Theory of Global Warming

[dacdac]

Attention!! This is a poll based on not whether or not the earth is warming, but the theory of global warming and that man's CO2 emitions are causing a massive increase in temperature that will cause a major climate change in the next 5-10 years.

Personally, i believe its a bunch or crap. All the hype over it is political fearmongering and to earn money. The earth would still be warming even if humans had never existed on earth (when looking at a scientifical point of view, not religious, for i wish to survive this backroom visit.) CO2 makes up what, less than 1% of our atmoshpere? Correct me if im wrong.

Plus, new studies show the ice that is, or in some places was, on Mars have been melting due to increasingly powerful sun rays. So why can't the same thing happen to earth? There are so many examples of scientific studies that show that a good majorities of places aren't warming at all. some are cooling.

Anyway, just wondering what you guys thought. If anyone starts yelling at me, id be happy to depend my postition.:beam:

[English assassin]

Sigh

(1) is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

(2) have mankind's activities caused a rapid and substantial rise in CO2 levels since preindustrial times?

(3) if (1) and (2) are true, what is the most probable effect on the earth's temperature, all other things being equal?

I thenkyew.

[BDC]

Also, ice melts on Mars because Mars has these things called seasons. When it's summer at the poles, the ice melts. Ironically there have been suggestions that you could terraform Mars with some rather potent greenhouse gases too.

[doc_bean]

This question is far too black and white. That the climate of earth is undergoing a change, is almost unquestionable now, so is the fact that man has pumped *a lot* of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century or so.

That theory that emitting a greenhouse gas causes the temperature to rise seems sensible, however, climate changes have happenend in the past (the greenland ice samples prove that at least), so whether or not our CO2 emissions are the primary cause is at least a questionable assumption.

Personally I believe we should follow the principle that we should accept that there is at least a risk that we're causing it, and try to limit our impact accordingly. Better safe than sorry, as long as the measures are 'within reason', defining what is within reason is of course a very difficult issue on its own.

So Gah for me.

[Ironside]

Attention!! This is a poll based on not whether or not the earth is warming, but the theory of global warming and that man's CO2 emitions are causing a massive increase in temperature that will cause a major climate change in the next 5-10 years.


Change that to 50-100 years and we might talk again.
Point is, as CO2 stays for a long time it's an issue that adds with time. Doing nothing now makes the problem bigger in the future.

[Caius]

I voted for yes.

[dacdac]

Originally posted by Ironside
Doing nothing now makes the problem bigger in the future.
But, on the other hand, diong something now makes bigger problems now, and in the future. I think we should fully investigate the problem before any action takes place. There are so many counter examples to global warming that i dont think it is fair to say that it is a true global warming. Glaciers in Iceland are getting bigger and advancing, temperatures of thousands upon thousands of cities have cooled down over the past 150 years, etc. The fact that the whole mankind is putting out enough CO2 to cause a worldwide change is just the fearmongering tactics used so many times in the past that have proved to be false. Just b/c tons of politicians and celebrities and a couple of random skewed studies say something is true doesn't make it a fact.
Eugenics for example in the early 1900's had almost every newspaper and magazine full of how there was a stupid gene that could be passed through genererations and people who have mental disabilities, physical disabilities, or even jewish were deterred from having children. You had FDR, H.G. Wells, and magazines like Time spreading the idea of this Lamarkian theory.
The U.S. and Germany were the main leaders of eugenics, until in 1939, when the American people learned of Germans taking jews and mentally handicapped people into gas chambers and killing them. After, the war, eugenics had completely disappeared. Every politician who had supported it backed down or recanted. The celebs refused to say anything, and the newspapers stopped printing anything about it. This is the same situation. People making a general hypothesis gathered from a couple graphs they saw and everyone runs with it. The man who started the theory of global warming predicted the average U.S. temperature to be about 118 degrees farenheit by 2010. At the current rate, it seems the U.S.'s average temp will have only increased by .03 degrees farenheit in the last 20 years.

I cant wait until the documentary disproving almost everything said in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" comes out. All the top professors at the Ivy League Schools are making it conjunction with some of the top scientists in climatoligists, meteorology, and biologist and chemist to disprove the theory of global warming.

[Rodion Romanovich]

CO2 makes up what, less than 1% of our atmoshpere? Correct me if im wrong.

In a glass containing a lethal dose of cyanide mixed with water, the cyanide makes up less than 1%, possibly less than 0.001%, of the volume.

There is a parable that is even more closely related to the subject of global warming: methane. Methane constitutes a lot less of the atmosphere than the CO2, but accounts for maybe 50% of the global warming effect IIRC.



There are so many examples of scientific studies that show that a good majorities of places aren't warming at all. some are cooling.

Global average temperature increase has already been proven. Just watch the graphs and compare the rate of change today with the rate of change during the Medieval warm period. We have a 3 times as high peak as the peak during the Medieval warm period was, and that peak built up in 300 years during the Medieval warm period while out peak has built up in no more than 50 years.

[Rodion Romanovich]

But, on the other hand, diong something now makes bigger problems now, and in the future. I think we should fully investigate the problem before any action takes place. There are so many counter examples to global warming that i dont think it is fair to say that it is a true global warming.

Name one counter-example to increasing global average temperature. AFAIK there are none. People who quote single examples of colder temperature haven't understood what global warming is, it makes about as much sense speaking of 5 cold places on earth or 5 cold winter days at your place as it does to state that the fact that there's 250 degrees centigrade in my oven would be a proof of global warming.

[TevashSzat]

Those who say Global Warming is nonsense is right in the sense that we will probably not see any significant threat to our civilization within a couple of decade, but global warming isn't something that you could stop overnight, even if the human civilization stop emitting all greenhouse gases right now, it would still take us around half a century to counteract what we have been emitting. By the time global warming becomes too obvious to ignore, it would be too late and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

[Csargo]

This question is far too black and white. That the climate of earth is undergoing a change, is almost unquestionable now, so is the fact that man has pumped *a lot* of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century or so.

That theory that emitting a greenhouse gas causes the temperature to rise seems sensible, however, climate changes have happenend in the past (the greenland ice samples prove that at least), so whether or not our CO2 emissions are the primary cause is at least a questionable assumption.

Personally I believe we should follow the principle that we should accept that their is at elast a risk that we're causing it, and try to limit our impact accordingly. Better safe than sorry, as long as the measures are 'within reason', defining what is within reason is of course a very difficult issue on its own.

So Gah for me.

:yes: I agree.

[gaelic cowboy]

All of this depends on the idea there is some base climate the earth must maintain for life untrue. The climate has been hotter colder there has even and correct me if i am wrong but a time when the air was of a lower or higher oxygen content etc etc. Greenies want to scare you into believing that the world will end in some kind of soylant green/blade runner industrial wasteland. Yes the earth is getting warmer are we causing it I would say yes. Is it terminal for humans if it gets even more warm I would say no. Will the oceans rise storms occur more often yes yes yes. However unlike that film the day after tommorow its unlikely to affect the europe or the usa. Insofar as these countries have both the financial and hunam resources to overcome the obstacles thrown up. Now we have a question do we care enough about the people in say africa to say help them to overcome encroaching desert deforestation etc etc. Answer NO:help:

[TevashSzat]

May I remind you that Manhattan lies on an island and should there be a major Hurricane there, there will undoubtedly be record losses in money and human lives. What is more likely is that Katrinas will keep on occuring more frequently resulting is huge insurance hikes or just refusal of coverage in those areas causing masive financial problems for many who live close to the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, droughts may occur that could easily cause food prices to spike throughout the US.

[gaelic cowboy]

May I remind you that Manhattan lies on an island and should there be a major Hurricane there, there will undoubtedly be record losses in money and human lives. What is more likely is that Katrinas will keep on occuring more frequently resulting is huge insurance hikes or just refusal of coverage in those areas causing masive financial problems for many who live close to the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, droughts may occur that could easily cause food prices to spike throughout the US.

True on all counts but US/EU and can react better to a catastrophe than say Algeria. And before it's brought up New Orleans was terrible and yes it was not sorted properly but it was still only one city and geography is against it anyway. The world will not collapse overnight because I cant get insurance for my house or business. The US/EU can use it's vast land area to basically move to somewhere safer insurance wise. Food will go up only if supply is interupted since wheat is a large part of the diet and depends on specific conditions there will be years that food increases in price. However again the only people likely to starve will be in the third world. In case people did not realise many food staples have increased in price anyway due to increased energy prices. My real point if I even have a point I suppose is what can we do about it anyway. We cannot no matter how smart we are manage the weather if you start reading stuff about removing C02 from the atmospere or managing the climate then compost said article straight away. The best we can do is slightly reduce the amount we pump up there but we will have to live with a certain amount up there. My main problem with the Global warming idea is not that I dont believe it but I feel someone is pulling me along on some religous quest for utopia. Here is one for ye all just came to me I think it is classic Food miles are supposed to be bad ok yet greenie groups still want me to buy fairtrade coffee and tea hello food miles what happened to ye do they only count for multinationals or what.
By the way this is not attack on you Xdeathfire I am just sounding off like father jack in the corner of craggy island.

