advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: haikuman
Date: March 03, 2007 05:23AM
[news.yahoo.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Chupa Chupa
Date: March 03, 2007 06:19AM
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: spearmint
Date: March 03, 2007 06:48AM
Once again Global Warming is presented as a fact instead of the wrong minded theory it is. Luddites on the march. Iceland is colder now than it was 800 years ago. Mars is warming because of the sun. Sorry I cannot let this junk science go by as fact. Now we switch forums.
The answer? Atomic Plants but then Michael Douglas made that movie.




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: haikuman
Date: March 03, 2007 06:53AM


Only the iStoner knows
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: samintx
Date: March 03, 2007 07:17AM
Thank you Spearmint. Is it possible someone agrees with me here?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: spearmint
Date: March 03, 2007 07:18AM
haikuman you the good sport.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: elmo3
Date: March 03, 2007 08:04AM
I agree. "Global Warming" is a religion, a cult, not unlike but stronger than the whole Atkins Diet thing a few years ago.

Newsweek printed an apology to its readers not too long ago, apologizing for a story or series they printed in the mid-70s about "global cooling".

My God, what sycophants.



---------------


In the words of DharmaDog: "it may or may not be utter horse@#$%&, but it shouldn't be dismissed simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion."

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Trying is the first step to failure. -- Homer Simpson
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: IronMac
Date: March 03, 2007 08:45AM
Burying your heads in the sand won't help when it comes to climate change.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: elmo3
Date: March 03, 2007 08:53AM
Quote
IronMac
Burying your heads in the sand won't help when it comes to climate change.

Burying your heads in the sand doesn't help, period.

But the "global warming" crowd has buried their heads in the sand pretty deep on this one. They're beyond reason.



---------------


In the words of DharmaDog: "it may or may not be utter horse@#$%&, but it shouldn't be dismissed simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion."

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Trying is the first step to failure. -- Homer Simpson
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: IronMac
Date: March 03, 2007 09:27AM
Quote
elmo3
Burying your heads in the sand doesn't help, period.

But the "global warming" crowd has buried their heads in the sand pretty deep on this one. They're beyond reason.

How so? The latest IPCC report has shown that the scientific community is virtually unanimous that climate change is due to human activity and that we have to do something about it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: MacArtist
Date: March 03, 2007 09:35AM
here's the rub...

If the global warming naysayers are wrong; the worst we end up with is a better planet.

If the global warming alarmists are right; we just might be able to save the planet.

You know, the only damn planet we've got.

It comes down to what's responsible. You want to look at your kids and tell them "sorry, I guess we royally screwed things up for you and your children."

Or how about showing them we are trying to do the right thing.

Does anyone really want to gamble with stakes this high?



I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making
him carry me, and yet assure myself and others
that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his
lot by all possible means — except by getting off
his back. - Leo Tolstoy, novelist and Philosopher
(1828-1910)

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: IronMac
Date: March 03, 2007 09:48AM
Quote
MacArtist
If the global warming naysayers are wrong; the worst we end up with is a better planet.

Ok....I'm confused by this.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: MacArtist
Date: March 03, 2007 09:55AM
Quote
IronMac
Quote
MacArtist
If the global warming naysayers are wrong; the worst we end up with is a better planet.

Ok....I'm confused by this.

The people that deny there is such a thing as global warming...

hence; global warming naysayers...

If we take measures to avoid global warming and we find out global warming is more myth than fact; we end up with a better planet due to the reductions in greenhouse gas, pollution, etc.

We end up with a cleaner planet.

I never said I was a Literary Major.



I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making
him carry me, and yet assure myself and others
that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his
lot by all possible means — except by getting off
his back. - Leo Tolstoy, novelist and Philosopher
(1828-1910)

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: IronMac
Date: March 03, 2007 09:57AM
For those who believe that Mars is warming up...that's not entirely correct.

