Do you believe in global warming?

by msdobe
286 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Yesterday I watched the most amazing movie about the glaciers disappearing - 'Chasing Ice'. It was made by National Geographic photographer James Balog. He spent years photographing glaciers disappearing and made it into a time-lapse documentary.

I moved about 6 months ago and don't have tv, but have Netflix. I've been watching a lot of documentaries since then and I must say this is one of the best... really makes you want to cry because we've done it to ourselves. That's why polar bears are now an endangered species.

If anyone is interested in watching you can get a 30 day free trial at netflix. You can also see the website at Extreme Ice Survey | Art meets science.
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    No - but I am a firm believer in climate change and desertification. A lot of the glaciers are not melting persay - they are not producing snow, though, because all of the forestry that provided the moisture below and on the sides of them have been destroyed. Where I live we are actually having cooler weather than usual. Many places are having cooler weather -- and many are having hotter weather. I think it depends on the amount of fawna ecosystem in an area that has been devastated which one any particular area is experiencing.

    Whatever anyone's view of the climate happens to be -- we can all agree that restoring the natural foliage in any area is NOT a bad idea.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296740].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Whatever anyone's view of the climate happens to be -- we can all agree that restoring the natural foliage in any area is NOT a bad idea.
      On the CONTRARY! Many won't even LISTEN about it!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296985].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author socialentry
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post


      Whatever anyone's view of the climate happens to be -- we can all agree that restoring the natural foliage in any area is NOT a bad idea.
      Yeah but what if you`re in africa? The mosquitoes carry malaria.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8307936].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    This won't end well.
    Signature

    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296750].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      This won't end well.
      I think you're right, but I'm going to sit this one out.

      Read any report by any climatologist...Argue with them.

      The debating I see is done is by non-scientists. There is no need for debate. All the measurements are readily available to the public. The scientists that actually measure the climate and greenhouse gasses? They aren't debating.

      Enjoy yourselves.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8297161].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        I think you're right, but I'm going to sit this one out.

        Read any report by any climatologist...Argue with them.

        The debating I see is done is by non-scientists. There is no need for debate. All the measurements are readily available to the public. The scientists that actually measure the climate and greenhouse gasses? They aren't debating.

        Enjoy yourselves.
        You're right there. But the problem with debate isn't as bad on this forum as it is at the level of govt. and industry.
        With the crap they do we'll be a toxic waste land before they get done blaming each other for the problem.
        What's really sad is the number of people who are waiting for them to do something or for the govt. to tell them would they should do.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8297224].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Yes I do. I think the evidence is there.
    And, if it's not happening, then cleaning up the atmosphere
    is a good thing.
    And if it's true, and we do nothing, we die.
    It is beyond my comprehension that "smog" days are simply accepted as if
    it were a rainy day.
    "People with lung and/or breathing problems should stay inside"!!??
    How the Hell is that acceptable?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Ice has been melting for thousands of years.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296773].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author msdobe
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Ice has been melting for thousands of years.
      You're absolutely right, but when more ice melts in the last 10 years than has melted in the last 100 years... maybe we have a problem!

      I'll be honest with you. I know there are global trends and I really thought global warming was one of them. But after seeing some scientific evidence, I'm convinced we have a serious problem. We certainly won't see the big effects in our lifetime, but what about the effects in our great great grandchildrens lifetime?

      Will there be any polar bears left for them to see?

      Or as James said in his movie, will Montana's Glacier National Park become 'Glacierless National Park' ?
      Signature

      If you can read this.... thank a teacher.
      If you can read this in English... thank a vet!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296809].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
      I really don't know what makes people think they can control the weather. To a certain point, I would agree they can. Nobody needs smog in their air from careless pollution. No one should be denuding the forests of all the trees. We can have trees, shrubs and grass and live side by side. Large buildings and concrete absorb a tremendous amount of heat and that rises in the air, having some affect on climate, not to mention a lot of other man made causes.

      What we cannot control are the earth's own processes such as volcanoes spewing more gases, ash and pollution in the air than the entire population of the earth could possibly do together. Volcanoes are everywhere on earth and under the sea; some supposedly long dormant, having shut themselves off somehow from the lava deep underneath. I don't believe that ever means lava and huge eruptions couldn't find a way back.

      The smoke in a farmer's corn field in Mexico (Paricutin) the last century turned into a volcano, and we'd better hope and pray that our own mega volcano in Yellowstone does not erupt again.

      Perhaps the glaciers are more reacting to what is going on underground rather than what is happening over them?

      In any event, the climate changes, and perhaps we've just not been around long enough logging all the changes to make more sense of what is actually going on.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296838].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by AprilCT View Post

        I really don't know what makes people think they can control the weather. To a certain point, I would agree they can. Nobody needs smog in their air from careless pollution. No one should be denuding the forests of all the trees. We can have trees, shrubs and grass and live side by side. Large buildings and concrete absorb a tremendous amount of heat and that rises in the air, having some affect on climate, not to mention a lot of other man made causes.

        What we cannot control are the earth's own processes such as volcanoes spewing more gases, ash and pollution in the air than the entire population of the earth could possibly do together. Volcanoes are everywhere on earth and under the sea; some supposedly long dormant, having shut themselves off somehow from the lava deep underneath. I don't believe that ever means lava and huge eruptions couldn't find a way back.

        The smoke in a farmer's corn field in Mexico (Paricutin) the last century turned into a volcano, and we'd better hope and pray that our own mega volcano in Yellowstone does not erupt again.

        Perhaps the glaciers are more reacting to what is going on underground rather than what is happening over them?

        In any event, the climate changes, and perhaps we've just not been around long enough logging all the changes to make more sense of what is actually going on.
        Actually - scientists believe the Yellowstone plume has unhooked from it's heat source. It's still mega hot, but it's cooling so if it erupts there won't be the pressure behind it that there would have been. So that's good news. Also -- there are some glaciers in the Antarctic and S. Africa that are sitting on plumes so they are melting. Nothing to do with climate -- motlen lava has a way of warming up snow. LOL.

        ICECAP --- for politically unedited info from REAL climatologists.

        And, incidentally - "THEY" can control climate. Go to Roberts register and you can look up all the climate control legislation. It's supposedly illegal for them to do so for power gain. Anyhow - they have the capability.

        They were also at one time considering painting cities white to reflect heat. Wonder what happened to that idea.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8297065].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author msdobe
    There is one thing many people don't think about that's damaging the environment and it's, believe it or not.... cattle.

    A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. You can see the report here.

    Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

    The rainforest has been destroyed to raise cattle.

    There are just so many underlying causes, where does it all begin, or where will it end???
    Signature

    If you can read this.... thank a teacher.
    If you can read this in English... thank a vet!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296861].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

      There is one thing many people don't think about that's damaging the environment and it's, believe it or not.... cattle.

      A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. You can see the report here.

      Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

      The rainforest has been destroyed to raise cattle.

      There are just so many underlying causes, where does it all begin, or where will it end???
      It's been thought of here This has already been discussed in several threads over the years. In fact, this entire topic has been heatedly debated on this forum. Search the OT - you'll find what everyone already thinks
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296888].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author msdobe
        Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

        It's been thought of here This has already been discussed in several threads over the years. In fact, this entire topic has been heatedly debated on this forum. Search the OT - you'll find what everyone already thinks
        Hey Mike,
        I've never searched for it here on the WF. Only reason I'm bringing it up is because of the incredible movie I saw yesterday. If just one person watches the movie and is moved by what they see, then that's great! It's definitely worth watching and is a real eye-opener!!

        Jenny
        Signature

        If you can read this.... thank a teacher.
        If you can read this in English... thank a vet!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296907].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

      There is one thing many people don't think about that's damaging the environment and it's, believe it or not.... cattle.

      A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. You can see the report here.

      Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

      The rainforest has been destroyed to raise cattle.

      There are just so many underlying causes, where does it all begin, or where will it end???
      I think that's a bigger problem then the cattle themselves.
      A few years ago on an episode of Dirty Jobs, they profiled a dairy farmer. What the farmer did was collect the manure in a large covered pit. He captured the methane released from the manure and used it to power his farm. Then when the manure had dried he formed it into landscaping pots. The plants in the pots where planted in the pots and as the "pot" broke down it released it's nutrients and built up the organic matter in the soil.
      When the end product (manure) is now an additional profit maker you are going to be extremely concerned about what you feed your livestock. You will want to maximize production across the board/ Dispite what the chemical companies tell us (and farmers) the best way to achieve that is in feeding the livestock a natural diet that they can digest.
      The problem with so many in this world is they don't get the relationships of everything in nature. There has to be a balance. If we don't do our part to achieve that balance, nature will. If nature does it we're basically screwed because nature will eliminate the problem before it fixes the effects of the problem.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author taskemann
    Yes I do. But not that it's "human made". Global warmings and coolings are part of earth's natural cycle. So a bounch of stupid "climate" taxes on everything we purchase won't solve it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296883].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author msdobe
      Originally Posted by taskemann View Post

      Yes I do. But not that it's "human made". Global warmings and coolings are part of earths natural cycle. So a bounch of stupid "climate" taxes on everything we purchase won't solve it.
      Jimmy, that's exactly what I used to think. There is just so much evidence now that we're causing a lot of our own problems.

      Jenny
      Signature

      If you can read this.... thank a teacher.
      If you can read this in English... thank a vet!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296925].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

        Jimmy, that's exactly what I used to think. There is just so much evidence now that we're causing a lot of our own problems.

        Jenny
        What makes this discussion so "heated" is that for everyone who presents "evidence" one way or the other, someone else will tell them why their evidence is wrong and present other "evidence". So it comes down to which evidence you choose to agree with or find the most credible.

        But I guess that's the core of ANY debate.
        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8296951].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

        There is just so much evidence now that we're causing a lot of our own problems.

        Jenny
        Don't we always?

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8297377].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
          Yep, this is a round a bout discussion, and emotions will only make it worse.

          So, l will only say to the people who agree with global warming, we or about 90% of us should be dead in the next 90 years, or more or less by the year 2100, most of us will be gone!

          This is based on scientists or some projecting the worse case scenario.


          Then we have people who can see that the planet has been cooling or staying somewhere in the middle since 1998.


          And others who see one of the ice caps melting, while the ice cap on the other side of the planet is not surprisingly gaining more ice than normal.

          If it wasn't then huge sea level rises would be occurring, not the 1 or 2 cm, rises we have witnessed!


          Never trust politicians with their hands out or scientists doing the same, etc, not a dependable source of information!


          I will stay neutral in this one, and just present some facts!


          As for if l believe or not, l will only say, the points above should show what l believe!


          Shane
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8297522].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            I don't know about climate change, global warming etc but I can tell you that living where I do, the weather definately changes a lot.

            Then again, if I was a scientist, I'd probably just ignore any evidence from Britain because the weather is pissed and unexplainable at the best of times. :rolleyes:
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8298974].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lokahi
      Originally Posted by taskemann View Post

      Yes I do. But not that it's "human made". Global warmings and coolings are part of earth's natural cycle. So a bounch of stupid "climate" taxes on everything we purchase won't solve it.
      This was my first thought. And, there is some evidence to support the idea that glaciers have been melting for eons, not just recently. Though maybe it's a modern phenomenon to keep track of things like glacier melting and water levels in the oceans, etc. Prehistoric man would not have a way to know these things when glaciers were melting. But, humans do actually play a huge role in global warming. And, that's a proven fact.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340126].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    I live in Canada so no. Its freaking cold up there
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8298992].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      I live in Canada so no. Its freaking cold up there
      Yep, funny that, when someone gets an unusually cold spell, most scientists and newspaper editors don't say anything, but a vague reference to GW.

      But when a heat wave happens, they come out of the woodwork, and say, see more proof.


      Although excessively hot or cold spells have happened for hundreds of years or since records began, (or at least that is true in AU). And before anyone mentions it, the hot spell that occurred during the middle ages, and if l remember correctly lasted for almost 800 years is a noteworthy event.

      The population didn't perish back then either, but they did get sloshed, by record bumper grape crops amongst others!


      Thankfully back then we didn't have the propaganda BS we get today, hypothetically speaking of course!


      The more time that passes the more the wheels will fall off!

      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8299493].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I think it's equally foolish to claim global warming is NOT happening as it is to claim global warming is the reason for every glitch in the weather.

        There is no way you can have this many people on a planet doing the things we do and burning the energy we burn....and not have an effect on the earth's environment.

        Put a bunch of normal people in a small room - and the room gets too warm quickly. If each person is holding a burning candle, the warming happens even faster. Why wouldn't this happen on a larger scale?

        I've given up worrying about it too much as clearly we aren't going to do anything about it. We only care if there are carbon credits or energy credits to sell or if we get tax rebates on "environmentally friendly" products. If there's no money to be made - a relatively small number of the population will give a damn.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301262].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
          I think it's equally foolish to claim global warming is NOT happening as it is to claim global warming is the reason for every glitch in the weather.

          There is no way you can have this many people on a planet doing the things we do and burning the energy we burn....and not have an effect on the earth's environment.

          Put a bunch of normal people in a small room - and the room gets too warm quickly. If each person is holding a burning candle, the warming happens even faster. Why wouldn't this happen on a larger scale?

          I've given up worrying about it too much as clearly we aren't going to do anything about it. We only care if there are carbon credits or energy credits to sell or if we get tax rebates on "environmentally friendly" products. If there's no money to be made - a relatively small number of the population will give a damn.
          Yes, l agree that GW did or has happened, but as for us substantially making it worse, it is virtually impossible to show!

          Common sense shows that if we have had hot and cold periods over millions of years, then it can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt that we have caused the lot.

          I also agree that we have added to GW, but only in a negligible way!


          We have the knowledge to dramatically stop pollution tomorrow, but not after a substantial stock market crash, and the loss or redistribution of tens or thousands of oil dependent jobs.

          Or another way of putting it, the socialpaths would rather protect their $100,000,000,000 oil profits still in the ground, as well as their positions and lifestyle than the planet.

          So, as you are saying, unless you perfected a radical energy system, with a $50,000,000 global advertising campaign, it is dead in the water.


          This always gets back to the point l always make in these discussions, as to how did the planet correct the mini ice age Britain, etc experienced over 30 years from 1860 to 1898, (or something close to that) that froze the Thames river?

          And this happened 100 years after the industrial revolution, where we polluted the atmosphere as much as we could!!!


          And the Earth corrected it, while we were still polluting as much as possible.

          No, GW is a political money grab, nothing more!


          Shane
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301513].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Shane -

            I think many of the bits of "proof" of GW offered are exagerated. Also true is that people don't have the imagination to believe something unless they can SEE it.

            Where I live this is the coolest summer I've ever seen - yet north of here the entire country is gripped in a massive heat wave. Change - natural or manmade - happens.

            However, I am very concerned about the damage being done to the dwindling areas of natural habitat that remain. Glaciers are melting - there's no doubt of that. Is it manmade global warming or something else? Does it matter - or is the critical factor to find out if we have the knowledge/technology to reverse the trend?
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

            I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301556].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    According to the vast majority of scientists GW or climate change is a fact of life and the industrialized societies and their inhabitants contribute to it.

    The biggest problem is deciding what's going to be done about it.

    There's an anti-science crowd running around the U.S. that welds lots of power that's in the way of at least seriously trying a solution(s).

    And...

    Most of the "do nothings" and the "it's a hoaxers" are simply carrying water - whether they believe it or not, for people like the Koch brothers and the rest of the big time polluters.

    As George Clinton used to say...

    "The bigger the headache, the bigger the pill".
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301619].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Shane -

      I think many of the bits of "proof" of GW offered are exagerated. Also true is that people don't have the imagination to believe something unless they can SEE it.

      Where I live this is the coolest summer I've ever seen - yet north of here the entire country is gripped in a massive heat wave. Change - natural or manmade - happens.

      However, I am very concerned about the damage being done to the dwindling areas of natural habitat that remain. Glaciers are melting - there's no doubt of that. Is it manmade global warming or something else? Does it matter - or is the critical factor to find out if we have the knowledge/technology to reverse the trend?
      Yep, fair enough, but you have to look at the data first!

      I recently went through a week of 30+ degree days, (l don't want to get into Fahrenheit, etc,) bottom line it was a stinking hot week!

      A lot of people said GW was to blame, but a intelligent politician in AU, said we have had other hot spells like this since records started in AU, which was 1850, or something around that mark, so it was no concern!


      Bottom line if we did directly cause this, then we are stuffed, l don't see China or India, or Korea, slowing down, and at present China puts out Australia's total output over a year.