[TevashSzat]

But you do know that Us/Eu is horribly dependent on underdeveloped countries right? If there was a sever labor shortage in China due to labor shortage, you will see a difference with 100$ t-shirts and 500$ sneakers since most of all common US consumer goods come from labor in underdeveloped countries.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Those who say Global Warming is nonsense is right in the sense that we will probably not see any significant threat to our civilization within a couple of decade, but global warming isn't something that you could stop overnight, even if the human civilization stop emitting all greenhouse gases right now, it would still take us around half a century to counteract what we have been emitting. By the time global warming becomes too obvious to ignore, it would be too late and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

I could say the same for those who deny the existance of god. It wont affect you while your alive but it will be only too obvious when your dead so you better start praying now. Of course I have no more proof of the existence of god than you do of man made global warming but think of the consequences if your wrong. Its the same scare tactic.

[gaelic cowboy]

True but they depend on us to buy the goods too and as long as there are poor people there will always be a ready supply of labour for T-shirt companies.

[JimBob]

But, on the other hand, diong something now makes bigger problems now, and in the future. I think we should fully investigate the problem before any action takes place.

What problems will be caused because we decide to not wait for proof that mankind is affecting global warming and do something about stopping what is believed to be our contribution to it. Some companies will have to spend some money to cut down on emissions. We will probably end up with a new fuel source.

Do you have insurance? Its the same idea.


I could say the same for those who deny the existance of god. It wont affect you while your alive but it will be only too obvious when your dead so you better start praying now. Of course I have no more proof of the existence of god than you do of man made global warming but think of the consequences if your wrong. Its the same scare tactic.

1) There is scientific evidence for man made global warming. It is not definitive but its more than there is for God.
2) God is a personal choice. At the end of the day it only affects you because I don't believe you don't go to hell. But if you don't believe in global warming and pollute like crazy, I get roasted by the sun.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well lets proceed with caution on any thing to do with climate change. Not so long ago asbestos was supposed to be great for use in buildings now we pay hazmat people to remove it safely.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What problems will be caused because we decide to not wait for proof that mankind is affecting global warming and do something about stopping what is believed to be our contribution to it. Some companies will have to spend some money to cut down on emissions. We will probably end up with a new fuel source.



The biggest mistake most who support the global warming theory I see is that we should concentrate on how to adapt to changing climate, not on how to control it. The earth has been far hotter in the past and we are still here. The only thing constant about our climate is that its constantly changing.

[gaelic cowboy]

The biggest mistake most who support the global warming theory I see is that we should concentrate on how to adapt to changing climate, not on how to control it. The earth has been far hotter in the past and we are still here. The only thing constant about our climate is that its constantly changing.

I totally agree we cant cotrol it and we shouldnt even try to. If as I believe we are causing global warming and yet we still can put up loads of counter arguments that tells me we would only mess up trying to control climate change. We should just roll with the punches so to speak and accept certain losses.

[dacdac]

Why do you guys make me do this? Here is a list of credible sources you can look up for yourself to see if i quoted it wrong. Since i have a climatologist in my family with a doctor's degree in climatology, and since he's the one who gave me some of these sources, there is no way you can deny them.
He works for NASA and says there is not a single co worker he has that actually believes in global warming b/c of their research.

He's even tried to be on the news, CNN to be exact, but they wouldn't have him for they felt he was wrong and was using skewed data tables.

Here are a couple graphs from random spots in Antarctica, where over 80% of the glaciers are growing and advancing. All the graphs you see from Antarctica are from the Antarctic Peninsula which makes up less than 5% of all of the continent. That Peninsula has been warming, but only by .4 degrees celcius in the past 50 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700890090008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700891080009&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700890090008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700899670008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

And this one from the middle of Greenland shows less than a 1 degree celcius change in the past 110 years! Of course some places are still warming ever since we got out of the LIA, or little ice age, or the medieval period that lasted for a couple hundred years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1


one from the capital of Iceland. Again, about a .4 change in over a 100 years where man was putting out the most greenhouse gasses:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

But wait, there's more! Take a look at these for now and i'll get back to you with more later.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

He works for NASA and says there is not a single co worker he has that actually believes in global warming b/c of their research.



Yet they always quote NASA as confirming global warming. Its the same with the IPCC report. Its not wriiten by the scientists but by the politicians who paid for the study.

[gaelic cowboy]

Its a well known fact that the Vikings when they lived in greenland experienced a differant climate to the one today eventually it got too cold and they either left or died out. But the problem is that was a natural thing but there is nothing natural about industrial smog and C02 and the like. Is it having an affect of course it is you dont get something for nothing. Is global warming real we really cant tell only people who look back if they are around will be able to tell.

[dacdac]

What problems will be caused because we decide to not wait for proof that mankind is affecting global warming and do something about stopping what is believed to be our contribution to it. Some companies will have to spend some money to cut down on emissions. We will probably end up with a new fuel source.

The problem with all of you who argue that point is you never think of the after effects. Every good action has a bad reaction to it. you can not do god without causing some bad. It's ying and yang in these situations

So, companies spend more money cutting down CO2 emmissions has no bad effects? We went through this in civics and economics class.

Looking through the eyes of an American Industrial business

Okay, Industry A, now abiding to the laws of cutting down CO2 and other greenhouse gas emmissions, has to pay more to be able to do that.
Well, to compensate for that increase in price, they either 1, charge more for their products, or 2. go over seas for cheap labor.
Now, let's say they go with 1.
now that their things cost more, you have to pay more to purchase it and a higher inflation rate occurs. This higher price on pretty much every thing you can think of buying except some foods puts even more people into poverty than previously. The value of our currency goes down. People lose jobs and homes and cars as they can't afford anything as most stuff is made in industrial businesses. Any business who uses paper has to pay more as paper mills have to pay more to cut down emmissions and sel it for more to gain a profit. Everything you buy goes up in price to keep items priced at an equal ratio and to keep up competition.

now, if 2 happens, then more and more companies go over seas to places like China and India where labor is cheap. Jobs are lost all over America, and fewer and fewer products are made here, making everything more expensive as it now has to be shipped over and exported back to America.

So, if you think that we should do something about a theory based on loose information with thousands and thousands of scientists screaming thier heads off trying to show that they have proof that it is wrong, then go ahead.
I know your kind of people, and you dont think of the consequences of your actions. Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions

[ShadeHonestus]

Everyone talks about these greenhouse gases, but limit it to evil man, without paying attention to to the actual Greenhouse Effect. If somebody else wishes to research the truth of what has the biggest impact toward the actual greenhouse effect rather than me just spewing it out to have it ignored. Maybe if these man made doom experts actually participated in finding rather than only exercising sham reasoning in the blind supporting of an issue based on rhetoric and incomplete science, we'd get the real picture.


I'll even give you two words that you'll never see in the New York Times or CNN, or even Fox (the oppose the argument but likewise fail to represent the science).

Sun Cycles (actually the term cycles is a bit misleading as it doesn't really mean a predictable cycle, read further at your own peril. In fact, just read up on the sun and its radiation in general.)
Water Vapor


Now run...run and find....dare you....



Coincidentally the mention of Vikings in Greenland bears merit. They were largely the victim of another such event of the sun and the resulting atmosphere here on earth.

[gaelic cowboy]

The problem with all of you who argue that point is you never think of the after effects. Every good action has a bad reaction to it. you can not do god without causing some bad. It's ying and yang in these situations

So, companies spend more money cutting down CO2 emmissions has no bad effects? We went through this in civics and economics class.

Looking through the eyes of an American Industrial business

Okay, Industry A, now abiding to the laws of cutting down CO2 and other greenhouse gas emmissions, has to pay more to be able to do that.
Well, to compensate for that increase in price, they either 1, charge more for their products, or 2. go over seas for cheap labor.
Now, let's say they go with 1.
now that their things cost more, you have to pay more to purchase it and a higher inflation rate occurs. This higher price on pretty much every thing you can think of buying except some foods puts even more people into poverty than previously. The value of our currency goes down. People lose jobs and homes and cars as they can't afford anything as most stuff is made in industrial businesses. Any business who uses paper has to pay more as paper mills have to pay more to cut down emmissions and sel it for more to gain a profit. Everything you buy goes up in price to keep items priced at an equal ratio and to keep up competition.

now, if 2 happens, then more and more companies go over seas to places like China and India where labor is cheap. Jobs are lost all over America, and fewer and fewer products are made here, making everything more expensive as it now has to be shipped over and exported back to America.

