and the actions taken so far are nothing more than petty crowd pleasing gestures. We still have people that are totally ignorant to the fact that we are having an adverse effect on our habitat, and no matter what anyone says, they will carry on regardless.

Our 'civilised' societies have grown to be wasteful and downright greedy. We have become accustomed to having our every need catered for as and when we desire. We demand this, no matter the cost to our environment or other species. Look at the spiralling demand for electricity, fresh water, arable land amongst other things and you can see we are on a very rocky road indeed.

Terry Penrod

December 29th, 2008, 07:10 pm

.

You're probably right Stuart, However, that statement unto itself is a testament to the very apathy I'm talking about.

As enlightened citizens of those wasteful, shortsighted, industrialized nations, we must do what we can to keep momentum going now, while awareness is at an all-time high.

That's why I plan to seize every available opportunity over the next several years to support this cause - to educate, to serve as an example, and to persuade others that we can (perhaps against all odds) alter our habits and find a healthier way to live on this planet.

Cheers, Terry

pcfreak

December 29th, 2008, 07:20 pm

One thing that gets my goat Terry, is the profiteering we are experiencing with 'green' products. Alot of companies are switching on to the fact that there is money to be made from adopting the 'green' image, and they are charging a premium to it's customers for doing so. I find this to be a tun off from doing the right thing. I take every step I can to make my home and business as efficient and less wasteful as I can. Should I be charged a premium for this? I don't think I should.

Nagumo

December 29th, 2008, 07:37 pm

Carbon credits, 'nuff said.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

While we may be polluting the planet and need to reform some of our actions, we're not changing the actual environment. The Earth has experienced many severe weather and climate changes over the many eons it has existed, many of those years being devoid of any semblance of humanity. Man made global warming is the new farce. Before it was global cooling, overpopulation, save the whales, and whatever other green garbage they could spew. Humanity simply doesn't output enough so called greenhouse emissions to have any tangible effect on the ecosystem. A single volcanic eruption outputs more CO2 in a minute than humans put out in a year.

This little synopsis offers a little common sense look at just how inane it is for any respectable scientist to proclaim they definitively know we as a species are having any affect on the environment as far as climate change.

Most importantly is this point.

But what happened before the industrial revolution and even before the dawn of civilization?
• The Earth has experienced four major and several minor glaciations in the last 2 million years.
• Between glaciations, we have had periods of global warming greater than what we see today.
• During the last major glaciation, ice covered two-thirds of Ohio as late as 30,000 years ago and had not completely melted away until about 10,000 years ago.

What is a glaciation? A small decrease in temperature can cause snow to last through summers, especially at high elevations and latitudes. Successive accumulations of snow over many thousands of years cause glaciers to grow.

The same info that the proponents of global warming always seem to shy away from. That and how it is we are supposed to rely on computer models that can't even predict the weather accurately a week down the road.

http://cc.ysu.edu/~amjacobs/Global%20Warming%204-03.htm

Terry Penrod

December 29th, 2008, 08:01 pm

.

Nags, the harder you work to tear down the whole concept of Manmade Global Warming, the more you help erode the recent progress we have seen in terms of real concern, awareness and willingness to change by the average person.

Like I said before, I don't care about the facts in this case, because I care MUCH more about using this scare as a way to get people to begin changing their dirtiest habits.

We need overwhelming support by millions of little guys for a wide range of projects aimed at energy independence, smog reduction, lowering waste levels / increased recycling, etc.

If fear of extinction based on totally false conclusions is what it takes to get that done, so be it.

Cheers, Terry

Nagumo

December 29th, 2008, 08:10 pm

Horse manure. Many people are ignoring these clams due to the number of times they have been duped in the past for some politician or businessman's profit. People tune out after they've been duped enough times. Fear through lies isn't going to help. It does more harm when that myth is debunked and people feel buffaloed then become cynical to any future claims due to past experience. What we need is the truth, not fantasy, not fiction, and certainly not outright lies for profit. Any less will simply further the problem, not fix it.

pcfreak

December 29th, 2008, 08:17 pm

I agree that we shouldn't use scare tactics to force any point across, nor should we lie. I do believe that we are having an impact on our environment. What we need is for our governments to stop the bickering, stop involving industry in decision making, and find out exactly what impact we are having so we can all get some straight answers!