[www.realclimate.org]

For those who point out that Iceland is at its coldest in 800 years, that's just an example of climate change. You can easily point to Europe having the hottest summers on record as proof of global warming.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2007 09:57AM by IronMac.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: davester
Date: March 03, 2007 09:58AM
So let's see, the naysayers choose to believe that almost all members of the scientific community are wrong, that all US government agencies are wrong, and that the leading politicians (including our pres) on both sides of the aisle are wrong...and all this on the basis of a few shills (most of them nonscientists) who have been handsomely paid by the oil and tobacco companies for the express purpose of advancing their agendas (Stephen Milloy, founder of junkscience.com is probably the worst in this regard [www.sourcewatch.org] ). Mint, samintx, elmo3 et al, can you give any rational answer as to why you would choose the opinions of nonexpert shills like this over the research conclusions of many thousands of scientists? Have you even seen An Inconvenient Truth, which explains the actual scientific data in layman's terms?



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2007 09:59AM by davester.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: elmo3
Date: March 03, 2007 10:02AM
Quote
IronMac
Quote
elmo3
Burying your heads in the sand doesn't help, period.

But the "global warming" crowd has buried their heads in the sand pretty deep on this one. They're beyond reason.

How so? The latest IPCC report has shown that the scientific community is virtually unanimous that climate change is due to human activity and that we have to do something about it.

And the scientific community has come out and disputed that particular claim of the IPCC, as well as some other claims they make in their very political report.



---------------


In the words of DharmaDog: "it may or may not be utter horse@#$%&, but it shouldn't be dismissed simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion."

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Trying is the first step to failure. -- Homer Simpson
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: IronMac
Date: March 03, 2007 10:27AM
Quote
elmo3
And the scientific community has come out and disputed that particular claim of the IPCC, as well as some other claims they make in their very political report.

What part of the scientific community?

The report is not political, it's simply a summing up of all the other reports out there.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Chupa Chupa
Date: March 03, 2007 10:28AM
Quote
davester
Have you even seen An Inconvenient Truth, which explains the actual scientific data in layman's terms?


Sure. It's similar layman's terms used by carnival barkers to sell their cure-all elixirs. Buy, hey, if you want layman's terms I think Dennis Miller has it right when he asks if you really want to trust thermometers made in 1870. The data presented by Gore (not a scientist, exactly) is more like a convenient soap-opera plot where the twists and turns are planted exactly where needed to make the story go forward than they represent that the human caused global warming is fact, not theory

Other things to consider that mostly ignored : 1) the earth has gone though many climate changes in it's presumed BILLIONS of years in existance, many of which where there was no human life to cause the change. 2) The warming trend is based on a century's worth of data. A 100 years in the life of earth is like a second to mortals. Usefull in racing, buzzer beating basket and goal shots, last minute field goals. But to measure true global warming. Eh. And IF there was a genuine crisis WHY oh WHY would the world community pretty much exempt China and India for any reason? They create a whole lot more polution than the US, and have far fewer environmental regulations.

I see the whole "humans cause global warming," really as a combination of sheer hubris and a calculated road to socialism. Those pushing it are really going after industrialized nations as a way to make them poorer. I recall so many loony dire predictions made in this same light: Global cooling, over population, etc, and all that was suppose to doom the earth well before 2000. Forgive me if I can't hop on this bandwagon. Just because there is peer pressure among some scientists, man made global warming is far from a unanimous fact.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: IronMac
Date: March 03, 2007 10:45AM
Quote
Chupa Chupa
Quote
davester
Have you even seen An Inconvenient Truth, which explains the actual scientific data in layman's terms?


Sure. It's similar layman's terms used by carnival barkers to sell their cure-all elixirs. Buy, hey, if you want layman's terms I think Dennis Miller has it right when he asks if you really want to trust thermometers made in 1870. The data presented by Gore (not a scientist, exactly) is more like a convenient soap-opera plot where the twists and turns are planted exactly where needed to make the story go forward than they represent that the human caused global warming is fact, not theory

It's easy to see that attacking the messenger is an idea alive and well.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
Other things to consider that mostly ignored : 1) the earth has gone though many climate changes in it's presumed BILLIONS of years in existance, many of which where there was no human life to cause the change.

There's an analogy that I picked up for this argument so I won't take credit for it. It's like going into a court of law where the defense attorney says that his client didn't commit the murder that they are accused of because so many other murders have taken place before.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
2) The warming trend is based on a century's worth of data. A 100 years in the life of earth is like a second to mortals. Usefull in racing, buzzer beating basket and goal shots, last minute field goals. But to measure true global warming. Eh.

