So much for Global warming

[WickedKitchen]

yeah, I don't think that we have a clue either. We're such a self-important world now and think that we can and will control everything. We simply can't.

I have never believed that man has been able to alter the climate more than mother earth herself has. Besides, even if we did I don't think we have the knowledge nor the capacity to stop it.

As a species we'll be far better off figuring out how to adapt to it and even exploit the benefits of it than trying to reverse or control it.

[Mordred]

For instance:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/327/5967/860

So, according to team from the university of Iowa, sea levels were higher 81.000 years ago than they are today, thus indicating more arctic/glacier melting, despite much lower Co2.

With that statement you just proved to me you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

"despite much lower Co2."

1. The abstract doesn't say what the CO2 level was 81,000 years ago. How did you jump to the conclusion that the level of CO2 was much lower?

I'll skip over the condescending tone, shall I?

I didn't so much "jump to a conclusion" as much as take what most AGW proponents say: CO2 is at an all-time high (EDIT: not all-time, but for the, geologically speaking, recent past. There were times when CO2 was higher afaik). I assume they wouldn't make that up. If they did, their entire argument would be shot from the start. In any case, the german article referencing the Mallorca results stated that CO2 levels 81.000 years ago were lower.

Do I have the time to verify every bit of information? Obviously not. I have other obligations in life. All I'm trying to do is gather enough data to make an informed choice on what stance to take regarding AGW. So far, I remain unconvinced and am thus not acting on it. If the science were sufficiently sound (according to my personal standards), I'd consider things like low-emission cars etc.

2. CO2 is only one of many forcings that affect climate. So even if CO2 levels where virtually non-exisistent 81,000 years ago that ignores all the other greenhouse gases, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons. What about solar forcing 81,000 years ago?

Keep studying... :roll:

Oh, I agree completely. I was posting that particular finding as a strike against CO2 as a, if not THE, major forcing in the supposed warming nowadays.

[sgreger1]

Personally, I don’t buy the politicized aspects of the issue. However, I do think that taking care of our environment is a good idea as is being responsible in terms of both our production and consumption.

I think one of the bad side effects of this debate is that the real goals/needs get lost in the agenda. I don’t know of anyone (though I sure there is some nut ball out there) who says lets trash the planet.

To me we don’t need a lot of debate or data simply to know that it is a good idea:

Not to junk the air, water, or soil
Reforest
Develop with a sense of responsibility to the future
Produce and consume with a sense of responsibility to the future
Don’t litter

It’s when we politicize the issue that otherwise common goals become polarized, extreme, and realistically undoable— the result is that the real goals are lost

One last point- I know that the devil is in the details and that much of the challenge is how to implement our goals and how to strike a balance between our needs and responsibilities. Such however underscores the vital importance of keeping our big picture guiding goals clearly before us (don’t trash the planet). It also underscores the tragedy and the serious ramifications of any situation in which those goals have become so polarized and extreme that we wind up debating over parodies of the need with no possibility of an actual working solution.

And that my friend is just what happened on this thread. We debated an agenda and lost sight of the issue- don't trash the planet.

You couldn't be more correct. This is what I have been saying all along is that AGW may or may not exist, and we may or may not be able to do anything about it. But what I hate is that politicians and corporations see an oppertunity to make money off it and all of a sudden its declared that the debate is over and there is concensus and all we need to do to fix the crisis is allow them to create another fiat currency (carbon credits). It takes what would have been a real grassroots movement to save the planet and perverts it for political and monetary gain.


Our computer models are not able to accurately predict what it will be like in 100, 300 years etc. I don't care what articles anyone links to, there is no way we even have the computing power to model something like that. All we can do is make rough estimates and simulations based on what we THINK is happening. We can feed a theory into a computer model, give it some data, and let it draw a picture, but theres no way of knowing that it will be accurate. Not accurate enough to make international game-changing legeslation at least.
What we need to do is take this away from the politicians and, like you said Snusdog, get back to the point which is being nicer to the planet and finding a way to get off oil.


And look, more C02 is good for the planet in someways, it makes the forests grow back faster.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010...row-faster.php

Climate change does not have to be some big scarry thing. It is going to happen, and even if we caused it (which seems unlikely), I doubt we can just undo it all of a sudden without goign back to the stone age. We need to find better ways to adapt, that is all.

We are a species just like every other animal here on earth. All species contribute something to our closed ecosystem and often times the contribution of one species may lead to the extinction of another, but life moves on. Some species will go extinct, others will come into being. We have survived several ice ages, a million different changes in species, the continents have moved around quite a bit, we have survived volcanoes that nearly made life on the planet dissapear entirely, and yet life still exists.


Don't sweat it. Just recycle what you can, try to be conservative about your gas usage, don't dump motor oil in the drain and everything will be fine. Don't buy into the manufactured hype.

[justintempler]

Blast from the past.....

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gQMxIwpK_es&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The science hasn't changed just the politics.