So, if you think that we should do something about a theory based on loose information with thousands and thousands of scientists screaming thier heads off trying to show that they have proof that it is wrong, then go ahead.
I know your kind of people, and you dont think of the consequences of your actions. Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions

Broadly in agreement with you on this one man actions have consequences.
like I said earlier it seem to be more an article of faith and dogma really.
Global warming has morphed from an enviromental concern to a mortal sin
Food miles are bad if I am Tesco but not if I am a farmer selling fairtrade coffee.
Apparently my dad is helping to warm the planet by farming cattle but we come from Ireland our climate is perfect for a grass based animal grazing.
If I buy meat from my dad it has low food mile ergo it should balence out.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but there is nothing natural about industrial smog and C02

Nothing natural about CO2. Ill have to rememeber that :laugh4:

They even got to you Cowboy :yes:

All this talk of treating CO2 like its a poison. Tell you what. Try living without it.

[ShadeHonestus]

Nothing natural about CO2. Ill have to rememeber that :laugh4:

They even got to you Cowboy :yes:

All this talk of treating CO2 like its a poison. Tell you what. Try living without it.

Or try calculating the real contribution of Co2 to the global warming effect, its even more entertaining.

[gaelic cowboy]

Nothing natural about CO2. Ill have to rememeber that :laugh4:

They even got to you Cowboy :yes:

All this talk of treating CO2 like its a poison. Tell you what. Try living without it.

:oops:

Sorry I meant the levels industry are pumping up into the atmosphere obviously.
Thanks for correcting me I didnt realise they had infected me the bloody :furious3:
I was just about to buy a fairtrade coffee put on a hemp shirt and vote labour in our elections this summer here in ireland :laugh4: NOT
We will have to live with a certain amount of it pumped out and there is no two ways around it we just gotta live with fullstop.
Anyone ever notice how its all about changing lifestyle apparently like its some kind of diet. The one thing they never say is if we have to cut back because it killig us then poor people have to stay where they are in the third world. We cant cut levels back and then hand those levels to others that changes nothing.

[Ironside]

Every politician who had supported it backed down or recanted. The celebs refused to say anything, and the newspapers stopped printing anything about it. This is the same situation.

And you know that this is the same situation by?

BTW eugenics isn't Lamarkian, rather the opposite (Lamarkian is that you inherit the traits of what their parents did during thier life time).


People making a general hypothesis gathered from a couple graphs they saw and everyone runs with it. The man who started the theory of global warming predicted the average U.S. temperature to be about 118 degrees farenheit by 2010. At the current rate, it seems the U.S.'s average temp will have only increased by .03 degrees farenheit in the last 20 years.

While I'm not familiar with the dude that you're talking about, I can say that the theory of man made global warming is about 100 years old. But as the CO2 emissions were much smaller at the time, it wasn't considered to be a factor to bother about.


I cant wait until the documentary disproving almost everything said in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" comes out. All the top professors at the Ivy League Schools are making it conjunction with some of the top scientists in climatoligists, meteorology, and biologist and chemist to disprove the theory of global warming.

Good luck to them. It should be interesting to see what they come up with when they're done.


I could say the same for those who deny the existance of god. It wont affect you while your alive but it will be only too obvious when your dead so you better start praying now. Of course I have no more proof of the existence of god than you do of man made global warming but think of the consequences if your wrong. Its the same scare tactic.

Well firstly there's a bit more proof of global warming than God. Secondly I was planning to live for another 50-60 years and if the prognoses are correct, then the changes will be quite clear at that point.


The biggest mistake most who support the global warming theory I see is that we should concentrate on how to adapt to changing climate, not on how to control it. The earth has been far hotter in the past and we are still here. The only thing constant about our climate is that its constantly changing.
This one I can agree with.


one from the capital of Iceland. Again, about a .4 change in over a 100 years where man was putting out the most greenhouse gasses:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1

But wait, there's more! Take a look at these for now and i'll get back to you with more later.

Do you have graphs on the temperature on a larger scale? Like Europe, America or on global scale?

As for a 0,4 degree change, it might not sound much, until you consider that the temperature between the coldest and the warmest year shifts about 3-4 degrees on the places we the temperature varies a lot.
Growing glaciers on Antarctica indicates more snow than anything as that place is so frozen from the start.

dacdac you're aware that the economical reasons is why it's planned to reduce the CO2 emissions with quite a low coefficient at first? You know that makes our fellow Americans go "the reduced emssions is so small that even if it would make a difference (aka made human global warming is true) it still won't matter, so I'm saying that we should do nothing."


Sun Cycles (actually the term cycles is a bit misleading as it doesn't really mean a predictable cycle, read further at your own peril. In fact, just read up on the sun and its radiation in general.)
Solar variations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation). The part about global warming is quite interesting.


Water Vapor

The strongest greenhouse gas on earth with a wide margin and without it advanced life would only be sustatinable around the equator. Learnt in basic school (don't remember the exact class). It's 20 degrees or something IIRC.

The increase would not by itself be such disastrous, it's more the political and economical disruptions of rapid temperature changes that it the interesting part.

Why are this myth maintained among the population according to you? Politically it's better to ignore it you know (better economics= more money, more jobs (usually) and thus more taxes).
A devious plan to hurt the US economy by the the Europeian NWO headquarters, while doing minor damage to their own financial networks?


All this talk of treating CO2 like its a poison. Tell you what. Try living without it.
It causes shortness of breath, difficulty in breathing, rapid pulse rate, headaches, hearing loss, hyperventilation, sweating, and fatigue, from 1000ppm (0,1%) (highest recommended level is 0,5 for in a working space, so I'm guessing it's not that serious for most people), at 1,5% this will came in a few hours. At 3% people can suffer serious symptoms, including nausea, dizziness, mental depression, shaking, visual disturbances and vomiting. If exposure persists, people may pass out and at about 7-10%% they will die.

I'm happily living without it, thank you very much, although the plants would probably complain after a while. :logic:

[doc_bean]

Okay, Industry A, now abiding to the laws of cutting down CO2 and other greenhouse gas emmissions, has to pay more to be able to do that.
Well, to compensate for that increase in price, they either 1, charge more for their products, or 2. go over seas for cheap labor.
Now, let's say they go with 1.
now that their things cost more, you have to pay more to purchase it and a higher inflation rate occurs. This higher price on pretty much every thing you can think of buying except some foods puts even more people into poverty than previously. The value of our currency goes down. People lose jobs and homes and cars as they can't afford anything as most stuff is made in industrial businesses. Any business who uses paper has to pay more as paper mills have to pay more to cut down emmissions and sel it for more to gain a profit. Everything you buy goes up in price to keep items priced at an equal ratio and to keep up competition.


Wow, sounds dramatic, has anyone bothered to calculate hopw much these prices would increase ? Because the best estimates I know say a 2% loss of gross national product might occur. Nothing apocalyptic about that...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It causes shortness of breath, difficulty in breathing, rapid pulse rate, headaches, hearing loss, hyperventilation, sweating, and fatigue, from 1000ppm (0,1%) (highest recommended level is 0,5 for in a working space, so I'm guessing it's not that serious for most people), at 1,5% this will came in a few hours. At 3% people can suffer serious symptoms, including nausea, dizziness, mental depression, shaking, visual disturbances and vomiting. If exposure persists, people may pass out and at about 7-10%% they will die

So your telling me that if I inhale pure CO2 Im going to die? Maybe your confusing it with carbon monoxide :laugh4: CO2 is not poisonous. You do realise it only makes up .03% of the atmosphere?


I'm happily living without it, thank you very much

You cant. :wall:


Well firstly there's a bit more proof of global warming than God.

Well I see it the other way around and Im not sure theres even a god. :no:

[dacdac]

Originally posted by Ironside
I can say that the theory of man made global warming is about 100 years old. But as the CO2 emissions were much smaller at the time, it wasn't considered to be a factor to bother about.

Well, seeing how the big environmental issue up to the late 1970's was the theory of Global Cooling, and that there was a larger increase in temperature from 1900-1940 than from 1940-2000, i dont think the CO2 had much to do with it. And im not arguing the fact that the earth may or may not be warming, im arguing the fact that humans are putting out enough dangerous chemicals to cause a significant change in global climate, which is what the Theory of Glabal Warming is.