The data goes back thousands of years. The climatologists don't just depend on thermometers.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
And IF there was a genuine crisis WHY oh WHY would the world community pretty much exempt China and India for any reason? They create a whole lot more polution than the US, and have far fewer environmental regulations.

That's a very childish argument. It's analogous to a parent teaching their kid not to swear but the kid pointing out that others do it and more often. Well, we all know what sort of society that leads to...you know, the sort where anything goes such as women not wearing panties.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
I see the whole "humans cause global warming," really as a combination of sheer hubris and a calculated road to socialism. Those pushing it are really going after industrialized nations as a way to make them poorer.

I like this concept of hubris...it's interesting because it denies the fact that humanity can change this planet if we really wanted to. In fact, it denies human history, it denies everything from when humanity first came up with agriculture to today's dam projects.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2007 10:46AM by IronMac.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Rain
Date: March 03, 2007 11:28AM
[news.yahoo.com]



The Band: [www.rhythmandrain.com]

Thanks for everyone's help and support after Hurricane Katrina!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: March 03, 2007 11:28AM
You guys are all just incredible. 'Mint (and Sam), with all due respect, in the previous thread on the subject (back on the other side), you've asked for data, we provide links to said data. The data was subject to scientific review and passed w/muster. When asked for evidence favoring your side of the argument, you pointed us to the equivalent of 'bar room talk'. None of the information/websites you pointed to contain information that was scientifically obtained or otherwise passed the test of science.

If you can't provide scientific data bolstering your argument against global warming, what exactly is it you're believing in?

And to the rest of you...the scientific process, while subject to the whims of human nature, is one of the most deterministic observation methods we have. When the body of scientific data is so large and one sided in regard to an issue like this, how can you believe otherwise? What equivalently large amount of scientific data have you seen that makes you think that it isn't happening? Science is not aware of any.

If you can rely on science to develop new medicines or make cars more efficient (and it is a scientific process upon which the basic principles in these fields advance), is it not irrational to dispute the scientific method in regards to the vast body of evidence on global warming?

And don't let anyone fool you, it's only the non-scientists saying it may not be anthropogenic (probably politically motivated groups attempting to muddle the issue), all the data in that regard say we're the prime suspects.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: March 03, 2007 11:41AM
Chupa, the climate changes you talk about that the Earth has undergone in it's history took tens of thousands to millions of years to occur. What we're recording now has been a long term trend, occuring at a far, far greater rate than any known natural mechanism can explain.

At the very least, it should be obvious to anyone with a college physics background, that as the greenhouse gas levels are rising in the environment, that the temperatures should rise.

Lastly, you are not a scientist (in the sense you've actually studied the subject, in a scientific manner yourself). Don't you think that out of thousands of studies on the subject, that these kinda of questions have been asked? In fact, that sort of critical thinking is an essential part of the scientific process (it's known as peer review among other things).
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: davester
Date: March 03, 2007 01:09PM
I'll only address the technical arguments in your post. You can keep the emotional outrage.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
if you want layman's terms I think Dennis Miller has it right when he asks if you really want to trust thermometers made in 1870.

Water froze and boiled at the same temperatures (used to calibrate thermometers) in 1870 as it does now, making those thermometers just as accurate as the ones used today.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
1) the earth has gone though many climate changes in it's presumed BILLIONS of years in existance, many of which where there was no human life to cause the change.

Why yes, this is correct (though irrelevant)...and during most of the earth's 4.5 billion years of existence, the climate and state of evolution of life was such that no humans could have lived. We are not interested in most of that 4.5 billion years, we are interested in the period during which humans have lived (hominids have only been around for about 3 million years). The issue is not that there have been climate changes in the distant past, but that the current rate of climate change will take us in a short period beyond any climatic state that ever existed during human history, thus degrading the human habitat.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
2) The warming trend is based on a century's worth of data. A 100 years in the life of earth is like a second to mortals.