[sgreger1]

I will give it to them that they did get it right as far as the current weather trends.

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest

But as both sides agree, that doesn't mean much because short term weather trends mean little to nothing when your talking about global climate over long periods of time.

We don't need millions of dollars and thousands of beurocrats to put together a study that predicts rain in January 5 years from now. Predicting weather is easy, long term global climate trends in a constantly changing planet, not so much...

[texasmade]

Global Warming? no such thing..


the name is

NATURAL GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE WITH MINIMUM TO NO AFFECTS OR RAPID PROGRESSION DUE TO HUMAN INTERFERENCE

[sgreger1]

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."
-Mikhail Gorbachev

[Mordred]

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."
-Mikhail Gorbachev

Wow, didn't know that one, but he nailed it. Now the question is, do we want the NWO?



Erm, no, probably not.

[sgreger1]

Blast from the past.....

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gQMxIwpK_es&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The science hasn't changed just the politics.

Who the f@ck cares what John Mccain has to say. He's such flip floppy ass backwards fake wannabe of a republican I actually genuinely regret voting for him, and actually would have voted for Obama if I had known more about him (Mccain). No shit that is how much I dislike Mccain.

The politicians are all together on this because they see it as the next big way to earn revenue. They know the green movement is coming, so they have to align themselves accordingly.

This is just like when politicians suddenly wanted to champion women's rights, when in reality they just realized one day that this would free up 50% of the population who was not paying taxes to now go to work and pay taxes. Same shit with slavery, no one gave a damn about slavery until the feds suddenly wanted more power over the states and the civil war broke out. Even Lincoln owned slaves, but he saw an opportunity to jump on the back of an upcoming movement.


We have the same slimey excuse for elected officials with the same mindset today, as politicians never change. The least green thing we could do is stroke their ego by making it seem like we need cap and trade and a trillion dollars to research climate etc. If you really believe in climate change and want to make the world a better place, don't endorse cap-and-trade which allows the biggest polluters to just buy their way out of it, all while increasing the burden on young less financially stable companies.

[lxskllr]

Personally, I don’t buy the politicized aspects of the issue. However, I do think that taking care of our environment is a good idea as is being responsible in terms of both our production and consumption.

I think one of the bad side effects of this debate is that the real goals/needs get lost in the agenda. I don’t know of anyone (though I sure there is some nut ball out there) who says lets trash the planet.

To me we don’t need a lot of debate or data simply to know that it is a good idea:

Not to junk the air, water, or soil
Reforest
Develop with a sense of responsibility to the future
Produce and consume with a sense of responsibility to the future
Don’t litter

It’s when we politicize the issue that otherwise common goals become polarized, extreme, and realistically undoable— the result is that the real goals are lost

One last point- I know that the devil is in the details and that much of the challenge is how to implement our goals and how to strike a balance between our needs and responsibilities. Such however underscores the vital importance of keeping our big picture guiding goals clearly before us (don’t trash the planet). It also underscores the tragedy and the serious ramifications of any situation in which those goals have become so polarized and extreme that we wind up debating over parodies of the need with no possibility of an actual working solution.

And that my friend is just what happened on this thread. We debated an agenda and lost sight of the issue- don't trash the planet.

Well said. That's my stance exactly :^)

[xhepera]

. . . Even Lincoln owned slaves, but he saw an opportunity to jump on the back of an upcoming movement. . .

umm, not to put *too* fine a point on it, but Lincoln never owned slaves.

[texasmade]

. . . Even Lincoln owned slaves, but he saw an opportunity to jump on the back of an upcoming movement. . .

umm, not to put *too* fine a point on it, but Lincoln never owned slaves.

regardless of if he did or didn't...he only freed the slaves in the southern states...it was a "weapon of war" that emancipation proclamation is

[outsidelinebacker20]

"Sure I was talking out of my ass about Lincoln, but that should not indicate the next thing I say will be BS".

Kevin

[xhepera]

Texasmade, I was only correcting a historical point. I have no desire to enter into tired Civil War rhetoric and debate. I happen to have studied the subject more than most (and more than I care to), and heard more from both Union and Confederacy boosters than I care to.

Kevin, I never implied that the next thing out of your mouth would be BS.

Both of you: Chill. If I had wanted to jump on the opinion brigade I would have. I just happen to have a penchant for desiring historical accuracy in statements made about historical events.

Sometimes a pen is just a pen.

[texasmade]

Texasmade, I was only correcting a historical point. I have no desire to enter into tired Civil War rhetoric and debate. I happen to have studied the subject more than most (and more than I care to), and heard more from both Union and Confederacy boosters than I care to.

Kevin, I never implied that the next thing out of your mouth would be BS.

Both of you: Chill. If I had wanted to jump on the opinion brigade I would have. I just happen to have a penchant for desiring historical accuracy in statements made about historical events.

Sometimes a pen is just a pen.

he smoked marijuana....(please say he did)