BTW eugenics isn't Lamarkian, rather the opposite (Lamarkian is that you inherit the traits of what their parents did during thier life time).

If you were born normal, got in a crash and became mentally unstable the gov't would still put in a institute and sterilize you for they thought you had developed the stupid gene and could pass it on. They were several cases where if you lost a body part you would be sterilized for you had a bad gene that could then be passed on, dilluting the perfect human race. In essence, eugenics was a hidden form of racism.


The earth would still be warming right now even if humans had never existed on this planet. It is a continous cycle that the earth has gone through since basically its existence. Ever since the Little Ice Age of the medieval times, the earth has been warming. All of the little "ice core samples" the global warming activists use is complete crap seeing as how they can't tell you how the temp was on a world wide basis. If i pass by some ice spewing, let's say methane, with a hose, then 10,000 years later scientists would that our atmosphere was greatly made up of methane.

The Antarctic Peninsula iceberg that broke off that was the size of Rhode Island has been proven in the last few years that it was a shift in the earth underneath it, not global warming. Plus, that Rhode Island size iceberg is still the size of Rhode Island, it's just a couple of meters away from the shore now. Lastly, the Anarctic Peninsula is nothing compared to the size of the whole continent. It's the only place in Antarctica that is warming and it is the only graphs and info. you've seen by the global warming activist.

Watch the Inconvenient Truth (or in Al Gore's case, the Convenient Lie) and you'll know the guy i was talking about who made the wrong predictions. He's the professor that shoed Gore the graphs he had made. Isn't it interesting how there weren't even 3 scientists names said in that entire film. Every bit of info he got was from a "good friend of mine".

And you must have no clue how much money is being made by big companies and activists groups from brainwashing the public with skewed and incorrect data, b/c it is in the billions and billions per year.

If only people would stop letting everyone else think for them and think for themselves. If anyone actually questioned things and researched on thier own, the would find the truth. I apologize for being Socratic about this, but it's your loss. People tell me that there is no way i cant believe in it when everyone else does, and i tell them that if everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. No one questions anything anymore, they just take what they hear and accept it as fact, like a gospel of sorts. To me, you guys are the people who still believe the earth is flat and silences anyone who says it's not true.

[Ironside]

So your telling me that if I inhale pure CO2 Im going to die? Maybe your confusing it with carbon monoxide :laugh4: CO2 is not poisonous. You do realise it only makes up .03% of the atmosphere?

If you breathe an air with 80% CO2 and 20% oxygen you'll be dead within a few minutes... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2504656&dopt=Abstract. Old but the first link I've found were they actually killed stuff with CO2 poisoning.

The pH in the blood is controlled with a carbon acid buffer (CO2 disolved in water) and if the CO2 levels is too high in the air, the pH in the blood gets too low.

And I'm well aware that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is way below the dangerous dosages, but it's still poisionous by itself in higher amounts.


You cant. :wall:

All the CO2 I need is self produced, I would never need to breathe a single CO2 molecule in my life and still not lack anything of my biological functions. For humans, its a waste. For almost all ecosystems, the gas is vital though.


Well I see it the other way around and Im not sure theres even a god. :no:

You're saying that's very little evidence of a) the world is heating (global average)? b) CO2 levels is rising due to human influence? c) CO2 is a greenhouse gas? d) that it also exist stronger greehouse gases that has increased in the atmosphere due to human influence?

That it's other major factors involved when it comes to the global weather is certainly true though. Although funnily enough they do much better to describe the changes in the temperature in the past compared to the current increase.


In essence, eugenics was a hidden form of racism.
That I'm agreeing on (although a word that means the same as racism, but with no race involved could be useful, as the race didn't always matter), but I wasn't aware of the Lamarkian influence on eugenics. Thanks for the information.


The Antarctic Peninsula iceberg that broke off that was the size of Rhode Island has been proven in the last few years that it was a shift in the earth underneath it, not global warming. Plus, that Rhode Island size iceberg is still the size of Rhode Island, it's just a couple of meters away from the shore now. Lastly, the Anarctic Peninsula is nothing compared to the size of the whole continent. It's the only place in Antarctica that is warming and it is the only graphs and info. you've seen by the global warming activist.

I want global graphs, not on Antartica, as the global warming activist haven't been showing his Antartica graphs for me. And I haven't seen any serious suggestion that Antartica will melt for a very long time. If I have understood correctly there's more worries about the pack ice around Antartica and that it seems to be shrinking.


And you must have no clue how much money is being made by big companies and activists groups from brainwashing the public with skewed and incorrect data, b/c it is in the billions and billions per year.

I'm agreeing that it's a lot of desinformation from both sides, both intentional and unintentional (linking things together that may later show weaker connections that first reported, or no connections at all). And that the information keeps on shifting (getting disproved, for both sides) doesn't makes it easier.


No one questions anything anymore, they just take what they hear and accept it as fact, like a gospel of sorts. To me, you guys are the people who still believe the earth is flat and silences anyone who says it's not true.

Ahh the irony. You're aware that the earth is flat thingy is a myth, made up about 200 years ago? Using the geocentrical worldview instead of the earth is flat is much better.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you breathe an air with 80% CO2 and 20% oxygen you'll be dead within a few minutes... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=250465 6&dopt=Abstract. Old but the first link I've found were they actually killed stuff with CO2 poisoning.

And if you eat too much food you will die as well so I guess food is poisonous.


All the CO2 I need is self produced, I would never need to breathe a single CO2 molecule in my life and still not lack anything of my biological functions. For humans, its a waste. For almost all ecosystems, the gas is vital though.


No its not. Without CO2 their would be no plants and there wouldnt be enough oxygen for you to breath.


You're saying that's very little evidence of a) the world is heating (global average)?

No one denies that


CO2 levels is rising due to human influence?

I didnt say that either


CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

No kidding, So is water vapor, should we be trying to limit that?

None of this is proof that we are ruining the enviorment. Its not even close to proof.

[Agent Miles]

The globe is always warming or cooling. If it wasn’t for global warming, my home in Ohio would still be under a mile of ice and northern Europe would belong to the Neanderthals. The problem is that human beings may be creating too much carbon dioxide and this may affect the climate on good old Mother Earth. The pertinent question is what do we do about it?

The U.S. puts about 6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The going rate for a carbon credit is about twenty five U.S. dollars per ton. So, for $150 billion per annum, we can continue to pollute as always and still feel good about ourselves. BTW, that is how Al Gore does it. This is a bit more than one percent of the U.S. GNP and I am sure that our newly elected Democratic Congress can spend an extra $150 billion each year without batting an eye.

Of course, the entity that gets the $150 billion will build solar collector farms and wind mills or plant trees (albeit, a LOT of trees). We could even do this ourselves. We could even build a thousand nuclear power plants and run our economy off electricity. (These would be the pre-Three Mile Island power plants without all those safety features that they didn’t have at Chernobyl. Remember what Al Gore preached, “We can’t afford not to do this!”) However, why should we bow to every single enviro-fascist whim or live in the shadow of a nuclear cooling tower? “Mother Earth” is a time bomb/bull’s eye in space. We have built our civilization on the burial ground of a trillion extinct species. There is a place one hundred miles from here that is safe from mega-tsunamis, hurricanes and asteroid impacts where energy and resources are abundant. That place is straight up.

Within one hundred years, people will be living in comfortable, clean, positive G Space Habitats (Dyson Rings) in near Earth orbit, and within five hundred years, everyone will be. If we spent $150 billion annually on researching and creating this, it would happen much sooner. Most of the research has already been done. This isn’t a dream or a whim, it’s a solution.
For further reading: http://www.answers.com/topic/space-habitat

[dacdac]

Over the past 50 years, the amount of CO2 in the air has increased from 316 parts per million to 365 parts per million. If the atmospheric gases were the length of an american football field (100 yards), then that increase would be 3/4 of an inch of the field. That, to me, isn't enough to cause a catastrophic(sp?) worldwide change in climate.

[Ironside]

And if you eat too much food you will die as well so I guess food is poisonous.

You need food, unlike CO2. CO2 is admittably a very weak poison who you don't need to care much about outside some CO2 producing industries and confined areas with elevated O2 levels from the start.


No its not. Without CO2 their would be no plants and there wouldnt be enough oxygen for you to breath.

Paraphrasing: "CO2 is useful because without it we wouldn't have wastemanaging system that removes it and who's waste products are useful for us".

We need oxygen and removal of CO2. Any way to accomplish that would makes us survive without a problems. That plants are effective on doing both things in a practical way is exellent, but not vital (although you'll need quite a bit of technology to do it without plants).