A flat out wrong statement. Proxy data (for example, isotopic compositions of ancient atmosphere bubbles trapped in the ice caps and of carbonates in corals) are highly reliable temperature indicators [www.ncdc.noaa.gov] . There is a wide array of different types of proxy data that correlate very well with one another and provide thousands of years of temperature history. Paleoclimatology was a well established science long before the global warming crisis came to the fore as an issue.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
And IF there was a genuine crisis WHY oh WHY would the world community pretty much exempt China and India for any reason? They create a whole lot more polution than the US, and have far fewer environmental regulations.

Do you have a source for this charge? What are you talking about? While it is true that the U.S. has cleaned up it's act relative to the developing nations regarding toxic pollution over the last few decades, China and India do NOT produce more global warming gases than the U.S. The U.S. produces far more than any other country.

Quote
Chupa Chupa
I recall so many loony dire predictions made in this same light: Global cooling, over population, etc, and all that was suppose to doom the earth well before 2000.

The global cooling myth is pure bunk. There never was a scientific prediction regarding global cooling. That is purely a construct of the emotionally-charged tabloid press. [www.realclimate.org] . Don't confuse tabloid journalism with science.

Overpopulation. There was definitely overhyping of overpopulation in the 1960s by a few "out there" guys like Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb), and overpopulation is a problem (in fact, global warming is in part an outgrowth of the massive population growth). However, You are again comparing the popular press and the rantings of a few "The Population Bomb" and copycat books, with peer-reviewed scientific research.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: OWC Larry
Date: March 03, 2007 01:47PM
Every sit in a court room or hearing and listen to an expert witness testify?

One side asks questions that are directed to support the case they are making - and they also are paying this expert, who happens to have answers that support their case.

But then the other side gets to cross. And from the same data pool - you go from dealing with facts to opinions.. because a lot of facts from the same data subset can be used, depending on which points and from where, to either support or contradict the position being taken.

Something else, and again, from both sides of the equation to consider... A lot of statements that get accepted as 'facts' or coming from well known scientists, etc - they didn't start out that way. It's kinda like a rumor... it can be a lot different by the time it circulates and reaches mass distribution than how it started. Lots of 'facts' out there (talking in general) are perceived as such really started out as an opinion. Unless you have researched the source or the sources are noted, don't assume everything you read is fact. When it comes to human nature, if we are already predisposed to a certain line of thinking or position, we more readily accept things we read/hear, etc that support that position as being fact vs. actively challenging or dismissing information that would contradict our predisposition.

There is a heck of a lot at play here with our global climate. And no one is going to argue that the climate is anything but static.

we have one Earth. And using those resources wisely and protecting it is just common sense. It should take a threat of global warming or global cooling - whatever - for us to be actively working to protect our planetary home for our children, grandchildren, etc!

I enjoy reading a lot of science publications. Anyone can take some SELECTIVE statistics from one part of the puzzle and make their cases. I'm really not sold either way . but that doesn't mean I don't care.

I am making an investment to move to Geothermal for my home as it results in 3-4 times the BTUs from the same unit of energy consumed vs. conventional.

OWC's new home is going to be one of the first USGA LEED Gold Certified 'Green' private commercial buildings in the US (only about 106 Gold and Platinum today standing - most of which are public) to have this green rating.

Every piece adds up and it really starts with individuals. And if we all do our part, we can make a difference when it comes to our human impact on Mother Earth.

There are those out there who in addition to talking their position up, they also walk that talk. Then there are those that seem thrilled to talk about it, but they must be special because for their own personal lifestyles, that reflects a 'Do as I say - Not as I do' approach... which kills credibility for me.

Inconvenient for Gore is his own home's power use:
[www.washingtonpost.com]
and even if it's 'GREEN' Power - that is power that could be going some where else and actually REDUCING the use fossil fuels.
Have been reading about Carbon offset credits - which Gore buys from himself (his company) - but there is recent risk that the market for them may crash because there are TOO many available. That's a great thing - means that either there has been a lot of success in the modernization and reduction of Co2 output in factories or that countries over estimated the output that was there. Either way.... there has to be a better way.
[www.ecotality.com]

For plenty of very good reasons, we need to invest in green power and renewable resources. My respect goes out to those that talk it and walk it.