      And if glaciers were an issue, then water levels would be rising dramatically, but l never see any significant sea level rises happening???

      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302104].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Sea levels have risen but the surface area of water is so large the rise is gradual. Glaciers are disappearing - that's clearly a problem whether it's GW to blame or not.

        I don't think of global warming in that terminology - but as "climate change". There may cooling in some areas and overheating in others. Again, it may be a natural phenomenon of the earth and it's atmosphere but...maybe not.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302698].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

        I recently went through a week of 30+ degree days, (l don't want to get into Fahrenheit, etc,) bottom line it was a stinking hot week!
        The ACTUAL formula for C to F conversion is:

        (C*9/5)+32

        So 100C=212F 100c and 212f happen to be the boiling point of water. 0 and 32 are the freezing point.

        But you can just double and add 32 to come up with an approximation.(off by about 10% in this example)

        So thirty is 86, but you can figure 92.(off by about 6%)

        Yeah, either way, it is hot. 86 isn't really THAT hot, but still.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302946].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author misty2000
          Some scientists say global warming is a natural phenomenon caused by sun activity and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302997].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Originally Posted by misty2000 View Post

            Some scientists say global warming is a natural phenomenon caused by sun activity and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.
            Peer-reviewed research by climatologists indicates a strong scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity, mostly due to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
            Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
            Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations - climate.nasa.gov
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8305169].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by myob View Post

              Peer-reviewed research by climatologists indicates a strong scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity, mostly due to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
              Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
              Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations - climate.nasa.gov

              What???!!! Reading real research? Learning something? Taking a minute to get the answer rather than just spewing illiterate rumor?


              You came to the wrong place, Brother.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8306352].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                For some people the statement

                "The majority of experts believe X"

                is the same thing as

                "X is true."

                When you cloak it in technical jargon such as "quantifying the consensus" it sounds even more convincing, especially to those who tend to believe what authority figures tell them on principle.

                In truth, however, the number of people who believe something has nothing to do with its validity. That's even assuming that they really do believe this and aren't pressured to report these results for political or economic reasons.

                Nor do titles, degrees or connections with prestigious institutions give anyone a monopoly on truth. At one time, the Medieval Church was the most prestigious authority in the Western world. Does that mean everything its popes, bishops and scholars stated was true? At the time, the only acceptable answer was "yes." Some people today have a similar attitude towards scientific, medical and academic institutions.

                In the realm of logic, this is called the Appeal to Authority.
                Signature
                Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8306812].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                  For some people the statement

                  "The majority of experts believe X"

                  is the same thing as

                  "X is true."

                  When you cloak it in technical jargon such as "quantifying the consensus" it sounds even more convincing, especially to those who tend to believe what authority figures tell them on principle.

                  In truth, however, the number of people who believe something has nothing to do with its validity. That's even assuming that they really do believe this and aren't pressured to report these results for political or economic reasons.

                  Nor do titles, degrees or connections with prestigious institutions give anyone a monopoly on truth. At one time, the Medieval Church was the most prestigious authority in the Western world. Does that mean everything its popes, bishops and scholars stated was true? At the time, the only acceptable answer was "yes." Some people today have a similar attitude towards scientific, medical and academic institutions.

                  In the realm of logic, this is called the Appeal to Authority.
                  Incorrect in this example. Meeting one condition makes it logical. Not only is one condition met, both conditions are met to make global warming caused by man a logical conclusion:

                  1. Legitimate expertise

                  2. Expert consensus

                  Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8307630].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    Incorrect in this example. Meeting one condition makes it logical. Not only is one condition met, both conditions are met to make global warming caused by man a logical conclusion:

                    1. Legitimate expertise

                    2. Expert consensus
                    The expert consensus used to be the earth was flat that the solar system revolved around the earth.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8309305].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                      Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

                      The expert consensus used to be the earth was flat that the solar system revolved around the earth.
                      Of course that's right. But these weren't experts, they were the ones in Authority. They were literate people who had beliefs based on extremely limited observation. But the observations were from a specific point of view...and they didn't have instruments, geometry, accurate measurements. They couldn't see the Earth from space, plot the course of planets......

                      The changing climate is a matter of taking accurate measurements and doing a little math. Anyone can do the math. There isn't a need for anecdotal examples...there is real evidence.

                      We are taking temperature and atmospheric composition measurements at nearly every point on the globe. So these experts have very accurate measurements to go by, over a long period of time.
                      These instruments have no agenda. They don't care what the results are.

                      If you do a math problem on your calculator, and it comes up with the same answer 1,000 times, and then you do the same math problem on 1,000 different calculators, and you always get the same answer.....you probably have the right answer.

                      In this case, we are appealing, not to authority, but to the accurate measurements of our atmosphere over an extended period by highly accurate instruments. If 1,000 digital thermometers in your town say it's 87 degrees out...it probably is 87 degrees in your town.

                      Can nearly every climatologist be wrong? About the same thing? With such accurate data to go by?

                      Yes. It is possible. But that's not the way I would bet.

                      Take the information gathered, and come to your own conclusion.
                      Signature
                      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8309989].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        What's funny or sad depending on your view, is while everyone argues over what is causing the climate change a simple solution has been right in front of your nose.
                        Stop cutting down the forests and plant more trees.
                        But wait, lets do something like create a carbon tax. Or lets just keep arguing and feeling smug because you think you're right, that will help:rolleyes:
                        Screw fixing the problem if someone doesn't make money off it.

                        Yeah but what if you`re in africa? The mosquitoes carry malaria.
                        Restoring the natural fauna will also restore the natural predators. Plus simple sanitation and using natural mosquito controls will help as well as educating people on their habitat and what controls to use.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8310169].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                        Of course that's right. But these weren't experts, they were the ones in Authority. They were literate people who had beliefs based on extremely limited observation. But the observations were from a specific point of view...and they didn't have instruments, geometry, accurate measurements. They couldn't see the Earth from space, plot the course of planets......

                        The changing climate is a matter of taking accurate measurements and doing a little math. Anyone can do the math. There isn't a need for anecdotal examples...there is real evidence.

                        We are taking temperature and atmospheric composition measurements at nearly every point on the globe. So these experts have very accurate measurements to go by, over a long period of time.
                        These instruments have no agenda. They don't care what the results are.

                        If you do a math problem on your calculator, and it comes up with the same answer 1,000 times, and then you do the same math problem on 1,000 different calculators, and you always get the same answer.....you probably have the right answer.

                        In this case, we are appealing, not to authority, but to the accurate measurements of our atmosphere over an extended period by highly accurate instruments. If 1,000 digital thermometers in your town say it's 87 degrees out...it probably is 87 degrees in your town.

                        Can nearly every climatologist be wrong? About the same thing? With such accurate data to go by?

                        Yes. It is possible. But that's not the way I would bet.

                        Take the information gathered, and come to your own conclusion.
                        Scientific instruments are very good at measuring things, but interpreting the results is something else. When you talk about "global warming" you are really talking about the theory that humans are the main cause of climate change. This is where I am skeptical.
                        Signature
                        Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8310258].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                          Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                          Scientific instruments are very good at measuring things, but interpreting the results is something else. When you talk about "global warming" you are really talking about the theory that humans are the main cause of climate change. This is where I am skeptical.

                          Maybe this will help.

                          Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

                          We produce carbon dioxide in huge quantities in industry, and from car exhaust.

                          The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the highest ever measured.

                          Scientists have even drilled ice core samples to get atmospheric data from the trapped air bubbles. They have core samples from as far back as 900,000 years.

                          Yup...in all that time, carbon dioxide levels are at the highest ever measured...today. Again, these measurements are easy to verify.

                          The question in my mind isn't "are we responsible?" it's "Have we reached the point where it doesn't matter what we do, because the greenhouse effect is already at runaway speed?"

                          I don't know the answer. But I believe this....if there is a tipping point that we can't come back from, we'll pretend this is a debate until it's too late.
                          Now, that isn't knowledge, it's just an opinion. And I could easily be wrong. And it wouldn't take much to change my mind.
                          Signature
                          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8310399].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author myob
                            Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                            When you talk about "global warming" you are really talking about the theory that humans are the main cause of climate change. This is where I am skeptical.
                            There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. Scientists are skeptical of each other. But the properties of carbon dioxide are quite well understood by scientists, and there is a high consensus among climatologists that the accelerating levels of CO2 is a primary factor in triggering climate change.

                            Under normal conditions, the greenhouse properties of CO2 act sort of like a blanket; retaining heat from the sun to prevent extreme temperature fluctuations at night. However as CO2 levels increase, its heat-retention properties cause rising temperatures which trigger other mechanisms such as a higher evaporation rate from the oceans and greater retention of water vapor in the atmosphere. As this water vapor rises, it cools in the upper atmosphere and then is carried off by wind currents to fall as rain, snow, storms, hurricanes, etc.

                            According to climatologists, we can expect more record-breaking and violent weather extremes as a direct result of rising global ocean temperatures. Spectrum analysis shows that the burning of fossil fuels produces a specific identifying signature of the isotope ratio of carbon in CO2. All indications point to an increasingly undeniable conclusion that we really are doing this to ourselves. It's anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8312911].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                              Originally Posted by myob View Post

                              There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. Scientists are skeptical of each other. But the properties of carbon dioxide are quite well understood by scientists, and there is a high consensus among climatologists that the accelerating levels of CO2 is a primary factor in triggering climate change.

                              Under normal conditions, the greenhouse properties of CO2 act sort of like a blanket; retaining heat from the sun to prevent extreme temperature fluctuations at night. However as CO2 levels increase, its heat-retention properties cause rising temperatures which trigger other mechanisms such as a higher evaporation rate from the oceans and greater retention of water vapor in the atmosphere. As this water vapor rises, it cools in the upper atmosphere and then is carried off by wind currents to fall as rain, snow, storms, hurricanes, etc.

                              According to climatologists, we can expect more record-breaking and violent weather extremes as a direct result of rising global ocean temperatures. Spectrum analysis shows that the burning of fossil fuels produces a specific identifying signature of the isotope ratio of carbon in CO2. All indications point to an increasingly undeniable conclusion that we really are doing this to ourselves. It's anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
                              While we can make an argument about the honesty and accuracy of our climatologists, skeptisism works both ways.

                              Without any actual evidence, one can just as easily claim "the appeal to authority" is invalid because Big Oil and Russia has bought some scientists and therefore Global Warming is actually WORSE than it's being presented.

                              Also, there's a vast amount of methane trapped in the tundra and "permafrost" of Canada, Alaska and Russia. As the "permafrost" melts, it is releasing this methane, which is even more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 is, and this methane is probably the single biggest threat.

                              And as Paul points out, global warming isn't just about warming. It's about increased energy in the atmosphere. And this energy leads to more extremes, which includes record lows, record rain, record draught, record snow, etc.

                              While we can't point at any specific weather event and say it was caused by global warming, we can say that all of the extreme weather we've had over the past 10 years fits the models the climatologists predicted for global warming EXACTLY.
                              Signature
                              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8319936].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                            Maybe this will help.

                            Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

                            We produce carbon dioxide in huge quantities in industry, and from car exhaust.

                            The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the highest ever measured.

                            Scientists have even drilled ice core samples to get atmospheric data from the trapped air bubbles. They have core samples from as far back as 900,000 years.

                            Yup...in all that time, carbon dioxide levels are at the highest ever measured...today. Again, these measurements are easy to verify.

                            The question in my mind isn't "are we responsible?" it's "Have we reached the point where it doesn't matter what we do, because the greenhouse effect is already at runaway speed?"

                            I don't know the answer. But I believe this....if there is a tipping point that we can't come back from, we'll pretend this is a debate until it's too late.
                            Now, that isn't knowledge, it's just an opinion. And I could easily be wrong. And it wouldn't take much to change my mind.
                            So if we have this MUCH C202 around -- shouldn't we be restoring the 80% of forestry that we have destroyed instead of worrying about giving hugh $$ to politicians to do nothing? Shouldn't we maybe start a negative population growth incentive?

                            Yes, there is climate change - but the first clue they aren't telling us anything near the truth about it is the fact that they are editing scientific data and pushing for a HUGE tax. If they are really worried about warming - they would be more interested in getting alternative energy sources on the grid, and they aren't. They would be reforesting at rapid rates - and they are not.

                            Why does everyone worry about C202 as a greenhouse gas when the #1 greenhouse gas is --- evaporated water. Need trees to right that one out, too. Until they start major reforestation efforts, I'm not listening to any crap that comes out of a politician or a gov paid "scientist's" mouth about anything.
                            Signature

                            Sal
                            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                            Beyond the Path

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8319880].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                              So if we have this MUCH C202 around -- shouldn't we be restoring the 80% of forestry that we have destroyed instead of worrying about giving hugh $$ to politicians to do nothing? Shouldn't we maybe start a negative population growth incentive?

                              Yes, there is climate change - but the first clue they aren't telling us anything near the truth about it is the fact that they are editing scientific data and pushing for a HUGE tax. If they are really worried about warming - they would be more interested in getting alternative energy sources on the grid, and they aren't. They would be reforesting at rapid rates - and they are not.

                              Why does everyone worry about C202 as a greenhouse gas when the #1 greenhouse gas is --- evaporated water. Need trees to right that one out, too. Until they start major reforestation efforts, I'm not listening to any crap that comes out of a politician or a gov paid "scientist's" mouth about anything.


                              Q. Let's follow the money. Who has the most to gain by denying global warming is man made?

                              A. Big Oil and Russia.

                              How can we be sure Sal isn't part of a Putin/Russian conspiracy to dominate the world through global warming?

                              After all, if the predictions are correct about global warming, the US "bread basket" will resemble the US desert SW and Siberia will become the World's new "bread basket".

                              Also, if the polar ice cap melts, there will be a northern passage for shipping between Europe and Asia, making the Panama Canal obsolete. Mankind has been searching for a northern passage throughout history. And a northern passage will greatly benefit Russia financially, as it gives Russia new strategic shipping ports.

                              Russia may have lost the cold war, but could it be they are winning the warm war? After all, they will benefit the most and could over-take the US as a financial powerhouse in 50 years without firing a single shot. All they have to do is convince people in the US that global warming is a hoax, just long enough until it's too late to do something about it.

                              Sal,

                              You're Russian, right?
                              Signature
                              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8319960].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                Q. Let's follow the money. Who has the most to gain by denying global warming is man made?

                                A. Big Oil and Russia.

                                How can we be sure Sal isn't part of a Putin/Russian conspiracy to dominate the world through global warming?

                                After all, if the predictions are correct about global warming, the US "bread basket" will resemble the US desert SW and Siberia will become the World's new "bread basket".

                                Also, if the polar ice cap melts, there will be a northern passage for shipping between Europe and Asia, making the Panama Canal obsolete. Mankind has been searching for a northern passage throughout history. And a northern passage will greatly benefit Russia financially, as it gives Russia new strategic shipping ports.

                                Russia may have lost the cold war, but could it be they are winning the warm war? After all, they will benefit the most and could over-take the US as a financial powerhouse in 50 years without firing a single shot. All they have to do is convince people in the US that global warming is a hoax, just long enough until it's too late to do something about it.

                                Sal,

                                You're Russian, right?

                                Ayn Rand was also from that part of the world and I wonder what she would have said about climate change.
                                Signature

                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322520].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                  Sal who think that more CO2 in our atmosphere would be good for restoring our forests. It doesn't work that way, and perhaps somebody wasn't paying attention in their biology class when photosynthesis was discussed.
                                  You got it wrong, backwards actually.
                                  Restoring our forests would be good for getting some of the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.
                                  The amount of CO2 being put there from burning fossil fuels still has to be reduced.
                                  Trees help cleanse the air by intercepting airborne particles, reducing heat, and absorbing such pollutants as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Trees remove this air pollution by lowering air temperature, through respiration, and by retaining particulates.
                                  Maybe you should revisit your biology class.
                                  Signature

                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323078].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                    Here's some more reading for you Paul, stuff that wasn't covered in your little biology class but was covered in my college level Botany, Arboriculture, Soils, and just about every other course I took when studying Plant Science.
                                    Clean Air & Water | American Forests

                                    Air: What
                                    Signature

                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323290].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author myob
                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    Here's some more reading for you Paul, stuff that wasn't covered in your little biology class but was covered in my college level Botany, Arboriculture, Soils, and just about every other course I took when studying Plant Science.
                                    Clean Air & Water | American Forests

                                    Air: What
                                    Thom, thanks for the "education", but as observed by Claude, perhaps we're not really communicating very well. Because of physiological limitations, trees and plants do not increase their uptake of carbon dioxide in response to increased levels in the atmosphere, and besides, we may do not have the time left that it would take for growing enough trees to be of any relative significance in the removal of carbon dioxide.