Terry Penrod

December 29th, 2008, 08:34 pm

.

One thing that gets my goat Terry, is the profiteering we are experiencing with 'green' products. Alot of companies are switching on to the fact that there is money to be made from adopting the 'green' image, and they are charging a premium to it's customers for doing so. I find this to be a tun off from doing the right thing. I take every step I can to make my home and business as efficient and less wasteful as I can. Should I be charged a premium for this? I don't think I should.

If it's really a case of profiteering Stuart, then hell no you shouldn't stand for it.

But there are legitimate additional costs involved in the research, design and manufacturing of a number of new products / systems / structures.

For instance, it takes a pretty healthy amount of money to retrofit older commercial buildings for improving energy efficiency. One of my biggest clients specializes in that amongst other things. They consider it to be an essential part of their larger multi-pronged "Value Engineering" efforts.

Of course, some of those initial costs simply must be passed along to tenants and in turn to the customers they serve.

However, once that investment has been covered by sharply reduced operating costs, the ongoing savings can be used to keep rental rates steady for many years to come. It can also be used to make other improvements to the property, to add tenant amentities, extra safety / security features, etc.

When done honestly, everybody wins. The owner's equity / property value goes up and the occupants are decidedly happier. Why? Because their costs stabilize and it's a nicer place to work, to shop, to live. So they tend to renew long-term leases and yes, we collectively save significant amounts of energy while producing fewer harmful elements.

In the process, working conditions really do improve for tenant employees, contractors, and the in-house staff. Natural light is employed, artificial lighting is made easier on the eyes, green areas are provided, HVAC temperature controls are more localized for each floor / compartmentalized space, water and air quality improves, building security is better, ingress / egress are made more efficient, and a variety of conveniences are added.

Most all of which can apply to office buildings, corporate campuses, shopping malls, residential towers, industrial complexes, schools, and on and on.

In other words, the math works from both a human and a purely financial angle.

Cheers, Terry

Terry Penrod

December 29th, 2008, 08:55 pm

.

Horse manure. Many people are ignoring these clams due to the number of times they have been duped in the past for some politician or businessman's profit. People tune out after they've been duped enough times. Fear through lies isn't going to help. It does more harm when that myth is debunked and people feel buffaloed then become cynical to any future claims due to past experience. What we need is the truth, not fantasy, not fiction, and certainly not outright lies for profit. Any less will simply further the problem, not fix it.

And I couldn't care less about the "scientific truth" if fear of a made-up scenario FINALLY gets people off their lazy, selfish butts and into forward gear.

Fact is we NEED them to begin changing en masse now, not someday when it really is too late. We need to replace hundreds of millions of gas-burning vehicles with cleaner, more energy-efficient forms of transportation. We need to break OPEC's death grip on the entire free world. We need to stop producing so much toxic waste material. We need cleaner water and air.

If a lie gets that done, I'm telling it.

BTW Nags, have you ever exaggerated (even just a little) to your kids about the dangers of certain things like unprotected sex, speeding, hitchhiking, drinking, cheating on tests, petty theft, etc.? Most all parents do - at least to a degree. We scare them into being careful, into avoiding potentially dangerous things, into obeying the law. We do so because it's generally good for them and it works.

We also lie to them through our teeth about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and how "well-meaning and deserving of respect" that nasty, odious, self-centered Aunt SoAndSo is. Hey, the old bat is family and it's just easier if the kids pretend to like her when she inflicts us with a visit...

Cheers, Terry

Rob

December 29th, 2008, 08:59 pm

My daughter and I tracked Santa with NORAD and Google Earth this year. Just wanted to say...

pcfreak

December 29th, 2008, 09:01 pm

Me too with our 8ry old, she sussed the CGI santa out to be a fake though, and it took some quick talking to save the day:D:

Rob

December 29th, 2008, 09:24 pm

Yeah, the CGI Santa was pretty bad, but my daughter liked seeing all the "cool" places Santa visited. She just had to understand that Santa moved too fast for cameras so Google made some cartoons to show everyone. :):

And Nagumo, who said we were being lied to? There are too many opinions in this debate and too many facts for any one person to have such an influance over us. And we have pretty much come to the consensus in this thread over the last two years that whether global warming is real or not doesn't matter, we should be doing a whole lot more to take care of what we have.