One of my personal peeves... WATER BOTTLES. Plastic disposable water (or the fancy flss bottled).... Energy spent making the containers with a large percentage going to the dump. Energy spent bottling, energy spent transporting to retail outlets, energy spent transporting from retail outlets.... all for something that should be available from your tap.

Instead of spending the money on the bottled water, how about working locally to see local water supplies improved? It's amazing that the same people who go nuts if the municipality talks about raising the cost of water delivered will spend way more than that cost increase on bottled water. There are places where water quality is poor and bottled water offers a safe supply.... but in so many others, it's a personal preference that's been built into people via MARKETING, billions of dollars in marketing, by the companies selling that bottled water.

Every little bit makes a difference... I wonder what the CO2 footprint is of all aspects of the bottled water US consumption (US consumption is the highest per capita of bottled water of any industrialized nation if memory serves + has among the best, safest TAP water supply distribution too) is to people who have water safe and healthy to drink right from their tap.

anyway..... lots to read out there - if you're serious, do deeper research from multiple objective viewpoint sources rather than just media and pundit outlets regurgitating bits they pick up and run with. This goes for social, health, you name the issue.



OWC Larry
Other World Computing
[www.macsales.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Rain
Date: March 03, 2007 03:19PM
[marketliberal] RE: The Sky is Falling, and other over reactions ...


Geof Gibson wrote:

GG> It does not matter that volcanoes spew more CO2 into the atmospehere than Man has ever created. It does not matter that termites generate more CO2 a year than Man. <GG

Do you seriously think any such facts are not known by climatologist Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, who says that humans, rather than volcanoes and termites, "are responsible for most of the surface warming that began in the mid-1970s"?

Anthropogenic global warming is a question of physical science, not political philosophy or even social science. It's embarrassing to see fellow Libertarians call each other names and make such weak arguments on both sides. Which of you has actually advanced a substantive point that hasn't already been noted in some way at[en.wikipedia.org]?

The elephant in the room of the AGW debate is of course the [en.wikipedia.org].

The best sites I've seen for AGW scoffing are:

[www.heartland.org]
[www.globalwarming.org]
The best sites I've seen against AGW scoffing are

[www.realclimate.org]
[www.climateark.org]
The next time any of you chicken littles or scoffers advance some factoid, I dare you to first look up the other side's best available answer to that factoid and tell us why it's wrong. Otherwise, you're deliberately speaking from ignorance instead of helping us navigate what is after all a scientific debate.

By the way, an interesting way to compare two sides of a debate is to see how often the best sites on each side reference the other side in attempted rebuttals. On this metric, the anti-scoffing sites above are way ahead. For example, a search for references to Avery and Singer's book on realclimate.org reveals over a dozen hits, including this one: [www.realclimate.org].

I still think the best navigators of the GW debate are to be found at[cato.org]. Any Libertarian who expects me to disagree with the Cato Institute better have a very good argument. I haven't seen such an argument here, from either side.


__._,_.___



The Band: [www.rhythmandrain.com]

Thanks for everyone's help and support after Hurricane Katrina!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: mattkime
Date: March 03, 2007 03:57PM
for those who don't believe in global warming -

do you really thing that we can pump BILLIONS of TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere and not have an impact on the planet?

While the evidence for global warming isn't "beyond the shadow of a doubt", to throw your hands up in the air and say "i dunno!" when asked about our impact on the earth is criminal.

If you doubt the imact common products can have on the atmosphere and our health, take a look at the lead industry.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: March 03, 2007 03:58PM
Personally I can't of a good reason not to want to conserve energy. It just make good sense
all the way around whether you believe in Global Warming or not. I'm now driving a vehicle
that gets 38mpg, I'm slowly switching to CFL's, we put in energy efficient windows and we put
in a 13 SEER Heat Pump that so far is costing me less than a $1.00/day to heat 1900sq.ft.
Sure the initial cost was high but I'm reaping the benefits now.
It just makes good economical.



Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: (vikm)
Date: March 03, 2007 05:25PM
Quote
MacArtist
here's the rub...

If the global warming naysayers are wrong; the worst we end up with is a better planet.