                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    The amount of CO2 being put there from burning fossil fuels still has to be reduced.
                                    You got that right, but in context of the real situation, it's an understatement. To perhaps put this in another way, Mother Nature can and will take care of the problem if we don't. Humans have been here for a very short time, and she has done very well without us for billions of years. However, it seems apparent that Mother Nature is losing her patience and becoming angry at our increasingly irresponsible behavior. Humans are welcome guests here, but are not needed. And if we don't clean up our mess, she may decide to just blow us all away and cleanse the earth herself.


                                    "The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind."
                                    - Bob Dylan
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323392].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by myob View Post

                                      Thom, thanks for the "education", but as observed by Claude, perhaps we're not really communicating very well. Because of physiological limitations, trees and plants do not increase their uptake of carbon dioxide in response to increased levels in the atmosphere, and besides, we may do not have the time left that it would take for growing enough trees to be of any relative significance in the removal of carbon dioxide.


                                      You got that right, but in context of the real situation, it's an understatement. To perhaps put this in another way, Mother Nature can and will take care of the problem if we don't. Humans have been here for a very short time, and she has done very well without us for billions of years. However, it seems apparent that Mother Nature is losing her patience and becoming angry at our increasingly irresponsible behavior. Humans are welcome guests here, but are not needed. And if we don't clean up our mess, she may decide to just blow us all away and cleanse the earth herself.


                                      "The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind."
                                      - Bob Dylan
                                      Actually Paul they can and do.
                                      Why do you think CO2 injection is used in greenhouses?
                                      I did a study in college on CO2 enhancement using a split greenhouse. The front used normal air flow, the rear section was sealed and used a CO2 injection system. Both where monitored for CO2 levels. In the rear I could raise the CO2 levels up to the point where it would kill you if you entered without a respirator or vented out the CO2 first. What happened was the more CO2 was injected into that greenhouse the more CO2 the plants absorbed.
                                      Here's an article about wetlands and how they absorb more CO2 as levels raise. Wetlands Exposed to High CO2 Levels Absorb More Carbon than They Normally Would
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323596].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                        On another note:

                                        North Pole Melting Leaves Small Lake At The Top Of The World

                                        I think the slider is fun to play with anyway. :p


                                        Terra
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323732].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author myob
                                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                        Actually Paul they can and do.
                                        Why do you think CO2 injection is used in greenhouses?
                                        I did a study in college on CO2 enhancement using a split greenhouse. The front used normal air flow, the rear section was sealed and used a CO2 injection system. Both where monitored for CO2 levels. In the rear I could raise the CO2 levels up to the point where it would kill you if you entered without a respirator or vented out the CO2 first. What happened was the more CO2 was injected into that greenhouse the more CO2 the plants absorbed.
                                        Here's an article about wetlands and how they absorb more CO2 as levels raise. Wetlands Exposed to High CO2 Levels Absorb More Carbon than They Normally Would
                                        Rates of CO2 absorption increase up to a point but it's only temporary, and there is an upper limit of absorption no matter how high levels rise. In addition, a warmer climate will result in a "downregulation" of photosynthesis with much less uptake of the rising abundance of CO2.

                                        This is a relatively mute point considering the much larger ramifications of what we're doing to our planet. There are billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels; do you really believe this is sustainable by planting trees?
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324234].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                          Originally Posted by myob View Post

                                          Rates of CO2 absorption increase up to a point, but there is an upper limit no matter how high levels rise. In addition, a warmer climate will result in a "downregulation" of photosynthesis with much less absorption of the rising abundance of CO2.

                                          This is a relatively mute point considering the much larger ramifications of what we're doing to our planet. There are billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels; do you really believe this is sustainable by planting trees?
                                          I never said what we put in the atmosphere is sustainable by plants. How many times do I have to say we must reduce emissions before you read and comprehend it?
                                          Or are you simply ignoring that point I continuously make to try and prove your right?
                                          Another point (and proven scientific fact) you keep missing is forests can reduce temperatures. Not a whole lot but enough.
                                          Also yes there is an upper limit to the amount of CO2 a tree or plant can absorb. But that limit is higher then the limit we can breath in and still live. By the time we reach the upper limit of CO2 absorption for trees and other plants, we will be long dead.
                                          I've got an education in Plant Science Paul. I think I have a pretty grounded understanding of what trees, plants, fungi, etc. are capable of doing.
                                          Signature

                                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324283].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author myob
                                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                            I never said what we put in the atmosphere is sustainable by plants. How many times do I have to say we must reduce emissions before you read and comprehend it?
                                            Or are you simply ignoring that point I continuously make to try and prove your right?
                                            Another point (and proven scientific fact) you keep missing is forests can reduce temperatures. Not a whole lot but enough.
                                            Also yes there is an upper limit to the amount of CO2 a tree or plant can absorb. But that limit is higher then the limit we can breath in and still live. By the time we reach the upper limit of CO2 absorption for trees and other plants, we will be long dead.
                                            I've got an education in Plant Science Paul. I think I have a pretty grounded understanding of what trees, plants, fungi, etc. are capable of doing.
                                            Thank you, we must reduce emissions. Keep on saying it.

                                            BTW, the planet Venus has an ideal atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2. What could trees, plants, fungi, etc do there?
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324395].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                              Originally Posted by myob View Post

                                              Thank you, we must reduce emissions. Keep on saying it.

                                              BTW, the planet Venus has an ideal atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2. What could trees, plants, fungi, etc do there?
                                              I've never stopped saying it In fact I've been saying that since we had the problem with acid rain in New York and that was over 40 years ago. It was also back then that I first started understanding the role trees and plants have in nature.
                                              As for Venus if you know what the atmosphere is then you know it's the second planet from the Sun and has a temperature of around 860 F.
                                              Signature

                                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324509].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                I've never stopped saying it In fact I've been saying that since we had the problem with acid rain in New York and that was over 40 years ago. It was also back then that I first started understanding the role trees and plants have in nature.
                                                As for Venus if you know what the atmosphere is then you know it's the second planet from the Sun and has a temperature of around 860 F.
                                                But the real question is, why is second planet from the sun Venus hotter than the first planet from the sun Mercury?

                                                Answer: Because Venus has a greenhouse atmosphere made up of a very high percentage of CO2 that traps heat, and Mercury doesn't.
                                                Signature
                                                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8333163].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by myob View Post



                                      You got that right, but in context of the real situation, it's an understatement. To perhaps put this in another way, Mother Nature can and will take care of the problem if we don't. Humans have been here for a very short time, and she has done very well without us for billions of years. However, it seems apparent that Mother Nature is losing her patience and becoming angry at our increasingly irresponsible behavior. Humans are welcome guests here, but are not needed. And if we don't clean up our mess, she may decide to just blow us all away and cleanse the earth herself.


                                      "The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind."
                                      - Bob Dylan
                                      Paul I've said that numerous times and eluded to it in my first post in this thread.
                                      But how exactly do you think nature will take care of it?
                                      Trees and plants in general are just a couple of the tools nature uses to regulate things like the atmosphere and temperatures.
                                      It's not cooler in a forest simply because of the shade.
                                      What I'm suggesting is proven science.
                                      Mankind has to do it's part in reducing the pollutants we put in the air, soil, and water on this earth. But the best way to clean up what we have put there is through the use of natures purifiers.
                                      Fungi (and bacteria) can clean contaminated soils. Purification systems using natural methods can clean contaminated water.
                                      And of course trees (again) can be used to clean contaminated soils through a process called Phytoremediation in addition to cleaning the atmosphere.
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323819].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                        But nature can only do the job if we allow it to. When we continually destroy natural areas of the world and flush our waste into the ecosystems...nature can't keep up with us.

                                        I've long said we'd clean up the earth if we could see a quick profit. Today a Congressman (Holt) claimed millions will die of global warming. His solution? A new carbon tax, what else?
                                        Signature
                                        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                                        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323832].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                                          But nature can only do the job if we allow it to. When we continually destroy natural areas of the world and flush our waste into the ecosystems...nature can't keep up with us.

                                          I've long said we'd clean up the earth if we could see a quick profit. Today a Congressman (Holt) claimed millions will die of global warming. His solution? A new carbon tax, what else?
                                          Exactly Kay.
                                          Look at the rain forests for one example.
                                          We cut them done to sell the wood (for profit) short term agriculture (for profit) and mining (again for profit).
                                          Where as if we left them alone they would be working on cleaning the atmosphere, but hay there's no profit in that.
                                          Signature

                                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323903].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                            Exactly Kay.
                                            Look at the rain forests for one example.
                                            We cut them done to sell the wood (for profit) short term agriculture (for profit) and mining (again for profit).
                                            Where as if we left them alone they would be working on cleaning the atmosphere, but hay there's no profit in that.
                                            While I agree it's for profit, there would be no call for all of what's taken if there was no demand. With the population growing at the rate it has been, not only will "cleaning up" be near impossible, but mankind will continue to make it worse.

                                            It's a vicious circle...more people means more resources used, more pollution, strip farming, mining, etc.

                                            Been doing a lot of reading lately on the population issue. Scary...
                                            Signature

                                            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324134].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                              While I agree it's for profit, there would be no call for all of what's taken if there was no demand. With the population growing at the rate it has been, not only will "cleaning up" be near impossible, but mankind will continue to make it worse.

                                              It's a vicious circle...more people means more resources used, more pollution, strip farming, mining, etc.

                                              Been doing a lot of reading lately on the population issue. Scary...
                                              True Mike, but there have been environmentally friendly options available right along. But they don't create the profit.
                                              Why was Telsa's experiments with free electricity abandoned?
                                              Why is wood used for paper and building products instead of hemp?
                                              Why is "conventional" agriculture used instead of sustainable agriculture.
                                              The answer to all those is profit over the environment.
                                              All of those would meet and exceed the demands.
                                              Signature

                                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324231].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                              While I agree it's for profit, there would be no call for all of what's taken if there was no demand. With the population growing at the rate it has been, not only will "cleaning up" be near impossible, but mankind will continue to make it worse.

                                              It's a vicious circle...more people means more resources used, more pollution, strip farming, mining, etc.

                                              Been doing a lot of reading lately on the population issue. Scary...
                                              It's past scary right now -- yet there are people who insist that because you can cram every human into this amount of space or that amount of space that we haven't overpopulated. I don't know what is so confusing about consumption/per - waste/per - food necessity/per human and overpopulation. I can't figure out with every bonafied scientist on the map calling desertification the #1 problem why people don't "get" it yet. It IS human caused - and it causes deadly chain reactions (and it creates dryness, which creates heat - which allows politicians to try to collect MORE taxes).

                                              The fact is we don't know what the planet would be doing right now without humans destroying everything they can get their hands on. The fact is that no matter what people want to say is causing major problems -- WE are. We have the soil so polluted that the microbes that make new soil are even dying out (no soil - no life). We have water so polluted that more is unpotable now than is. We are close to having completely a few resources that we depend on for our survival that are NOT renewable. We've cut 84% of our forests - yet people scream like air raid sirens if you suggest we need to restore ecosystems and applaud like seals on cue if you say tax carbon.
                                              Signature

                                              Sal
                                              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                              Beyond the Path

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324290].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                                yet people scream like air raid sirens if you suggest we need to restore ecosystems and applaud like seals on cue if you say tax carbon.
                                                And you have some people that are nothing more than ostriches and stick their heads in the sand every time it's brought up that our CO2 problem is man-made.

                                                Then there's those that say to do BOTH. Use the tax money from the polluters to pay for the ecosystems. It's really simple. If you don't want to pay a carbon tax, don't pump your poison into my air. No one is making anyone else be an environmental killer, only greed is.
                                                Signature
                                                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8333177].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author myob
                                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                  Ayn Rand was also from that part of the world and I wonder what she would have said about climate change.
                                  "Man has the power to act as his own destroyer - and that is the way he has acted through most of history."
                                  ― Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8332762].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                    Originally Posted by myob View Post

                                    "Man has the power to act as his own destroyer - and that is the way he has acted through most of history."
                                    ― Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

                                    Nice quote, yet why can't I shake the feeling that she would have somehow found a way to support the activities of the biggest polluters and merchants of dirty energy by taking the position of something like...

                                    ... no one has the right to force them (big time polluters etc.) to do the right thing - especially any gov, perhaps also adding that the free market will come to the rescue.

                                    Maybe I've got her all wrong?


                                    TL
                                    Signature

                                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334181].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author myob
                                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                      Nice quote, yet why can't I shake the feeling that she would have somehow found a way to support the activities of the biggest polluters and merchants of dirty energy by taking the position of something like...

                                      ... no one has the right to force them (big time polluters etc.) to do the right thing - especially any gov, perhaps also adding that the free market will come to the rescue.

                                      Maybe I've got her all wrong?


                                      TL
                                      I think you've got it about right, actually. Ayn Rand's philosophy on objectivism, reason, rational self-interest, individualism, capitalism, profit motive etc as expressed in her masterpiece "Atlas Shrugged" fits in with the current environment. Any government coercion that forces people to do the "right thing" is ultimately doomed to failure, as so demonstrated for example during Prohibition in 1920-1933 and continuing government interference (the arbitrary setter of values) in business, industry and the economy - resulting in unintended consequences.

                                      Ayn Rand's view is we should follow the facts of reality based upon reason and objective knowledge. The alternative is some form of misplaced skepticism or mysticism. Attempts by the government or special interest groups to force arbitrary values or systems on a people against their self-interests will be resisted or subverted. Even President Obama's appeal for ending dependence on oil ("The age of oil must end in our time. ... The country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil.") failed to resonate with significant incentives for practical (ie profitable) applications.

                                      The technology for alternative energy and pollution amelioration already exists, but it is not price-competitive with the infrastructure of fossil fuels. Our society as a whole is nearly illiterate in the sciences, so until an educated consumer base makes demands for more environmental-friendly products and energy sources, the marketplace will continue in its environmentally destructive path. History has shown repeatedly that destruction in the wake of profits through irresponsibility or ignorance is frequently considered merely "collateral damage" (the cost of doing business). Profit is king.

                                      "So you think that money is the root of all evil? ... Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or the looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? ... Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into bread you need to survive tomorrow. ... Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values ..."
                                      - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335285].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                        Originally Posted by myob View Post

                                        I think you've got it about right, actually. Ayn Rand's philosophy on objectivism, reason, rational self-interest, individualism, capitalism, profit motive etc as expressed in her masterpiece "Atlas Shrugged" fits in with the current environment. Any government coercion that forces people to do the "right thing" is ultimately doomed to failure, as so demonstrated for example during Prohibition in 1920-1933 and continuing government interference (the arbitrary setter of values) in business, industry and the economy - resulting in unintended consequences.

                                        Ayn Rand's view is we should follow the facts of reality based upon reason and objective knowledge. The alternative is some form of misplaced skepticism or mysticism. Attempts by the government or special interest groups to force arbitrary values or systems on a people against their self-interests will be resisted or subverted. Even President Obama's appeal for ending dependence on oil ("The age of oil must end in our time. ... The country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil.") failed to resonate with significant incentives for practical (ie profitable) applications.

                                        The technology for alternative energy and pollution amelioration already exists, but it is not price-competitive with the infrastructure of fossil fuels. Our society as a whole is nearly illiterate in the sciences, so until an educated consumer base makes demands for more environmental-friendly products and energy sources, the marketplace will continue in its environmentally destructive path. History has shown repeatedly that destruction in the wake of profits through irresponsibility or ignorance is frequently considered merely "collateral damage" (the cost of doing business). Profit is king.

                                        "So you think that money is the root of all evil? ... Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or the looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? ... Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into bread you need to survive tomorrow. ... Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values ..."
                                        - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
                                        Thanks for the info on Ms. Rand.
                                        Signature

                                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8338608].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                      Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

                      The expert consensus used to be the earth was flat that the solar system revolved around the earth.
                      Actually, this is incorrect. The Ancient Egyptians (and Greeks) knew the world was round and knew the circumference of the Earth. Sailors knew the Earth was round, too. It was the non-experts that believed the Earth was flat.

                      And the "experts" that said the Earth was the center of the universe didn't use scientific methodology.

                      Ironic that the same methods used to tell us the Sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth is round are the same methods used for man-made global warming. And just like the non-experts of the past, we have them now telling us that the global warming experts are wrong.
                      Signature
                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8310239].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author SandraLarkin
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                        Actually, this is incorrect. The Ancient Egyptians (and Greeks) knew the world was round and knew the circumference of the Earth. Sailors knew the Earth was round, too. It was the non-experts that believed the Earth was flat.