You claim humans create such a tiny amount of CO2 compared to natural events, sure, I absolutely agree with you on volcanoes, but cutting down the rainforrest releases tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that had been trapped in the trees for eons.

What about all the pollution to our water sources that we continually create?

Forget the name. It is bogus. Climate shift is real, and yes we do have a large hand in it. Lop off or dynamite the top of a mountain to lay down road and you just changed the weather pattern. Look at the Nile river, that river is so infested with waste, been dammed up in so many places the land and the ecology have changed.

That is the point we are trying to make.

Terry Penrod

December 29th, 2008, 09:48 pm

.

That's right Rob.

Truth be told, Santa moves at the speed of imagination, which is MUCH faster than the speed of light.

Human progress however moves slower than a petrified slug in hardened tar pit and the point here is that people are finally gaining a lilttle momentum on the energy-conservation / cleaner-environment front.

IMO, the whole Global Warming Scare is the main reason for that small but discernable, recent surge of progress and I want it to keep building period.

Cheers, Terry

Mikell

December 30th, 2008, 12:47 am

What I've seen is that no one wants to talk about overpopulation.
A system has to have a balance of consumers and resources. It will work itself out one way or another.
In the film, The Day After Tomorrow, the problem wasn't just that the ice caps were melting, it was the fact that the ice is fresh water and a desalinization point was reached that shifted oceanic water flow and changed water temperature world wide. Slower than a nuclear winter but the same effect.

Yes it was a movie but that is one scenario.

Another:

"An article in The Independent discusses a theory that cell phone radiation seriously interferes with bees’ ability to navigate through the air. Regardless of the cause, the implications of this phenomenon are enormous - and it is alarming how rapidly this is occurring. From a NYT article on 2/27/07: “…one study says that honeybees annually pollinate more than $14 billion worth of seeds and crops in US, mostly fruits, vegetables and nuts.”

http://globalclimatechange.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/einstein-on-bees/

pcfreak

December 30th, 2008, 04:03 pm

"An article in The Independent discusses a theory that cell phone radiation seriously interferes with bees’ ability to navigate through the air. Regardless of the cause, the implications of this phenomenon are enormous - and it is alarming how rapidly this is occurring. From a NYT article on 2/27/07: “…one study says that honeybees annually pollinate more than $14 billion worth of seeds and crops in US, mostly fruits, vegetables and nuts.”

I have read similar reports elsewhere and it is quite alarming. It goes to show that we constantly implement new technology without fully understanding it's implications.

Terry Penrod

December 30th, 2008, 04:07 pm

.

I touched on the obvious problem of overpopulation earlier Mikell when mentioning our overcrowded cities, jammed highways, and sharply increased demand for energy (and all other resources) over the past century.

NOTE: The following is not a personal reply to you or anyone else.

The problem with population "control" as a political issue is that it goes straight to the heart of morality, ethics and religion. It would require that we literally restrict human procreation by force and/or conduct systematic acts of genocide.

Truth be told, some governments already do those things. But they are strongly denounced by all the free nations of the world and for us to collectively adopt a global policy aimed at controlling the flow of all human life would be the ultimate end to individual freedom and liberty. It would in fact be the birth of a true planetwide dictatorship of the most insidious kind.

It really wouldn't matter how forced-population control was implemented or what criteria was used. The net effect would be the same. A relatively small group of people in power would decide who gets to have babies and who does not.

As a matter of survival, our species may have to face that stark reality one day and make the single hardest ethical decision in history - whether or not to institute by law and enforce through whatever means necessary, the right / denial of right to conceive a child.

No other political issue could be more intrusive on individual human lives and the ethical / moral implications are profound.

In the meantime, as a coalition of "free societies", we are still in the business of saving and improving lives - at least those we deem friendly and fit for survival. At times, we even render humanitarian aid to our enemies.

However, we also engage in wars, covert ops, and a variety of other activities (legally sanctioned or not) that carry serious if not grave consequences for millions of human beings. We enact and enforce laws governing the right to wed, to abortions, to medical life support and more. We also decide on a regular basis who does and does nor get critical aid in the form of food, medicines, etc. and we cast judgments that impact life all the time.

So in a way, we already try to control almost every aspect of life. The question then is, do we want to cross that final boundary in the Let's All Play God Game?