If the global warming alarmists are right; we just might be able to save the planet.

While I am of the belief that global warming is more than likely a result of mankind (if nothing else, at least in part), I'm not so sure this argument is all that good.

I've heard overly religious idiots use a similar argument as to why they "believe". It makes sense but if that is the reasoning behind it, it's weak.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: spearmint
Date: March 03, 2007 05:57PM
What frightens me is the fools rushing ahead as if Global Warming was true and not just a wrong headed theory. No incandescent bulbs in CA in ten years? Says who? Anti-Business Monkey Wrench Gang.




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: haikuman
Date: March 03, 2007 06:13PM
A Quote from ..."Winged Pharoh"... by Joan Grant
"""you can mold the future by manifesting your beliefs in your daily routine"""

If I throw garbage in my yard everyday it will eventually become a garbage pile.

Gently echoed here... getting better at being a human being is a good thing,
even if it is a lifetime project. *(:>*
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: March 03, 2007 06:45PM
'Mint, have you not been listening to what everyone's been saying in response to your statements on this issue? They counter with scientifically based arguments. Yet you seem to ignore them, and keep repeating the same themes over, and over, and over (well, you get the point), as if no one said anything. We all love you man. But sometimes it's scary how you discredit yourself with your remarks. Why not at least find some defense of your arguments with scientifically backed data? That would go a long way to improving the dialogue on the subject.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: spearmint
Date: March 03, 2007 07:07PM
Earlier in this discussion someone mentioned the Cato Institute and I intone:
[www.cato.org]




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: GeneH
Date: March 03, 2007 07:45PM
The facts that makes me a GW skeptic boils down to one set of numbers: the "normal" levels of CO2 dating back to the late nineteenth century and the current levels.
200 ppm vs. ~390 ppm.

Translating those into percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere gives us twenty thousandths (20/1000!) of ONE percent vs. thirty-nine thousandths (39/1000!) of ONE percent. That this miniscule change is responsible for GW to me seems UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS!!

What percentage change in solar radiation, among other variables, are we able to measure? I doubt that it's in the thousandths of a percent which in an immense body like our sun is bound to have profound consequences.

CO2 levels are not like the ultra-potent hormones in a biological organism where parts per BILLION change a youngster into an adult. Sorry, I just don't buy it! Call me a skeptic.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2007 07:50PM by GeneH.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: davester
Date: March 03, 2007 09:08PM
Um, Mint, that paper is from 1998. It is completely outdated. If you are going to cherry-pick data to support your prejudices, at least try for something more recent.

Oh, and by the way, the Cato institute has never been a source of unbiased information. Admittedly, they do publish some fairly decent work, but all of it is biased towards the conservative end...i.e. they cherry pick the data. They are certainly NOT a scientific institution.

GeneH, just because you have a subjective feeling that 200 ppm is a small number doesn't mean a thing. I work in the field of environmental toxics cleanup, and am used to dealing in parts per billion and parts per trillion concentration levels, so 200 ppm to me is a huge number. However, my subjective view of how big 200 ppm is doesn't mean anything either. Only experimental results can tell us what effects various concentrations of global warming gases have. Results of those kind are what have been used to provide input data for atmospheric modellng. If you feel strongly about this issue then look it up and provide us with the evidence, don't just rant and rave about how small a number it seems to be.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: (vikm)
Date: March 03, 2007 09:10PM
Quote
Carnos Jax
'Mint, have you not been listening to what everyone's been saying in response to your statements on this issue? They counter with scientifically based arguments. Yet you seem to ignore them, and keep repeating the same themes over, and over, and over (well, you get the point), as if no one said anything. We all love you man. But sometimes it's scary how you discredit yourself with your remarks. Why not at least find some defense of your arguments with scientifically backed data? That would go a long way to improving the dialogue on the subject.

I re-iterate my comparison. Sounds exactly like the same zealots that defend their belief that the bible and all of its preachings are 100% literal even when some things have been discredited through science.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: haikuman
Date: March 03, 2007 09:24PM
Standing Ovation ..............for Davester


Absorbtion and attenuation ... stuff inherently re-manifests itself
somehow and someway...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: March 03, 2007 10:07PM
Hear, hear, Dave...for showing that good scientific data (especially overwhelming data like this) leads more often to truth than not.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: spearmint
Date: March 03, 2007 11:40PM
More Hoax:
[www.denverpost.com]
Greatest Hoax since flat Earth.




