The Truth About Global Warming

[KarlMarx]

That isn't quite correct. There is science and then there are the people who try to create the impression that there is controversy in order to muddy the waters.

I have to ask, isn't Global Warming based on about 100-200 years of climate data? That's a small sample to be basing policies on. Especially policies that have a global effect, e.g. Kyoto.

 

[jillian]

I have to ask, isn't Global Warming based on about 100-200 years of climate data? That's a small sample to be basing policies on. Especially policies that have a global effect, e.g. Kyoto.

What we know is that we're warming the environment though use of fossil fuesl (see the link to factcheck.org which started this thread) and that if we don't get it under control before it reaches a certain point, the effects are going to be irreversible.

Is it so terrible for us to take responsibility for those things we can control?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What we know is that we're warming the environment though use of fossil fuesl (see the link to factcheck.org which started this thread) and that if we don't get it under control before it reaches a certain point, the effects are going to be irreversible.

Is it so terrible for us to take responsibility for those things we can control?

These are not facts, jilllian.

 

[jillian]

These are not facts, jilllian.

Yes... they are


and now we can start doing the argument sketch from Monty Python.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes... they are


and now we can start doing the argument sketch from Monty Python.

No. Many scientists believe the earth changes climate on it's own. There is not conclusive proof we are causing anything changes outside the normal fluctuations of earth's environment.

 

[jillian]

No. Many scientists believe the earth changes climate on it's own. There is not conclusive proof we are causing anything changes outside the normal fluctuations of earth's environment.

The climate of the earth is absolutely changeable. That isn't the issue and there's no dispute about that. The larger question, and the one that was addressed in the link at the beginning of this thread, is what are WE doing to hasten changes and the fact that, if we don't take steps to change things, will be irreperable.

Just out of curiousity.... why are some so vested in defending so-called "science" bought and paid for by corporate interests who don't have the future in mind, but only profits?

Why is it so hard to accept that our dependence on fossil fuels is messing with nature and that we have to take a more well thought out approach to the issue?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The climate of the earth is absolutely changeable. That isn't the issue and there's no dispute about that. The larger question, and the one that was addressed in the link at the beginning of this thread, is what are WE doing to hasten changes and the fact that, if we don't take steps to change things, will be irreperable.

Just out of curiousity.... why are some so vested in defending so-called "science" bought and paid for by corporate interests who don't have the future in mind, but only profits?

Why is it so hard to accept that our dependence on fossil fuels is messing with nature and that we have to take a more well thought out approach to the issue?

There is no proof that our use of fossil fuels are causing changes.

People are invested in fighting the environmental wackos because they plan to use the lie of human caused environmental catastophe to justify their seizure of the world's economy.

 

[Said1]

I have to ask, isn't Global Warming based on about 100-200 years of climate data? That's a small sample to be basing policies on. Especially policies that have a global effect, e.g. Kyoto.

No, apparently there are several paleoclimate testing and analysis methods aside from ice core sampling and tree ring that take much older samples.

 

[Hobbit]

If fossil fuels are causing global warming, then how come most warming trends occurred at times of low emmissions, while periods where emissions were at their peak were more commonly associated with cooling trends, though not always.

There was a substantial temperature increase at several points during the Middle Ages, long before the discovery of the potential of coal. How did we cause that? In fact, many points during the Middle Ages had average global temperatures of 10 degrees higher than right now.

Then, there's the fact that the eviro whackos go almost entirely off the small (<1 degree) warming trend between 1970 and 1998, despite the fact that there was a cooling trend for many years before that and there's a cooling trend...right now.

What it boils down to is the flawed thinking of 3 groups, certain scientists, liberals, and tree huggers.

The scientists know that doomsayers get more grant money, so they become doomsayers.

The liberals think they can control anything by submission to it, and submitting to the environment in the form of abandoning all our technology is how we can get nature to leave us along.

Then, there's the tree huggers. They think that any action that can possibly harm any form of life anywhere, except human life, is an irredeemably evil act. There's no reasoning with them.

 

[jillian]

There is no proof that our use of fossil fuels are causing changes.

Yes, there is. See the first link I put up.

People are invested in fighting the environmental wackos because they plan to use the lie of human caused environmental catastophe to justify their seizure of the world's economy.

Pretty big leap, dude. How does conservation represent seizure of the world's economy? Cause conservation and some awareness that we're screwing with the planet is really all I'm talking about. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we all move into domes in the desert and rely only on solar energy.... it's just about leaving a lighter footprint. That shouldn't threaten anybody but Exxon/Mobil and I'm ok about OPEC getting cranky.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, there is. See the first link I put up.



Pretty big leap, dude. How does conservation represent seizure of the world's economy? Cause conservation and some awareness that we're screwing with the planet is really all I'm talking about. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we all move into domes in the desert and rely only on solar energy.... it's just about leaving a lighter footprint. That shouldn't threaten anybody but Exxon/Mobil and I'm ok about OPEC getting cranky.

Leave lighter footprints---at last a suggestion that makes sense--how do you propose we do that other than recycling and develop alternate fuel sources?

 

[Darwins Friend]

Rush says there’s no way humans can even make a significant impact upon the environment, and that’s good enough for me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes, there is. See the first link I put up.



Pretty big leap, dude. How does conservation represent seizure of the world's economy? Cause conservation and some awareness that we're screwing with the planet is really all I'm talking about. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we all move into domes in the desert and rely only on solar energy.... it's just about leaving a lighter footprint. That shouldn't threaten anybody but Exxon/Mobil and I'm ok about OPEC getting cranky.