Cheers, Terry

Rob

December 30th, 2008, 05:16 pm

One couple, one child. Works for me. And yes, I understand there are so many scenarios and conditions that it cannot be so cut and dry. Doesn't mean in theory it isn't a good idea.

pcfreak

December 30th, 2008, 05:21 pm

Would work for me too. I really think it's going to come to that eventually anyway, unless we start inhabiting the moon or something we will simply run out of space with which to grow enough crops etc to sustain the worlds population.

Terry Penrod

December 30th, 2008, 07:01 pm

.

I've always supported a voluntary limit of two or perhaps three children per couple. IMO, we have to allow for and even encourage siblings because it's natural, healthy and proven to help kids learn some essential life skills / lessons during their all-important early formative years.

Specific target numbers aside though, exactly how would we enforce any form of population controls / restrictions? Would we force people to have their tubes tied after reaching an arbitrary quota of one or two children? If they refused to cooperate with authorities, what would we be willing to do to assure that they complied? Would we arrest otherwise law-abiding citizens, sedate them and perform operations on them against their will? If they fought back, would we punishment them? If so, how? Prison? Death? What?

And what of all the twins, triplets and even larger "litters" of human children born every year? Would we toss a coin and decide which one baby lives and which two, three or more are killed at birth?

Sorry guys, but there just isn't a practical (let alone humane) way to enact such a law - even if every nation on earth agreed to try.

Besides, there are several natural and manmade population controls already in place. Lots and lots of people are killed every year from accidents, suicide, murder, war, etc. and at least so far, we haven't come close to curing all deadly diseases or famine or natural disasters or the real biggie, old age.

That said, a lot of good people are working hard on all fronts to improve the odds of survival, and to increase the average quality of life. They're looking for ways to extend lifespans in general too.

If we ever were to solve all those problems, then we would have no choice but to also institute some limits on procreation. Well, unless we additionally colonize other planets and/or discover unlimited sources of energy, food, clean water and all the other basics of life.

In the meantime, I'm both happy and sad to report that all the diseases, wars, floods and other peoplekillers put together are losing the battle. The world's population has grown by immense proportions over the past 100 years and as more third-world countries catch up in the areas of medicine, agriculture, technology, etc. - expect that number to rise to a truly scary size.

Have no fear though. I'm sure we along with good, old Mother Nature will find a way to stop that from happening. If not, then I guess it's going to get pretty damned crowded around here.

Cheers, Terry

Rob

December 30th, 2008, 08:33 pm

And I fully understand Terry, which is why I threw in the caveat that it sounded good on paper, meaning logistically and ethically it wouldn't be possible.

I have talked about this in various other issues, particularly free speech in the release of the violent game Manhunt, it isn't that I feel someone should enforce censorship, or in the case to have many kids, just that people wouldn't desire it to begin with. I do not feel anyone has a right to point a finger and saw enough (except at the Duggar clan, which is beyond nuts (http://www.duggarfamily.com/)), but it would be great if people felt compelled to limit themselves to one or two kids. Guess you could always give a tax break, people like those.

And what of all the twins, triplets and even larger "litters" of human children born every year? Would we toss a coin and decide which one baby lives and which two, three or more are killed at birth? Nope, just a lucky draw in life.

Besides, there are several natural and man made population controls already in place. Lots and lots of people are killed every year from accidents, suicide, murder, war, etc. and at least so far, we haven't come close to curing all deadly diseases or famine or natural disasters or the real biggie, old age. I saw on the news today that WHO finally determined the reason the 1912 flu epidemic was the deadliest disease in history, and the doctor they interviewed mentioned a possibility that another epidemic is around the corner, such as the AIDS virus mutating and becoming airborne. Likely, maybe not, possible, yep. So who knows what is in store for us.

Specific target numbers aside though, exactly how would we enforce any form of population controls / restrictions? Would we force people to have their tubes tied after reaching an arbitrary quota of one or two children? If they refused to cooperate with authorities, what would we be willing to do to assure that they complied? Would we arrest otherwise law-abiding citizens, sedate them and perform operations on them against their will? If they fought back, would we punishment them? If so, how? Prison? Death? What? Have you ever seen the movie Gattaca? Not entirely the same issue but the above quote reminded me of the movie.

Terry Penrod

December 30th, 2008, 09:26 pm

.