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: mattkime
Date: March 04, 2007 12:16AM
>>Earlier in this discussion someone mentioned the Cato Institute and I intone:

Nothing like pointing to a political think tank to escape political bias.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: davester
Date: March 04, 2007 10:11AM
Quote
spearmint
More Hoax:
[www.denverpost.com]
Greatest Hoax since flat Earth.

Nicely done, 'mint. Another link to a right wing shock jock type. Is this how you think we find our way to the truth? Do you have no concept of the difference between science and tabloid opinion?

Some key quotes from his article:

Quote

You'll often hear the left...


Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science...

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age...(the source of the global cooling myth I discussed above)

...A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: March 04, 2007 11:30AM
Quote
spearmint
More Hoax:
[www.denverpost.com]
Greatest Hoax since flat Earth.

'Mint, you did it again. Find scientific data instead of unsubstantiated opinion.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: testcase
Date: March 04, 2007 04:43PM
In the movie "Men in Black", Tommy Lee Jones is talking to Will Smith saying 5000 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was flat. 5 minutes ago, you (Will Smith) knew that humans were the only intellegent life form on the planet (I might not have the quote exact). I think there's a lot of truth in those words. "Experts" were, in the 1970's, warning people of global cooling. 30 years later, "experts" have done a "180". History shows that weather fluctuates. Always has, always will; especially when looking over decades and centuries. Living conservatively is usually the prudent thing to do. Don't be wasteful, you'll be better off for it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: davester
Date: March 04, 2007 05:39PM
Quote
testcase
"Experts" were, in the 1970's, warning people of global cooling. 30 years later, "experts" have done a "180".

Nope, wrongo. Never happened. Did you read the preceding posts? How many times do I have to post this? [www.realclimate.org]

Quote
testcase
History shows that weather fluctuates. Always has, always will; especially when looking over decades and centuries.

Uh, no it doesn't...at least not at the rate is is changing now. That's why we have a problem. Come on now, this is basic stuff. Not even the global warming skeptics are arguing this point (except the know-nothings). Are you just playing know-nothing, or do you really believe this stuff.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2007 05:40PM by davester.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: Rain
Date: March 04, 2007 06:14PM
I still like this guy:


OTTAWA (AFP) - A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.

Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels, he told the newspaper.

Such alien technologies could offer humanity alternatives to fossil fuels, he said, pointing to the enigmatic 1947 incident in Roswell, New Mexico -- which has become a shrine for UFO believers -- as an example of alien contact.

"We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough," he said.

Hellyer became defense minister in former prime minister Lester Pearson's cabinet in 1963, and oversaw the controversial integration and unification of Canada's army, air force and navy into the Canadian Forces.

He shocked Canadians in September 2005 by announcing he once saw a UFO.



The Band: [www.rhythmandrain.com]

Thanks for everyone's help and support after Hurricane Katrina!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: billb
Date: March 05, 2007 04:54AM
We're all gonna fry.
Within ten years.
5 if you listen to Algore's distortions.
:-)

I'll wager 9 of 10 of those that argue ad nauseum over who's more right and less right have finely manicured lawns cut twice a week with a mower that adds to the co2 problem and watch 40 hours of TV a week (which spews tons of co2 into the atmosphere as well).
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Global Warming Avast *(:>*
Posted by: davester
Date: March 05, 2007 12:53PM
Quote
billb
I'll wager 9 of 10 of those that argue ad nauseum over who's more right and less right have finely manicured lawns cut twice a week with a mower that adds to the co2 problem and watch 40 hours of TV a week (which spews tons of co2 into the atmosphere as well).

Not me or many of my neighbors. I live in Priusville, baby. Who could stand to watch that much television, anyway. However, in nearby republicanville, all the lawns are nicely kept and green, and half the cars seem to be bloatmobiles (Yukons, Suburbans, etc).



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2007 12:55PM by davester.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 466
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020