None of this is proof that we are ruining the enviorment. Its not even close to proof.

The only risk of ruining the environment seems to be pH-drops in sea water and that is directly linked to CO2 levels, not the warming effects. Regardless of global warming, rising CO2 levels threaten marine life (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uoia-rog030807.php).
Global warming by itself is merely going to cause major discomfort during the adaption period.


Over the past 50 years, the amount of CO2 in the air has increased from 316 parts per million to 365 parts per million. If the atmospheric gases were the length of an american football field (100 yards), then that increase would be 3/4 of an inch of the field. That, to me, isn't enough to cause a catastrophic(sp?) worldwide change in climate.

And if you increase the level of VX or Sarin in the atmophere with 1 ppm (3/200 of an inch of that field) you would wipe out humanity and most other life on this planet. Percentages are quite a bit more telling.

If you're using the Mauna Loa data, 1958-1998 is 40 years (correlates to 316 and 365 ppm) CO2 graph Mauna Loa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_data_mlo.svg) and it's currently above 380 ppm.

While you might not find a 20% increase much, remember that the values at the 50-ties were already elavated and more important, the levels continue to increase.
Even with the utterly low estimation that it will increase at the same speed as between 1958-1998 (as it increases much faster today already), the levels will then be 435 ppm at 2050 and 496 pmm at 2100 (using the last decade the estimations will be around 475 ppm at 2050 and 580 at 2100). So with a very conservative calculation it's a 40% increase within 100 years.

[dacdac]

Originally posted by Ironside
While you might not find a 20% increase much, remember that the values at the 50-ties were already elavated and more important, the levels continue to increase.

i got the levels through NASA, but anyway, what has had a 20% increase? 316 out of 1000000 to your 380 out of 1000000 is not a 20% increase is it?

[doc_bean]

i got the levels through NASA, but anyway, what has had a 20% increase? 316 out of 1000000 to your 380 out of 1000000 is not a 20% increase is it?

:inquisitive: Yes it is, almost exactly.

EDIT: might as well explain: 380/316=1.20 which is the only way a 20% increase should be defined or calculated, it doesn't matter out of how much, since we're talking about the increase. Let's say 1 trillion products get sold each year in the US, and about 1 million cars, if 2 million cars would get sold the next year car sales would have doubled, it doesn't matter that 1 million barely shows up in the 1 trillion total.
Also absolute concentration will tell you very little when dealing with chemical and physical properites, as some other people have noted, serious effects can occur at the ppm or ppb level or even below, so don't think just because something is only a few % it doesn't matter. Even 1% is a huge part anyway, for many systems.

[KafirChobee]

There have been 5 or 6 (depending on which geo-anthropolgic side one agrees on) catastrophic life ending disasters on Earth since its precarious inseption (this rock could just as well still be A rock if another had not hit it).

[Plz ignore this post if you believe the world is 6500 years old, ignore scientific evidence or believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or one God]

To believe that humankind has not influenced the environment ignores the facts. Ignores the tonage of CO2, the killing of rainforests, the health of our children in industialized states, etc.

Put simply, they have their heads comfortably buried in a warm orface and do not desire anyone to have it withdrawn.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

To believe that humankind has not influenced the environment ignores the facts

Every living thing on earth effects the enviorment. Duh :whip:

Mark Twain once said " Everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it. "

I say "thats the way it should be."

[Caius]

Mark Twain once said " Everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it. "

I say "thats the way it should be."
Thats not the way it should be.

Fixed for Gawain
And I love necromancy:bounce:

[Yoyoma1910]

But, on the other hand, diong something now makes bigger problems now, and in the future. I think we should fully investigate the problem before any action takes place.

Actually, that's the mindset that allowed the NAZIs to do what they did.

Honestly, global warming is simple logic. Take a sponge and fill it with water. Now try to keep filling it with water. It stops working at a certain point. The ability of the planet to absorb pollutants is much like that. Eventually, I hope for your sake you realize that everything in this world and your life are FINITE not infinite.

You ask the farmers in France what they think about the fact that their crops are dying because of too much CO2.

[AntiochusIII]

Jeez. What are you, a demi-lich!?

Anyway, since there appears to be a new conversation...

Honestly, global warming is simple logic. Take a sponge and fill it with water. Now try to keep filling it with water. It stops working at a certain point. The ability of the planet to absorb pollutants is much like that. Eventually, I hope for your sake you realize that everything in this world and your life are FINITE not infinite.I disagree with that attitude. Global Warming appears to be a very serious issue that needs to be investigated and studied instead of villified and "rebuffed" over and over, true. But it is not -- or at least should not -- be the flagship of all environmental issues.

Serious toxic pollutions are far, far more dangerous than Global Warming is. And there are a host other environmental issues that must be solved but unfortunately ignored in favor of things ranging from economic development in developing countries to greed and corruption to pure carelessness. Those who "oppose Global Warming" (that is a strange wording now that I interpret it word by word) and adopt this attitude also will brush aside all other environmental issues with ease, aka "It's all a lie."

You ask the farmers in France what they think about the fact that their crops are dying because of too much CO2.I doubt they cry over it that much. Don't they have that...whatstheacronym, CAP?...program that gives them easy tax money already?

[Adrian II]

Honestly, global warming is simple logic. Take a sponge and fill it with water. https://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6205/fourireig6.gif (https://imageshack.us)

P.S. Honestly, global warming is highly complex. Take an IPCC report and read it.

[drone]

It's been a day already, and nobody has brought up the SCOTUS decision? No huzzahs from the tree huggers, or disapproving comments about activist judges? You guys are a bunch of slackers.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html?hpid=topnews

High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions
Critics of Bush Stance on Warming Claim Victory

By Robert Barnes and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 3, 2007; Page A01

The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued.

The issue at stake in the case, one of two yesterday that the court decided in favor of environmentalists, is somewhat narrow. But environmentalists and some lawmakers said it could serve as a turning point, placing new pressure on the Bush administration to address global warming and adding to the political momentum that the issue has received because of Democratic control of Congress and a desire from the corporate community for a comprehensive government response to the issue.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling "repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as an air pollutant subject to EPA regulation.

The ruling could also lend important authority to efforts by the states either to force the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to be allowed to do it themselves. New York is leading an effort to strengthen regulations on power-plant emissions. California has passed a law seeking to cut carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles starting in 2009; its regulations have been adopted by 10 other states and may soon be adopted by Maryland.

The decision in Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al . also reinforced the division on the Supreme Court, with its four liberal members in the majority and its four most conservative members dissenting. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's role as the key justice in this term's 5 to 4 decisions was again on display, as he sided with Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.

The case dates from 1999, when the International Center for Technology Assessment and other groups petitioned the EPA to set standards for greenhouse gas emissions for new vehicles. Four years later, the EPA declined, saying that it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases and that even if it did, it might not choose to because of "numerous areas of scientific uncertainty" about the causes and effects of global warming. Massachusetts, along with other states and cities, took the agency to court.

The court majority said that the EPA clearly had the authority to regulate the emissions and that its "laundry list" of reasons for not doing so were not based in the law. "We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding. . . . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for actions or inaction in the statute," Stevens wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote one dissent, which was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He said that global warming may be a "crisis," even "the most pressing environmental problem of our time," but that it is an issue for Congress and the executive branch. He said the court's majority used "sleight-of-hand" to even grant Massachusetts the standing to sue.

Scalia wrote another dissent, which Roberts and the others also joined, saying the EPA had done its duty when it considered the petition and decided not to act. He said the court "has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."

But reaction from even staunch supporters of the EPA's actions seemed to reflect a recognition of the changed political currents and a belief that Congress and the administration must now confront the issue, rather than leaving it to agencies or the states.

"The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers believes that there needs to be a national, federal, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases," said the alliance's president, Dave McCurdy, whose group had supported the EPA's position.

In a sign that the ruling is already reverberating on Capitol Hill, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) -- a key player in the House debate over global warming -- issued a statement saying: "While I still believe Congress did not intend for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, the Supreme Court has made its decision and the matter is now settled. Today's ruling provides another compelling reason why Congress must enact, and the President must sign, comprehensive climate change legislation."

House Democrats have vowed to pass global warming legislation by July 4, and Senate leaders are working on their version of the bill. But it is unclear what kind of plan they will adopt and whether they will pass it as soon as they have promised.

Senate leaders said they will call EPA officials before the Environment and Public Works Committee this month to ask them how they plan to deal with the court's decision.

In the other environmental case, Environmental Defense et al. v. Duke Energy Corp. et al ., the court unanimously supported a decades-old initiative aimed at forcing power plants to install pollution-control equipment.