Yep Rob, I saw Gattaca and really liked it. Kind of a new-age adaptation of Orwelle's Big Brother theme that IMO actually worked as entertainment.

Matter of fact, there have been lots of books, TV shows, movies, etc. with similar themes or variations and probably my all-time favorite is Blade Runner. Watched the director's cut again a couple of weeks back and that flim still holds up very well today. Westwood Studio's classic point & click adventure based on it is also extremely good (and enduring).

Cloning is another oft-visited theme that shares the same ethical questions about "playing God". One that we may also have to grapple with in reality one day soon.

In the meantime, mankind has plenty of other serious problems to worry about, but I agree that overpopulation is a key factor driving many of them. What to "do" about it is the real dilemma.

Cheers, Terry

Mikell

December 30th, 2008, 11:55 pm

Back it up a bit guys. We don't have to force sterilization on people. This is the 21st century. Birth control should be free to anyone who wants it.
Preventing unwanted pregnancy should be first on the list. Fertility drugs should be outlawed. I've seen so many news reports about couples that just wanted one more child and then end up with six.

And where is the birth control for men? It hasn't changed in a thousand years.
Here's a balloon, have at it tiger.

Rob

December 31st, 2008, 08:07 am

Nobody said to force sterilization, I just said it would be nice if people would be willing to have only one kid. I even mentioned tax break to those that would be willing as an incentive, not as a requirement.

Other than that, I agree with you. Birth control should be free. I had the snip done so that is no longer an issue. I think one of the underlying problem is too many parents turn a blind eye that their teen is sexually active or come off that sex is such a taboo subject that they become inapproachable by their kids.

Here is a recent article at USAToday (http://blogs.usatoday.com/betterlife/2008/12/those-taking-vi.html). It talks about how virginity vows do not reduce pre-marital sex, but in turn, those who do take the vow are far less likely to use birth-control when they do have sex. Fear of talking to their parents? Believe when they take the vow they would not need it (obviously) but when they change their minds it is still not available?

They also featured this article on TV and they interviewed a couple who had taken the vow and remained virgins until they were married. And as my wife and I watched it, we thought it was such a telling sign about that the people who waited were the commodity.

Terry Penrod

December 31st, 2008, 03:23 pm

.

Unfortunately, archaic religious beliefs, poverty and ignorance continue to impede all attempts at promoting voluntary birth control on a global scale.

And isn't it depressing that people who suffer from one or more of those purely manmade "disabilities" are having most of the babies in this world?

Organized religion is a human invention and there's absolutely no reason it has to conflict with common sense or safe medical practices. Poverty and ignorance are human conditions that we have the power to change. All three can be overcome - if only we choose to do so.

To remedy that tragic situation (at least here in America… for now);

First we should remove all traces of religion from official government policies, doctrine and the law. All three should be truly secular - owing no allegiance to any one organized religious belief system.

Second, we need to reform our entire public education system to meet the realities of the 21st century. School districts need to be redesigned specifically to close and eventually eliminate the student achievement gap. Also, science and religion need to be kept clearly separated. They are NOT the same thing and we should NEVER confuse them period.

Third, accomplishing the above educational mission will do more to overcome abject, multigenerational poverty and ignorance than anything else we can do. Kids that have been given a good, unbiased education will excel far faster and achieve more than kids that lack the broad knowledge and relevant skills needed for success in life.

The numbers don't lie folks. On average, graduates from higher quality schools earn more, pay more taxes, consume less public assistance, and most of them assume positions with more responsibility and authority - even if they never go on to college.

They also tend to be more stable, more law abiding and more capable of doing their own independent, critical thinking. And with independent, unbiased critical thinking comes the possibility that they will break from a tradition of blindly following certain purely arbitrary, manmade religious rules simply because that's all they know.

Ask yourself, WHO is having most of the babies that are causing extreme overpopulation in various parts of the world today and who is not. Then ask yourself, which children are far more likely to suffer through lives of ignorance and poverty? Which ones commit the most crimes? Which ones use circumstance as an excuse not to take responsibility for themselves? Which ones in turn use no protection from STDs or birth control at all?

We need to cure the root causes here, not just treat the symptoms and those causes are plainly obvious to me.