The Extremeist Kyoto Protocols woud have devastated life as we know it and are insane. what do you think of them?

 

[jillian]

Leave lighter footprints---at last a suggestion that makes sense--how do you propose we do that other than recycling and develop alternate fuel sources?

Raise CAFE standards and don't let oil company execs make energy policy -- just for a start. Acknowledge that we have an effect on the planet and work to make sure that the effect doesn't screw things up too bad.

It's really not that complicated.

And, truth be told, if one really wants to fight the WOT, you want to be able to tell OPEC where to put their fossil fuels. That would end the flow of money to countries that allow madrassas to educate kids to hate and blow themselves up. So there ya go.

 

[Hobbit]

Raise CAFE standards and don't let oil company execs make energy policy -- just for a start. Acknowledge that we have an effect on the planet and work to make sure that the effect doesn't screw things up too bad.

It's really not that complicated.

And, truth be told, if one really wants to fight the WOT, you want to be able to tell OPEC where to put their fossil fuels. That would end the flow of money to countries that allow madrassas to educate kids to hate and blow themselves up. So there ya go.

You're delusional. Do you think it would cost billions and take decades to build a refinery if oil companies made the policy? Do you think we'd be neglecting ANWR and our offshore reserves if oil companies made the policies? No, oil companies don't make the policies. Hippies make the energy policies, and they've crippled the industry. Depite rising gas prices, the oil business is operating on one of the lowest profit margins of all time.

 

[jillian]

You're delusional. Do you think it would cost billions and take decades to build a refinery if oil companies made the policy? Do you think we'd be neglecting ANWR and our offshore reserves if oil companies made the policies? No, oil companies don't make the policies. Hippies make the energy policies, and they've crippled the industry. Depite rising gas prices, the oil business is operating on one of the lowest profit margins of all time.

Who's delusional? You mean it's everyone's imagination that Kenny-Boy Lay and the other energy honchos were the people who worked with Cheney on energy policy? Don't think so.

As for the poor oil companies, ummmmm....maybe you really are inhabiting Middle Earth, Frodo... cause Exxon-Mobil just knocked Wal-Mart out of the top spot in the Fortune 500 for the first time ever. :spank3: :cof:

Exxon Mobil was the most profitable company by far, but a couple of banks also brought in hefty earnings – totaling more than $40 billion -- last year.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/

 

[Dr Grump]

You're delusional.... Depite rising gas prices, the oil business is operating on one of the lowest profit margins of all time.

Speaking of delusional...

BP reports 25% increase in annual profit : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4688106.stm

Exxon Mobil has 32% increase in second quareter profit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072802085.html

Chevron posts company record profit
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/27/D8FD44QG0.html

You were saying?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Speaking of delusional...

BP reports 25% increase in annual profit : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4688106.stm

Exxon Mobil has 32% increase in second quareter profit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072802085.html

Chevron posts company record profit
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/27/D8FD44QG0.html

You were saying?

ummmmm. Their innovation is paying off?

 

[Dr Grump]

ummmmm. Their innovation is paying off?

Who knows! But I wouldn't call them suffering...

 

[Mariner]

You wrote, "Explain to me why the meteorologists will probably get tomorrow's temps wrong, by more than 1 degree. Not to mention precip or lack thereof...

Let's just start there, with science."

It's true that day to day variations in weather are very hard to predict, but that does not mean that long-term trends cannot be predicted. For example, if you look at a newspaper weather report, the average high/low temperatures for each part of the year nearly always contain the day's real temperatures--even if the day's forecast was wrong.

In the same way that you can be pretty sure that a 90 degree day probably happened in summer in Boston and a 30 degree one in winter, not the other way around, long-term prediction works.

I have trouble understanding why people would consider global warming such a ridiculous idea. Each American produces about twenty TONS of carbon per YEAR. The atmosphere is very thin--we can't breathe just 5 miles up. And the layer of life on the earth is very, very thin. So why is it so difficult to imagine that dumping trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, enough to raise the CO2 level by about 30%, wouldn't trap heat? It's a Science Fair experiment that any high school student could do, to show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat.

I think we're stuck in an old mentality. The American West gave us a fantasy that nature was unlimited, and ours for the taking, that the world is huge and we're tiny. It's simply not true anymore. Simple calculations show that the amount of ancient carbon deposits (fossil fuels) we've burned ought to warm the earth. And weather records prove it, with 5 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the past 10 years. Simple graphs show the earth warming decade by decade since the start of coal-burning in Europe.

It's so logical--and so vastly supported by evidence at this point--that even President Bush stopped saying it was "just a theory" about two years ago.

Who wants to call it "just a theory"? Some of the largest corporations in America (including the largest, Exxon/Mobil), who make tens of billions of dollars a year taking ancient carbon out of the ground and selling it to us. It just so happens that our entire current administration is oil people, so it's not surprise that they take the oil industry line on this subject. There is almost NO real scientific controversy about the reality of global warming--it's a given, and it's already happening. Sea levels have risen, coral reefs are dying, the Arctic ice will be history, Glacier National Park and Mount Kilimanjaro will have no snow--all because we love Ford Explorers and can't get our heads out of the sand.

A couple of months ago, one of the few remaining skeptics in the scientific community, an MIT hurricane expert, official changed his mind and joined the consensus that increased hurricane strength is due to global warming. With thousands of scientists (who have no reason to have major political agendas, and are both conservative and liberal) on one side and almost none on the other, why are we having this debate still?

Mariner.