                        And the "experts" that said the Earth was the center of the universe didn't use scientific methodology.

                        Ironic that the same methods used to tell us the Sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth is round are the same methods used for man-made global warming. And just like the non-experts of the past, we have them now telling us that the global warming experts are wrong.
                        This.


                        No man made global warming exists. It is a scam perpetrated by the globalists to integrate everything, and tax the living hell out of everyone.


                        Cap and trade gives billions of dollars of tax payer money to other countries for absolute bogus science. All it is used for is more regulations by big government to squeeze every bit they can out of the population.

                        Climate change does exist. However, it has always existed.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344444].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author myob
                          "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
                          - Mark Twain
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347173].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    Incorrect in this example. Meeting one condition makes it logical. Not only is one condition met, both conditions are met to make global warming caused by man a logical conclusion:

                    1. Legitimate expertise

                    2. Expert consensus
                    Not logical at all, just another way of saying experts are always right. There is no objective way to establish "legitimate expertise" without appealing to other experts, so it become a circular process.

                    And consensus just means that everyone agrees. Obviously not true in the case of global warming, but then by your definition anyone who disagrees isn't a true expert and doesn't count. So a statement like "there is a consensus among experts" is really just propaganda to encourage the herd mentality.

                    To quote from the same Wikipedia entry, this is why appeals to authority are not logically valid:

                    "In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts."
                    Signature
                    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8309695].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                      Not logical at all, just another way of saying experts are always right. There is no objective way to establish "legitimate expertise" without appealing to other experts, so it become a circular process.
                      Strawman fallacy. No one said experts are always right. The point is, those that study topics and use scientific methods are right much more often than those that don't.



                      And consensus just means that everyone agrees. Obviously not true in the case of global warming, but then by your definition anyone who disagrees isn't a true expert and doesn't count. So a statement like "there is a consensus among experts" is really just propaganda to encourage the herd mentality.
                      Actually, when 98% of peer reviewed climatologists agree that global warming is caused by humans is a concensus.

                      Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

                      While you can use cliches like "herd mentality", this is merely an ad homimen attack, another fallacy.



                      To quote from the same Wikipedia entry, this is why appeals to authority are not logically valid:


                      "In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts."
                      Obviously, you choose to ignore the two qualifications.

                      And if you believe that the concensus of the World's climatologists have come up with the wrong conclusions due to "error, bias or dishonesty", please support your opinion with some actual facts and not just accusations and speculation.

                      According to sum, we may as well just fire all experts, scientists and researchers because everyone else knows better than they do.
                      Signature
                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8310211].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author myob
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                What???!!! Reading real research? Learning something? Taking a minute to get the answer rather than just spewing illiterate rumor?
                LOL! The armchair scientists here should earn a Nobel prize for finding loopholes in the laws of physics. :rolleyes:

                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                You came to the wrong place, Brother.
                Actually for the last several years this topic pops up every time the average atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by more than 1ppm. And thanks largely to fellow human activity, this level has now exceeded 400ppm this year, which stands as the record high for the first time in 55 years of measurement history.

                But, scientific references don't really seem to matter here, so I just drop in for the entertainment while having a few beers.

                Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                This won't end well.
                It never does.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8308520].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      According to the vast majority of scientists GW or climate change is a fact of life and the industrialized societies and their inhabitants contribute to it.

      The biggest problem is deciding what's going to be done about it.

      There's an anti-science crowd running around the U.S. that welds lots of power that's in the way of at least seriously trying a solution(s).

      And...

      Most of the "do nothings" and the "it's a hoaxers" are simply carrying water - whether they believe it or not, for people like the Koch brothers and the rest of the big time polluters.

      As George Clinton used to say...

      "The bigger the headache, the bigger the pill".
      Pills never seemed to help my headaches, and I can chew through and down aspirin like it is candy.

      I *****HATE***** pollution! I have REALLY spoken up about busses and cars polluting. I hate the idea of smog. I literally can't stand it. As a kid, we had smog days where we weren't supposed to go outside.

      I ALSO hate NOISE pollution. I can't stand the trucks and busses with the stupid I guess it is the "jake brake". And the gadgets created in the 60s, or was it the 70s that SUPPOSEDLY dry your hands, etc.... Did you know that MOST people drying their hands probably wet them to CLEAN them?!?!?!? And MOST probably did that for HYGIENE? and they found in the 70s that (*****DUH*****) those hand dryers create the PERFECT environment for bacteria! So THEY DON'T EVEN WORK!

      HECK, I even hate the heat! My standard body temperature is about 1 degree below normal, and the highest temperature I am comfortable in is 75f(about 24c)!

      Without DIRECT and REASONABLE rules, you do DAMAGE! And THAT is what I am against. HECK, they cut down sulfur, and similar contaminants, in coal to reduce pollution. They cut down lead and some similar contaminants in gas, and THOSE are things we can ALL agree with! Did it cost businesses money? HECK YEAH!

      I like the idea of car emission inspections, but think it should affect ALL cars driven more than say 1000 miles a year. THAT way, the old show cars, like Model Ts won't be affected, but the 1960 cars that are still on the road WILL be! ALSO, there should be a direct hookup to a central system so there will be less fraud and lower prices will keeping profit.

      And the heat on those "dryers" could be used to quietly sanitize towels that could be provided to cut down on paper usage. ALSO, now HERE'S A THOUGHT, they can make them quieter and or isolated!

      AND, as I said, let's be more thoughtful about the plants!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302999].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8303439].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

    Yesterday I watched the most amazing movie about the glaciers disappearing - 'Chasing Ice'. It was made by National Geographic photographer James Balog. He spent years photographing glaciers disappearing and made it into a time-lapse documentary.

    I moved about 6 months ago and don't have tv, but have Netflix. I've been watching a lot of documentaries since then and I must say this is one of the best... really makes you want to cry because we've done it to ourselves. That's why polar bears are now an endangered species.

    If anyone is interested in watching you can get a 30 day free trial at netflix. You can also see the website at Extreme Ice Survey | Art meets science.

    But it is NOT!

    The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a carnivorous bear native largely within the Arctic Circle encompassing the Arctic Ocean, its surrounding seas and surrounding land masses. It is the world's largest bear, together with the omnivorous Kodiak bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi), which is approximately the same size.[3] A boar (adult male) weighs around 350–700 kg (770–1,500 lb),[4] while a sow (adult female) is about half that size. Although it is closely related to the brown bear, it has evolved to occupy a narrower ecological niche, with many body characteristics adapted for cold temperatures, for moving across snow, ice, and open water, and for hunting the seals which make up most of its diet.[5] Although most polar bears are born on land, they spend most of their time at sea. Their scientific name means "maritime bear", and derives from this fact. Polar bears hunt their preferred food of seals from the edge of sea ice, often living off fat reserves when no sea ice is present.

    The polar bear is classified as a vulnerable species, with eight of the nineteen polar bear subpopulations in decline.[6] For decades, large scale hunting raised international concern for the future of the species but populations rebounded after controls and quotas began to take effect.[citation needed] For thousands of years, the polar bear has been a key figure in the material, spiritual, and cultural life of Arctic indigenous peoples, and polar bears remain important in their cultures.
    Isn't it interesting how so many acts have been done for SO long but NOW are causing trouble because technologies, and populations, allow so many people to commit them with larger effect? SMOG, DEFORESTATION, DEPOPULATION, etc.... are ALL caused by it and YEAH, if TL were 100% right about GW being SOLELY due to such acts, THAT TOO! Then again, as I said, the deforestation ALSO does that!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8304331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author allegandro
    Everyone has to believe in global warming, that is not the point I think, it's a fact. The question is who or what makes it happen. Is it we humans or the circle of earth life that makes the temperature go up and down? And that question I can’t answer myself.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8305287].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by allegandro View Post

      Everyone has to believe in global warming, that is not the point I think, it's a fact. The question is who or what makes it happen. Is it we humans or the circle of earth life that makes the temperature go up and down? And that question I can't answer myself.
      You know, the biggest homeowner in the US is BLACKSTONE! IRONIC! I invested with them AND, when things started declining, got out. It turns out they play BOTH sides of the street.

      Well, I COULD name the biggest GW contributers BUT...... They happen to be some of those that want OTHERS to pay them for it! NO THANKS!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8305946].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Yes I do. Ok?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8307416].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8312719].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anne0521
    I believe in global warming. I can feel the consequences here in my country.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8312939].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8319754].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      An interesting read.
      Scientists: Global Warming Is On A

      After reading this thread and articles online, it's pretty obvious people are more concerned about winning their argument then doing anything about the problem.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8319816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ironman2000
    Yes, its a circle of events that goes back in time as the Earth rotates around the Sun and thus we all rotate around in the universe.................soon or in a few thousand years we shall go back into the phase of an ice age, as the Earth gets thrown farther afield from the Sun known as the ellipse effect.

    Keep calm and don't throw away your winter clothing just yet!!!!!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8319971].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      The problem that people ultimately have to realize is that we are dumping pollutants into our air and water at unsustainable rates. And it seems to be a rather common misunderstanding with folks like Sal who think that more CO2 in our atmosphere would be good for restoring our forests. It doesn't work that way, and perhaps somebody wasn't paying attention in their biology class when photosynthesis was discussed.

      The rate of CO2 being released is far surpassing anything that could possibly be used or absorbed. The oceans have been absorbing some of the CO2 from the atmosphere causing acidification. As atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do levels in the oceans. This carbonic acid (which gives your soda pop its "bite" and "fizz") is already changing the chemistry of oceans and damaging ecosystems such as coral reefs.

      Although true that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, that's only part of the story. Like clouds, water vapor doesn't last very long - it dissipates within a few days or a couple of weeks in some climates. On the other hand, CO2 is persistent and continues to build up in the atmosphere. As I mentioned in an earlier post, CO2 acts like a trigger.

      Scientists call this trigger mechanism of CO2 "radiative climate forcing", which in effect absorbs heat from the sun, increasing the evaporation of water into the lower atmosphere. The greenhouse effect of water vapor in turn absorbs tremendous amounts of heat energy from the sun, which is released often with devastating impact as it comes in contact with cooler air fronts. The cycle begins again (termed feedback loop) as more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Climate models predict there will be extreme weather events in greater numbers and intensity.

      We are now at the highest levels of CO2 (400ppm) than at any time in human history. And not only have the last two decades been the warmest global average since reliable measurements were taken, the rate of warming is increasing. In recent years there has been an upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms. Do you believe there is a pattern here? Climatologists do!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321829].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        folks like Sal who think that more CO2 in our atmosphere would be good for restoring our forests.
        Myob; Brilliant well researched post. That's not what Sal said.

        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        You got it wrong, backwards actually.
        Restoring our forests would be good for getting some of the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.
        Thom; Another brilliant, well researched post. That's not what Myob said.


        For some reason, some are taking a purely scientific question about climate change and trying to make it a political subject.

        There are climatologists in every country on Earth. Every political system. There are climatologists that are Republican, Democrat, Communist, Religious, Atheist...working for Corporations, the Government (All governments, all over the world), doing studies for Universities, and they come to the same conclusion.

        And then politicians spin that information for their own agenda. But the science is unchanged.

        This morning I was watching the Weather Channel, and they said the state of Texas last year was 1% in severe drought. They said that was the record for severe drought in Texas, up until this year. This year 6% of Texas is in severe drought.


        We're in the soup now folks.

        Although I know this...When it's 130 degrees outside....There will still be "debates" and finger pointing.

        And then we can all be the smartest guy on the cinder.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323336].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Sigh. Again - ICECAP
    REAL climatiologists who are not paid by the US gov.

    And Yes. I am of Russian descent. Not a problem for me. Their scientists seem to be more in touch than ours are.

    I'm just hanging back for now waiting to see if all the US scientists that are completely disgusted with how their work is being edited that they are protesting the editing get their way. If they do there will be a lot of people that will stop haranguing me in conversations like this.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322035].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by myob View Post

      There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. Scientists are skeptical of each other. But the properties of carbon dioxide are quite well understood by scientists, and there is a high consensus among climatologists that the accelerating levels of CO2 is a primary factor in triggering climate change.

      Under normal conditions, the greenhouse properties of CO2 act sort of like a blanket; retaining heat from the sun to prevent extreme temperature fluctuations at night. However as CO2 levels increase, its heat-retention properties cause rising temperatures which trigger other mechanisms such as a higher evaporation rate from the oceans and greater retention of water vapor in the atmosphere. As this water vapor rises, it cools in the upper atmosphere and then is carried off by wind currents to fall as rain, snow, storms, hurricanes, etc.

      According to climatologists, we can expect more record-breaking and violent weather extremes as a direct result of rising global ocean temperatures. Spectrum analysis shows that the burning of fossil fuels produces a specific identifying signature of the isotope ratio of carbon in CO2. All indications point to an increasingly undeniable conclusion that we really are doing this to ourselves. It's anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

      Yeah, right, here is the truth, so we can cut this crap, and see this BS, for what it is, a money grab!!!!!


      Highlight from the article link below!

      But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, "The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750." Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
      To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes


      And as Sal has said, if they were serious then investing vast sums into free energy would be a primary goal.

      A 12 year old kid with a lego set and a half dozen magnets could build something, that could spin for a few hundred years to a few thousand!



      The socialpaths, want to keep their one hundred trillion oil cash cow safe, so anything that threatens that will be buried or bought into the light, in a very restrictive or negative way, (effectively a clever way of suppression).

      The internet is leveling the playing field, so these A***** days are numbered!


      No, more 6 star holidays to Miami, sniff!!!!

      Shane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322302].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RobinInTexas
    Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

    Yesterday I watched the most amazing movie about the glaciers disappearing - 'Chasing Ice'. It was made by National Geographic photographer James Balog. He spent years photographing glaciers disappearing and made it into a time-lapse documentary.

    I moved about 6 months ago and don't have tv, but have Netflix. I've been watching a lot of documentaries since then and I must say this is one of the best... really makes you want to cry because we've done it to ourselves. That's why polar bears are now an endangered species.

    If anyone is interested in watching you can get a 30 day free trial at netflix. You can also see the website at Extreme Ice Survey | Art meets science.
    I don't believe in anything. I study the evidence that is available and draw conclusions. When I was a kid I believed in the tooth fairy and santa claus.

    The evidence I see says that global warming is heading for the tipping point, but I won't be around long enough to suffer the consequences to global greed and stupidity.
    Signature

    Robin



    ...Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just set there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322326].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StuDavid
    I do believe in it, well isn't there scientific proof of global warming happening? I'm not sure it's our generation that's going to suffer the consequences but I don't wanna think about where our planet is heading really.. :S
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323528].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author richfieldmkt
    Is the earth not flat then?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323910].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by richfieldmkt View Post

      Is the earth not flat then?
      Naw...Just your attempt at humor. :rolleyes:

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323917].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SashaLee
    Hi there,

    Well, only 1% of the earth's land mass is inhabited by humans. Only 29% of the earth's mass is land mass.

    Now, I don't know what portion of that 1% is actually industrial/city/carbon-spewing but let's shoot high and say 50% of that, making it 1/2% of the earth's land mass is being "attacked" by humans.

    All the best,

    Sasha
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324146].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by SashaLee View Post

      Hi there,

      Well, only 1% of the earth's land mass is inhabited by humans. Only 29% of the earth's mass is land mass.

      Now, I don't know what portion of that 1% is actually industrial/city/carbon-spewing but let's shoot high and say 50% of that, making it 1/2% of the earth's land mass is being "attacked" by humans.

      All the best,

      Sasha
      Humans are a needy - and destructive - bunch.

      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324189].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    CO2 is only part of the problem. Soon, it will be methane as the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia melts.

    We have the ability to create "artificial trees" which absorb CO2. The good thing about artificial trees is that they don't need soil or water so they can be installed just about anywhere.

    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8333150].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      CO2 is only part of the problem. Soon, it will be methane as the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia melts.

      We have the ability to create "artificial trees" which absorb CO2. The good thing about artificial trees is that they don't need soil or water so they can be installed just about anywhere.

      Planet Earth ABC News 2007 - YouTube
      They could and should be used as part of the solution.
      But we still need to stop or at the least cut severely back on the pollutants we are putting into the atmosphere. We still need to reforest areas like the rain forests. We still need to stop polluting the soil and water with pesticides.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334546].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        They could and should be used as part of the solution.
        But we still need to stop or at the least cut severely back on the pollutants we are putting into the atmosphere. We still need to reforest areas like the rain forests. We still need to stop polluting the soil and water with pesticides.
        Of course we have to cut back on pollutants and reforest areas. I assumed that was a given.