Cheers, Terry

Nagumo

December 31st, 2008, 06:04 pm

I have read similar reports elsewhere and it is quite alarming. It goes to show that we constantly implement new technology without fully understanding it's implications.

Exactly how does one do that. Even the most stringent testing can not account for all possible anomalies. I'm really glad you aren't part of the FDA. We'd never get any new medications released with you at the helm as there is no way to ever be 100% sure of all possible ramifications of any new drug or technology.

Terry Penrod

December 31st, 2008, 06:44 pm

.

Sans the personal references to you Stuart (pcfreak), I have to agree with Nags on this issue.

We can never know in advance let alone with absolute certainty all the implications of a new technology, medicine, invention, process or law. That's because no amount of theorizing, lab experiments or even field testing will ever reveal 100% of the pitfalls or benefits.

Once released into the world at large, things take on lives of their own - especially when they represent innovative new ideas that lend themselves to further experimentation / development by others.

In a very real way, playing it totally safe with mankind's creatvity (a necessary element of all new ideas) is the same as killing it. Risk is part of life, of nature, of progress and we need to encourage it (within reason) not stifle it.

Withholding new ideas for as long as it takes to be completely sure how they will affect society would mean never ever releasing any new types of products. From a purely commercial / financial / practical perspective, we have to assume some risk in order for any growth to occur and that includes the full range of business and public sectors. Significant progress in science and the arts require even higher levels of risk because both a driven by discovery and creativity. Neither of those things can be achieved with safe, predictability.

Cheers, Terry

pcfreak

December 31st, 2008, 07:32 pm

Exactly how does one do that. Even the most stringent testing can not account for all possible anomalies. I'm really glad you aren't part of the FDA. We'd never get any new medications released with you at the helm as there is no way to ever be 100% sure of all possible ramifications of any new drug or technology.

If you have some personal axe to grind with me fella, then please do get it off your chest!:mad: I think you really are getting pretty obnoxious with me now and I would like to know why?

As for my statement, I stand by it. I am all for technological advancement, but we all know that some of these advancements have been rushed into production before adequate testing was carried out. And I never mentioned drugs did I?

Nagumo

December 31st, 2008, 08:38 pm

If you can't deal with opinions contrary to your own you might wish to refrain from posting in the debate section of any future forums. I have not ever, nor will I begin, sugar coating my ideals and beliefs.

pcfreak

December 31st, 2008, 08:40 pm

Maybe you should realise that others are allowed to have opinions different from your own and stop thinking that you have all the answers! How's about that for a new years resolution for you?! You are more than welcome to debate, but it seems that if I said the sky was was blue you would argue it was green, just for the sake of it! You really are getting my goat up and I will do myself a favour and not tell you what you can do with your advice!

It would seem that you are baiting for a flame war, with so many provocative posts in such a short space of time. I will listen to anyone's opinion and I will voice mine too, but you seem to have some sort of problem with me, so be a man and spit it out!

Nagumo

December 31st, 2008, 08:50 pm

Don't recall saying anything different. Seems to be you that is having difficulty with opinions differing from your own. It isn't an ad hominem attack to disagree firmly.

People bitch and moan about suppressed technology and paths of R&D avoided so as to continue current business endeavors like sustaining oil dependency. Then come full circle and hypocritically propose that no new technology/medicine/chemical/etc... should ever be used or release without being 100% safe. Either you want to see new technologies brought to fruition after reasonable research periods, or you want to stifle innovation with draconian testing legislation. You can't really have it both ways. You might even have to deal with the fact that some technologies will always have harmful side components that may be deemed reasonable in a given situation. Small Pox vaccines can be deadly, yet it is widely accepted that a few deaths from inoculation is acceptable and even preferable to a small pox epidemic.

People couldn't wait for DDT to be banned. Then the same hippy tree hugging-freaks couldn't wait to moan about the millions of deaths in third world countries when their crops were obliterated by insects that only DDT was able to successfully control.

pcfreak

December 31st, 2008, 09:00 pm

In case you haven't noticed in my other threads Nagumo, I am in the IT trade. So I have to be able to embrace new technology as soon as it develops. Otherwise my family go hungry. But I am not that short sighted that I can't see that we have made mistakes, frequently, in releasing new and under-tested technologies (from every field conceivable).

You are carrying on as if I oppose all forms of technological advancement, which I do not. I do however feel that some products are rushed to market before they have been adequately tested.