The case involved a movement launched during the Clinton administration to force companies to install pollution-control equipment in aging coal-fired power plants. More than two dozen plants in the South and the Midwest still have cases pending.

Edit-> if a kind Moderator can get these :daisy: spoil tags working, it would be much appreciated...

[Tristrem]

I saw this on the news yesterday, it was quite interesting. I don't know who watches ABC news, but I found this article very eye opening, http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=3001691&page=1
, It deals with the island of Kiribati and how it will most likely be the first victim to global warming. At it's highest point, Kiribati is only 6 feet above sea level. The prediction is that by 2050 the island will be underwater because of rising sea levels that are caused by global warming.

I found the most touching part is the offer of New Zealand to take in the refugees from the eco- crisis. As of now, they let in 75 people a year.

With evidence like this it is hard to deny global warming is real, and that it will affect us.:sweatdrop:

Happy reading :2thumbsup:

[KafirChobee]

Knowing the industries supporting the Bush EPA stance ought to create credence that bad things are happening, and that some very powerful forces are involved in covering it up - or using misinformation to propagate the idea that "global warming is a myth". A myth created by bad people that don't comprehend the economic ramifications that changing their ways would have on America.

Truth is, that by maintaining the present course we limit the economic boon we could have by changing course. That is, our auto sales aren't down because of sales here - but, because we can't sell them anywhere else. This isn't simply because of emissions - but, because of MPG (miles per gallon). Example, China won't allow any autos in that don't get 60mpg.

Our auto-manufactors claim they can't, it's to hard to meet EPA standards or increase the mpg of their vehicles. And, yet - last year a group of former HS dropouts rebuilt a Camaro (?) for a science contest that got 60mpg, had 300hp, and went from 0-60 in 5.2 seconds. These kids weren't rocket scientists or glorified engineers, but they proved that it doesn't take anything more than common sense to improve gas mileage. The only obvious opponent to decreasing fuel usage is? Well, reference the corporations that have rewritten the EPA laws under Bush.

Btw, Global warming is no longer a theory - it is a reality. The only scientists claiming it is a "theory" are those working for the petroleum, power companys, and coal corporations.

Also, at the end of "An Inconvenient Truth" is a list of the Scientists and their organizations that supported Mr. Gore.

[BigTex]

The one major problem I have with all man made global warming theories is they all overestimate our ability to effect the climate, and all underestimate nature. Not a one even mentions the most important aspect to global warming and thats

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-9/1217097/x-ray_sun.jpg

this guy. It's currently producing more energy, is more active then any time we've known. For any global warming theory to even hold water it has to deny that the sun is going to cool down quite a bit in a decade. Simple scare mongering, and not much more.

There's very little reason to fear any form of climate change, it happens it will always. As for high's peeking higher then the medieval warm period, those are just high's, you can't judge any climate change on those. Just tell me when you can grow wine grapes in england again.

[Ser Clegane]

Just tell me when you can grow wine grapes in england again.
You can grow wine grapes in England:
Camel Valley (http://www.camelvalley.com/)
Sharpham (http://www.sharpham.com/)

~;)

[doc_bean]

Just tell me when you can grow wine grapes in england again.

Ser already proved they're growing them in England these days, I'd justlike to point out that they've already started cultivating them in parts of Belgium too, claiming that the current climate there is about equal to the climate in france when the 'big wines' got their reputation.

Global warming is pretty much undeniable, man made global warming is questionable, though we're probably contributing at least a bit, and should limit our impact.

[JR-]

i don't believe that anthropogenic warming has any significant contribution to total warming.

and i don't believe that spending trillions controlling human CO2 is a good use of funds that could be better spent mitigating natural warming.

[Andres]

Belgian politicians announced that they consider to create another function in our government, namely the function of "Minister of Climate" who will provide solutions and new measures (=new taxes) to prevent more pollution by the Kingdom Belgium...

We already have a Minister for the Environment, but apparently our benevolent leaders decided that "Climate" is not included in the term "Environment" (and don't you dare to think the Minister of Environment is incapable and is just wasting our precious tax money :no: !).

Considering the significant and important, not to say decisive, amount of pollution produced by the superpower Belgium, this is a good thing in the "War against Global Warming".

Those who think that this new Minister isn't necessary and that the function is just created to be able to please yet another useless liar/thief/politician and some 50 useless employees who are member of the same party as the new Minister are off course selfish people with no concern whatsoever for the environment and future generations. Asking the question why another few millions of euros tax money are going to be wasted is off course not done and political incorrect. And since this idea is highly supported by Walloon politicians as well, these evildoers who are asking those kind of questions are probably flemish intolerant seperatists.

Since swearing is not allowed here, I'll limit myself to GAH! GAH! and GAH! :wall: :wall: :furious3: :wall:

Linky to belgian newspaper (http://www.hln.be/hlns/cache/det/art_425829.html?wt.bron=hlnBottomArtikels)

[doc_bean]

Belgian politicians announced that they consider to create another function in our government, namely the function of "Minister of Climate" who will provide solutions and new measures (=new taxes) to prevent more pollution by the Kingdom Belgium...

We already have a Minister for the Environment, but apparently our benevolent leaders decided that "Climate" is not included in the term "Environment" (and don't you dare to think the Minister of Environment is incapable and is just wasting our precious tax money :no: !).

Considering the significant and important, not to say decisive, amount of pollution produced by the superpower Belgium, this is a good thing in the "War against Global Warming".

Those who think that this new Minister isn't necessary and that the function is just created to be able to please yet another useless liar/thief/politician and some 50 useless employees who are member of the same party as the new Minister are off course selfish people with no concern whatsoever for the environment and future generations. Asking the question why another few millions of euros tax money are going to be wasted is off course not done and political incorrect. And since this idea is highly supported by Walloon politicians as well, these evildoers who are asking those kind of questions are probably flemish intolerant seperatists.

Since swearing is not allowed here, I'll limit myself to GAH! GAH! and GAH! :wall: :wall: :furious3: :wall:

Heh every Belgian politician seems to suffer from insecurities from having to rule such a small country I suspect. They all want to be big players but can't so they overcharge us so at least they can brag about how big their 'government' is.

:shame:

[EatYerGreens]

I voted "GAH!" because:-

1) Evidence that the world is indeed warming up is abundant. Don't get me started...

2) CO2 output by mankind is, if anything, not helping the situation, so something DOES need to be done, anyway. You can completely de-couple the human contribution part from the global warming argument, if you want, but STILL not have any excuses for not being more energy-efficient.*

3) The solar-effect theory is fascinating and definitely needs more research effort to either prove or refute it but it just isn't going to get the funding because it is perceived as undermining the veracity of the arguments of the people who support the anthropogenic model, some of whom may have control over government research budgets, or sit on publication peer-review boards, or have other interests dependent on their idea. No-one like to be made a fool of and they are in a position to arrange that that does not happen.

4) You should not mistake the solar-theory scientists (or their followers) with the "vested-interest Global Warming deniers". They say that they would *very much* like to receive some cash from the oil companies and other multinationals but that they've yet to receive a penny. The also want to make it clear that they DO NOT DENY that global warming is happening, just that they don't think human activities are the SOLE cause of it. As long as you don't get these two groups confused then you can save yourself a lot of typing, by not needing to preach to the converted and so on.

5) Don't just worry about CO2 - worry about sea-bed frozen methane hydrates; methane release from thawing permafrost regions; methane from livestock.


*
I'm a firm believer in "congruent thinking". One person thinks it would be a good idea to take the family out for a drive to the beach on the Bank Holiday but is taken aback to find that thousands of other people, some of whom are in the same traffic jam as them, also had the same idea.

By the same token, if one person has the presence of mind to change their light-bulbs or {insert energy-saving measure here} then, maybe, a few million other people will think the same way and some community, in an idyllic but out-of-the-way spot, doesn't need to have a ruddy great power station slapped in its back yard.

So, even if climate change is ever proved to be "not our fault" and cannot actually be halted by changing our behaviour, there are still things we can do and behaviours we can change, to make life that little bit more tolerable, in spite of it all.

[rory_20_uk]

OK, the seas are rising. Land is flooding and climates are changing.

Even if this isn't our fault, we are still stuck on the planet, so until God comes to apologise we need to sort things out. Denial isn't helpful.

~:smoking:

[KafirChobee]

Those that remain in denial of global warming will remain so, until they accept that it is already affecting them - and even then it will be hard for them to relinquish the idea that it is being caused by some natural forces and not by man. Thing is, denying something makes it no less real.