        But it isn't that simple. You also need to convince people living in poverty why they can't develop their land so someone living in luxury 2000 miles away can breath.

        Explain to someone living in a South American rain forest why they can't develop their land so they can have electricity and modern plumbing, or why they can't mine for gold using mercury to feed their families.

        You also need to convince people in the US how bad their cars really are and China and India that they can't modernize and manufacture to build their econimies, like we have.

        I believe Bill Mahr is correct. We won't change until it's too late. Humans don't change. We'll just adapt and learn how to eat cockroaches and jellyfish, because that's about all the species that will survive. Then we'll blame Al Gore for the jellyfish buffets.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334979].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Of course we have to cut back on pollutants and reforest areas. I assumed that was a given.

          But it isn't that simple. You also need to convince people living in poverty why they can't develop their land so someone living in luxury 2000 miles away can breath.

          Explain to someone living in a South American rain forest why they can't develop their land so they can have electricity and modern plumbing, or why they can't mine for gold using mercury to feed their families.

          You also need to convince people in the US how bad their cars really are and China and India that they can't modernize and manufacture to build their econimies, like we have.

          I believe Bill Mahr is correct. We won't change until it's too late. Humans don't change. We'll just adapt and learn how to eat cockroaches and jellyfish, because that's about all the species that will survive. Then we'll blame Al Gore for the jellyfish buffets.
          I agree Kurt, as with everything else education is the key.
          I think your rain forest thing is a little off though. From what I have read the people who live in the rain forests are happy with the way they live and have tried to fight those who come in to cut it down and "modernize" their way of life.
          As for those in the US, that's the entitlement attitude that seems to be so prevalent.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335451].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BKenn01
    War is profitable therefore people will be brainwashed to support wars. Environmentalism is profitable therefore people will be brainwashed to support Environmentalism. Its that simple to me.

    Look at Al Gore the Champion of Global Warming. He would profit via the Carbon Credit scheme.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334261].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by BKenn01 View Post

      War is profitable therefore people will be brainwashed to support wars. Environmentalism is profitable therefore people will be brainwashed to support Environmentalism. Its that simple to me.

      Look at Al Gore the Champion of Global Warming. He would profit via the Carbon Credit scheme.
      Yeah, because Big Oil doesn't make any money, except for being the most profitable industry in the history of mankind.

      It's funny how the Gore bashers never mention how much profit Big Oil makes. How come you don't follow the REAL money trail? It should be "that simple" for you. Maybe Big Oil has brainwashed YOU?
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8334934].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Yeah, because Big Oil doesn't make any money, except for being the most profitable industry in the history of mankind.

        It's funny how the Gore bashers never mention how much profit Big Oil makes. How come you don't follow the REAL money trail? It should be "that simple" for you. Maybe Big Oil has brainwashed YOU?
        True, but you realize that the federal and state tax revenues are as much and sometimes more (depending on current prices) than big oil profits, right? Some reports even state that big oil pays some of the largest taxes in the US.

        It's not just big oil protecting these big dollars. It's also big government. Including Al Gore

        Keep those evil oil companies from making money and watch how fast the government raises our taxes to make up for that shortfall...
        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335605].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BKenn01
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Yeah, because Big Oil doesn't make any money, except for being the most profitable industry in the history of mankind.

        It's funny how the Gore bashers never mention how much profit Big Oil makes. How come you don't follow the REAL money trail? It should be "that simple" for you. Maybe Big Oil has brainwashed YOU?
        No, I know Big Oil make profit. Never said I supported them but I also see Regulations being put in place with no cost benefit analysis. One example that people can grasp their heads around is the good ole gas can. EPA requirements tripled the cost. Sorry I don't believe fumes from gas cans are causing environmental harm. I think for myself. My utility bill has around a 17% charge each month for EPA Compliance. The Govt. should be responsible to show that the benefit is worth that cost. Could go on and on about the Green Energy bunch. Please don't try to tell me Big Oil is the only profiteer in the discussion. I don't trust either side of the argument or the Red or Blue team for that matter.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Without being able to freely discuss politics there can be no legitimate discussion on global warming.

    The earth is in a natural warming cycle as it has been many times in its history. Are humans contributing to this warming? I would think so. Is it as bad as it's made out to be. I seriously doubt it.

    Whether hell has arrived on the surface of the planet or not, the one thing I find amazing is the number of people everywhere supporting any type of government sponsored solutions. I mean, we're talking about the same government that brought us:

    Slavery
    Unauthorized testing of various medications and toxins on the unsuspecting public
    Fractional reserve banking
    A bankrupted Social Security system
    The Federal Reserve
    The FDIC
    The near extinction of various species with their hair-brained environmental interventions and solutions
    Wars for the sake of global wealth building
    A healthcare bill neither side bothered to read and one that is so screwed it has to be amended yet again

    I've only scratched the surface. And it's not one party or the other. It's both. With a track record like this how in the world would people trust them to "fix" the climate problem, if there is in fact, a real climate problem?

    You know, if the people running things ever got something right I might consider having a peek at their plans but they haven't, ever. Everything the federal government does is bogged down in massive red tape and fraud and bullshit and costs at least ten times what it would cost in the private sector. Isn't that enough to at least consider they might be wrong about this or that they just might have an ulterior motive here?

    There's another thing that bugs me. It's the main spokesman for this movement. Here's a guy who's an old pro at laying guilt on people to get his stuff in the limelight. A guy with so little real credibility and trust behind him he didn't even manage to win his own home state when he ran for president. All of a sudden he's an expert at the climate issue. Right. He jets around the globe peddling his "carbon footprint" guilt trip while his own is about the size of the state of Rhode Island.

    Word has it in the spooky conspiracy whack job world that this guy is also the front man for a group of progressive international businessmen who want to open a new financial market trading energy credits or carbon trading chits or whatever the puppetmasters deem an apt name the gullible public will gobble up.

    Something stinks about the whole thing and it's not cow and sheep farts.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8335740].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Arctic Sea Ice
    Media is reporting that this entire area will be free of ice within 6 weeks. Media is lying. Arctic Ice extent is approaching a 7 year high.

    Image Source: Environment Canada, Canadian Ice Service



    My heater just clicked on - nights are being cold here. Only one or two so far that I didn't have to put on a jacket to go out after dark. We've had a cold year here so far.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8337710].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8338223].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Yes.

    ...................................
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340108].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Johnny12345
    Do you believe in global warming?

    It's not a belief; it's scientific fact.

    NASA did the calculations. They determined that 350 parts per million (ppm) is the most CO2 that our atmosphere can hold before it SERIOUSLY impacts the planet.

    The bad news? We're currently at 395 ppm (and moving higher).

    Watch the video below for the details...

    John

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340714].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Johnny12345 View Post

      It's not a belief; it's scientific fact.

      NASA did the calculations. They determined that 350 parts per million (ppm) is the most CO2 that our atmosphere can hold before it SERIOUSLY impacts the planet.

      The bad news? We're currently at 395 ppm (and moving higher).

      Watch the video below for the details...

      John

      But who can trust NASA??

      Here's a much more reliable source...



      Did someone falsify research to support their own theory on scientists falsifying research to support their own theories on Global Warming?
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343001].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        But who can trust NASA??

        Here's a much more reliable source...



        Did someone falsify research to support their own theory on scientists falsifying research to support their own theories on Global Warming?
        Fox News. "The last word on scientific truth". :rolleyes:
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343045].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Johnny12345
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Here's a much more reliable source...
          "Reliable" is not a word that I, personally, would use to describe Fox News. In my opinion, they should change the name to The Fox Propaganda Channel.

          John
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343487].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by Johnny12345 View Post

            "Reliable" is not a word that I, personally, would use to describe Fox News. In my opinion, they should change the name to The Fox Propaganda Channel.

            John
            Exactly! They're just like all the other main stream media "news" channels.
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343499].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              Exactly! They're just like all the other main stream media "news" channels.

              Not really Mike.

              whether you like it or not or believe it or not, ...

              ...Neither MSNBC or CNN have anywhere near the documented track record of mis-reporting (I'm being kind here) the news and issues of the day.

              It's not close by a long, long shot.

              Here's a video of Jon Stewart having a little fun with your beloved "news" channel.



              It's a hoot!

              Jon Stewart Reads Off Laundry List of False Statements by Fox News


              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8354695].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Not really Mike.

                whether you like it or not or believe it or not, ...

                ...Neither MSNBC or CNN have anywhere near the documented track record of mis-reporting (I'm being kind here) the news and issues of the day.

                It's not close by a long, long shot.

                Here's a video of Jon Stewart having a little fun with your beloved "news" channel.



                It's a hoot!

                Jon Stewart Reads Off Laundry List of False Statements by Fox News


                So, main stream media says MSNBC, and other main stream news shows has less mis-reporting? Ok. I believe that.

                And for the record - I consider Fox the same as your main stream media. They are FAR from "my news station". I don't consider any of them credible news sources any more. Entertainment, yes. News...not so much. Sorry to say that about your beloved news channels - but you can keep them all.

                And John Stewart is a funny comedian.
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8355377].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                  So, main stream media says MSNBC, and other main stream news shows has less mis-reporting? Ok. I believe that.

                  And for the record - I consider Fox the same as your main stream media. They are FAR from "my news station". I don't consider any of them credible news sources any more. Entertainment, yes. News...not so much. Sorry to say that about your beloved news channels - but you can keep them all.

                  And John Stewart is a funny comedian.
                  If you say so Mike.

                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8355495].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    If you say so Mike.

                    All The Best!!

                    TL

                    NOW you're catching on...
                    Signature

                    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8355503].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by Johnny12345 View Post

            "Reliable" is not a word that I, personally, would use to describe Fox News. In my opinion, they should change the name to The Fox Propaganda Channel.

            John
            I think TLTheLiberator was joking, just as I was. Yeah, I watch MSNBC....and am a big fan or Rachel Maddow. But I have to filter much of what I hear on any of these shows. These shows aren't news shows, they are entertainment...on both sides of the fence.

            All of these shows are biased. And I would never get any of my science information there.

            But we were talking about global warming.
            To me, one of the least convincing pieces of "evidence" are surveys of the general public. A fourth of us are illiterate, and most read less than a book a year. And almost none of those are science books.

            A survey of Climatologists? That would mean something.


            Someone once said that life on Earth is like a thing layer or "organized rust".
            So much for my self esteem.
            Signature
            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

            Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343540].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Johnny12345
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              I think TLTheLiberator was joking, just as I was.
              I, however, was not joking. I don't trust Fox News any further than I could throw that bird-brain, Sean Hannity.

              A survey of Climatologists? That would mean something.
              The fact that the polar ice cap has lost HALF of its area also means something, in my view.

              John
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343851].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by Johnny12345 View Post

                I, however, was not joking. I don't trust Fox News any further than I could throw that bird-brain, Sean Hannity.



                The fact that the polar ice cap has lost HALF of its area also means something, in my view.

                John
                John; You're preaching to the choir. Did you think I was not taking this seriously? We have higher CO2 levels than at any time in the last 900,000 years (shown by atmosphere trapped in ice core samples).

                This is serious business.

                Personally? I think we're ...well...I think it's already too late. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.


                But some people will still be "debating" this when it's 150 degrees out....the ones that are left, anyway.
                Signature
                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Most of the US has had below average temps through the month of July - um......where's THAT in the news?



    If you want to talk SCIENCE about sea rise - stop watching the News and start listening to SCIENTISTS who actually STUDY it.
    http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/695/2013/os-9-695-2013.html

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10....S-D-10-00157.1
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8349153].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8349412].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Climatologists are well aware of this "phase relation" phenomena, and it is factored in the climate model. The properties of CO2 have been studied for over 100 years, and its major contribution in global warming is an amplifying effect on other greenhouse gases such as water vapor as part of a continuous "feedback loop". As CO2 levels continue to mount (currently at the rate of 6-7 billion metric tons per year), additional feedbacks start kicking in, such as the release of CO2 from parched and dried vegetation, reduced albedo from shrinking ice sheets, etc. If there were no lag time, we would be experiencing a runaway greenhouse effect. The study cited appears to indicate this lag time is rather short (10-12 months).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350526].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Citing local weather, meaning cooling is an intuitive response.

        But we are talking about global warming...not Ohio warming..or warming on a particular day.

        One thing I hear from intelligent people is the fact that Antarctica is getting colder, and is growing (from all the ice).

        How is that possible with Global Warming? Thermohaline circulation affects salt water content, underwater flow...and the transferring of heat to colder regions.

        How does global warming affect ocean currents? - Curiosity

        Right now, the water flow around Antarctica is disrupted, sealing in the cold, and disrupting the flow of heat to the south pole.

        Because of this disruption, some areas are cooler than normal. but most are hotter. And "globally" the average temperature is increasing.

        Because these currents bring heat to some regions...and the current is interrupted..they are colder than normal.

        And some days...it's colder anyway...some days warmer in different regions. But the planet is getting warmer. And that ain't good.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350623].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8351553].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8352444].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Scientists can very accurately determine from sensors on satellites how much heat the Earth gets from the sun, as well as the amount reflected back into space.

      Satellite instruments show a growing imbalance between energy entering the atmosphere from the sun and energy leaving from Earth's surface. Most of this heat (up to 90%) is being absorbed by the oceans.

      The melting of glaciers, Greenland's ice sheets, Antarctic permafrost and Arctic sea ice indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet with increasingly severe global weather extremes.

      Despite all the pseudo-scientitifc denials and special interest posturing, the evidence continues to pour in that carbon emissions is a major threat to a sustainable environment, and we are doing it to ourselves.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8352845].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    So I think the overwhelming majority of folks who commented agreed that man made climate change is happening.

    - Deforestation & Carbon: Are they the 2 big drivers of climate change?

    Most American adults agree that it's a very serious problem - about 60%.

    - Kurt had an amazing solution above for the Deforestation problem. (See post #39)

    - Cap & Trade is not very popular around here but it worked with the acid rain problem. It has been described by its detractors as nothing more than a big money grab.

    - Do we have the technology to solve this problem?

    - Are there things everyday people can do to help?

    - Any other solutions except everyone eventually wearing a gas mask?

    I have one...

    How about we seriously frown on national elected officials that don't believe in man made climate change...

    ... and maybe, just maybe the massive resources of the fed gov can also be used to help solve the problem.

    - Should the fed gov just stay out of it or are there things it can do to help?

    The anti-science crowd on the national level is slowing down progress on this oh so big issue and it's very dangerous for the lot of us.

    New Infographic: The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus | ThinkProgress
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8364567].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Despite the scientific consensus that global average temperature is increasing and human activities are a key driver, nearly two-thirds of the population don't believe it to be a serious problem according to a recent poll.
      Poll - Pew Research Center

      Until the public can understand that the real cost of "cheap" fossil fuels is far greater than current energy alternatives, we'll continue on this path (to apply the MAD doctrine from early in the Cold War) of mutually assured destruction. A growing epidemic of scientific ignorance is ultimately the root problem of this madness.
      Nation is dangerously ignorant of science - The News Herald
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8365123].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    This recent poll by The Natural Resources Defense Council says the opposite. Whom are we to believe??

    Story here...
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...en-t-Listening

    Actual survey here...

    http://docs.nrdc.org/air/files/air_13071802a.pdf

    This is also quite interesting...


    Daily Kos: HOLY REALITY CHECK!!! Former Republican Heads of EPA on climate change: Don't deny, Don't delay
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8365302].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      This recent poll by The Natural Resources Defense Council says the opposite. Whom are we to believe??

      Story here...
      Daily Kos: New Poll Finds Wide Bipartisan Support for Climate Action, But Legislators Aren't Listening.
      Actually, it really doesn't seem to me these polls are statistically different. The apparent discrepancy is perhaps in semantics. For example, The Natural Resources Defense Council results indicate that 39% of respondents see climate change as a “very serious” problem, whereas the PRC poll shows results as 33% for "very serious", 32% for "somewhat serious", and 69% (an apparent statistical overlap) say there is "solid evidence" that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. IMO, both polls seem similar and rather alarming regarding the lack of urgency in context of conflicting public narratives and partisan wrangling.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8366559].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8368448].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BTM
    Considering the Ice has expanded considerably since 1985, its comical this is a bigger issue now than it was back when it wasn't.

    Don't believe the lies from a bunch of people who have investment in this hoax to push a larger agenda.