As for your statement:

People couldn't wait for DDT to be banned. Then the same hippy tree hugging-freaks couldn't wait to moan about the millions of deaths in third world countries when their crops were obliterated by insects that only DDT was able to successfully control.

That about sums up your mentality really!

Nagumo

December 31st, 2008, 09:20 pm

I have read similar reports elsewhere and it is quite alarming. It goes to show that we constantly implement new technology without fully understanding it's implications.

You said it, not me. If you don't want to appear to be painting with a broad brush it's up to you to be more specific.

And to wit, you have not answered my question. Exactly how do you propose we, "fully understand it's implications"? We are just discovering new things about very old technologies today. Should we have waited to deploy power lines till we had the technology to decide if power lines can increase the chances of certain types of cancer? Seems like an untested implication to me.

pcfreak

December 31st, 2008, 09:22 pm

So where in that statement did I say that I opposed technological advancements? You clearly jumped the gun in an effort to have a pop at me!

Nagumo

December 31st, 2008, 09:30 pm

I don't sugar coat what I say and I don't treat anyone differently. You seem to get your feathers ruffled far too easily.

pcfreak

December 31st, 2008, 09:37 pm

:p:At the end of the day, you clearly enjoy hearing the sound of your own voice more than any others. Also, it would take a great deal more than some jumped up know it all to ruffle my feathers, I too am a great believer in telling it how I see it, and I see you as unworthy of my attention, so consider yourself told

Mighty Pirate

January 7th, 2009, 08:39 pm

Very enjoyable and informative thread (not counting the chest beating on this last page). Quite amazing how long it has lasted. My unqualified opinion is that we simply don't know enough about the climate changes of a planet this age to make accurate prognostications of any sort, although it is very entertaining to do so. Our science is based upon observation and interpretation but we have insufficient data or experience of either.

However, pollution is something we can and should correct. Wasting resources is unethical and irresponsible. Forget the frogs - I have read recently that bees and bird populations in UK and Australia are dying off which has our wheat growers worried. Hunger may just correct the human over-population problems......

Talking of which, I wonder about the population estimates. Since the 60s the western nations have seen an unprecedented drop in birth-rates so that they are now below replacement levels. Social projections for both Australia and America predict that the size of families will decrease and the number of single person households will increase to a quarter of the population by 2020 as fewer marry or produce children, and people live longer. Factors blamed for this are the increased lifestyle options for both men and women as well as the lack of social stigma attached to unmarried sex. In Iran, wealth alone is blamed as most women work outside the home there and their birth-rate has dropped from the 6 that their mothers had, to 2. The size of catholic families world wide has also plummeted so it is money/lifestyle that dictate such things and not religion or tradition. As richer nations encourage immigration as a means of population stability/growth those very immigrants will likely modify their procreation activities as their relative wealth increases so we may find that the overall planetary population evens itself out without the need for laws. In fact, there may come a time when the reverse is true and couples receive incentives to produce kids.

Colt

January 28th, 2009, 11:36 pm

Ok, what the **** did you guys do to Terry?

Seriously though, I agree if you're dumb enough to smoke then hop to it, it's your problem not mine. I used to smoke too (and a lot) but eventually gave up and I'm really glad I did but hey, I enjoyed it while it lasted. I mean the real reason I gave up was the money. That and the fact I was going to be a dad.

My take on the tax is that all of it should go towards supporting smokers. I don't mean by way of encouraging smoking - I mean by offering the support they need in terms of health or quitting. I do think that - just like Petrol - the tax is high.

Anyway, I thought I'd post a funny story. The other day I was at the shops with my daughter who's four. We were at a coffee shop sitting outside enjoying ourselves. Next to us was a man smoking, no drama there - I'm happy, we're happy and we're all minding our own business. Eventually my daughter gets up and starts walking around.

Pretty quickly this guy gets right up me about my daughter being near him whilst he's smoking. I mean right up me - as if I'm being negligent lol. I'm all like wtf in my head but I'm reasoning if this guy is as much a dick as I think he is then my daughter probably should keep away so I call her over.

Anyway, wtf! I don't know what the guy thought. Does lighting a cigarette now project some imaginary exclusion zone around him in his head???

I thought it was a pretty funny contrast to the typical anti smoking ******** I'm used to hearing about.