Want to explain this? Why by 2030 all the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone. In 1850, there were 150 glaciers there - today there are 26 - in 2030 there will be zero. Maybe we ought to rename it to 'nothing happening here'.

Here are some links, for you to ignore also:

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/overview.htm

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/climate_change.htm
won't post, but is in the former for anyone interested to find.

Ignoring something, doesnot make it go away.:dizzy2:

[Ironside]

The one major problem I have with all man made global warming theories is they all overestimate our ability to effect the climate, and all underestimate nature. Not a one even mentions the most important aspect to global warming and thats

this guy. It's currently producing more energy, is more active then any time we've known. For any global warming theory to even hold water it has to deny that the sun is going to cool down quite a bit in a decade. Simple scare mongering, and not much more.


Solar variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation). I don't like to repost links in the same thread but then sun started it's cyclic cooling about 2002...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Want to explain this? Why by 2030 all the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone. In 1850, there were 150 glaciers there - today there are 26 - in 2030 there will be zero. Maybe we ought to rename it to 'nothing happening here'.

No one denys global warming lol. It will get warmer and colder regardless of what we do. It always has and always will. As I and others have stated the sun and its temperature changes and distance and angle from the earth seem a much more logical explanation, But we cant blame western man and the US especially for that so its hardly ever even mentioned. Plus theres diddly squat we can do about it. Therefore theres no money in pursuing it.

[Xiahou]

Some people, such as the well-respected hurricane forecaster, Dr. Bill Gray, think that the world may begin cooling in the next 3-8 years.


Want to explain this? Why by 2030 all the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone. In 1850, there were 150 glaciers there - today there are 26 - in 2030 there will be zero. Maybe we ought to rename it to 'nothing happening here'.That's one of the more laughable arguments of the man-made warming faithful. It suggests that glaciers have been there forever and therefore, any change in them indicates some sort of shift from the "natural" state. It then builds further on that idea by automatically assuming that humans are the cause of it all. Of course the basic premise of that argument is complete nonsense. Glaciers (and the climate itself) are always changing. If they remained static, that would be a departure from the norm. Will they all be gone by 2030? Possibly, but I think that's far from clear.

[KafirChobee]

Those that remain in denial of global warming will remain so, until they accept that it is already affecting them - and even then it will be hard for them to relinquish the idea that it is being caused by some natural forces and not by man. Thing is, denying something makes it no less real.

Want to explain this? Why by 2030 all the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone. In 1850, there were 150 glaciers there - today there are 26 - in 2030 there will be zero. Maybe we ought to rename it to 'nothing happening here'.

Here are some links, for you to ignore also:

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/overview.htm

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/climate_change.htm
won't post, but is in the former for anyone interested to find.

Ignoring something, doesnot make it go away.:dizzy2:

And, yesterday the Supreme Court said the EPA has the power to limit CO2. Today, wasn't there some conclusion by world scientists on this?

Maybe we can pull off a "Futurama" and move the planet further from the sun. As to the sun heating up and cooling down? please.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And, yesterday the Supreme Court said the EPA has the power to limit CO2. Today, wasn't there some conclusion by world scientists on this?

Another bad 5-4 ruling. So in reality one person decided this. I dont see how this belong in front of the court in the first place. And should we go by scientific conclusions and consensus or scientific fact?

[TevashSzat]

It is true that the temperature of the Earth has fluctuated before and will continue to fluctuate regtardless of our actions, but in global warming, we may not be the cause for all of the warming, but may be the ones that speed it up

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but in global warming, we may not be the cause for all of the warming, but may be the ones that speed it up


And we may not be. The operative word here being may and thats the whole point. How about we all go around holding our breath and stop all the needless speech. That would cut down on more CO2 emissions than Kyoto.

[Caius]

Talking about Kyoto.

The ONLY country in the WHOLE world who didnt joined the Protocol is the USA.One report says the 30% of the global warning is caused by the USA.The whole world can change, but if you, citizens of the USA, dont agree with the protocol the whole world will be under water or the high temperatures will burn the world.

[drone]

Talking about Kyoto.

The ONLY country in the WHOLE world who didnt joined the Protocol is the USA.One report says the 30% of the global warning is caused by the USA.The whole world can change, but if you, citizens of the USA, dont agree with the protocol the whole world will be under water or the high temperatures will burn the world.
Did Australia finally ratify?

Without any limits on China, the US will not ratify. Would China have ratified if limited like the US and EU countries are? Unlikely. Now that SCOTUS has verified that the EPA can regulate CO2, things here will probably change some, and states like California will reduce CO2 emissions, which tend to trickle down to the rest of the country.

And if we end up invading Iran, our CO2 emissions will drop down considerably. ~:rolleyes:

[Marshal Murat]

Read
State of Fear (someone already did)


There is global warming.

To whoever asked for a continental picture of Europe or US, that's impossible. The reason being that there are 'heat islands', such as Los Angeles, New York City, Baltimore. These spots have heat increases not because of a global warming trend, but because they've grown from 1884-2000.

I would also comment that there is NO WAY to predict weather patterns a year in the future. So why say "the global temperature will go up 1 degree Celsius" when you can't prove it!

The Holocene era had a degree temperature 2 Celsius higher than now, and with the expanding ice sheets in Iceland and Greenland, the water will be sucked up and the sea levels will lower.
I am actually still waiting for the Maldives, Seychelles, and Kiribati to all be flooded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


Iceland Glaciers (http://www.hi.is/~oi/icelandic_glaciers.htm)
Some basic info about the glaciers in Iceland.Sólheimajökull (http://www.hi.is/~oi/solheimajokull_photos.htm)
Glacier in Iceland.

Interestingly enough, this one is retreating, AFTER it advanced 400 meters, after a 900 meter drop from 1930-1960's.

[TevashSzat]

drone- How does the invasion of Iran = Lower CO2 emmissions?

[doc_bean]

drone- How does the invasion of Iran = Lower CO2 emmissions?

Less oil to use, though someone is bound to set a few wells on fire and ruin it again :furious3:

[AntiochusIII]

Less oil to use, though someone is bound to set a few wells on fire and ruin it again :furious3:I interpret it more...darkly, myself. Humans are, after all, quite a furious producer of CO2. :balloon:

[Caius]

Did Australia finally ratify?

Without any limits on China, the US will not ratify. Would China have ratified if limited like the US and EU countries are? Unlikely. Now that SCOTUS has verified that the EPA can regulate CO2, things here will probably change some, and states like California will reduce CO2 emissions, which tend to trickle down to the rest of the country.

And if we end up invading Iran, our CO2 emissions will drop down considerably. ~:rolleyes:
Hw did you to came at that conclsion?

[drone]

Hw did you to came at that conclsion?
Which one? I think I made several unsubstantiated claims in that post. :rolleyes2:

[Caius]

The last.

I mean, how can you know you can stop if you invade Iran?

[drone]

We will not have a choice. If we invade Iran, the price of oil will skyrocket, forcing many car-driving Americans to find alternative means of transport. We will stop generating CO2 because we will have fewer hydrocarbons to burn.

I think Bush has finally realized the predicament this country is in. Breaking our oil dependency has nothing to do with helping the environment. It is a national security issue, plain and simple. We are bent over the barrel on this, which is probably the only reason he hasn't started lobbing missiles into Iran yet. I don't know how the oil markets work, but I can imagine we would see a repeat of 1973 if we were to invade our 3rd Muslim country in 6 years.

Come to think of it, is there a single oil-exporter out there that isn't peeved with the US at this point?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

in. Breaking our oil dependency has nothing to do with helping the environment. It is a national security issue, plain and simple

And this is another reason I think of these golbal warming alarmists as crying wolf. Were going to start drasticly cutting these emissions in the near future as far as I can see. We will wean ourselves off oil before it causes any further damage , that is if it has caused any damage at all already. Now China and other developing nationns are the ones you really have to worry about if this is true and they dont have to follow strict emissions regulations.

[AntiochusIII]

they dont have to follow strict emissions regulations.Of course not. We can't even make them follow human rights for the sake of Guan Yu the Magnificent!

[drone]

Here is an example of California taking steps:
http://origin.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_5633020

Bill proposes fee for gas guzzlers
Proceeds would directly fund rebates for buyers of fuel-efficient cars
By Paul Rogers, MEDIANEWS STAFF
Article Last Updated: 04/10/2007 02:57:36 AM PDT

Call it the Robin Hood approach to global warming.

California drivers who buy new Hummers, Ford Expeditions and other big vehicles that emit high levels of greenhouse gases would pay a fee of up to $2,500.

And drivers who buy more fuel-efficient cars — like the Toyota Prius or Ford Focus — would receive rebates of up to $2,500, straight from the gas-guzzlers pockets.