    Study: Global warming helps expand Antarctic sea ice | The Daily Caller

    I see a lot of people posting from well known sites that are behind the entire "global warming" myth, I.E. Media Matters, owned by George Soros who has billions invested in alternative energy, as well as sites like Daily Kos, who are about as unreliable as it gets when it comes to "news".

    I guess its obvious depending on what news sites you read and how limited you are in your overall scope determines if you believe or not. This thread is proof.

    However, its pointless to even try and debate it with most people because anything you provide that they disagree with, they'll label wrong. Regardless of the source. I.E. The 17,000 VERY well known scientists who openly signed a letter saying its all a hoax.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8368470].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by BTM View Post

      Regardless of the source. I.E. The 17,000 VERY well known scientists who openly signed a letter saying its all a hoax.
      The source please?
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8368907].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        The source please?
        Actually, of those "17,000" (although I remember it was moer like 14,000), only a few hundred were actually climatologists, and few of those were peer reviewed. There's some other very suspicous concerns about the survey.

        To top it off, the "survey" was lead by a guy named Art Robinson who also believe radiation from nuclear plants is good for us. I assume he's moved to Fukushima to lead a more healthy life style.

        BTW, here's Art with Rachel Maddow. This is the guy who collected the alleged signatures:
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8369370].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by BTM View Post

      Considering the Ice has expanded considerably since 1985, its comical this is a bigger issue now than it was back when it wasn't.
      You do realize we have actual pictures from satellites don't you? And you also realize the THICKNESS of the ice matters too?


      Don't believe the lies from a bunch of people who have investment in this hoax to push a larger agenda.
      I agree. I don't trust Big Oil, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the Koch brothers.




      You're funny! Posting a link that claims the global warming going on could be beneficial in an attempt to deny global warming...Seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

      I see a lot of people posting from well known sites that are behind the entire "global warming" myth, I.E. Media Matters, owned by George Soros who has billions invested in alternative energy, as well as sites like Daily Kos, who are about as unreliable as it gets when it comes to "news".
      Nice ad homenim fallacy. Any actual facts?

      I guess its obvious depending on what news sites you read and how limited you are in your overall scope determines if you believe or not. This thread is proof.
      I have to admit you are versatile...you're both the pot and the kettle.

      However, its pointless to even try and debate it with most people because anything you provide that they disagree with, they'll label wrong. Regardless of the source. I.E. The 17,000 VERY well known scientists who openly signed a letter saying its all a hoax.
      "Well known"? Hardly. And see my response above about Art Robinson, then do some actual research about the "letter".
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8369383].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BTM
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        You do realize we have actual pictures from satellites don't you? And you also realize the THICKNESS of the ice matters too?




        I agree. I don't trust Big Oil, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the Koch brothers.




        You're funny! Posting a link that claims the global warming going on could be beneficial in an attempt to deny global warming...Seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!



        Nice ad homenim fallacy. Any actual facts?



        I have to admit you are versatile...you're both the pot and the kettle.



        "Well known"? Hardly. And see my response above about Art Robinson, then do some actual research about the "letter".
        As expected....

        This is exactly my point about those who based on their posts only get information via one politically affiliated source and bash those who don't. It's impossible to debate those who ACT as if they know more, but refuse other sources of information that disagree with their preconceived notions.

        FACT : Even scientists who agree with global warming posted an article a year ago that said they were "surprised to see its expanded in size and density over the past decade, considerably"....



        Case closed. Unless of course some of you are far more respected within the scientific community than the leading "experts". ;-)

        Continue on.Its quite comical.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8372322].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by BTM View Post

          As expected....

          This is exactly my point about those who based on their posts only get information via one politically affiliated source and bash those who don't. It's impossible to debate those who ACT as if they know more, but refuse other sources of information that disagree with their preconceived notions.

          FACT : Even scientists who agree with global warming posted an article a year ago that said they were "surprised to see its expanded in size and density over the past decade, considerably"....


          Case closed. Unless of course some of you are far more respected within the scientific community than the leading "experts". ;-)

          Continue on.Its quite comical.
          Way to cherry pick facts to back up your political views. Typical for deniers.

          Please explain the difference between sea ice and land ice sheets, then tell us what is happening to the Antartic ice sheets and why it is more important than the sea ice.

          I'll help you get a clue:
          Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

          Let's also get back to the fact that you post a link that says global warming is real to "prove" that global warming doesn't exist. Have you tried Hooked on Phonics?

          www.hop.com
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8373702].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BTM
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Way to cherry pick facts to back up your political views. Typical for deniers.

            Please explain the difference between sea ice and land ice sheets, then tell us what is happening to the Antartic ice sheets and why it is more important than the sea ice.

            I'll help you get a clue:
            Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

            Let's also get back to the fact that you post a link that says global warming is real to "prove" that global warming doesn't exist. Have you tried Hooked on Phonics?

            www.hop.com
            When someone becomes backed into a corner, the first response is generally to lash out with assumptions, like guessing someones political affiliation based off of one topic. So based on this last response, one can only assume you're feeling backed into a corner?

            As far as the first link, apparently understanding sarcasm isn't one of your strong points. It both agrees and disagrees with most of what was said here, hence the reason it was posted. Try and keep up.



            You're welcome.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8373764].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by BTM View Post

              When someone becomes backed into a corner, the first response is generally to lash out with assumptions, like guessing someones political affiliation based off of one topic. So based on this last response, one can only assume you're feeling backed into a corner?

              As far as the first link, apparently understanding sarcasm isn't one of your strong points. It both agrees and disagrees with most of what was said here, hence the reason it was posted. Try and keep up.


              You're welcome.
              You can assumume whatever you want. You obviously do with climate change.

              But I thought you said "case closed"? I figured I could get you to lie to yourself. Your last post proved me to be correct.

              And you still haven't responded to my comment I made TWICE about you posting a link to a page that said global warming was real to prove global warming wasn't real. Instead, you post a feable ad hominem fallacy. See how I posted actual info and you only posted weak, meaningless insults? Par for the course.

              BTW, I see you didn't want to respond to my questions about ice sheets and sea ice, either. Good to know that you've already made up your mind and have proven you are intolerant to any new facts that get in the way of your point of view.

              Before you confuse yourself again, you and I both know the case isn't really closed, despite your previous statement.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8373824].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author BTM
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                And you still haven't responded to my comment I made TWICE about you posting a link to a page that said global warming was real to prove global warming wasn't real. Instead, you post a feable ad hominem fallacy. See how I posted actual info and you only posted weak, meaningless insults? Par for the course.
                Originally Posted by BTM View Post

                As far as the first link, apparently understanding sarcasm isn't one of your strong points. It both agrees and disagrees with most of what was said here, hence the reason it was posted. Try and keep up.
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                Before you confuse yourself again
                You got me.. I'm the one who's confused and unable to read what's right in front of me...


                lol@ Lying to myself. Grasping for straws at this point Kurt?

                Lost the debate, better try and get him to respond and claim victory = Kurt's logic.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8374370].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author myob
                  If you're really interested, for $32 you can read Dr Bintanja's research results about Antarctic sea ice expansion cited in the Daily Caller and other mass media:
                  Nature Geoscience - "Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion", Dr Richard Bintanja et al

                  Abstract:
                  "Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded, with record extent in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamic atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise."

                  This information isn't significantly new from previous studies by climatologists, but it appears that layman journalists reporting on the paper either didn't read it or didn't understand it. :rolleyes:
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8374862].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by BTM View Post

      Considering the Ice has expanded considerably since 1985, its comical this is a bigger issue now than it was back when it wasn't.
      The "expansion" of sea ice is the result of disintegration and collapse of the Antarctic coastal ice shelves from deep warmer ocean currents. This melt water has a relatively low density, so it accumulates in the top layer of the ocean. The cool surface waters then re-freeze during the southern hemisphere's Autumn and Winter.
      BBC News - Melt may explain Antarctica's sea ice expansion

      See also
      BBC News - Warm ocean driving Antarctic ice loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8371635].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Maybe this can help...

    Your PB&J Impact
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8371456].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author awesummer
    I believe that what we're doing to the environment, there will come a time that it will bite us in the *ss. In every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8372682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Sean Hannity promoted a claim that dangerous "global cooling" is coming, adding sarcastically on his radio show, "I thought all scientists agreed on this -- apparently not."

    Sadly for Hannity, the claim did not come from a scientist -- in fact, it came from John Casey, a man that even climate "skeptics" labeled a "scam artist."

    Here's a helpful list for Hannity to refer to next time he is looking for support:

    6 Signs Your "Scientist" Might Not Be A Scientist:

    Sean Hannity Conned Into Thinking "Scam Artist" Is A Scientist | Blog | Media Matters for America
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8376333].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Koch Industries: The 100-Million Ton Carbon Gorilla:

    Details on the Koch Brothers huge carbon footprint...

    Koch Industries: The 100-Million Ton Carbon Gorilla | ThinkProgress
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8376833].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author delparral
    Yes global warming was happening in modern times up to 1998. Since then the earth temperatures have experienced a small cooling.

    The real problem is that predictions of warming are base on computer programs. If you understand programming you know that a small change in a variable can give you what you want. And those predicting catastrophic change have not being able to produce one single verifiable prediction.

    I spent 40 years in universities, 35 as an Economics lecturer and know that most academics call themselves scientist but are really bureaucrats who support each other's livelihood.

    My point: I am not alarmed by warming, but I would be worried of an Earth going cold. History tells us that's when crops fail and disease strikes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8377658].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by delparral View Post

      I spent 40 years in universities, 35 as an Economics lecturer and know that most academics call themselves scientist but are really bureaucrats who support each other's livelihood.
      Yup. All those people calling themselves scientists....but so what?

      I want to know what Climatologists think. What the evidence shows them.

      Climatologists have made their findings known. Loud and clear. Precise and verified.

      But we just keep trying to find reasons to listen to others, instead of Climatologists.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8377704].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by delparral View Post

      Yes global warming was happening in modern times up to 1998. Since then the earth temperatures have experienced a small cooling.

      The real problem is that predictions of warming are base on computer programs. If you understand programming you know that a small change in a variable can give you what you want. And those predicting catastrophic change have not being able to produce one single verifiable prediction.
      Catastrophic weather extremes actually fits in rather nicely with climatologists' computer modeling programs on global warming. The year 1998 was one of the hottest years on record since 1850, but it was mostly because of extreme weather patterns initiated by El Nino.

      The overall trend is up. Satellite temperature data shows the earth is increasingly retaining far more heat from the sun than radiated due to the greenhouse gas effect, of which 90% is being absorbed and building up in the oceans.

      Climatologists say the next full-year El Nino is likely to be disastrous in terms of extreme weather. Specifically, the volume of energy-turbocharged Pacific ocean water transferred to the Andes and Central America is going to radically alter the landscape. Would that be enough evidence? :rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8378567].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author youroutsourcer
    yeah ofcourse i do
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8379942].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Rohrabacher: Global warming is a liberal plot to “create global government” - Salon.com



    - Rohrabacher is a senior member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, but he has many rivals right there for the title of dumbest elected climate-change denier.

    - The whole committee is chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who denies.

    - The Subcommittee on Environment is chaired by Chris Stewart of Utah, who is a denier.

    - The Subcommittee on Oversight is chaired by Paul Broun of Georgia, who is a denier (and then some).

    - The Subcommittee on Research and Technology is chaired by Larry Bucshon of Indiana, who is a denier who accepts evidence the climate is changing but doesn't think humans are causing it.

    - The Subcommittee on Energy is chaired by Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, who is a denier.

    - The Subcommittee on Space is chaired by Steven Palazzo of Mississippi, who, by his votes to slash climate science funding, shows he is a denier.

    - So, while Rohrabacher proves himself to be a contender in the climate-change denier sweepstakes,...

    ... the competition for the title in Congress and within his own committee is stiff, comprising deniers who are just plumb ignoramuses about science or who believe humans are causing climate change but nonetheless repeat the fossil-fueled propaganda that says otherwise.

    - Together all these powerful deniers who could be very helpful, seem to have no concern about the short and long-term impacts of their behavior.

    What a shame.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8389355].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390785].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Sal; This was written by...

      James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at
      The Heartland Institute at Home | Heartland Institute

      It's not a scientific organization. It's a tea party political organization.

      He isn't a climatologist (but at least to took a course in college on it).

      May I suggest articles by climatologists who post on non political forums? There are plenty of hard science websites to choose from.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390897].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        Sal; This was written by...

        James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at
        The Heartland Institute at Home | Heartland Institute

        It's not a scientific organization. It's a tea party political organization.

        He isn't a climatologist (but at least to took a course in college on it).

        May I suggest articles by climatologists who post on non political forums? There are plenty of hard science websites to choose from.
        This is from Forbes, Claude. Reporters are rarely the scientists. You are shooting the messenger. Why don't you take a look at the study he is reporting instead of talking about HIS qualifications as a scientist? I don't remember him ever claiming to be.

        The people who actually conducted the study ARE scientists. :rolleyes:

        Nice try, though. You had a lot of people buying into it. That's how easy it is.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394735].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          This is from Forbes, Claude. Reporters are rarely the scientists. You are shooting the messenger. Why don't you take a look at the study he is reporting instead of talking about HIS qualifications as a scientist? I don't remember him ever claiming to be.

          The people who actually conducted the study ARE scientists. :rolleyes:

          Nice try, though. You had a lot of people buying into it. That's how easy it is.
          Sal;
          First, your point is valid. I read little of the article and made my judgement based on the the website and it's political agenda.

          That had nothing to do with the validity of the sources in the article itself. It had a lot to do with the agenda of the author. But the sources cited? No. It was a mistake on my part. Although everything in my post was true. I didn't read the sources cited, and that was a mistake.

          I was wrong.

          PS. Smartly written response. That's how to give an argument. The last sentence, I would have left out though.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394773].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          The people who actually conducted the study ARE scientists. :rolleyes:

          Nice try, though. You had a lot of people buying into it. That's how easy it is.
          Phil Jones and Michael Mann ARE scientists and they got caught manipulating data so anything that *they* have to say about the subject is now suspect. Do the alarmists care? No...because they support what they believe so it's OK that they lied and manipulated.

          Cringing Over Climategate - Forbes
          "“Science and scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration on a wide range of issues, including … mitigation of climate change,” President Barack Obama declared in a not-so-subtle dig at his predecessor soon after assuming office. “The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process. Public officials should not suppress or alter scientific technological findings.”

          Last week’s Climategate scandal is putting Obama’s promise to the test. If he wants to pass, there are two things he should do, pronto: (1) Start singing hosannas to whoever broke the scandal instead of acting like nothing has happened; and (2) Ask eco-warriors at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit next week to declare an immediate cease-fire in their war against global warming pending a complete review of the science.

          Someone–a whistleblower or a hacker–got into the computers of University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England, also known as the Hadley Research Center, and revealed reams of e-mails showing that its leading climatologists had engaged in all kinds of scientific shenanigans including manipulating data, destroying evidence that didn’t support their conclusions and keeping contrarian scientists from being published in peer-reviewed journals."

          "One e-mail as recent as last month acknowledged that global temperatures plateaued in 1998, something that skeptics have been pointing out for years and warming warriors have been pooh-poohing. “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment,” the e-mail confessed. But instead of celebrating the good news that the planet may not ineluctably fry to a crisp, the e-mail continues with its gloom and doom, blaming an “inadequate observing system” for not picking up on the warming.

          This wouldn’t be such a big deal if other e-mails didn’t show even worse malfeasance. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith to hide the decline [of temperatures],” one said. To most people with normal IQs, the words “trick” and “hide” in the same sentence would suggest manipulation of data. But the brainiacs at Hadley claim that these are just standard colloquialism that scientists use to describe completely innocent operations.

          Really? Then how do they explain this 2005 e-mail by Phil Jones, the director of the center, to the aforementioned Mike. “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone… We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” The “two MMs” refers to Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. And–lo and behold–when one of them asked Jones for his data, what did he do? He hid behind the data protection act. But no, there is nothing premeditated here!

          Why was Jones so afraid of the two MMs? Because they had debunked Mike’s–or Michael Mann of Penn State University’s–infamous “hockey stick” graph that supposedly offered proof positive that humans were warming the earth. It showed that global temperatures had remained flat for a millennium only to spike sharply in the 20th century following the industrial revolution. But McIntyre and McKitrick found that the innocent “tricks” that Mann was performing on the data were so riddled with methodological errors that even the IPCC was forced to remove the graph from its official reports."

          "But the issues go beyond the misconduct of just one outfit. One of the dirty little secrets of the field revealed by the scandal is that climate scientists, though they are publicly funded, don’t as a matter of routine make their raw data publicly available. This makes it exceedingly difficult for their peers to replicate their findings, subverting the scientific method at its core. Judy Curry of Georgia Tech, a stalwart in the field who is convinced that global warming is real, is exhorting her colleagues to end this incestuous tribalism and open their work to scrutiny, even of skeptics.” Make all your data, metadata and codes openly available,” she urges. Meanwhile, George Monbiot–the British media’s alarmist-in-chief who has called global warming the “moral question of the 21st century”–is demanding a reanalysis of the climate science data."
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394813].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390861].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    Whine about the source all you want since the data is still what it is...

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

    "Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of 'natural variability' - factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun."

    "From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat."

    "'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,' Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

    'Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

    'It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.'

    Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the 'Climategate' scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390921].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      Whine about the source all you want since the data is still what it is...
      ."
      Except, at best, you are cherry-picking the data. You submit a single article, I submit an entire site, which was the "source" for your single article, and that site has multiple resources and comments debunking your source.

      Obviously in the time it took you to respond, you did ZERO research on the actual NOAA site.

      Your vocabulary word for the day: Preponderance.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390947].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Except, at best, you are cherry-picking the data. You submit a single article, I submit an entire site, which was the "source" for your single article, and that site has multiple resources and comments debunking your source.

        Obviously in the time it took you to respond, you did ZERO research on the actual NOAA site.

        Your vocabulary word for the day: Preponderance.
        Cherry picking like Phil Jones got caught doing to try to explain the alarmist lies?

        Pot/kettle/black... :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390954].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author trader909
      Banned
      Please..try better.

      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      Whine about the source all you want since the data is still what it is...

      Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

      "Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of 'natural variability' - factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun."

      "From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat."

      "'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,' Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America's Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

      'Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

      'It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.'

      Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the 'Climategate' scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did."
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8392731].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390957].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Does New Tree Ring Study Refute Global Warming? | Climate Change | LiveScience

      "Our study doesn't go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson, a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change. The tree rings do help fill in a piece of Earth's complicated climate puzzle, he said.

      "None of this changes the fact that the current warming can't be modeled based on natural forces alone," he said. "Anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] emissions are the predominant forces in the late 20th century and early 21st century period."
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8391146].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

    "The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

    "Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

    The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

    ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

    Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8391171].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    New $468 million NASA Satellite Will Chronicle the Slow Death Of The Planet:

    Thank you deniers and delayers.

    You've been most helpful.


    Satellite to track climate change
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8392372].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    Deniers will deny till the end of time I guess.

    Facts = yes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8392726].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8392814].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8392993].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Good. After the EPA raised the allowable levels of Glyphosate on food crops, I wouldn't trust them to flush my toilet and get it right.
      EPA to Increase Allowable Glyphosate in U.S. Food Crops
      Here's just one problem with ingesting Glyphosate at levels lower then the new EPA levels.
      Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cel... [Food Chem Toxicol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
      So we have three govt. agencies who are allowing our food to be poisoned and our environment destroyed with soil and water pollution which also effects our climate. Plus our Department of Defense is considered the largest polluter in the world.
      Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier

      Yeah they're really trying hard to prevent climate change:rolleyes:
      I think they need to get their own house in order before they start passing laws telling others what to do.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394112].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Good. After the EPA raised the allowable levels of Glyphosate on food crops, I wouldn't trust them to flush my toilet and get it right.
        EPA to Increase Allowable Glyphosate in U.S. Food Crops
        Here's just one problem with ingesting Glyphosate at levels lower then the new EPA levels.
        Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cel... [Food Chem Toxicol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
        So we have three govt. agencies who are allowing our food to be poisoned and our environment destroyed with soil and water pollution which also effects our climate. Plus our Department of Defense is considered the largest polluter in the world.
        Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier

        Yeah they're really trying hard to prevent climate change:rolleyes:
        I think they need to get their own house in order before they start passing laws telling others what to do.
        So since they haven't done a great job they couldn't possibly ever do a good job - so just abolish the agency altogether right?


        The Koch bros would really love that.

        Is that where you're headed with your attitude or are you already there?
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8395340].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
          They call this a consensus?

          "They call this a consensus?


          "Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

          S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

          Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

          More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies."
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8395513].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Good. After the EPA raised the allowable levels of Glyphosate on food crops, I wouldn't trust them to flush my toilet and get it right.
        EPA to Increase Allowable Glyphosate in U.S. Food Crops
        Here's just one problem with ingesting Glyphosate at levels lower then the new EPA levels.
        Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cel... [Food Chem Toxicol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
        So we have three govt. agencies who are allowing our food to be poisoned and our environment destroyed with soil and water pollution which also effects our climate. Plus our Department of Defense is considered the largest polluter in the world.
        Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier

        Yeah they're really trying hard to prevent climate change:rolleyes:
        I think they need to get their own house in order before they start passing laws telling others what to do.
        Yes, root for the crazies/deniers in congress, the Koch bros and other big time polluters really love that.

        So since the EPA hasn't done a great job they couldn't possibly ever do a good job right?

        Never ever right?

        I'm in favor of a "mend it don't end" it policy for the EPA.

        Yea, I get it now, keep the feds out of everything and let the free market...

        ... (which really means the large corporations) ...

        ...guide the nation to peace and prosperity.

        What could possibly be wrong with that national philosophy?
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396285].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author UnkwnUsr
    The same people who say global warming is not real will also be pushing to build sea walls higher to protect communities from "natural weather cycles". So in the end the result is the same whether you believe or not, very convenient.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8393044].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ian Jackson
    First I apologize for not trawling through the bulk of this thread...

    IMHO, the Human race (by virtue of hardened brainwashed extremists using weapons) will make itself extinct before any environmental problems give us too much to worry about

    just my 2c
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394138].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Ian Jackson View Post

      First I apologize for not trawling through the bulk of this thread...

      IMHO, the Human race (by virtue of hardened brainwashed extremists using weapons) will make itself extinct before any environmental problems give us too much to worry about

      just my 2c
      I think you're wrong. I think we will kill ourselves by dying from breathing hot air with little oxygen.

      I'll bet you $100 that's how we all die. If we all die from weapons first, I'll give you $100. Deal?
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    Read the sunspots

    "Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists."

    "Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

    In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

    Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394261].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author subisa852
    Yes, I do believe in global warming and what we are experiencing right now like floods, heat wave and super typhoon is the effect of it. Too bad that we, human being is still abusing mother earth by emitting large percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8394624].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I never said climate change wasn't happening people. I said WARMING isn't. What we have is desertification caused by land clearing.........it's actually getting colder. Don't believe me - just read what independent global climatologists have to say about it.

    www.icecap.us
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8395659].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      I never said climate change wasn't happening people. I said WARMING isn't. What we have is desertification caused by land clearing.........it's actually getting colder. Don't believe me - just read what independent global climatologists have to say about it.

      www.icecap.us
      Actually, what we really have is cycles of hotter and cooler periods that have nothing to do with humans nor CO2. There have been times, in the past, that we're cooler with more CO2 and hotter with less. After an ice age (mini or extended) there is warming. After hotter periods there is cooling. It really is as simple as that.

      There will be an extremely long term trend towards warming, that is an inescapable fact. Our Sun is running out of fuel and will expand and expand until it swallows the entire Earth in about 7-8 billion years. That has nothing to do with humans nor CO2.

      In the meantime, we'll have hotter cycles and cooler cycles and that doesn't have anything to do with humans nor CO2 either.

      Hope that helps...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8395691].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author trader909
        Banned
        Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

        Actually, what we really have is cycles of hotter and cooler periods that have nothing to do with humans nor CO2. There have been times, in the past, that we're cooler with more CO2 and hotter with less. After an ice age (mini or extended) there is warming. After hotter periods there is cooling. It really is as simple as that.

        There will be an extremely long term trend towards warming, that is an inescapable fact. Our Sun is running out of fuel and will expand and expand until it swallows the entire Earth in about 7-8 billion years. That has nothing to do with humans nor CO2.

        In the meantime, we'll have hotter cycles and cooler cycles and that doesn't have anything to do with humans nor CO2 either.

        Hope that helps...
        So what you are saying is man mad co2 emmisions have no effect on temperature?

        I mean that alone goes against basiv science 101. it's not complicated.

        co2 in atmosphere traps suns rays and thus increases temp.

        Man = pumps out billions of tons of co2 each year..

        therefore....1+1 = 2

        BUT you know different. Great stuff...source of this? I'd like to read it.

        Guys and girls if Tudor is right and can actually back it up with real science I might have to change my mind. I'd love to be wrong on this one.

        Please supply the links.

        thx Tudor. Hope that helps?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396138].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    You might want to learn some of that "basic science 101" then because what the whole "man-made global warming" hysteria is based on is called junk science.

    I've already posted links of warmer periods in the past and we all know there have been ice-ages. You only THINK you know it's due to CO2. :rolleyes:

    IF it were due to CO2 and we keep putting out more and more of it then we wouldn't be in the current warming pause that even the silly alarmists have admitted to. The CO2 based warming predictions are *all* based on flawed computer models that haven't even been accurate so far so why should anyone but the gullible think that they'll be accurate, long term, in the future?

    Is the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ consensus on the point of collapse?

    "At the very least, let’s hear no more about this theory being ‘incontrovertible’

    As the snow began falling on Saturday, I said to my wife “what do you want to bet that someone will cook up an explanation that all this is caused by global warming”? It was a joke: but when I looked at that morning’s Independent newspaper, there it was already, under the headline “Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?”"

    "The fact is, as the WSJ article says (and as I have said in this column before) that large numbers of scientists don’t accept this supposed consensus, and more and more of them are putting their heads above the parapet to say so. The reason is simple: that more and more “incontrovertible” facts are suggesting that the “consensus” has more to do with ideology than science: the most inconvenient truth, perhaps, is the fact that for more than a decade there has been no global warming to speak of, despite the fact that man-made CO2 continues to grow apace. The scientific establishment has no explanation of this, as emerged with wonderful irony in the so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009, and particularly in an email from a climate scientist called Kevin Trenberth, who wrote baldly (and he thought secretly) that “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    The fact is that the whole anthropogenic warming theory is based not on observation but on computer models: in this case, it seems, computer models in which so-called “feedbacks” involving water vapour and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. It is, incidentally, interesting that none of the computer models which feed the theory, not one, predicted the present global warming pause: so why, one might ask, should one have any faith at all in their predictive powers about anything else?"


    Hope that helps.....but it wont.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396177].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author trader909
      Banned
      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      You might want to learn some of that "basic science 101" then because what the whole "man-made global warming" hysteria is based on is called junk science.

      I've already posted links of warmer periods in the past and we all know there have been ice-ages. You only THINK you know it's due to CO2. :rolleyes:

      IF it were due to CO2 and we keep putting out more and more of it then we wouldn't be in the current warming pause that even the silly alarmists have admitted to. The CO2 based warming predictions are *all* based on flawed computer models that haven't even been accurate so far so why should anyone but the gullible think that they'll be accurate, long term, in the future?

      Is the 'anthropogenic global warming' consensus on the point of collapse?

      "At the very least, let's hear no more about this theory being 'incontrovertible'

      As the snow began falling on Saturday, I said to my wife "what do you want to bet that someone will cook up an explanation that all this is caused by global warming"? It was a joke: but when I looked at that morning's Independent newspaper, there it was already, under the headline "Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?""

      "The fact is, as the WSJ article says (and as I have said in this column before) that large numbers of scientists don't accept this supposed consensus, and more and more of them are putting their heads above the parapet to say so. The reason is simple: that more and more "incontrovertible" facts are suggesting that the "consensus" has more to do with ideology than science: the most inconvenient truth, perhaps, is the fact that for more than a decade there has been no global warming to speak of, despite the fact that man-made CO2 continues to grow apace. The scientific establishment has no explanation of this, as emerged with wonderful irony in the so-called "Climategate" scandal in 2009, and particularly in an email from a climate scientist called Kevin Trenberth, who wrote baldly (and he thought secretly) that "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

      The fact is that the whole anthropogenic warming theory is based not on observation but on computer models: in this case, it seems, computer models in which so-called "feedbacks" involving water vapour and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. It is, incidentally, interesting that none of the computer models which feed the theory, not one, predicted the present global warming pause: so why, one might ask, should one have any faith at all in their predictive powers about anything else?"


      Hope that helps.....but it wont.
      i do not see any scientific paper to back your "ramblings"

      Post scientific papers that prove your theories.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396577].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        This year, we had the coldest winter on record and the longest for that matter.

        As it came to an end, I watched a documentary and it was confirmed on the weather that the jet stream had moved and would remain where it was for the next ten years bringing endless rain drenched and crap summers.

        Having had the hottest summer in years and a sun tan I normally pay good money to go on holiday for, I'm still waiting for that bloody jet stream to shift and bring ten years of rain.

        But they know, they know....
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396601].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author trader909
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

          This year, we had the coldest winter on record and the longest for that matter.

          As it came to an end, I watched a documentary and it was confirmed on the weather that the jet stream had moved and would remain where it was for the next ten years bringing endless rain drenched and crap summers.

          Having had the hottest summer in years and a sun tan I normally pay good money to go on holiday for, I'm still waiting for that bloody jet stream to shift and bring ten years of rain.

          But they know, they know....
          right......thx
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    Warmer past:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/sc...wanted=1&_r=2&

    "The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.

    The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic.

    Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming."

    They missed elements that lead to greater warming...like Sun cycles and other natural causes. Deja Vu
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396302].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      So since they haven't done a great job they couldn't possibly ever do a good job - so just abolish the agency altogether right?


      The Koch bros would really love that.

      Is that where you're headed with your attitude or are you already there?
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Yes, root for the crazies/deniers in congress, the Koch bros and other big time polluters really love that.

      So since the EPA hasn't done a great job they couldn't possibly ever do a good job right?

      Never ever right?

      I'm in favor of a "mend it don't end" it policy for the EPA.

      Yea, I get it now, keep the feds out of everything and let the free market...

      ... (which really means the large corporations) ...

      ...guide the nation to peace and prosperity.

      What could possibly be wrong with that national philosophy?
      Wow you really get your panties in a bunch when someone calls out the corruption of big govt. don't you.
      Instead of getting rid of those agencies, how about the administration stop appointing people who are tied to those large corporations that you seem to think I favor? Do we really need former Monsanto execs in charge of our food safety? Do we need a paid monsanto supporter in charge of the USDA or EPA?
      If you favor "mend it don't end it" maybe you ought to talk to the person in charge. He's the one in bed with the corporations, not me.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396442].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Wow you really get your panties in a bunch when someone calls out the corruption of big govt. don't you.

        Instead of getting rid of those agencies, how about the administration stop appointing people who are tied to those large corporations that you seem to think I favor? Do we really need former Monsanto execs in charge of our food safety? Do we need a paid monsanto supporter in charge of the USDA or EPA?

        If you favor "mend it don't end it" maybe you ought to talk to the person in charge. He's the one in bed with the corporations, not me.
        The infiltration and corruption in big gov is certainly no surprise to me and I'm the last person to claim the fed gov and the POTUS are perfect.

        Many POTUS appointments have frustrated me in the past and let's not forget many appointments must also be cleared through congress.

        There's lots of stuff to complain about in them there hills.

        But...

        Instead of cheering on the crazies and deniers (like you seemed to be doing when you said "great" in response to my post)...

        ...and those who would further hamper the EPA from doing its' job,...

        (I know, I know, they've been doing a terrible job of late.)

        ...I don't have my head in the sand but I'd simply rather take a mend it attitude towards the federal gov - since it has enormous potential to help affect American lives in a very positive way.

        It did a great job from about 1945 to around 1980 but not so much since - to put it lightly.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396555].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          ...I don't have my head in the sand but I'd simply rather take a mend it attitude towards the federal gov - since it has enormous potential to help affect American lives in a very positive way.
          As much as you may not think so, that's where we agree.
          The corruption is something that has flourished and it's from both sides.
          If the EPA and FDA did what they where suppose to do they would be great agencies. But they don't. They both need to be totally rebuilt. The reason I agreed with them being stopped from weighing the benefits of curbing carbon emissions when crafting major energy-related regulations is because I have no faith in them doing the right thing. They are still in the pocket of the large corporations and I can't believe they will suddenly do something to stop those corporations from polluting, not when they are allowing them to pollute more in some many other areas.
          I see it as just another diversion tactic. It's like having a forest fire and a lit match. They blow out the match and say, look we're doing something to put out the forest fire.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396628].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author trader909
      Banned
      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      Warmer past:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/sc...wanted=1&_r=2&

      "The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.