Thats the provocative proposal from a SiliconValley legislator whose Clean Car Discount bill is gaining momentum, sending car dealers into a tizzy and sparking passions among motorists.

Why? Its the first time California has considered penalizing consumers to limit global warming, rather than just providing incentives such as solar power rebates or special access to the carpool lane for hybrid vehicles.

If we are going to effectively fight global warming, we are going to have to find a way to get the cleaner cars on the road and the dirtier cars off the road, said Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Los Altos. We need to have both carrots and sticks.

Not sure if this is still going to go through now that SCOTUS has allowed CARB to enforce AB1493. We should start seeing more fuel efficient vehicles coming in 2009 regardless, as California's market regulations usually drive the whole country's, just by it's sheer scale.

We do love our cute little left-coasties ~:pat: They're great to make fun of, and sometimes they just do the right thing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We do love our cute little left-coasties They're great to make fun of, and sometimes they just do the right thing.

Didnt the Govenator start a project to have hydrogyen gas stations or something like that built in Calif. over the next decade? Is that still going on?

[drone]

Didnt the Govenator start a project to have hydrogyen gas stations or something like that built in Calif. over the next decade? Is that still going on?
Not sure, was that part of AB32 (http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/)?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well I found it but Im not sure if it was part of the plan you posted.


Hydrogen fueling stations began to be built in California by the California Fuel Cell Partnership around 1999 or 2000. However, they were not systematically positioned to form a hydrogen highway.

California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, mentioned having a hydrogen highway in California when he ran for Governor. Upon winning he reaffirmed his position in a State of the State Address on January 6, 2004 by saying:

I am going to encourage the building of a hydrogen highway to take us to the environmental future... I intend to show the world that economic growth and the environment can coexist. And if you want to see it, then come to California....
Later on Schwarzenegger introduced his "Vision 2010" plan. The main objective is for every citizen in California to have access to hydrogen fuel along the state highways by 2010. In doing so, this will include 150 to 200 hydrogen stations and have them spaced out a maximum of every 20 miles.

On July 21, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a Senate Bill (SB) 76 to fund the first year of the hydrogen highway project. The bill provides $6.5 million to build the Hydrogen Highway Networkup with up to three hydrogen fueling stations, as well as allowing leasing or purchase of hydrogen vehicles by the state and requiring development of standards for hydrogen fuel by 2008.[2]

Senate Bill (SB) 1505, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger earlier 2007, puts the environmental requirements described in the California Hydrogen Highway Blueprint Plan into statute.

The California Hydrogen Net is abbreviated as CaH2Net.

[drone]

A quick Googling of that led me to this:
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/
Looks interesting, not sure how well it has been received to this date. It would be good if it picks up steam, getting the infrastructure in place is one of the main issues.

[doc_bean]

Errr...isn't hydrogen fuel generally less efficient than using oil directly ? Or are the cali people getting that much energy from nuclear/alternative sources ?

[drone]

Errr...isn't hydrogen fuel generally less efficient than using oil directly ? Or are the cali people getting that much energy from nuclear/alternative sources ?
Well, looking through that site, it looks like they mandated that the hydrogen come from clean renewable sources. So probably not nuclear, but maybe from solar and wind power. I'm not too informed on how hydrogen is used as fuel, but generally it comes 2 ways, straight hydrogen burnt in an ICE, or in a fuel cell "trapped" in some compound that is used to generate electricity. I assume electrolysis of water is the main source of hydrogen, but I don't know for sure.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

in a fuel cell "trapped" in some compound that is used to generate electricity. I assume electrolysis of water is the main source of hydrogen, but I don't know for sure.


I believe you are correct.
Heres a do it yourself site

LINK (http://knowledgepublications.com/gw3h2/gw3h2_landing_selector.htm?gclid=CKDZnIKJvosCFRckhgodmQrtuA)

[rory_20_uk]

Geothermal would be another decent source of energy. Imagine - Iceland with a string of geothermal plants (good site as the earth crust is relatively thin up there) exporting hydrogen to the world. If there's a country I've got to be dependant on, I'd not mind Iceland.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

Those that remain in denial of global warming will remain so, until they accept that it is already affecting them - and even then it will be hard for them to relinquish the idea that it is being caused by some natural forces and not by man. Thing is, denying something makes it no less real.

Want to explain this? Why by 2030 all the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone. In 1850, there were 150 glaciers there - today there are 26 - in 2030 there will be zero. Maybe we ought to rename it to 'nothing happening here'.

Here are some links, for you to ignore also:

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/repeatphoto/overview.htm

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/climate_change.htm
won't post, but is in the former for anyone interested to find.

Ignoring something, doesnot make it go away.:dizzy2:
so what?

glaciers have been disappearing and reappearing repeatedly for hundreds of millions of years!

[rory_20_uk]

We've not been around that long though. Our civilisation is again very young. I'd like to survive as a species as our current development, and not as some lost tribes in some post-apocalyptic nightmare.

I'm not worried about the world. Gaia will survive. She's a tough old maid.

~:smoking:

[The Spartan (Returns)]

yes. Arizona is snowing for goodness sakes! (90% sure)
i'm sure we will have hover cars soon.

[Xiahou]

Errr...isn't hydrogen fuel generally less efficient than using oil directly ? Or are the cali people getting that much energy from nuclear/alternative sources ?
Can't be worse than the current corn ethanol stupidity that's being pushed in the US....

Ethanol gets worse mileage, meaning you use more of it, costs more than oil, is extremely inefficient to produce, and is driving up food prices. What's not to like? :dizzy2:

But hey, at least it's a windfall for the farm lobby... :no:

[rory_20_uk]

Using maize seems to be a bad idea. That the technology isn't great at the moment doesn't worry me as long as developments are made to improve things; however I have far more faith in the way Brazil is approaching matters than how the USA is doing it.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

We've not been around that long though. Our civilisation is again very young. I'd like to survive as a species as our current development, and not as some lost tribes in some post-apocalyptic nightmare.

I'm not worried about the world. Gaia will survive. She's a tough old maid.

~:smoking:
the point being; if the earth has been repeatedly fluctuating in temperature, C02 and sea-level, by an at least an order of magnitude greater than that predicted over the next hundred years, who are we to think we can change that?

I am a Geology graduate who works in environmental engineering, I KNOW global warming is happening.

but i don't think it is being greatly influenced by human action, and i certainly don't think that human action can greatly influence global warming.

you want to make sure you (i.e. the human race) survives? well start investing in decent housing and flood defence in marginal population centres such as bangladesh.

Sweden has lots of coastal population, and terrible sea weather, but i didn't hear about 20,000 of them being washed away in a storm related mudslide recently, did you?

[rory_20_uk]

I'd hardly rate Bangladesh as a priority to be saved, but I agree that working with likely change is more sensible than trying to fight it for ever. Living in land 1 metre under water isn't a problem as long as people have prepared for this.

I know that there have been large fluctuations in water levels and CO2. As far as I remember the most extreme changes were due to massive natural events.

If humans have not increased CO" in the last 100 or so years, what else has? What outside agency has suddenly increased the production of gasses?

~:smoking:

[Marshal Murat]

The problem is the data is inconsistent, the CO2 in the air is still a midget compared to the nitrogen floating around, and you can't predict future weather patterns.

[TevashSzat]

Well, you better hope the [CO2] is lower than [N2] because we would all be dead if there was that much CO2 in the atmosphere. Ever heard of CO2 poisoning?

[Marshal Murat]

You can die from to much of anything!

Again, you can't predict weather patterns, CO2 is a smudge against the amount of nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen in the air, inconsistent data.

[Xiahou]

Cold, rain cuts short global warming rally (http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/NEWS18/70414010/1002/NEWS)
:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Hydrogen in the air? You are aware that it is too light for the earth to trap hydrogen in the atmosphere?

And considering that the USA measures Xenon on the air to assess the nuclear weapons of the USSR I think that we can measure the CO2 accurately.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

I know that there have been large fluctuations in water levels and CO2. As far as I remember the most extreme changes were due to massive natural events.

If humans have not increased CO" in the last 100 or so years, what else has? What outside agency has suddenly increased the production of gasses?
there is more and more geological evidence to suggest that climate change is frequently catastropic, i.e. quick rather than gradual, so changes in CO2 over the last hundred years are not necessarily caused by us, nor too are the necessarily fueling global warming.

positive feedback loops are good example of this, such as rising temps leading to massive release of methane from wetlands and peatlands, which in turn may add to the greenhouse effect.

it is also still not certain that C02 results in temp change, it is postulated in the Great Climate Change Swindle that temp change results in C)2 change.