      The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic.

      Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming."

      They missed elements that lead to greater warming...like Sun cycles and other natural causes. Deja Vu
      Interesting and all..but you simply refuse every time, to even talk about man made co2 having any impact at all.

      Tell you what, tell us why man made co2 has NO effect on temp's. Credible sources of course. (something else you cannot provide)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396603].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    Are you kidding me?

    Breaking heat records like mad past 30 years or so..that means nothing to you?

    the whole anthropogenic warming theory is based not on observation but on computer models
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8396587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8397566].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    Global warming has halted: That's what happened to 'warmest year on record' | Mail Online

    "A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.

    World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'

    Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.

    Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.

    Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.

    Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.

    But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

    Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped."



    "This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.

    According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.

    Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.

    The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.

    Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years"

    Too funny...

    "Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.

    One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

    He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'

    After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.

    The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?"

    Too easy...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8398239].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

      Too funny...

      One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

      He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'

      After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.

      The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?"
      Ho hum. Reverting to that old Copenhagen "email quote mining" trick, again? :rolleyes:

      If you read the full email, you will see that Dr. Trenberth's "travesty" is that although the earth is continually heating due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide (which btw recently reached 400ppm), the current observation equipment can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system. He is actually expressing frustration that available instrumentation is inadequate to track where the energy is going.

      In his email, Trenberth referred fellow climate scientists to his paper: "An Imperative for Climate Change Planning: Tracking Earth's Global Energy" (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget; satellite data indicates the incoming energy imbalance continues unabated.

      The net result is that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening. But Trenberth was wondering with alarm that although the data shows ever increasing heat, where is all this energy going and why doesn't surface temperature continuously rise?

      Have you ever wondered or been curious yourself as to what is really happening to our planet with record amounts of carbon dioxide being dumped into our environment year after year? It's not funny.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8399444].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by trader909 View Post

      right......thx
      Oooooh sorry. Must remember not to interrupt other peoples chats on a public forum.

      Nice to meet you too and welcome to the forum.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8399450].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8400292].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Guys; I'm a climate change acknowledger....as you can tell from my posts.

      But I believe in clear thinking...more than anything else.

      Most of the sources cited (I haven't read them all, to be fair) are sources from political websites, or affiliated websites that have an agenda to push.

      And there really are real science websites with articles from climatologists.

      But I see a lot of "Oh yeah? Take this!" and just a link to another article.

      That isn't really thinking in my opinion.

      Magazines aren't edited by climatologists. so they can get a bad source.

      Maybe we should make sure our references are really from authorities in the field. And that means climatologists (or researchers working on hard climatology data gathering)....not left or right leaning websites that happen to agree with us.

      I got caught up in replying with a little of an attitude, and Sal shoved a piece of reality in my face. She didn't change my mind, but made me question a little what I accept as evidence.

      Anyway, my responses have bothered me a little of late.
      Thanks for listening.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8401833].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        Anyway, my responses have bothered me a little of late.
        Thanks for listening.
        Claude, if it would help, I'm going to be in Wooster tomorrow. I could stop by and punch you in the face. Trust me: it would hurt me more than it'd hurt you, but I'd do anything for a friend.
        Signature

        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8401893].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          Claude, if it would help, I'm going to be in Wooster tomorrow. I could stop by and punch you in the face. Trust me: it would hurt me more than it'd hurt you, but I'd do anything for a friend.
          It better be a hard punch...or the deal's off!

          "I could use a good ass kicking"--

          Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny.

          By the way, I assumed you were joking. But if you really are going to be in Wooster..stop by my store, The Sweeper Store on Cleveland Rd.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8402055].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author agmccall
            Here is a great video that I recommend

            Amazon.com: The Great Global Warming Swindle...Amazon.com: The Great Global Warming Swindle...
            (not affiliate)

            al
            Signature
            The Flu? Not worthy of a mention here???
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8402107].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            By the way, I assumed you were joking. But if you really are going to be in Wooster..stop by my store, The Sweeper Store on Cleveland Rd.
            No, I actually have a meeting in Woo Town in the morning. I just might swing by if time permits. I promise I won't actually punch you, though.
            Signature

            If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8402789].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

              No, I actually have a meeting in Woo Town in the morning. I just might swing by if time permits. I promise I won't actually punch you, though.
              Dan; I've been waiting all morning. I have on my best prom dress, make up, and perfume. I got all dolled up, and you're a no-show. For shame.:rolleyes:
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8404633].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Dan; I've been waiting all morning. I have on my best prom dress, make up, and perfume. I got all dolled up, and you're a no-show. For shame.:rolleyes:
                Just so everyone knows. I showed up and had a nice conversation with Claude. The unfortunate part was Claude wasn't kidding in the above quote. It as a little off-putting when he started singing Patsy Cline songs.
                Signature

                If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8405090].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Here's what I have a problem with ...

    10,000 years ago the planet entered the ice age - the transition from a "normal" climate to most of the northern hemisphere being frozen happened in less than ten years.

    The Medieval Warm Period lasted from 950 AD to about 1250, where the global mean temperature - at least according to all areas where we were recording it at the time, or can determine through modern tech - was higher than it is today.

    Then around 1250 AD, ice packs started showing up a lot further south in the Northern Atlantic waters. In the 1600's American settlers reported seeing Icebergs in Lake Superior. New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries.

    Every time a volcano erupts - releasing more CO2 into the air at once than we've collectively harvested since the industrial revolution - nothing really happens with the climate. Like at all. Occasionally temperatures will drop if there's an abundance of ash particles, but that's it. The region never "warms up" as a result of all of that CO2.

    But forget about the contradictory nature of Volcanos for a minute .... all of these events - the ice age, the Medieval Warm Period, the "little ice age" that followed the warming period, happened in an era where it wouldn't have been possible to suggest that humans had anything to do with it. The earth is capable of rapid climate change without our help.

    So why are people so arrogant to think that we have something to do with it now? Because there's money to be made with it, plain and simple. In the 70's, the "next ice age" was all the rage. Now it's global warming. Then global "warming" didn't pan out, so they started calling it global "climate change". It's all about creating new taxes, and offsetting them by making consumers buy products they wouldn't otherwise buy.

    The earth goes through cycles. Heck, a lot of paleontologists believe that it was climate change, not an asteroid, that killed the dinosaurs. The earth has presumably been going through warm and cold periods throughout its history. It will happen again... maybe in our lifetime.

    So rather than sitting here whining about incandescent lightbulbs and politicizing/monetizing a naturally occurring event, shouldn't we be thinking about how we're going to protect our infrastructure when we enter a rapid climate change event? Shouldn't we be working toward growing crops in climate-controlled hydroponics environments where no matter what the temperature is outside, it's exactly where we want it to be inside? Because it's not going to be something we can set up once we realize it's happening... it will be too late then.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8402169].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Every time a volcano erupts - releasing more CO2 into the air at once than we've collectively harvested since the industrial revolution - nothing really happens with the climate. Like at all. Occasionally temperatures will drop if there's an abundance of ash particles, but that's it. The region never "warms up" as a result of all of that CO2.
      Ron; I want this one. First, everything you say in your post is true to my knowledge. There are vast changes and climate cycles we go through. For example, every few hundred thousand years...Earth has an "Ice Age" (depending on exactly how you define an Ice Age). Yup, there are lots of minor cold periods and warm periods. Not exactly on a cycle...but they happen often enough.

      I quoted your paragraph on volcanoes, because it's the only place I think I have something close to an answer. Yup, volcanoes spew ash and CO2. In fact, the last time the Earth was completely covered in ice (more than an ice age) the thing that ended it was a huge volcano. At least that's what the Science channel said. Also continental drift makes and destroys land...changes in ocean temperatures cause currents to change...which sometimes locks in the cold..and sometimes locks in the heat...in different areas.

      Anyway. All of this is natural history, and geologists know more than I do.

      But.....the CO2 level is the highest it's been on Earth for 900,000 years. This has been verified from deep ice core samples.

      I think you are right about the random huge events that occur that change climate. And I certainly can't fault your logic. And volcanoes do spew carbon dioxide. But the carbon dioxide has an effect that is far overpowered by the ash blocking out the heat. Ash holds no heat. It's nearly a perfect insulator.
      and the heat from volcanoes is usually very temporary (in geological terms.)

      That's why we can do the "Fire walks" over hot coals.

      About 10 million years ago, Much of Siberia became a huge gaping volcano that changed the climate. (That's from memory..I may be off with the age. I may even be wrong.)

      The one thing that convinces me that we are in trouble...and that there is consistent warming (although there are huge spikes both ways on the journey)...is that the CO2 levels keep increasing. And recently they have been increasing at a faster rate. I'm assuming because the Earth can only reabsorb a finite amount per year. But there may be other reasons.

      There is other evidence which isn't as certain to me. But CO2 levels can be measured...accurately. Even in ice core samples.

      To me, nearly everything else can be argued...which your post does quite well.

      But CO2 holds heat. What I don't know is how much can be reabsorbed...or how quickly.

      And as far as making money on "Global warming"....I'm not well informed enough to offer an opinion. But oil, coal, and lumber companies sure don't want it to be true. So far, electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines don't seem to be the next cash cow. But again, it isn't my area.

      I sure don't want it to be true either. And I listen for intelligent arguments to keep me from worrying about it. If the waters rise...we can move. The northern ice cap melts...I won't visit the north pole. Someone here even asked if there were potential benefits of global warming. I gave it a little thought. Maybe. But I think they would be regional and temporary.


      But those damn stubborn CO2 levels keep rising. And no amount of arguing on my part seems to change that. What the CO2 levels were 10 million years ago? I don't know.

      Oh, it was an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. It blew enough super heated debris into the air that it caught the planet on fire. There is an ash ring around the planet that gathered at the same few hundred years. Everything below that ring? Plenty of fossils. Just above the ring? Nothing for some time. I guess you could say that the asteroid changed the climate...but it was very temporary.


      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      So rather than sitting here whining about incandescent lightbulbs and politicizing/monetizing a naturally occurring event, shouldn't we be thinking about how we're going to protect our infrastructure when we enter a rapid climate change event? Shouldn't we be working toward growing crops in climate-controlled hydroponics environments where no matter what the temperature is outside, it's exactly where we want it to be inside? Because it's not going to be something we can set up once we realize it's happening... it will be too late then.
      Yup. And I believe (based on experience) that we will only start work...when the sh1t hits the fan.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8402584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

    "Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.



    Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely - not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

    Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

    Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

    Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8402598].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    It's definitely real. We have a big new carbon tax to prove it!


    Andrew
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8402680].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by rondo View Post

      It's definitely real. We have a big new carbon tax to prove it!

      Andrew

      Andrew, I know you're joking, and this isn't meant for you specifically.

      But the politics do not affect the measurements of CO2. "Who's to blame?" and "Who is profiting?" are political questions. Neither question is proof of anything. They aren't even good arguments about climate change. They are arguments against another political party....

      The CO2 levels don't care about the politics. They don't care who is to blame. The CO2 levels don't even care if we exist.

      They are rising. And arguments won't change that fact.
      Temperatures rise and fall, weather changes like...well, the weather....

      But those damn CO2 levels keep rising. As uncomfortable as it is to read...it's really a fact. Not a theory...not a political strategy...a fact.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8404681].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I agree - you can argue it to death and prove nothing.

        We (may/may not) be contributing to global warming which may, in part, be due to natural phenomena.

        Throwing money and imposing taxes doesn't change a thing for the climate.

        The carbon issue is along the lines of wetlands mitigation...a/k/a useless but it sounds good.

        Problem is - some of the things we can do to limit damage are things we don't want to do. ...and there's the rub.

        How Much Energy a Smartphone Uses in a Year (And What it Means for Your Budget)
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8404843].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    you'll find that is NOT correct.

    The Medieval Warm Period lasted from 950 AD to about 1250, where the global mean temperature - at least according to all areas where we were recording it at the time, or can determine through modern tech - was higher than it is today.
    "Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe." *T

    So..yes the earth goes through cycles....doesn't negate man pushing co2 levels to over 400 p.p.m...and that is a RECORD!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8405064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    natural cycles:
    What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

    Volcanoes.

    "Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes."

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...al-warming.htm


    No doubt that science is B*S* to deniers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8405096].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    Throwing money and imposing taxes doesn't change a thing for the climate.
    I am 100%+ in the belief in man made g.w but as India and China are still to come online huge mega coal burning power stations next 5 years or so (read about coal and oil consumption it's staggering) I see no point in switching my lights off or paying "green taxes." It'll make so little difference it's pointless.

    Greed will dictate the end of this planet. Nothing else. They'' burn and profit from fosil fuels until they are depleted. (USA has HUGE,HUGE coal reserves..you will export to China)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8405159].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    But...but....i hate Al Gore so I have to deny those facts!

    But those damn CO2 levels keep rising. As uncomfortable as it is to read...it's really a fact. Not a theory...not a political strategy...a fact.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8405167].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    My god Tutor.....i don't think you can take anything in. Your mind is made up,

    but have a read here...

    Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

    No doubt your evidence trumps everything this scientist says....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8405176].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
    pot/kettle/black...

    The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes

    "Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”

    Random House dutifully printed “THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY ... coming of the New Ice Age.” This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

    OK, you say, that’s media. But what did our rational scientists say?

    In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...leading into the next ice age.”

    You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8406633].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      For the record, a number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails from the University of East Anglia CRU (Climatic Research Unit) and found no evidence of wrong doing or corruption concerning Dr Phillip Jones et al or within the peer review process itself. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

      Oh, and by the way, the New York Times published an article in 1956 regarding research begun in the late 1940's by Dr Gilbert Plass on the role of CO2 in climate change; "The general warming of the climate that has occurred in the last 60 years has been variously explained... According to a theory which was held half a century ago, variation in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide can account for climate change." ["Warmer Climate On The Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide In The Air", New York Times Oct 28, 1956, pg 191] The research conducted by Dr Gilbert Plass has statistical correlation with the overwhelming majority of climatologists today.

      Carry on.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8407050].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        Oh, and by the way, the New York Times published an article in 1956 regarding research conducted in the late 1940's on the role of CO2 in climate change; "The general warming of the climate that has occurred in the last 60 years has been variously explained... According to a theory which was held half a century ago, variation in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide can account for climate change." ["Warmer Climate On The Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide In The Air", New York Times Oct 28, 1956, pg 191]
        Really, variations of atmophereic CO2 account for global warming? Too bad it's not going up... :rolleyes:


        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?

        "Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere."

        "In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8407073].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Nice try, good sport. But, now it's more like 90% of the CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans, resulting in another pending ecological disaster from acidification. The amount of CO2 in the air is now at a record high of 400ppm. Just where have you been. LOL!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8407137].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GrowTutor
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            Nice try, good sport. But, now it's more like 90% of the CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans, resulting in another pending ecological disaster from acidification. The amount of CO2 in the air is now at a record high of 400ppm. Just where have you been. LOL!
            My study says your study is BS...

            IF CO2 causes GW and it keeps going up then why has there been a pause or decline in temps for 15 years? (see other links) Even the CRU climategate liar admits it's not going up.

            Keep trying...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8407144].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by GrowTutor View Post

              My study says your study is BS...

              IF CO2 causes GW and it keeps going up then why has there been a pause or decline in temps for 15 years? (see other links) Even the CRU climategate liar admits it's not going up.

              Keep trying...

              Ho hum. It seems you didn't get Kevin Trenberth's full email message. :rolleyes:

              See my post 208.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8407168].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
    It's my hypothesis that Earth will outlive humanity.

    So, global warming whether it exists or not, doesn't really matter.

    And remember..

    Whether the weather be cold.. Or whether the weather be hot.. We'll be together.. Whatever the weather.. Whether we like it or not.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8406879].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    Tutor.

    They once claimed the earth was flat.....did that make it right?

    Smoking was once considered to have no health problems

    They burnt people at the stake for being considered witches.

    As science took over form hokus pokus and opinion SOME of us evolved. Don't tell me you still think the earth is flat?

    Your science behind your recent theory is a FORBES article?

    Everything you state is your opinion....nothing is backed by any real science.

    Either back your theories with real science white papers or keep quiet.

    Still waiting for your scientific backed proof co2 has no effect on temp's. when will you provide this? (LOL) :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8407031].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    Banned
    ok let's carry on then..no poblem.

    It's my hypothesis that Earth will outlive humanity.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8407033].message }}